7009
Comments (199)
sorted by:
275
yacsb 275 points ago +275 / -0

After the election, they need to finally change the laws. Let us sue these companies. They shouldn't have the protection from lawsuits since they are being biased. Never heard a peep about Trump's "taxes" when it was hacked, or the false "Steele Dossier" or any of the other scams we've seen from the left!

176
PraiseBeToScience 176 points ago +176 / -0

A constitutional amendment to unfettered free speech in digital frontiers lol.

Like the left says, "any internet space without moderation becomes a right-wing den of trolls". The left cannot survive without the suppression of speech.

88
Alpha-As-Fuck 88 points ago +89 / -1

Exactly!! The internet is naturally right wing!

The left thrive on silencing all people who question and call out their nonsense. They thrive for narrative control. Left wing discussion is only ever sustained through moderation and censorship. Without it the right dominates.

The right thrives in freedom.

51
SenditDownrange 51 points ago +51 / -0

The internet is naturally right wing! The left thrive on silencing all people who question and call out their nonsense.

This is why Yahoo has suspended comments to their "news" articles in the run-up to the election. Overwhelmingly, the comments to their spurious reporting were conservative rebuffs.

26
TrudeauSocks 26 points ago +26 / -0

I only looked at Yahoo articles to see the articles get BTFO in the comments. I'm sure their traffic dropped off bigly when the comments were shut down.

3
American-Patriot 3 points ago +3 / -0

Legit the only reason I went to Yahoo. I was and still am legit sad that they took them away.

Well, at least the conversations section under the stocks financial section still has comments open. Bunch of people were trashing Biden and libs under Ford recently lol.

22
orange_dit 22 points ago +22 / -0

And why many comment sections have disabled dislike counts. Disqus and youtube did this, because lefties get depressed when people dislike them.

7
Davinci 7 points ago +7 / -0

All the local newspaper and news channel sites did the same thing around me. You no longer get a voice, unless it's accepted by the polit-bureau!

14
InSaNeOldGuy 14 points ago +14 / -0

Can't stop the fucking signal.

21
Jubal777 21 points ago +21 / -0

This. The left requires fancy gatekeepers and slick graphics to feel good about their terrible ideas. I'm willing to bet that there's a huge bit of the right that would be just as happy with antiquated usenet style text boards just so long as they're free speech platforms.

11
Seanp12 11 points ago +12 / -1

Not really. Before Obama, the internet was mostly anti-establishment. When Big Tech lined up to censor for the Left, the anti-establishment neutrals teamed up with the right wing.

2
FireannDireach 2 points ago +2 / -0

Before Obama, the internet was mostly anti-establishment.

Nonsense. Before Obama, there was a large upswell of conservative voices organizing on sites like Free Republic, Drudge was a conservative back then, there were large groups like impeach.Clinton.Whitewater on Usenet. Even Huffington was conservative, before they got compromised. Most of it is a wasteland now, but trust me that you're way, way off base here. Most of the leading conservatives in the media, Hannity, Levin, Coulter, etc got most of their start ONLINE.

There's a lot of rose tinted glasses about the past online, especially by younger people. And a lot of pulling shit from asses, guessing or making things up to have a point.

2
Seanp12 2 points ago +3 / -1

You say that as if you were the only one online at that time. Every internet forum I was on at the time basically hated Bush, but today, half those people are Trumpers and half are SJW maniacs. The only consistency between those groups is that they hate the establishments of the Uniparty. And neither of those groups were particularly open to social conservatism, since they mostly support or passively tolerated homosexuality and ignored the warning signs of the Rainbow Mafia that social conservatives warned them about.

1
FireannDireach 1 point ago +2 / -1

You say that as if you were the only one online at that time.

I didn't say, imply, or claim that in any way. You're just responding in rage because i pointed out what you're claiming is wrong. Take that shit back to 4chan where it belongs.

1
Seanp12 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm not angry. I just said that your scope of the situation is extensively limited.

10
LexiconDevil402 10 points ago +10 / -0

The truth is naturally right wing.

7
FluhanWu 7 points ago +7 / -0

Could unintended consequences result in TD.W deport button being removed for hindering free speech in digital frontier?

