Posted on 08/05/2018 8:49:52 PM PDT by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
Terrence K. Williams (brother of Candace Owens):
Twitter banned my sister @RealCandaceO from tweeting because she supposedly violated their rules. Being a Black Conservative/ Trump supporter is a Twitter violation
It’s a war against Trump Supporters!
Twitter refused to block the liberals who call us the N word & coons
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
It’s fraud if users don’t know their content is being manipulated, and an infringement of rights especially if it is being manipulated without user consent for political or religious purposes.
“It’s fraud if users don’t know their content is being manipulated, and an infringement of rights especially if it is being manipulated without user consent for political or religious purposes.”
Does the Twitter TOS guarantee that Twitter has absolutely no right to control the content members post on the Twitter platform?
Some are more equal.
“All inclusive” Libs can spew racial hatred but conservatives can’t call them on it.
That’s what I’d be asking you?
I believe their TOS changed over the years, but it beggars belief that they would actually spell out their right to manipulate content or shadow ban for political or religious purposes in a way that users would consent.
I’m sure the language is tricky, but the level of trickiness would be commensurate with the level of fraud.
One a person posts on Twitter or Facebook, the content belongs to and is controlled by the social media platform.
Like I said, if shadow banning or political or religious manipulation of content is not clearly understood or obscured by tricky legal language, there is a problem.
Let’s remember that this lack of consent is a current Liberal meme, when Pelosi said she didn’t have to read Obamacare to sign it; she stole the “consent of the governed” in one fell swoop.
“Like I said, if shadow banning or political or religious manipulation of content is not clearly understood or obscured by tricky legal language, there is a problem.”
If you cannot understand the “tricky legal language” of a TOS, then you need to have a good lawyer explain the TOS prior to electing to Agree to the TOS.
Tricky legal language may be the fraud if they are manipulating content for religious and political reasons, especially if the President of the United States is using their platform.
Are you a lawyer and have you read their TOS?
The forthright manner in which you make your statements make it seem so...
Have you read the TOS from Twitter when Donald Trump or Sarah Palin first joined?
“Tricky legal language may be the fraud if they are manipulating content for religious and political reasons, especially if the President of the United States is using their platform.”
Learn to read, or hire a lawyer.
The fact that the President of the United States uses a particular social media platform has no bearing whatsoever on said platform’s TOS.
“Are you a lawyer and have you read their TOS?”
I’m not on Twitter thus have no reason to read their TOS. However, I am 100% certain that every member of Twitter has read and fully understands the TOS.
If for some reason someone did agree to the TOS without reading and understanding the TOS, they are incompetent or foolish.
I understand what your premise is, that they have the rights under codes of conduct to remove what they deem to be “objectionable content”
So in the role they should seem to set a tone or standard about what is considered “questionable”. In their current model they seem to find anything posted under a conservative stream of thought to be questionable, and all things bizarre and Liberal is ok.
So I understand your premise that it is their site and their rules. And anything that does not fit their meme or line of thinking they will allow.
They backed off on Candace’s posts and called it a mistake in pulling her off the air. So what made them do this I ask you, it was not law although we have free speech, and when that is applied arbitrarily that is an uneven application. Someone or something is telling them they are going too far and that is why this put her back on
Time will tell
“They backed off on Candace’s posts and called it a mistake in pulling her off the air. So what made them do this I ask you, it was not law although we have free speech, and when that is applied arbitrarily that is an uneven application. Someone or something is telling them they are going too far and that is why this put her back on”
No one was pulled off the air.
The United States Constitution’s First Amendment makes no mention of Twitter.
Leftists hide the truth.
It’s like light on cockroaches.
It goes against their lying liberal propaganda efforts.
They will do bodily injury to accomplish their goals.
Thank you.
“This is illegal.”
No, it’s not.
” I am 100% certain that every member of Twitter has read and fully understands the TOS.”
Heh. That’s funny. Brings back memories of The Human Centipad.
“If Twitter can decide who can and cannot use its services, for any reason or for no reason at all, the every other business should be allowed to do the same.”
There are no legal protections for political ideology.
“One a person posts on Twitter or Facebook, the content belongs to and is controlled by the social media platform.”
Correct, they have non-exclusive publishing rights at that point. As does everyone in the world.
But folks around here can’t get past the emotion of it.
Ah, so the baker really doesn’t have bake the wedding cake for the gay couple?
Again, tricky legal language in a TOS that does not cover shadow banning or other manipulations of user information or postings is, on its face, fraud,
Because it is constructed to deceive, tricky legal language can be Fraud... especially if shadow banning is not spelled out.
Your response tells me that there is probably a lawsuit here;
And if you don’t go on Twitter, how do you know anything about shadow banning?
Answer: you don’t know what shadow banning even is, so why are you so defensive about it?
Shadow banning on its face means that the users do NOT know their data is being manipulated for political purposes. It if is not expressly spelled out in the TOS, this is fraudulent dealing..
There is no free pass for a company to deceive its users for political purposes.
The data you post on Twitter does not belong to you.
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.