I own the concept of my account, as well as its content. By banning me, they are removing my access to it.

Yeah, no.
You don’t actually own that.

If someone is insulting other people, that is illegal. It breaks the law, and obviously it is not alright. This is such a non argument, no one is arguing in favour of allowing insults and libel online.

Again, i am tired of repeating the same arguments all over. We are running in circles, because you don’t want to see another point of view.

Someone who is yelling at your customers, is breaking the law and you can ask him to leave. The law is very specific about what it allows and what it does not. But since i remember seeing that argument elsewhere recently, i recall reading about when a restaurant can refuse service, and the criteria are very strict. I am too tired right now to find the article, but i may post it later. In any case, a restaurant can’t refuse to service you because you are black, or fat, you vote republican. In fact you can sue them if they refuse.

You people keep parroting Nazis, but it is not only “Nazis” that the media censor these days. They censor everyone that disagrees with them.

You’re seriously picking a fight about free speech with the free speech pariah of the forum?

Really?

Yeah, okay. Come at me bro.

This is crazy false. You absolutely do not “own” your account on Twitter, Facebook, or even Google.

Nope.

Political affiliation is not a constitutionally protected class.

Some states prohibited such discrimination, but it’s not a matter of freedom of speech. The first amendment protections of expression do not prevent businesses from refusing to serve our employ you.

No. Just no. I can’t even no enough at this and how wrong it is.

In that you can tell anyone to leave as long as the reason isn’t that they are protected class. It’s trespassing if you tell them to leave and they don’t. The criteria isn’t strict. You can walk in wearing a blue shirt and I can ask you to leave because I hate the color. Legally you have no recourse. You can, of course, tell people about it and I’ll likely be out of business before long as people decide I’m insane and rude, but you wont win in a court of law.

In other news:


This seems to be the crux of your argument. It is not actually the case. It is factually false, no matter how you wish to try to convince us otherwise.

Facebook, Google, Twitter are all essentially publishing companies (admittedly ones with unprecedentedly broad reach, and very lax (though not completely nonexistent) standards). They have the right to decide what they allow to be published on their platform. End of story.

30 years ago, could you demand Random House publish your novel/screed/insane gibberish? No?

We’re done here.

One of these is not like the others. Let’s see if TemplarGR can figure out which one it is!

You seem to be confusing the world as you wish it was with the world as it is. “People who use eliminationist rhetoric about others with skin colors that are darker than them” is not a protected class in the United States. Again, I can’t speak for your country of origin.

Any country where something like that would approach being a protected class would make said speech a crime anyway, so it would be irrelevant.

150 new replies? What terrible thing happened today?

/reads thread

Oh.

You own any content you create even after you’ve been banned. And you can still access it. Assuming, of course, you’ve kept a backup copy of any content you value.

And if you don’t keep a backup copy, you have only yourself to blame when you lose it. Your poor planning is certainly not Twitter’s problem.

Business is private property.

Twitter doesn’t belong to you. It belongs to the owners of Twitter.

As others have already pointed out, you don’t have a right to use Twitter. You don’t even pay Twitter to use their service. They owe you nothing.

As a customer, you have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of certain things, which include race and religion. But political belief is usually not one of those things, and I’m glad for that.

I disagree, but even so: you don’t have a right to use a cell phone.

Yes, I see. Obviously, you would have to find some other way to spread the word.

Believe it or not, it’s possible to spread an idea without using social media. Just ask anyone who was alive before 2004.

Try to imagine a world where radicals read books published by an independent press and listen to independent labels.

Well, any radical alive in the 90s doesn’t have to imagine, because they remember that world.

And that world still exists. It’s thriving, in fact. People who bemoan their reliance on megacorps have gone soft, plain and simple. Expand your horizons. Toughen up.

A worthwhile revolution is never easy. If you can’t handle being banned from Twitter, then you were never meant for the job.

We had a long chat about legal principles existing inside one user’s imagination.

Sh*t, with all this discussion of free speech, the right to use Twitter to promote hate and harass people, and protected classes, it sure is difficult for a guy to come in here to find out if his haircut makes him look like a neo nazi. What the hell is wrong with this world?

@robc04 Did you see the news story where the guy that supposedly was attacked due to his haircut, lied to authorities about it? Can’t remember if that was upthread or elsewhere that I read it.

Yeah, I saw that in some Twitter post. What is wrong with people?

The police reviewed security camera footage and when they couldn’t find any attacker the guy confessed to lying about the attack.

This guy.

Am i supposed to know who is who on a forum i just joined?

If you want to argue EULAs yes you don’t own your account.

But in reality, you should own it, and legislation should be made to ensure that you do. Claiming that you do not own your facebook account is like claiming that a painter doesn’t own his art because his art is owned by the paint and canvas maker. After all, the painter did use materials from someone else…

And yes, i am aware that it is not how the legal situation is now, because tech companies have lobbied to keep things as they are for their interests, but that doesn’t mean it is right or should be that way.

What is legal and what is not is subject to change constantly. You can make eating chicken illegal, or you can make driving a car illegal. As long as society deems something should be illegal, they can make it so.

Which is why i am participating in this discussion after all, to influence society in my small way, that free speech is paramount and legislation should be made to prevent a couple of megacorporations from drowning free speech on the internet.

You leftists are conservatives to the core (meaning you want nothing to change), everytime i say something, you say “it is not that way”, well, then MAKE IT THAT WAY. Why is it ok with you to allow private interests to steer the political debate in their favour?

Why is it ok to only have 5 media companies that own every media in existence and get to pick what the population watches and listens to?

Why is it ok for social media platforms to ban users based on their beliefs? Who gave them the right to decide what is valid discussion and what belongs on the deep web?

This is corporate fascism, and you are compliant of it because it bans the “nasty nazis”. Well, guess what, some years down the road it might ban YOU. It won’t be that good then, will it?