1
chelthing 1 point ago +1 / -0

Maybe not if it is a TOS agreement?

1
permissible_missile 1 point ago +1 / -0

To be frank, this place would not need controls like that if open debate was the established norm, but it's not. I would shed no tears over this "unintended consequence", personally.

1
FluhanWu 1 point ago +1 / -0

I agree and i’m also fine with the consequences. The button is there for a reason but downvotes might handle that on it’s own.

21
WarpedSage 21 points ago +21 / -0

I like this better, as stripping protections will probably endanger smaller tech upstarts and cement tech hegemony and push China forward with the way it protects its intellectual property while we demolish ours.

34
BoughtByBloomberg2 34 points ago +34 / -0

Here is a very simple fix. Common carrier status to ALL internet communication platforms. Twitter = your phone. Phone company can't hang up on you mid conversation. Twitter can't ban you for saying the wrong things.

5
iamherefortheluls 5 points ago +5 / -0

wouldn't that make it illegal to prevent trolls from doing things like for example flooding any forum online with porn.

Needs to be some caveat for size, like more than a thousand users - common carrier.

10
HiddenDekuScrub 10 points ago +10 / -0

This is why the whole "publisher VS platform" thing is important. A small forum would be protected by its size, and the fact that they usually try to avoid illegal activities.

Something very large, like Twitter, if they want protection from random lawyers, needs to be completely hands off with the exception of porn. Everything else gets left alone at this point. Section 230 needs to be clearly revised.

5
BoughtByBloomberg2 5 points ago +5 / -0

Prank calls are illegal as they fall under harassment. They are about #5487 on the priority list but calling someone to prank them is not legal. It gets serious if you prank call 911.

That said... just have users mute the person and poof! All their commemts and posts become invisible!

Also spreading obscene material is also illegal so posting porn might be the only thing that isn't outright a crime that is not protected. Think of it as a prank call from a dirty hotline or whatever.

16
MikePlacid 16 points ago +16 / -0

A constitutional amendment to unfettered free speech in digital frontiers lol.

You do not need any NEW constitutional amendment in case of Twitter. Twitter operates from California and California constitution already has free speech protection vs. private companies. Section 2, article 1.

Just sue them. You do not need to win, even. A million private lawsuits will cause wonders on theirs bottom line, I guess.

5
Quartermaster6969 5 points ago +5 / -0

Twitter is speculative at best they’ve never made a cent in profit - their ad sales are shit - what they sell is YOUR data.

They allow advertisers to retarget you with cookies in display network advertising.

If you want to fuck with their bottom line - start using gab.io and use a dummy twitter account that has false demographics - the less roi advertisers get the more they’ll dump the platform

6
PB_Mack 6 points ago +6 / -0

As long as it doesn't lead to "ChildPornhub" or some shit like that.

2
LibertyPrimeWasRight 2 points ago +2 / -0

Child porn doesn't fall under free speech offline, so it's probably not going to be a problem in any free speech clause that is explicitly online.

3
NotJudging 3 points ago +5 / -2

Would that mean leftists would be able to spam the Donald? Or do you mean frontiers for only platforms?

17
sn01no 17 points ago +17 / -0

If these big tech companies are stripped of their protections, can't we all come together and sue them as class action? Imagine if we sued reddit out of existence, we can show damages!

9
The_Kuru 9 points ago +9 / -0

Should get the most damages if you had premium like I did. I was apparently paying them to attack my 1st Amendment rights.

3
Jubal777 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's complicated. Their protections will only be stripped going forwards. They'll get a free pass for everything that happened in the past. I wouldn't hold my breath on them changing their behavior even without protections. Without section 230 they'll get even more draconian in their censorship. They'll simply keep playing the ToS boggle for years to come. The courts will be stuck playing whack-a-mole with that. Most of the courts are friendly to Big Tech, so expect no more than a slap on the wrist in most cases. Sadly, there's no silver bullet here. The best we can hope for is a death by a thousand cuts scenario.

15
KevO4444 15 points ago +15 / -0

Never heard a peep about Trump's "taxes" when it was hacked, or the false "Steele Dossier" or any of the other scams we've seen from the left!

