Jack Dorsey and "Twitter" are getting Deeper in Hot Water and Are Now Officially on Notice!

If one considers the left’s unwillingness to debate the issues, then leveling the playing field to force them into doing just that is probably is good for the whole. As we seen even here on this site many leftists refuse to debate the merits of their political ideology. So when reading this story it came at no surprise that what the tech giants are consistent at is censoring free speech, especially those whose beliefs are conservative.

Sen Josh Hawley put Twitter on notice on Wednesday, calling on CEO Jack Dorsey to undergo a third-party audit of its suspension policies. Its about time too. I am not sure how long we can tolerate the tech giants abuses of free speech and it needs to be address. From Tommy Robinson, to the the creators of the film “Unplanned”, it is obvious that what they are doing is intentional and Jack Dorsey is a good liar. He knows its true.

At this point I am going to advocate that our senators who are leading this fight Blackburn, Hawley, and Rand Paul put forth a Cyber Bills of rights bill. In fact I believe in this idea so much that I am actually going to write a letter to all three to advocate my support for such a measure. I never wrote a politician a letter in my entire life, but now I am actually going to do it because I believe that is what needs to happen to stop the tech giants unfettered abuses of people’s freedom of speech! Its that simple!

1 Like

To keep the government’s reach as small as possible, I’m ok with those companies censoring so long as they register and identify themselves as a political entity and the liberal candidates need to list the value of the service performed on their behalf as campaign contributions.

Within about a year, in the late 90’s, I found Rush and Fox News.

Before that CNN was about the only game in town.

Now Rush and FNC own the town.

FNC is atrophying lib, but there are a bunch of startups ready to eat Fox for dinner. Facebook, Twits, and other ultra-lib social media outlets will face their wolves soon.

Such is the nature of things. They simply do not happen in timeframes that satisfy.

They also need to lose their legal protections afforded them as “neutral content providers” which shields them from liability for defamation.

Send Shep to MSNBC where he belongs and FNC would start looking pretty good.

1 Like

Jack Dorsey isn’t even the majority owner of his company. Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud controls Twitter. Jack Dorsey is just his whiteface puppet. Twitter is sharia compliant. Freedom taken.

Shemp was always the weakest stooge.


1 Like

Yes you are correct about that, but Jack Dorsey is the one who testified under oath to congress not Prince Alwaleed. The point is Jack Dorsey is the face of Twitter and spokesperson.

I can agree to a certain degree only because your statement is apt to point out the benefits of fair competition in a free market economy, but such as the case the tech giants currently have a monopoly of the market. My point is is that consumer’s of such products need to be protected especially their 1st amendment rights and is why I am advocating for a Cyber Bills of rights that addresses the modern day public square to protect such freedoms!

It is stuff like this that gets my ire up!

They do not have a monopoly in the sense of AT&T (Ma Bell back in the day), they only have an incredible percentage of people that voluntarily use them. They do, behind the scenes, hold a monetary/investment advantage in that they can buy key tech and competitors. This is essentially an investor advantage, and a high-power-lawyer (including patent attorneys) advantage.

If there were to be any new discussion of “rights”, I would rather it be about protections for small, innovative competitors and intellectual property protection in an age where patent and IP law are being swamped by big money and international competition.

Until then, Go Wolves!

I disagree

Why not the individual consumer? This seems a little bit conflicting to me. You are not interested in protecting every day users of having the 1st amendment rights being violated?

I have all the protections I (individually) need: BOR 1-X, and moreover the stipulation that the Government must avoid all other powers not specifically defined.

Some Gov committee (in black robes?) trying to define what my rights are on a no-cost platform owned and run by devout leftists sounds like a recipe for Tyranny.

Interstate and international commerce is a valid concern of the US Government. I don’t want Facebook to be forced to allow my point of view, like I don’t want to force a Muslim or Homosexual cake baker to make me a “502 years of Tulip” cake for October 31, 2019. I want some unbiased, or even Calvinist baker be able to define their range of product and services so that I can get what I want from a willing provider.

Why are my “Cyber” right different from varying rights in print, private, or public square rights circa 1800?

Yeah I completely disagree with your premise. facebook, twitter, and Google have already systematically have been practicing censorship without recourse and it is not going to stop until some reform is put into place that guarantees people’s individual rights such as free speech. It cuts both ways.

There shouldn’t be any difference and that is my point! They are currently treated different’y even though twitter, google , and Facebook are essentially using your content to publish, yet want to censor your free speech in what they deem as inappropriate, such as what they have been doing to conservatives. If you are going to make an argument along the the lines of the public square then it needs to apply uniformly across all aspects of the public square and the internet is that modern day version of the “public square.” That is why I suggested a cyber bill of rights to amend for updating specifics to include the technological frontier.

We are almost clear, and nicely civil. Thank you!

F, T, G are clearly practicing censorship and worse.
I simply don’t care to try to fix them, or have the Gov do it for me. They are twisted and beyond repair.
What do I need them for?

I don’t want more regulation, I want more options.

Hopefully we are clear.
Great discussion.

I agree with having more options, as in fair and open competition, as that no doubt would have an effect on market share but I also feel that the tech giants have gotten too big and powerful and need to be held accountable for their blatant violations.

I just got banned from Twitter again for about that 15th time for no good reason other than being conservative. When famous conservatives get banned it makes the news, but us little guys? We are all getting kicked out.

I was just put in time out for 12 hours. The Muslim’s can sit in Congress and talk bad about ■■■■ they despise all things American and yet not one of them has ever been punished by Twitter.

Sorry to hear that bro! Keep up the good fight and always speak truth!

I have been banned by twitter tons of times. You were probably shadow-banned from day one without knowing it, before your actual ban. They are very sneaky about how they shadow ban people. The only way to detect it is tweeting something with a hashtag, then going to the hashtag feed in a private browser without logging into your account and seeing if your post is there.

1 Like

A recent development regarding Twitter justifies reviving this thread.

Paul Singer (a former Trump hater) is now a Trump fan and is buying huge chunks of Twitter to drive the biased goofball, Jack Dorsey out of the picture…and restore a mode of less censorship on the platform.