2960
() 🛑  Corrupt Commies  🛑
posted ago by deletedandredacted ago by deletedandredacted +2961 / -1
Comments (179)
sorted by:
160
UrShulgi 160 points ago +160 / -0

This is also to try and get rid of Project Veritas, because any of the undercover video subjects can now say it was private and without their permission.

48
Bonami 48 points ago +48 / -0

Yep, good point!

9
imnotdeadyet 9 points ago +11 / -2

It depends on the state. Some states have one party consent and others have two party consent.

14
ArcticDark 14 points ago +14 / -0

Somehow methinks Twitter will say their arbitrarily, and haphazardly done corporate policy regarding not allowing any of it on their platform is within their rights.

4
fusreedah 4 points ago +4 / -0

Yeah but twitter can have its own rules. Doesn't depend on the state at all.

They kick people off all the time who haven't broken any state or federal laws -- where you been the last 15 years?

1
imnotdeadyet 1 point ago +1 / -0

States are passing laws that you can't silence voices on these "social media" platforms or you can be sued. In September, Texas has made it illegal for social media platforms to ban users "based on their political viewpoints". If a meme is deemed political and they pull it down, then they are open to be sued.

1
fusreedah 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah heard about that when it passed. How many times has Twitter been sued so far again??

1
imnotdeadyet 1 point ago +1 / -0

It just passed a few months ago. Give it time. I believe Florida did the same.

1
Bonami 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ok, thanks

11
Themustardtiger 11 points ago +11 / -0

Even if it was filmed in a single party consent state?

45
UrShulgi 45 points ago +45 / -0

This isn't about if it's legal, it's about their terms of service. Something can be LEGAL for PV to do, such as record undercover in a 1 party consent state. However, Twitter can implement policies to say that isn't allowed on their platform, which is what they're doing. Just because it's legal doesn't mean they allow it.

15
destroyer713 15 points ago +15 / -0

The end run of legality. Governments can't enforce so they have others shut down the practice for them, and companies like Twatter and Facebook step right up to do the heavy lifting.

11
Retard_Strength 11 points ago +11 / -0

Tyranny Laundering

8
UrShulgi 8 points ago +8 / -0

Fascism, if you will.

1
Inquisitor_Corvus 1 point ago +2 / -1

Definition of!

10
Themustardtiger 10 points ago +10 / -0

So gay

4
glasses2020 4 points ago +5 / -1

Yes, we know twitter is gay. Stop using it.

2
Themustardtiger 2 points ago +2 / -0

Already have.

3
labiator 3 points ago +3 / -0

You can shoot it but we won't provide you with a platform to let you share it.

7
Dystopiaslayer 7 points ago +7 / -0

so pretty much jack dorsey was not as bad as what we all thought even though he is a commie. he allowed doxxing and did fuck all to stop it on both sides.

7
Necrovoter 7 points ago +7 / -0

so pretty much jack dorsey was not as bad as what we all thought

He is and was probably much worse than we thought or imagined. As the public face of Twitter for so long, and being confronted (meekly) by Congress, he didn't want to make more waves. In comes the new person, carrying out the same policies Twitter wanted long ago. If the new person catches too much heat, Twitter can easily fire them and rinse and repeat.

To my thinking, if Twitter thought it could legally get away with direct death threats and doxxing people they wanted to be killed, they would be doing so.

2
giggitybooped 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes. They are winning.

3
kanabiis 3 points ago +3 / -0

They are not winning, Twitter is not real life, the vast majority of people in the US, AND the world could give a shit less about Twitter or the people on it.

Nobody is on twitter. Twitter is not winning anything.

1
giggitybooped 1 point ago +1 / -0

Keep underestimating your enemy. It's working out great.

1
fusreedah 1 point ago +1 / -0

Politics is downstream of culture. Twitter is a big part of culture, unfortunately.

2
kanabiis 2 points ago +2 / -0

I respectfully disagree, the vast majority of Twitter are looser nobodies, they are not culture they are a cult.

Most people who live in the real world think they are crazy people.

Every move a corporation has done to satisfy the Twitter mob has resulted in losses in revenue. Its only a matter of time before they turn off Twitter, rendering the blue haired checkmarks irrelevant to the conversation.

1
fusreedah 1 point ago +1 / -0

Looser than what?

