Posted on 12/04/2017 8:39:38 AM PST by mairdie
Add Pajama Media’s Bridget Johnson to the list of those summarily silenced by Twitter’s ongoing purge of conservative voices. According to her employer, Johnson, a long-time journalist with established bylines at, among others, USA Today, the Hill, Politico, NPR, and the Jerusalem Post, was removed from Twitter over the weekend without warning, cause or explanation.
A link to Johnson’s cache’d tweets (from late September) shows nothing close to any of the flame wars, abuse, taunting, bullying or anything else that violates Twitter’s intentionally-cryptic terms of service. As someone who has known Bridget for going on 10 years (in the early days of the inter-web-dot-nets I blogged at her site), this suspension makes even less sense. She is a total pro, a pursuer of facts, and as her Facebook account shows, nothing close to a flaming partisan.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Delete your Twitter accounts.
That’s all..............
Why do people use Twitter? There are alternatives.
There is also an alternative to YouTube.
People should continue for a while to use the liberal tainted social media platforms ut always copy and link to alternative sites where conservatives are welcome ad protected.
Boycott Twitter and threaten advertisers that subsidize and utilize the platform.
The only other alternative would be to establish or move to an alternate platform and convince conservative voices to move there. If we could get the President to pull his Twitter feed for an alternate Conservative source, that would get the message out.
Twitter would collapse into an echo chamber.
>>If we could get the President to pull his Twitter feed for an alternate Conservative source, that would get the message out.
That’s rather brilliant.
Lawyer up.
That’s all you can do.
The first amendment protects you from the powers of government, but you still have a civil claim against prejudicial treatment. I understand you agree to a TOS, but contract law has only so much power. Equal access can apply to any good or service like a home loan, or a communication service.
It would also be an immediate boost for whatever alternate conservative source he moved to.
It should come as no surprise that these American tech firms that have been assisting China and others in censorship and citizen monitoring, are now progressing in that direction here in the USA.
These companies need to be busted up by the Anti Trust laws.
And I suspect that is exactly where this tech bubble is going to burst in the next year.
I’d volunteer to dev an alternative service to twitter, but I currently don’t have the financial wherewithal to fight all the soros funded groups that sue any conservative version of twitter that they want to silence.
Which brings me to my previous point. Do what they would do. Sue twitter. Specially if you have a legal leg to stand on. But even if you don’t, make them sweat. It’s what they would do.
The boards that oversee the web - are we getting enough power on them yet to have them force balanced censorship? I can see some purpose to censoring Al Queda murder videos.
This raises the question if forums such as Facebook and Twitter become "public" wherein our 1st Amendment rights supercede their ownership rights. Are there any laws, for example, that say business cannot discriminate based on x, y, and z? Thus, make case that action is violation of law. Besides, a company doesn't have 1st amendment rights, people do.
I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know...
>>This raises the question if forums such as Facebook and Twitter become “public” wherein our 1st Amendment rights supercede their ownership rights.
Another brilliant observation, and one worth pursuing.
“The boards that oversee the web”
I’m not sure what this means... FCC? ICANN?
I could easily need some education but I don’t think there is any board forcing twitter to censor conservatives and not liberals. I think it’s just twitter.
>>forcing twitter
allowing twitter
The previous commentor mentioned where does our 1st amendment rights supercede... Very interesting.
Trump should challenge Twitter, re-authorize conservative members, else he quits and he asks DOJ to investigate for discriminatory practices, aiding terrorism by allowing Islamic terrorists to use their forum, etc. The power of the president is strong should he choose to use it.
Why would he choose NOT to use it?
Better question. What arguments does he see that stops him from that approach?
And, yes, would be nice if there was/is a viable alternative to Twitter.
The way I understand it, the first amendment only protects you from the government oppressing your rights. The courts will protect you (hopefully) if any politician, bureaucrat, or govt.body attempts to censor you (or infring your right to assemble or observe religion, etc.). This does not apply to twitter. I put this fact into practice in the 2000’s when I had one of the biggest boards on the internet, and although we emphasized free speech more than most, we still had to reign in the overt hate, personal insults, and blatant trolling. ‘You agreed to come here. If you don’t like our rules, you can find somewhere else better’. Of course, twitter isn’t some message board. It’s basically a monopoly in the form of communication it provides. Which is why I bring up the legal concept of equal access. A good lawyer will sue twitter and get them on record for ‘why’ they closed the account. If they claim that it’s radical political speech, all you have to do is show the numerous examples of radical political speech that have not been censored and demonstrate prejudice.
$$$$$$$$$$
I agree that Trump’s moving to a new version of Twitter would make the platform, but wouldn’t that also be an issue on which to attack him for supporting a platform that would, inevitably, have some of his friends involved somewhere financially? Would the same argument be raised if he used a new platform and still used Twitter?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.