Whatever you do, don't say the name Eric Ciaramella. They'll come get you...

15
FOUR_MORE_TERMS 15 points ago +15 / -0

You can actually say Eric CIAramella on YouTube comments now. So someone deliberately went in and re-allowed it. It used to automatically delete when you posted it.

12
-EricCiaramella- 12 points ago +12 / -0

Say my name, bitch.

12
muslimporn 12 points ago +12 / -0 (edited)

You can sue them. The success of a suit is another matter but nothing stops you taking them to court.

If you looks closely 230 gives immunity for a company only when operating with in a certain capacity.

Lets say your ISP as a company is involved in more than one business. Lets say that it also has it's own news site. Lets say on that site it libels you.

You can still sue it because when it's running a news site that activity does not fall under the protections granted.

Otherwise every company would do just the minimum amount of technical business on the side that qualifies for legal immunity.

A lot of people get confused by this. Quite a lot of stuff twitter has done is acting in the capacity of a publisher and it makes no sense that would be protected.

The problem is people are assuming interpretation of the law rather than putting it to the test empirically. Someone with some bucks needs to sue in some of these cases and find out where the line is exactly.

I know for a fact that some of twitter's activities against Trump should not be immune under 230 because twitter themselves manually published things so if those are immune under 230 the law is broken. That would come out in a trial. The law is intended for passive mediums. When twitter is publishing over it's own network it's actually acting in the capacity of a publisher and 230 should not apply.

The law should pertain to the actual activity undertaken not the type of company or other activities they're involved in, only the activities pertinent to the case.

The law is useless if you don't test it.

4
HiddenDekuScrub 4 points ago +4 / -0

This is the ticket.

7
DilbertsBeforeSwine 7 points ago +7 / -0

They should do it before the election.

72
KAG_2020_BB 72 points ago +72 / -0

Everyone, even the left, know that Twitter and Facebook are interfering in the election, a very serious and worrying thing, but they don't care because it's for the guy they want.

Imagine if Twitter and Facebook did this for Trump? Headline news for weeks, months even years.

35
Wishiwastrumpswife 35 points ago +35 / -0

I was very surprised last night when I was scrolling instagram. I saw all these celebrities endorsing Joe Biden or sexualizing voting to get people’s attention, but the comments read Trump 2020 over and over again. Of course you have the haters, but for the most part the majority of what I saw was Trump 2020. He has so much support. I got into a bit of a debate about voting and all my comments were removed and censored. I didn’t even say anything crazy...just spoke the truth. As I posted my comment it came up that this could be against our policy and we have had other comments such as this reported and deleted. Sure enough someone reported what I said and it was deleted. Even the article I shared about quid pro joe! Funny how the left thinks the media is true when it trashes Trump, but they call it fake news when it makes their party look bad.

5
Khan 5 points ago +5 / -0

Decades Edit: this is fucked

49
deleted 49 points ago +49 / -0
9
EuropeisFinished 9 points ago +9 / -0

“Stern“ letters, even.

5
NotJudging 5 points ago +5 / -0

Because they are doing the exact same thing with their families. Yes Republicans too.

4
570dbp 4 points ago +4 / -0

Twitter has always been a garbage company. Trump is the reason that Twatter is still alive. In 2024, it will be dead when Trump will ditch it. Look for Parler to rise.

3
FOUR_MORE_TERMS 3 points ago +4 / -1

Twitter is about 5% of the US population. Fuck it.

4
wholesomekangz100 4 points ago +4 / -0

This how you lose the culture wars. Leaving the universities to the Marxists turned out real well didn't it?

3
FOUR_MORE_TERMS 3 points ago +3 / -0

I mean "fuck Twitter" and I stand by that. Don't read into the comment. Fuck it.

35
RogueLeaderX 35 points ago +35 / -0

BREAK UP BIG TECH!

Google, Facebook and Twitter need to be split up!

12
ShakeNBake 12 points ago +12 / -0

Apple too

4
570dbp 4 points ago +4 / -0

Apple is completely in bed with communist China.

