>>392473>When you're going to go ahead and say someone is a bad actor
I didnt say your a bad actor, i just find it amusing when you say your the victim when you do shit to purposely make people angry. >>392473>Since your post about now wanting to argue would lead someone to believe that you disagreed with the statement.
Not in context. You wrote me a post, i replied, you inferred my motive, and i corrected you. You put words in my mouth, where ive only asked you your position.
I said "you do you" and you wrote a story around it, then i explained, no, i meant i didnt want to argue by that statement. >Right, and I'm glad that 230 protections...ect
Yes, it might happen. If they can force a Christian baker to make a cake that goes against his religion, then they can probably do this too. But i dont agree with ether.
>I explicitly said that they could do that, but it's also true that their actions shut down free speech instead expanding it.
Then whats your point? Just decided to make that statment?>It's within the obligations of the Government to maintain the people's rights.
No ones getting arrested for breaking twitters rules.>Though it sounds like you would tell me that Police and Firefighters are a product of socialism.
Yes, they are. >Now it's time to reconsider those changes.
You have every right to advocate for that. > It would be great if the Left didn't constantly shut down upstart platforms that tried to fulfill that purpose.
The whole left? Geez.
How are they accomplishing that? Because it sounds like the government trying to shut down a private website for operating how they want, and i dont agree with that. >First Amendment should just be eroded
Strawman. I dont think it should change at all, i just dont think the government should forcefully take away the sovereignty of private property. >You Fucking Glow in the Dark. >>392464>>392465
Correction, she might be mad.
>Hopefully in 20 years I can appreciate the fact that Verizon allows me to say that I dislike my congressmen even though Twitter doesn't think my Social Credit Score is high enough.
You dont have to use twitter, and i doubt twitter could enforce any kind of credit system.
I would have made the argument that what im saying would mean Verizon wouldn't
allow you to say that. Missed opportunity. >>392475
All private places are invite only. Some have an implicit open invite, like a store or a website, but they are free to make the rules and kick you out if you dont fallow them.
And a Christian church actually does have an implicit open invite, 24hrs a day. Are you saying that your free speech can be silenced simply by not inviting you? Sounds like erosion accroding to you. >People can go to a Church and protest outside it's doors all they want.
And you can protest anywhere you want about twitter, even twitter, unless your banned from twitter. >>392479
This post was edited by its author on .