I still can't get my twitter account back and have seen numerous people saying they get shadowbanned for lawful speech. If Twitter was created and grown using black money from DARPA as we suspect, that would mean Twitter is in fact a taxpayer-funded platform, not a private company. This then means that Twitter does not possess the ability to censor lawful speech, which is contrary to Elon's gay little "freedom of speech, not freedom of reach" thing. Sure, I can say what I want but what's the point if I'm censored into a corner where nobody could ever hear what I have to say? That's like muzzling someone and saying "you're free to say what you like, but nobody will hear it".
What was it Kash Patel said about Elon? The "largest recipient of DoD subsidies in the world"? Something like that...
DoD = taxpayer funding
I also really don't like the whole neuralink thing... but I guess time will tell
Incorrect. Take GAW for example. While lawful, posts which the mods believe to break the rules are deleted and censored. If GAW was a taxpayer-funded social media site, they wouldn't lawfully be able to do that. It would fall under the "digital public square" doctrine. At least that's how I've come to understand it
I'd rather not be forced to toe the line of arbitrary moderation decisions. As is I get banned from every major discussion platform and group just for wanting whites to survive and thrive while noticing attacks against us.
I understand. The only thing I'm arguing here is Constitutional Law. If this site was a taxpayer-funded social media site they couldn't (lawfully) censor any lawful speech. My arguement is that since Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. all were created and made into what they are today thanks to taxpayer money, they should not be allowed to censor lawful speech. They are not private companies. We The People own them. We should also be the ones who pick who runs them.
I still can't get my twitter account back and have seen numerous people saying they get shadowbanned for lawful speech. If Twitter was created and grown using black money from DARPA as we suspect, that would mean Twitter is in fact a taxpayer-funded platform, not a private company. This then means that Twitter does not possess the ability to censor lawful speech, which is contrary to Elon's gay little "freedom of speech, not freedom of reach" thing. Sure, I can say what I want but what's the point if I'm censored into a corner where nobody could ever hear what I have to say? That's like muzzling someone and saying "you're free to say what you like, but nobody will hear it".
What was it Kash Patel said about Elon? The "largest recipient of DoD subsidies in the world"? Something like that...
DoD = taxpayer funding
I also really don't like the whole neuralink thing... but I guess time will tell
Companies shouldn't have the ability to restrict speech regardless of government funding.
Incorrect. Take GAW for example. While lawful, posts which the mods believe to break the rules are deleted and censored. If GAW was a taxpayer-funded social media site, they wouldn't lawfully be able to do that. It would fall under the "digital public square" doctrine. At least that's how I've come to understand it
I'd rather not be forced to toe the line of arbitrary moderation decisions. As is I get banned from every major discussion platform and group just for wanting whites to survive and thrive while noticing attacks against us.
I understand. The only thing I'm arguing here is Constitutional Law. If this site was a taxpayer-funded social media site they couldn't (lawfully) censor any lawful speech. My arguement is that since Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. all were created and made into what they are today thanks to taxpayer money, they should not be allowed to censor lawful speech. They are not private companies. We The People own them. We should also be the ones who pick who runs them.