4
ianpatrick1966 4 points ago +4 / -0

Apple especially

2
MisterClean 2 points ago +2 / -0

Deport them all

32
MustafaJones 32 points ago +32 / -0

Technically this could be seen as slander against the repair shop owner by implying he illegally hacked the data when did not.

8
TrudeauSocks 8 points ago +8 / -0

Looks like Rittenhouse's lawyer might have another potential client on his hands.

2
Skogin 2 points ago +2 / -0

They put his life in danger of wacko revenge.

2
ianpatrick1966 2 points ago +2 / -0

Imagine keeping all this shit on your laptop and not even bothering to use FileVault to encrypt it.

1
Fa1thless 1 point ago +1 / -0

Libel. Slander is spoken

23
PraiseBeToScience 23 points ago +23 / -0

The left is now claiming that it was illegal to look at the data on the drive.

So we went through the DENIAL stage, and now we're in ANGER.

19
H1ddenAg3nda 19 points ago +19 / -0

They are also verifying their authenticity so Biden can't even stand up and deny the allegations.

-2
Grief -2 points ago +2 / -4

If they didn't do that BEFORE the drop then we don't deserve to win. We'd be as dumb as Democrats.

I'm 100% convinced someone hacked Hunter, put it all on a laptop, and then brought it in knowing it was a good way to get illegally obtained information into the mainstream legally.

Genius.

2
ianpatrick1966 2 points ago +5 / -3

That's quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read, and I used to read the NYT.

0
Grief 0 points ago +4 / -4

You think it's stupid that they would check to see if the emails were fake before dropping it as an October surprise?! Now THAT is the dumbest thing I've ever read.

4
DontDoxMeBro 4 points ago +4 / -0

Well Hunter signed the service contract when he dropped the laptop off right? Your story doesn't make any sense.

What makes more sense is what really happened : An incompetent crackhead dunked his laptop in water, took it into get repaired and then completely forgot about out it. He's so stupid he probably assumed he had successfully destroyed the evidence on his laptop and signing the service contract was proof that it was destroyed "on accident".

1
ianpatrick1966 1 point ago +3 / -2

You're another disinfo shill. The part I was responding to was your assertion that some glowie who looked similar to hunter loaded up a fake laptop with emails and dropped it off at a mac repair shop and left it there.

You're fucking retarded. Don't reply to me again.

0
Grief 0 points ago +1 / -1

Apparently you missed the subject of conversation that I replied to. Don't reply to me with something off topic then freak out Reeeeeing because you got your ass handed to you.

1
ianpatrick1966 1 point ago +1 / -0

Get fucked, scumbag liar

-1
geocitiesuser -1 points ago +1 / -2

It's not unrealistic. We're talking about a guy who was banging hookers on video while he smoked meth. Who knows what type of political operatives and plants were surrounding him, from all angles.

What meth or crack head have you met, that has the intelligence and wit to navigate the highest levels of international politics and crime?

-2
KylesRifle -2 points ago +1 / -3

Do you you dare ever reply to him again! Lmao!

2
Grief 2 points ago +2 / -0

He made me HAVE to troll him after that.

-2
KylesRifle -2 points ago +1 / -3

He’s a complete racist nut. Just FYI. Troll on!

1
6-_-j 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's feasible.

16
Notablitheringidiot 16 points ago +16 / -0

10K likes

This is the problem.

In a country of 350 000 000+ people even the most liked tweets in the world only reach a fraction of the people.

The importance of this shit is completely artificially inflated by the media and by buying into it we’re only legitimizing it.

Get. The. Fuck. Off. Twitter.

5
aintgotnotimefothis 5 points ago +5 / -0

How else are we supposed to spread information like this when most of the big media outlets don't want to run the stories?

2
MAGA_JUICE 2 points ago +2 / -0

Stand on the corner and read news outloud like we did back in the day.

Send people here.

2
TrudeauSocks 2 points ago +2 / -0

Good old fashioned word of mouth from this great website. You can't stop the signal.

14
goodbeerbetterviews2 14 points ago +14 / -0

I want all of their servers being raided yesterday. Disgusting that we allow foreign powers to silence Americans with an "American" company.

