Not really, unless you think the only way you can express yourself is on Twitter and Facebook. You can still go an alt-right forum or even set one up yourself.
The point is to reach new audience, not preach to the choir.
Trump exceeds Obama growth. You also fail to mention loss of purchasing power under Obama or the general economic malaise of the country, and have fallen back on two propaganda sources -- Maddow and Politifact -- to make your argument.
Leftists really do live in different worlds, don't you? Either that or you are honestly deluded (insane) or liars.
Clinton also had 4% GDP growth, over 2 terms. And he managed to do it without dividing the country and making the rest of the world think we're retards.
Followed by a massive recession as the consequences of his ill-advised "fast money" policies came due. Also, most of the growth in the American economy at that point was actually growth in Chinese manufacturing and thus American profits, especially after unions devastated American labor in the 1980s.
It's not the same when the reverse occurs because the reverse isn't an official government method of communication.
True. However, by banning them from Twitter, the company has ensured that (1) they cannot communicate back to government, even just to give it a digital finger, and (2) government cannot measure response to its ideas by using Twitter.
The only people who are not hypocrites are those who think it's OK for NFL players to kneel, and that social media companies shouldn't be censoring users.
Social media companies are not publishers; they are spaces where other people speak their minds.
The NFL, on the other hand, is a single-topic publisher, and anything it endorses is a statement of support. This is closer to the cake case, where the baker did not want to bake the gay cake because he saw it as endorsing an issue he viewed as demonic.
I retweeted something about showing respect for veterans and was shadow-banned on Twitter - my tweets are no longer seen by others. If I were to retweet something about verterans being the same as nazi's that would be OK, and I'd probably end up with a blue Twitter checkmark on my profile.
Twitter is a far-Left platform. It seems odd, then, that they do not want to be revealed as such, and actively deny it. What are they hiding? I wonder if it has something to do with their advertisers, ownership, or funding.
Twitter and other social media are effectively public platforms.
Yes, at least in common sense. Are they legally public spaces? I argue that they are public spaces if we translate physical world law to virtual world law.
In that Trump Twitter case, the judge ruled that denying access to his posts was denying citizen's their right to speech. If responding to Tweets is speech, then surely broadcasting them is also protected (as well as YouTube videos, FaceBook posts, and so on).
No, because he was using Twitter as a mouthpiece for the government, and the government cannot censor speech. The same requirement is not made of private entities, possibly with the exceptions mentioned above.
In the USA, you have things like the Nixon administration trying to shut down inconvenient news as treason:
They wanted to stop publication of a stolen and leaked classified document. That is not "inconvenient news."
Here in Germany, we have some newspapers with clear political bias but also attempts by the government to shut them up if they make the politicians look bad.
As you guzzle down your Starbucks(tm) coffee, rush out the door, and race off to some job where you do irrelevant stuff at high speed so management feels important enough to justify a COLA increase.
We had to make them simple so that everyone could participate. No class divisions here, no sirree!
Now, every job is basically going through the motions that make it look like work, and then doing something fairly inconsequential...
Even professionals are pretty much guided by software, professional publications, conventions, etc.
The brain is disconnected, and we can just go through life pretending that upsidedownworld is somehow acceptable, when we know in our guts that Rome 2.0 is falling fast...
App stores are the ultimate safe spaces. You can trust in any app there.
On the other hand, traditional computers are the Wild West. You take your chances, based on your knowledge.
At what point do we admit that having a computer illiterate population using these complex devices is sure to empower abusive monopolies like Facebook, Apple, Reddit, Twitter, Google, Amazon, and Spotify (F.A.R.T.G.A.S.)?
The only place for poor people to go is where market forces are still free to work: blighted areas with depressed demand and further away from the city where land values have not yet appreciated and supply is still keeping up with demand.
This is why Americans oppose public transport: poor people, who commit most of the crime, will then be able to get from their ghettos to the suburbs.
they can be compared to one another and used to determine which appliances are relatively superior
That establishes relative rank, but does not tell consumers what they actually need, so they are still casting around in the dark.
In the meantime, nothing has been saved with EnergyStar and related programs which make junky disposable appliances end up in landfills where the older, sturdier versions kept working for decades.
What is it about the voters that they are so stupid that they think regulations benefit them?
They do exactly that in suburbs, with only relatively small areas sequestered away as high density or mixed use
If small areas are allowed, that enables apartments to coexist with the burbs.
This strengthens my point, which is that people coming out of the inner city are not wanted in the suburbs, which is why Americans oppose public transit.
Slashdot Mirror
Makes sense. And that way, whatever they let through, they endorse.