81
ChrisTheSoberITGuy 81 points ago +81 / -0

"no images of private individuals without their consent"

This is literally all media recorded in public.

Watch accounts like Ngo be banned while corporations are allowed to post whatever they want

20
BasedNtruth 20 points ago +20 / -0

Of course. Only communist sympathizers have rights pleb

11
Chuj 11 points ago +11 / -0

Yes. How in the world can consent be obtained for the myriad of videos on Twitter?

I suspect the rule will be VERY selectively enforced

10
Joeret 10 points ago +10 / -0

So if I take a picture of my family and post it to Twitter they can ban me because I didn’t get consent from every single person in the picture?

4
Lelleck 4 points ago +4 / -0

You would proactively have to upload a signed Note of consent of everyone in the picture.

While you’re at it, upload all of their IDs aswell.

8
Necrovoter 8 points ago +8 / -0

"no images of private individuals without their consent"

Jan 6th Capitol protesters should have their lawyers file suit against Twitter for any images of them Twitter is still allowing.

4
LauriThorne 4 points ago +5 / -1

They literally added an exemption for media outlets.

3
NotProgCensored 3 points ago +3 / -0

What's their definition of Media Outlet?

65
deleted 65 points ago +65 / -0
32
AlcoholicRetard 32 points ago +32 / -0

They always are.

25
IncredibleMrE1 25 points ago +26 / -1

Because they are fat, oathbreaking pigs.

16
AnEndgamePawn 16 points ago +16 / -0

Because wrongthink and saying mean words are now considered harsher crimes than looting, burning, and killing.

Don't look for any further explanation. That is 100% the reason

9
anticlown 9 points ago +9 / -0

its easier to fuck with the victims

7
Trumpdidit 7 points ago +7 / -0

Without the criminal, the police wouldn't be needed.

4
Major_Nutt 4 points ago +4 / -0

America didn't have any local police forces for decades after it was formed. We need to go back to that.

2
Trumpdidit 2 points ago +2 / -0

Absolutely, public hangings should be re-instated.

42
Tx50bmg 42 points ago +42 / -0

Aren't the arrest photos public record?

8
Mooksayshigh 8 points ago +9 / -1

Yes, but Twitter can implement whatever tos they want.

8
Shadilady 8 points ago +8 / -0

Yeah, Trump needs to hurry up with his social media and allow this. Another way to get people to hop off Twitter

2
Joeret 2 points ago +2 / -0

Is that still happening?

2
NoFakeNewsCommies 2 points ago +2 / -0

As far as anyone knows yeah but big platforms don't happen overnight

7
Orange_clock_work 7 points ago +7 / -0

Yea we can do any fuckinthing we want back to em too.

0
Mooksayshigh 0 points ago +2 / -2

Yea man go for it.

26
TAIWANNUMBERONE 26 points ago +26 / -0

This is why killing them is the only feasible solution.

26
highenergywinning 26 points ago +26 / -0

Get ready for more blm rioters wearing masks

18
anon073121 18 points ago +18 / -0

Yep this is just setting up for them to allow roving groups of monsters to roll through your neighborhood killing, looting, and raping and if you defend yourself they will say you are a public figure and drag you through doxing you so that the monsters know where to get you.

I would say can you post rittenhouse image. If that works then post the Christmas parade murder and watch them say no he isn't a public figure.

11
Bonami 11 points ago +12 / -1

Well, that should totally tank twitters stock, photos and videos are their bread, butter and blood.

I wonder if this was also done because without all those videos that showed he clearly was defending himself, Kyle would have been locked up for eternity.

16
jdovejr 16 points ago +16 / -0

You really don’t think this policy will be for everyone, do you?

6
Bonami 6 points ago +6 / -0

I did, I suffer from a belief in justice and fair play. I need to get over that:(

9
Brellin 9 points ago +9 / -0

It won't because you are making the mistake of believing there will be even enforcement. There won't be. This move is so that they can selectively delete and remove any posts that don't support their narratives and which they feel would be bad optics for their leftist / commie backers, the stuff that shows people they don't like will be allowed to stay up and proliferate while the stuff that exposes their foot soldiers will be taken down and scrubbed immediately. That's how this works, never make the assumption that they are going to play fair with their policies, they are doing this specifically in order to create an environment where they can control all the information and ensure that their "comrades" are protected and their political enemies are punished. Active malicious thought went into this.