12
BoughtByBloomberg2 12 points ago +12 / -0

Who the fuck cares if something was hacked. Twitter didn't give two shits when Trump's tax returns were being plastered all over the site. Twitter didn't give two shits when private information on innocent kids were plastered across their site.

There is no legal precedent that requires Twitter to do anything given that publishing hacked information that you DID NOT ORDER THE ACQUISITION OF is perfectly legal. It's called JOURNALISM. Because your source might be a fucking hacker, but you didn't ask the hacker to do it. The hacker came to you and told you what the hacker knew thus making it completely FUCKING LEGAL!

2
JediDwag 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's not a hacker. It's an anonymous source. Who knows where they got it from. /s

10
BirthHole 10 points ago +10 / -0

Inb4 the repair shop has ties to russia and is in collusion with Trump to frame Biden.

8
Demig80 8 points ago +8 / -0

They sure like using the term "hacked", when it's stupidly and malfeasance on their part. Nothing was hacked, these files were accessible to anyone that could press a power button.

2
Mr_Noh 2 points ago +2 / -0

Because "hacked" holds a certain set of images for the uninformed, formed/driven by Follywood depictions of "hacking" ("Johnny Mnemonic" film, "Hackers", etc). It's all about crafting a specific narrative to mislead, for the sake of leading the proles to the "correct" (read: leftist-supporting) decision.

8
Icepck 8 points ago +8 / -0

And if they were hacked, that would mean the Biden family had copies of all of this and...that's ok? Replace Bidens name with Trump's and the media wouldn't hesitate to spread the content.

7
DeusVultIntensifies 7 points ago +7 / -0

So true. Checked my newsfeed today and MSM deliberately ignoring the NY Post Biden Corruption story and SM censorship. The oligarchs who own the MSM need to be held accountable for election interference and being propaganda machines for the DNC/CCP.

7
tonightm16 7 points ago +7 / -0

They can do it because they have nothing to fear. Twitter came about at the start of the Obama years. Its built from the ground up to be a "big brother" company.

Do people still think Facebook was thought up by some kids in school? Lmao!

6
Midnight_Pede 6 points ago +6 / -0

They didn't care about Trump's taxes or flynn, or the first ladies private phone call.

As usual, lying fucks whom hold water for the DNC.

1
King_Neptune07 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's right, Trumps tax returns were illegally obtained but they didn't care then. These files were on a computer and not hacked but they ban it

6
Bullet3250 6 points ago +6 / -0 (edited)

Blocking the NY POST?

Blocking the WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY?

That is not 'editing' - that is political censorship.....

This is major "NAZI BOOK BURNING ONLINE."

This will go down in history...

Tell your kids...

5
HarvesterOfBallots 5 points ago +5 / -0

Oh, okay so first it was all fabricated, now it’s been hacked. Can’t be both! Which is it?

5
AbrahamLincoln 5 points ago +5 / -0

Twitter making up conspiracy theories while censoring actual news.

5
MaximumMAGA 5 points ago +5 / -0

Sean's tweet triggered @jack's response. Teams of lawyers are working around the clock to both justify it legally and make it sound good. A tall order even at the probably $20k an hour they're paying.

4
the-new-style 4 points ago +4 / -0

Let's not forget Prince Al Waleed bin Talal owns a 3% share of Twitter.

@Alwaleed_Talal - Dec 11, 2015

@realDonaldTrump You are a disgrace not only to the GOP but to all America. Withdraw from the U.S presidential race as you will never win.

as well as Citigroup, Lyft, and the Four Seasons hotel chain.

and he is friends with Bill "my dad was head of Planned Parenthood" Gates

4
booblitchutz 4 points ago +4 / -0

Twit had no problem with NYT spreading info supposedly obtained illegally from Trumps tax returns. He didn’t authorize NYT to have them.

Total hypocrisy!

3
Kronder12 3 points ago +3 / -0

Here is a thought experiment: if someone hacked the President's phone and posted text messages on Twitter, would Twitter block this hacked information?

(hint: rules for you but not for dems)

3
Dilaudid 3 points ago +3 / -0

I was talking to a democrat and the meltdown was mind-boggling.

