I disagree here. There is a whole slew of unreliable evidence. One piece of solid evidence trumps the whole slew of unreliable evidence. We are still missing the latter (solid evidence). Once we have the latter, then investigating could be initiated. Investigating now would be seen correctly as partisan.
Ah, the key word published! twitter is not a publisher, if they are then people can sue them. twitter fancyâs itself a platform. Meaning they cannot editorialize. I suspect the NY Post is going to sue them at some point in the near future. But twitter isnât in the business of publishing which means they are breaking the law, even by their own rules. Every news paper puts out uncorroborated stories all the time, because there is a story to be published. twitter is not in the business of fact checking, at least they are not supposed to be.
Look at how many idiots on twitter think âCoyotesâ are angry wild dogs who carry Mexican children across the border. Hell, itâs not regular people doing it, itâs journalists. Journalists donât know what the âCoyotesâ are. But twitter allows it to be posted. This is plain censorship. And I know you donât care about anybody but yourself, but censorship is a bad thing no matter who is doing it.
Pat - you are confusing your own obsession of this being âbigger than everâ with what the rationale populace at large thinks. You (and Trump himself) are always looking for the next conspiracy that is always about to amount to something, but never does. When it fizzles, then itâs on to the next thing. Remember Clintonâs emails and âlock her upâ? Remember âObamagateâ? Werenât those both huge scandals that were always âaboutâ to amount to an earth-shattering revelation of corruption and jail time? And this is the weakest, most pathetic attempt yet.
Well, I am not convinced that Twitter or Facebook should have blocked info on this. I also think NY Post can publish most of what they want. They just risk lawsuits and losing readers in the long term.
The NY Post is one of the longest running largest circulation publications in the U.S. They arenât going anywhere.
Probably true short term. If they keep taking risks like this, I wouldnât expect them to be taken seriously long term. Maybe after this they learn their lesson.
Learn their lesson for reporting a legit story? The rest of the MSM has already done that. God forbid they report the actual news!
They just pull out their dicks and yank them in front of their co-workers, literally and figuratively.
Did you read the Fox reporterâs rundown after she reviewed Bubolinskiâs emails?
Oh yeah? For what?
Censorship. twitter is a platform, or is supposed to be, not a publisher. If they act like a publisher, while pretending to be a platform they are violating the law and terms of agreement. They are not supposed to be censoring people who donât violate their policies. They cannot, selectively apply ârulesâ and remain a platform.
Twitter is a private company. There is no cause of action against them for censorship.
Now I get why youâre fooled so easily.
1 Like
Fake news is news that is damaging to Trump. Fake news is quoting Trump and then asking him to explain why he said that.
Once a commie.
1 Like
A real rule follower, are you?
Hmmm.
How do you feel about the laws regarding quarantine?
Everybody likes to point at the ârulesâ until they apply to themselves.
4 Likes
No wonder my lawsuit against T-Nation isnât going well.
2 Likes
These dopes think Twitter is the government and some version of the 1A applies. The New York Post has no right to a Twitter account any more than the rest of us. And in any event, the NYP has its own platform - itâs own website. Their speech is out there and available to anyone who wants it.
Setting aside they canât even understand basic civics, they complain because (with great irony) they are bunch of entitled snowflakes. Itâd be funny if it wasnât sad. The Right has become the politics of victimization, all day, every day.
2 Likes
They both do now, just different versions of the same bullshit.
You donât know what you are talking about. They are a private company operating under the guise and are registered as being one thing, a platform. But they are actually discharging their duties as if they are a publisher. Hence, they are violating the terms of the business that files them under Section 230. They cannot register their business as one thing and then be another thing.
Itâs like registering as a furniture store, but you operate as a restaurant. Hence, you are not required to operate under the standards of a restaurant and you sell crappy food.
I am not interested in trading jabs with you. I am sure you got more zingers than I do, but I donât really care about that stuff. Itâs not substantive. It doesnât require me to reconsider my position.
Swing and a miss! 
I know itâs a cricket bat, but I donât know what the hell your talking about. I am talking about the rules that twitter made for itself. I donât know what you are saying. You seem to be talking about âlaw and orderâ or something outside force creating rules to break. I am talking about oneâs own rules being selectively applied.
Let me put it in a way that you will understandâŠ
So imagine you create a rule where everybody has to jack their dick with their right hand when they are in your house. But, one person is left handed so he does it with his left and cums harder than ever. But itâs okay because you like that person, you even clean his cum stain. But another person you donât like so much like, say a Trump supporter enters you house and jacks his dick with his left hand. Then you get pissed off, grab him by the neck, ram his head through the door and then throw him out on the side walk dick first; thus breaking his dick. Did you apply you jack-off rule equally? No, of course not.
Yeah.
I think you made yourself clear.
Nice attempt at condescension though!