1
Bonami 1 point ago +1 / -0

Good point, I didn't consider that. Thank you

8
ohiopede 8 points ago +8 / -0

All that laundered foreign aid money passed as soon as Brandon took office should prop up stocks like Twitter for the rest of our lifetimes.

1
Bonami 1 point ago +1 / -0

True, true.

5
ufkyflflfguio 5 points ago +5 / -0

Losing a billion dollars every year doesn't tank their stock - why would this?

1
Bonami 1 point ago +1 / -0

My guess is fifty percent or more of their traffic is photos and videos.

If the posters need a sign off on everyone in the photos/videos to post, those posts won't happen. That is a LOT of revenue out the window.

This decision may be the reason the CEO walked, I would have.

2
ufkyflflfguio 2 points ago +2 / -0

Twitter loses money on every Tweet made. What revenue are you talking about?

2
Necrovoter 2 points ago +2 / -0

As did YouTube for a very long time. Deep State/Big Tech is propping up their financially disastrous propaganda outlets.

2
ufkyflflfguio 2 points ago +2 / -0

YouTube still does, by far. You just don't get to see it because it's jumbled together inside of Alphabet's financials.

1
Bonami 1 point ago +1 / -0

I am not trying to create a federal case of this, it is one thing for a company to have losses it is another to have catastrophic losses.

But as others have pointed out, this will probably be a very selective process; videos such as those exonerating Kyle will disappear and those showing some DS sanction theme will be broadcast to the world.

2
ufkyflflfguio 2 points ago +2 / -0

My point is that they don't stay afloat through profits or shareholder generosity. They stay afloat because they engage in this shit. They are being funded indirectly by the government that wants them to operate this way.

1
Bonami 1 point ago +1 / -0

I understand that, but as a shareholder I would be pretty annoyed

2
when_we_win_remember 2 points ago +2 / -0

Is Twitter public? I thought their shareholders were Saudi sheikhs and the Chinese government.

1
ufkyflflfguio 1 point ago +1 / -0

If you're a shareholder in TWTR, you're probably retarded in the first place. Who could possibly think this shit is a good buy?

3
masshole3 3 points ago +4 / -1

Could this be the beginning of the end of Twitter???

Are the walls closing in???

1
Bonami 1 point ago +1 / -0

Never use it so...

11
Sylvester1212 11 points ago +11 / -0

Private media meaning media not controlled by the state.

7
BlokeyMcBlokeFace 7 points ago +7 / -0

The cabal put a lot of work into getting the media industry under their control, they're not going to very well just allow citizens to think whatever they like now, are they.

4
Sylvester1212 4 points ago +4 / -0

Exactly!

7
escariot 7 points ago +7 / -0

Gotta protect their own.

5
Juzeza 5 points ago +5 / -0

Communism. This is where it begins.

Now we can’t know when people break laws.

1
Mooksayshigh 1 point ago +2 / -1

You can, just don’t depend on Twitter for it. There’s still other social media without this new tos policy.

4
p1smo 4 points ago +5 / -1

STOP USING TWITTER!

For fuck’s sake! Our side always complaining about companies like Twitter and Facebook, but for some reason we keep using them, even when they actively hate us and tell us as much every day.

We all got along just fine before Twitter. We can do it again.

4
IamDevo 4 points ago +4 / -0

I guess they got tired of having their drug addicted foot soldiers exposed.

4
EpsteinDidntKillHS 4 points ago +4 / -0

#BurnTwittertoTheGround

4
deus_vult 4 points ago +5 / -1

1st Amendment and Section 230 aside, doesn't this policy also violate the law in single-party consent states?

1
Mooksayshigh 1 point ago +4 / -3

No. Twitter is a social media platform not a law firm. They can implement any TOS they want.

5
p1smo 5 points ago +5 / -0

No they can't, not legally anyway. Big Tech is blatantly violating Section 230, and by law cannot censor or restrict information they simply disagree with.

Section 230 essentially classifies these companies as "public spaces" like a street corner, who anyone is allowed to exercise their 1st Amendment rights on.

As long as people aren't breaking any laws or decency policies ie. pornography/explicit violence/etc., everything is fair game.

The only reason these companies keep getting away with it is because our government is totally compromised and beholden to the same people they're supposed to regulate.

3
Necrovoter 3 points ago +3 / -0

No they can't, not legally anyway.

