Mother of Marine KILLED in ISIS bomb attack has her InstaTwit account suspended for criticizing POTUS Biden (2 Viewers)

[Chaz McNulty]

Thousands of people threaten the president every day online. They don't get their accounts suspended. Mass reporting triggers these companies auto suspend systems. 

And as far as threats go, this barely qualifies. It was reported because it's a publicized trump supporter.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[tonydead]

A better analogy here would be if the businesses kicked out a black person who came in with no shirt or shoes on and started yelling obscenities at everyone inside and then got kicked out.

The lady broke like half of IG's ToS in a single paragraph.

The press release said it didn’t violate any ToS - that’s why they restored the account. 

 

[jobarules]

Seeing what was posted sure does change the conversation.

Why? What was so ban worthy about what she posted? She made no threats just voiced her displeasure at the President with some choice words. That may be bam worthy on FBG but not Instagram. 

 

[jobarules]

Threatening the POTUS is  something that should  be reported; regardless of her tragedy.  

Where did she threaten the President?

 

[Thunderlips]

Where did she threaten the President?

 You will be leaving the White House one way or another.....That's not a threat?  

 

[tonydead]

 You will be leaving the White House one way or another.....That's not a threat?  

It's a fact. There are term limits. 

 

[jobarules]

 You will be leaving the White House one way or another.....That's not a threat?  

Not at all. If it was a threat why would they reinstate the account?

 

[kwille]

I just see an algorithm doing algorithm things coupled with crap reporting (it sells ... collectively we want it) and an emotionally charged topic and BOOM there we go at each other's throats. Welcome to 2021. Participate or not. That much is still our choice. 

 

[supermike80]

Ok.

But, I hope you are not suggesting that individuals and private businesses should be held to the same standards as the Government.  Because, that is not at all what the founders envisioned...

In this particular case - it was clearly an error by Twitter/Facebook/Whoever but, thankfully that error was based on their own standards, not government imposed speech restrictions...

No Sinn..I am not saying that.  I am saying that being an american should mean that we try and reflect the things that this country stands for, including free speech.  So while twitter, ig, facebook and so on have the legal right to censor speech they do not agree with, I think it's unamerican and goes against what this country stands for.

 

[Sinn Fein]

No Sinn..I am not saying that.  I am saying that being an american should mean that we try and reflect the things that this country stands for, including free speech.  So while twitter, ig, facebook and so on have the legal right to censor speech they do not agree with, I think it's unamerican and goes against what this country stands for.

We don't have free speech.  We have never had free speech.  What we have is a rule that says the government, generally, can't punish you for what you say - but even that is not absolute.

We live in a country that values individual freedoms - and chief among them is the ability to express yourself.  When a tech company choses to limit speech on their platform, that is, itself, an expression of speech which is protected from government intrusion.

Now - we have identified various classes of people, for whom we specifically ensure they are protected from discrimination in many platforms.  Right now - political affiliation is not one of those protected classes.

Now when a tech company makes a choice, or even a "mistake" as they allege here, that expression of ideas is not free from criticism from the public.  And, If people want to get up in arms, and protest the company for regulating political speech - that is a natural consequence of voicing their "opinion."  

What we don't want, is to start down the road of the government placing itself in the shoes of the "individual" and deciding what content is acceptable, or not.  The foundation of this country is built on the premise that any such decision belongs to the individual (in almost all cases).

 

[supermike80]

We don't have free speech.  We have never had free speech.  What we have is a rule that says the government, generally, can't punish you for what you say - but even that is not absolute.

We live in a country that values individual freedoms - and chief among them is the ability to express yourself.  When a tech company choses to limit speech on their platform, that is, itself, an expression of speech which is protected from government intrusion.

Now - we have identified various classes of people, for whom we specifically ensure they are protected from discrimination in many platforms.  Right now - political affiliation is not one of those protected classes.

Now when a tech company makes a choice, or even a "mistake" as they allege here, that expression of ideas is not free from criticism from the public.  And, If people want to get up in arms, and protest the company for regulating political speech - that is a natural consequence of voicing their "opinion."  

What we don't want, is to start down the road of the government placing itself in the shoes of the "individual" and deciding what content is acceptable, or not.  The foundation of this country is built on the premise that any such decision belongs to the individual (in almost all cases).