"His opinion is not egalitarian, so it is a meany opinion, which means he is an asshole and should be excluded from polite society."
Many conservatives have been blocked by Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook, which is why there is an exodus to Gab.ai and BitChute.
The point is to reach new audience, not preach to the choir.
I am sure you look to America to distract from how badly things are going over there.
Trump exceeds Obama growth. You also fail to mention loss of purchasing power under Obama or the general economic malaise of the country, and have fallen back on two propaganda sources -- Maddow and Politifact -- to make your argument.
Leftists really do live in different worlds, don't you? Either that or you are honestly deluded (insane) or liars.
Followed by a massive recession as the consequences of his ill-advised "fast money" policies came due. Also, most of the growth in the American economy at that point was actually growth in Chinese manufacturing and thus American profits, especially after unions devastated American labor in the 1980s.
True. However, by banning them from Twitter, the company has ensured that (1) they cannot communicate back to government, even just to give it a digital finger, and (2) government cannot measure response to its ideas by using Twitter.
Social media companies are not publishers; they are spaces where other people speak their minds.
The NFL, on the other hand, is a single-topic publisher, and anything it endorses is a statement of support. This is closer to the cake case, where the baker did not want to bake the gay cake because he saw it as endorsing an issue he viewed as demonic.
The term "racism" simply refers to:
There is nothing wrong with either; in fact, they are the only natural and scientific positions!
Twitter is a far-Left platform. It seems odd, then, that they do not want to be revealed as such, and actively deny it. What are they hiding? I wonder if it has something to do with their advertisers, ownership, or funding.
Yes, at least in common sense. Are they legally public spaces? I argue that they are public spaces if we translate physical world law to virtual world law.
No, because he was using Twitter as a mouthpiece for the government, and the government cannot censor speech. The same requirement is not made of private entities, possibly with the exceptions mentioned above.
You will also have given the fringe new legitimacy and an honest and uncontroversial grievance, which will make them more powerful.
They wanted to stop publication of a stolen and leaked classified document. That is not "inconvenient news."
Democracy as usual.
Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, and others routinely apply double standards to non-Leftists and censor non-Leftists.
Then they lie about it.
I get wanting to censor all political competition, but why not just admit that is what you are doing?
I guess that censorship is not popular, and social media is afraid of losing popularity and going the way of MySpace.
However, by alienating half of their potential audience, they have guaranteed that they are obsolete anyway...
"Indecency" is the new "corrupting the youth."
Or even "royalism" or being a kulak.
They just want to remove off-Narrative content.
They will use any excuse.
Worrying about "indecency" is the new "think of the children!"
When did Slashdot become Reddit?
As you guzzle down your Starbucks(tm) coffee, rush out the door, and race off to some job where you do irrelevant stuff at high speed so management feels important enough to justify a COLA increase.
We had to make them simple so that everyone could participate. No class divisions here, no sirree!
Now, every job is basically going through the motions that make it look like work, and then doing something fairly inconsequential...
Even professionals are pretty much guided by software, professional publications, conventions, etc.
The brain is disconnected, and we can just go through life pretending that upsidedownworld is somehow acceptable, when we know in our guts that Rome 2.0 is falling fast...
App stores are the ultimate safe spaces. You can trust in any app there.
On the other hand, traditional computers are the Wild West. You take your chances, based on your knowledge.
At what point do we admit that having a computer illiterate population using these complex devices is sure to empower abusive monopolies like Facebook, Apple, Reddit, Twitter, Google, Amazon, and Spotify (F.A.R.T.G.A.S.)?
Net neutrality says that you cannot prioritize traffic to site A over that for site B for economic reasons alone.
Net neutrality would have done nothing about this.
The regulations proposed for net neutrality, some of which were written by the cable industry, would not have helped.
The only thing that will help is having more competition in the ISP world and that, ironically, is limited by regulations.
This is why Americans oppose public transport: poor people, who commit most of the crime, will then be able to get from their ghettos to the suburbs.
That establishes relative rank, but does not tell consumers what they actually need, so they are still casting around in the dark.
In the meantime, nothing has been saved with EnergyStar and related programs which make junky disposable appliances end up in landfills where the older, sturdier versions kept working for decades.
What is it about the voters that they are so stupid that they think regulations benefit them?
Yes, it does, because manufacturers compete on the basis of those numbers and yet, those numbers do not reflect real world usage.
If small areas are allowed, that enables apartments to coexist with the burbs.
This strengthens my point, which is that people coming out of the inner city are not wanted in the suburbs, which is why Americans oppose public transit.