The law only applies to conservatives - never to leftists.

1
p1smo 1 point ago +1 / -0

Is it really lawful anymore then? Or just tyranny?

2
when_we_win_remember 2 points ago +2 / -0

Section 230 essentially classifies these companies as "public spaces" like a street corner, who anyone is allowed to exercise their 1st Amendment rights on.

That's not what it does. Section 230 is a protection, so when they publish things that would normally get them sued/arrested they don't because these things are user generated. There is controversy over to what degree they can censor and still maintain this protection. But nothing requires them to publish everything that people submit.

2
p1smo 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not technically, but this was basically the original intent of the law short of classifying them as utilities, which they should be. In exchange for legal immunity under Section 230, they are not allowed to play the role of editor and censor or restrict content that doesn't break any laws or reasonable TOS. I agree there's some ambiguity to what extent, but at this point it's blatantly clear they're abusing their immunities and TOS to mean whatever the hell they want.

2
when_we_win_remember 2 points ago +2 / -0

It doesn't seem like from a layman's point of view that their immunity under the law as-is is getting challenged very much. Some people want to change the law. Short of that, someone has to actually sue or prosecute them based on something they publish in order to challenge the perceived immunity.

1
p1smo 1 point ago +1 / -0

It really isn't getting challenged at all, because the majority of congress and our regulatory agencies are compromised by special interests. It's just one big incestuous feedback loop of unelected bureaucrats rim-jobbing each other for favors.

Even under Trump, any talk of regulating Big Tech went pretty much nowhere. When tasked with investigating these companies' censorious overreach, the congressional committees would preface their line of questions by lavishing the CEOs with praise for 'cooperating and providing important services to society' ad nauseum.

Nothing but a dog and pony show to give the illusion of doing something proactive, but as soon as the cameras are off it's back to business as usual. Want to know why? Because Big Tech are co-opted by the intelligence agencies and provide the biggest tools for spying on the American public and world at large. There's no way in hell they're going to give that up willingly.

1
when_we_win_remember 1 point ago +1 / -0

Honestly, it seems impossible to prosecute Big Tech when Big Tech has the money and US political influence is known to be for sale. I've said it before, but the money system needs to be dismantled. The way that money is created, lent, taxed is at the heart of why influence is in all the wrong hands.

-1
Mooksayshigh -1 points ago +1 / -2

Yea so especially they can implement any TOS they want.

2
p1smo 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's not the point you were making, or what I'm responding to.

Being able to do something because it's legal, and being able to do something because no one will hold you accountable are two completely different things.

2
Wintergreen 2 points ago +2 / -0

Any TOS they want until they come across an honest judge or a state/federal government pissed off at being censored.

1
deus_vult 1 point ago +2 / -1

Could Twitter also say it's okay to make death threats or post CP on their platform, even though there are laws against that in most places?

2
Necrovoter 2 points ago +2 / -0

Could Twitter also say it's okay to make death threats or post CP on their platform, even though there are laws against that in most places?

They use section 230 to prevent being held accountable for those kinds of things. Even when terrorists are shown to be using their network and they have been told about it, they pretend like they don't have a clue.

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

What…what are you even saying? That’s nowhere near a legitimate comparison. By saying you can’t post private stuff on their platform, they’re not allowing anyone to break the law.

2
Necrovoter 2 points ago +2 / -0

That’s nowhere near a legitimate comparison.

It isn't an exact comparison, but for awhile Twitter was under a lot of criticism for not cracking down sooner when they were informed of blatant CP on their platform. Likewise, Facebook was criticized for allowing death threats and live streaming violence (most notably the torture of a white mentally delayers adolescent by six black people) - when Facebook had been told of the threats and violence streaming.

They both used section 230 to pretend like they didn't have any control.

3
Krysdavar 3 points ago +3 / -0

...so they are becoming editors of their own newspaper. Get the Fuck Off of Twitter, NOW.

3
Omnes_Omnibus 3 points ago +3 / -0

So does this mean you can't publish any pictures of people other than yourself and those who explicitly allow it?

3
lavebug 3 points ago +3 / -0

Gab.com

3
RealTXPatriot 3 points ago +3 / -0

Arrest photos are public

Committing crimes in open public is also... not private

3
Steveo19 3 points ago +5 / -2

How far along is trumps socialedia platforms?

