"Currants Bw..."

[Xhaka Can’t]

Any online forum has rules. This one does. We are pretty lax, but there is a limit.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say anything you like.

Well, you can. But that doesn’t mean there should be freedom from repercussions.

Twitter has rules, you agree to them when you sign up.

If you don’t like the rules, you can always post elsewhere. Those places may not be as popular because they are full of cunts (to an even greater degree than on Twitter).

KH can say what she likes, but equally, a business can decide what is and is not acceptable on their platform.

[Letters]

Pretty much

https://newsthump.com/2020/06/19/kat...g-shes-a-dick/

[Niall_Quinn]

Any online forum has rules. This one does. We are pretty lax, but there is a limit.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say anything you like.

Excuses like that, for instance. The cake and eat it excuse. Twitter is a ChinesAmerican company, it enjoys certain protections under the law. Right now, if one of its members posted up a direct call for insurrection (yes, there are many, many) Twitter is not liable. It enjoys these protections on the understanding it is a content platform, rather than content publisher. Therefore, it doesn't need to ban anyone, it doesn't need to censor anyone, unless the service itself is in some way being impaired or an individual member is being harmed (stalking, death threats, the usual shit). The only reason Twitter censors is because it has a political agenda. Anyone can see this, if they care to look. When you excuse them, as you are doing here, you excuse bias and endorse monopoly. It's a poor position to take.

GW is a different matter entirely, because we're in a country that doesn't protect your arse. Sometimes you need to remove content because it would end up getting you sued. But if you simply started removing legal content because you didn't like what it said, as you did with my posts related to Wenger, well that places you on par with Twitter. Evil. And that's the right word for it. Pure evil. Because when you use whatever power you have, no matter how great or limited, to abuse instead of enable, you choose evil over good.

[Niall_Quinn]

Well, you can. But that doesn’t mean there should be freedom from repercussions.

Twitter has rules, you agree to them when you sign up.

If you don’t like the rules, you can always post elsewhere. Those places may not be as popular because they are full of cunts (to an even greater degree than on Twitter).

KH can say what she likes, but equally, a business can decide what is and is not acceptable on their platform.

That's a bold statement. I can't think of another web site in history that hosts a greater collection of cunts than Twitter. Surely nothing else comes within a million miles?

[Xhaka Can’t]

That's a bold statement. I can't think of another web site in history that hosts a greater collection of cunts than Twitter. Surely nothing else comes within a million miles?

I guess I should clarify:

I was completely wrong.

[Letters]

But if you simply started removing legal content because you didn't like what it said, as you did with my posts related to Wenger, well that places you on par with Twitter.

Please stop lying about that. I simply moved them into a separate thread.
Nothing was removed - you literally have a link to that thread in your sig, you silly sod!

And what Gary said. If Hopkins wants to keep spouting bile which she almost certainly doesn't believe because somehow she's managed to make a living as a troll then fine. Twitter are well within their rights to say she can't do it on their platform. You sign up to rules when you join any online community.

[Niall_Quinn]

Please stop lying about that. I simply moved them into a separate thread.
Nothing was removed - you literally have a link to that thread in your sig, you silly sod!

And what Gary said. If Hopkins wants to keep spouting bile which she almost certainly doesn't believe because somehow she's managed to make a living as a troll then fine. Twitter are well within their rights to say she can't do it on their platform. You sign up to rules when you join any online community.

This is a subject that is quite obviously far beyond your grasp.

[Niall_Quinn]

I will bet there are millions of extremists out there who are delighted when they wake up in the morning to find some censorious cunt has removed their content. Otherwise, that content would remain, for all to see. And that's how you deal with extremism. When you sweep it under a rug, or worse, favour one brand of extremism over another as Twitter does, it appears as if there is no extremism at all. That's a dangerous state of affairs. And that's just extremism. Political speech is another matter, but Twitter applies great bias to censor that too. It's unpleasant to see people endorsing this. It speaks more about the censor than the extremist, in fact it defines what an extremist actually is.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

I don't know, if I am someone like Katie Hopkins that clearly says all the shit she does knowing full well she is trying to get a rise out of people, you're not going to be given that platform forever.

She's a great businesswoman allegedly, she can start her rival company. Shitter maybe.

[GP]

She's not easy viewing, that's true enough. But she has your kind identified, which is important. More and more people have your kind identified. Finally. It's genuine progress.

Oh, you think she believes what she says?



Bless.