Oh brother.......Yes sinn..I know this.  I know everything you are saying and once again, you are trying to pinpoint something exact in a general.  Very annoying.

And again, for the last time,  I am not advocating for government interference(which I have already said, but hey why not say it again) but I am not cool with hiding behind the "well it's not the government doing it" excuse when private companies censor things.  

 

[Sinn Fein]

Oh brother.......Yes sinn..I know this.  I know everything you are saying and once again, you are trying to pinpoint something exact in a general.  Very annoying.

And again, for the last time,  I am not advocating for government interference(which I have already said, but hey why not say it again) but I am not cool with hiding behind the "well it's not the government doing it" excuse when private companies censor things.  

If you "know" this, then you are missing the point.

Its fair criticism for you to say that private company is bad for not letting you express your point of view.

But, we don't want any laws to force that company to allow you to express your views.  Its not "Un-American" for a private business to make such a decision - it is quintessentially American for the company to make its own choice and live with the consequences.

Nobody is arguing that the tech company should regulate political speech - and quite frankly, that is not even what happened here - what I am saying is that we want companies to be able to make that decision - that is the freedom that this country grants to all of us.  When you try to take away that freedom - that is un-American.

 

[supermike80]

If you "know" this, then you are missing the point.

Its fair criticism for you to say that private company is bad for not letting you express your point of view.

But, we don't want any laws to force that company to allow you to express your views.  Its not "Un-American" for a private business to make such a decision - it is quintessentially American for the company to make its own choice and live with the consequences.

Nobody is arguing that the tech company should regulate political speech - and quite frankly, that is not even what happened here - what I am saying is that we want companies to be able to make that decision - that is the freedom that this country grants to all of us.  When you try to take away that freedom - that is un-American.

OMG I can't believe we are still doing this.  How many times do I have to tell you I am NOT asking for the government to force companies to do this.  How many times?  This is three now.   Why am I having to repeat this over and over?   What is going on here?

 

[Summer Wheat]

 You will be leaving the White House one way or another.....That's not a threat?  

Seriously, no.   Biden can leave office a number of ways.  Can pass away, be impeached, 25th invoked, or be voted out of office.

 

[supermike80]

Seriously, no.   Biden can leave office a number of ways.  Can pass away, be impeached, 25th invoked, or be voted out of office.

Or...he could wake up one day and forget he's President and just wander off into the woods somewhere.

 

[the moops]

For some odd reason it always seems like it is those on the right getting banned.  I see their lame attempt at fact-checking and it always sways left with or without actual facts.

Maybe it is just the people on the right who complain the loudest about being banned

 

[supermike80]

Maybe it is just the people on the right who complain the loudest about being banned

This is a fair guess.  The right, as a rule, is usually against censorship and free speech suppression.  The left seem to relish it.

 

[Amused to Death]

This is a fair guess.  The right, as a rule, is usually against censorship and free speech suppression.  The left seem to relish it.

Perhaps its those on the right who continually misconstrue what free speech is.

 

[Rich Conway]

Perhaps its those on the right who continually misconstrue what free speech is.

Perhaps?

 

[supermike80]

Perhaps its those on the right who continually misconstrue what free speech is.

Interesting that you ignored the censorship part.  So the right has that...right?

 

[Amused to Death]

Interesting that you ignored the censorship part.  So the right has that...right?

Have you ever been banned from FBGs because you posted something the mods didn't like?

CENSORSHIP!!1!

 

[supermike80]

Have you ever been banned from FBGs because you posted something the mods didn't like?

CENSORSHIP!!1!

No..If I was banned, I wouldn't be here anymore

 

[tonydead]

Maybe I can help?

Mike: I wish companies like TwitFace had a sense of moral obligation to not take down posts and ban people based on politics even though they legally have the rights to.  Because you know, they control the monopoly of social media and that just feels down right unamerican for companies to have so much control over political voices.

Lefties: But private businesses can do whatever they want man!  

 

[GoBirds]

WoW!



Can we stop calling it America or the United States and find something else because this is a very poor reflection of what this country was founded on over 250 years ago. 

Pretty scary how corrupt big tech is. 

 

[E Street Brat]

We've come along way since Cindy Sheehan 

 

[belljr]

Hey remember that time people were mad that they didn't want trump supporters in their restaurant and some said good for them. Then a diner said if you voted for Biden don't eat here, then the half that were mad supported the diner and the others got mad.