2
Mooksayshigh 2 points ago +3 / -1

Never.

3
ppalgansaek 3 points ago +3 / -0

Use Gab, abandon Twitter. Problem solved.

3
DarkRiver 3 points ago +3 / -0

Twitter carrying water for Antifa and blm

3
Annpi 3 points ago +3 / -0

Gab is great

3
RedBlooded 3 points ago +3 / -0

But watch.... they'll allow this behavior against conservatives. We'll see soon I'm sure.

3
toysjoe 3 points ago +3 / -0

So this policy essentially ends all police departments looking for wanted persons by sharing their photo on social media.

3
Orange_clock_work 3 points ago +3 / -0

Lmao we just need to quit talkin and show these scum fucks whos the real majority. Sick of this nonsense

3
behemoth887 3 points ago +3 / -0

if u go to a riot as a member of antifa, at the behest of the libtrash party, how are u a private individual?

3
Meisenmouse 3 points ago +3 / -0

It also will apply to the cheating in the next election too...."Oh my Godses! You can't record me bringing in all these illegal ballots !"

3
UpTrumps4545 3 points ago +3 / -0

Welcome to the metaverse.

2
Stormwatcher 2 points ago +2 / -0

Bet they have an "insurrection clause" to allow Jan 6th protestor photos to be on the platform tho

2
duckduck 2 points ago +2 / -0

Everyone just needs to leave Twitter. There are other social media sites, go to Facebook or Instagram or whatever.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
2
duckduck 2 points ago +2 / -0

Better than Twitter is all I'm saying.

2
ShanghaiJoe 2 points ago +2 / -0

We can easily stop using these platforms and popularizing more freedom promoting ones. This seems like such an easy problem to fix if people stop being lazy and stuck in their habits.

2
CommieCrats 2 points ago +2 / -0

breaking the matrix

2
Space_Force 2 points ago +2 / -0

Legally, if you are out in public you have ZERO expectation of privacy. Anyone can take your picture and post/publish it (think newspapers). If it's for commercial purposes, you typically almost always have to have a signed model release.

2
TheSaltyProphet 2 points ago +2 / -0

TRUTHSOCIAL.COM is coming soon. Twitter is dead.

2
awakenthegreat 2 points ago +2 / -0

Does this apply to the January 6th folks that the FBI Twitter account keeps posting?

2
blueeyephoto 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sorry Twatter, individuals in public place have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

2
BunnyPicnic 2 points ago +2 / -0

So any public recording, like at a riot, cannot be shared on Twitter? What else is Twitter for?

2
Kekistan_United 2 points ago +2 / -0

its privacy laws for THEM not you

2
infojunkie07 2 points ago +2 / -0

Just register as a media outlet. And publish all these via the "media"

2
Orange_clock_work 2 points ago +2 / -0

This country is a fuckin joke. A FUCKIN JOKE

2
that_sound 2 points ago +2 / -0

Seems to me that a lot of once popular software platforms suddenly became useless when people moved on. People move on for various reasons, sometimes important reasons, sometimes almost no reason at all.

Maybe this is that moment for twitter. I know I can't stand it. Never could. It sucks in almost every way it could possibly suck.

2
n4freedom 2 points ago +2 / -0

I suspect this will hurt them quite a bit. A lot of people post videos.

2
MythArcana 2 points ago +2 / -0

Never put a street-shitter in charge of anything. Look at Google as an example.

2
wuch 2 points ago +2 / -0

More censorship is better, people will come to gab faster.

2
Snooptwo 2 points ago +2 / -0

I partially agree with not posting possibly innocent peoples mugshots. It could ruin the life and reputation of an innocent person.

But communists aren’t people so I’d Esther Andy be able to keep putting these fuckers on blast.

2
dr_gonzo 2 points ago +2 / -0

Can't wait to find out how this protection only applies to leftists.

2
BoughtByBloomberg2 2 points ago +2 / -0

So when an article is written about me twitter is going to ban the accounts of the media right? Cause they don't have my consent.

2
Jaqen 2 points ago +2 / -0

What’s this Twitter you speak of?

2
SeeWithYourMind 2 points ago +2 / -0

This puts a little hiccup in the sex offender registry for people who require knowing where the Rosenbaums are in their community.

2
VirtueVeritas 2 points ago +2 / -0

Antifa are the shock troops of the DNC. It's so obvious and people still can't see it.