She went from "Twitter was right to censor it because it's probably false information" to "Twitter is a private company and can do whatever they want!"

This was said by someone, who, 3 days prior in another conversation, said: "It's bad that big corporations control the primary sources of information"

You can see how, after being repeatedly debunked, she simply switched from one narrative to the next.

When I told her that the Biden team did not even deny the article and that not even twitter itself is using this as an argument, she switched to arguing that twitter, as a private company, can do whatever they want.

When I told her that I didn't even talk about legality and simply stated that twitter is actively censoring information to influence the election according to their own political agenda, she simply blocked me.

2
loveshock 2 points ago +2 / -0

Lock [email protected]$$ up

2
Jammerculture 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is so weak

Like your little brother getting in trouble for tattling and you get off when you punch him for being a little bitch

2
RedBloodedMeatEater 2 points ago +2 / -0

You can't trust unverified maligned sources such as Twitter when dealing with important information.

2
crusty_curmudgeon 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not a lawyer, but doesn’t it seem like Election Interference is different from a First Amendment violation?

Twitter is not just suppressing and censoring; they are actively spreading one story at the expense of another (and a false story, at that). Aren’t those laws already on the books ?

2
ca_logistician 2 points ago +2 / -0

Twatter has already deleted the post for "twitter violations" lol

2
StunLikeAnAntelope 2 points ago +2 / -0

Also committing libel by accusing the computer guy of a crime.

1
arebee 1 point ago +1 / -0

Haha, Twitter is fucked now. They’re going to get the most harshest worded letter ever

1
SevereWeather 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is relevant now more than ever:

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'” - 1984

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
MetalRiddle 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's irrelevant anyway. The point of the rule is to prevent people from directly distributing hacked information via Twitter. It has never applied to news articles about "hacked" information.

1
570dbp 1 point ago +1 / -0

Big Tech is a communist instrument of free speech suppression.

1
Dixie-Normous 1 point ago +1 / -0

Twitters reflex reaction to the information turns out to be a giant fucking boomerang open handed slap, bois.

1
Kedrin 1 point ago +1 / -0

So a person making 50K a month from the deals they made could not pay a computer repair bill?

1
Ih8leftists 1 point ago +1 / -0

Interesting how that works out, isn't it.

1
Fuckreddit01 1 point ago +1 / -0

Delaying the inevitable.

1
IsrorOrca 1 point ago +1 / -0

The shills on Twitter keep on “why would he leave it there, he can afford it.” It was about all abandoning it so he could tell prosecutors he has no idea where it is.

2
victory2024 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think he left it there because he was a f'n crackhead.

1
Jubal777 1 point ago +1 / -0

Lawsuit incoming. Claiming the records were hacked is a materially false statement that implies the shop owner had done something illegal. This obviously damages his business, and there have been additional statements made that are obviously designed to cause harm to his reputation. It's time for some enterprising lawyer to strap his Ahab on and start to harpooning Moby Dick-lover (Jack Dorsey ) in a manner to which he is NOT accustomed. I want to see bloody chunks of Twitter floating by.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
8bit_mixtape 1 point ago +1 / -0

Twitter knows this, but they are doing this as an All In move to prevent Trump's reelection. If successful, then what of Twitter's agenda? Nada.

1
GuyEvans 1 point ago +1 / -0

Twitter is dirty

1
covfefeforever 1 point ago +1 / -0

DO SOMETHING!

1
Troll 1 point ago +1 / -0

I wonder if the FBI will investigate this?

1
VetforTrump 1 point ago +1 / -0

That guy was not an agent of the state. He could have looked at that stuff and turned it in when he saw what it was. Both acts legal and the state has good evidence in photographs. Why do they keep photos when they k iw how easy it is to get them.

1
mikethemarine 1 point ago +1 / -0

THEY'VE Removed IT FOR BRAKING THE RULES. CTA, covering their ASSES

1
mugatucrazypills 1 point ago +1 / -0

Will there be anything left after Rittenhouse the pedoslayers attorney is done with them ?

1
FuckRioters 1 point ago +1 / -0

Not fair! You can't Fact Check Twatter! Only Fakebook and Twatter are allowed to Fact Check!