Depriving Twitter of advertising revenue seems relevant.
I'm not one to say flee, but Jack and Twitter are obviously part of the same globohomo bullshit as Democrats, so depriving them of money seems like part of the plan.
Should social media be something we regulate like this? What are the implications? Recommending forced chance via the government seems to be promoting Twitter to the level of a public utility. Isn't is better to let the platform die as a warning to others?
But the platform won't die. It will just be an indoctrination camp. When you are operating as a public platform where anyone can use with community guidelines "for all" but then choose only to enforce those guidelines against people with the "wrong" beliefs that's a serious problem. Twitter will not even feel a hit from any potential loss in revenue. There's also at this point nothing to stop leftists from ultimately buying out Parler and instituting the same nonsense censorship.
Right now what being a platform and publisher allows Twitter/Facebook/Youtube etc to do is to have objectively misleading and influential propaganda be pushed to the top and be protected and then having the ability to censor anyone trying to tell the truth be banned for Hate Speech. There is also no way you will ever convert more than a very small minority of Twitter users to Parler users.
Possibly. If there's another platform people could be shamed for still being on Twitter, much like...are you still on MySpace?
It may be possible without legislation.
However, it's also possible, as stated previously, that Twitter/Facebook are all part of the globohomo plan and thus will never fail even due to loss of users. Therefore legislation may be needed.
And there's also the fact that Twitter is likely taking it's cues from EU laws, so counter laws may be required. It's a tough situation and legislation may have a bigger impact than thought is my major concern.
Depriving Twitter of advertising revenue seems relevant.
I'm not one to say flee, but Jack and Twitter are obviously part of the same globohomo bullshit as Democrats, so depriving them of money seems like part of the plan.
Should social media be something we regulate like this? What are the implications? Recommending forced chance via the government seems to be promoting Twitter to the level of a public utility. Isn't is better to let the platform die as a warning to others?
But the platform won't die. It will just be an indoctrination camp. When you are operating as a public platform where anyone can use with community guidelines "for all" but then choose only to enforce those guidelines against people with the "wrong" beliefs that's a serious problem. Twitter will not even feel a hit from any potential loss in revenue. There's also at this point nothing to stop leftists from ultimately buying out Parler and instituting the same nonsense censorship.
Right now what being a platform and publisher allows Twitter/Facebook/Youtube etc to do is to have objectively misleading and influential propaganda be pushed to the top and be protected and then having the ability to censor anyone trying to tell the truth be banned for Hate Speech. There is also no way you will ever convert more than a very small minority of Twitter users to Parler users.
Possibly. If there's another platform people could be shamed for still being on Twitter, much like...are you still on MySpace?
It may be possible without legislation.
However, it's also possible, as stated previously, that Twitter/Facebook are all part of the globohomo plan and thus will never fail even due to loss of users. Therefore legislation may be needed.
And there's also the fact that Twitter is likely taking it's cues from EU laws, so counter laws may be required. It's a tough situation and legislation may have a bigger impact than thought is my major concern.