CaGoldenBears02 said:

---

for their unprecedented steps to block all traces of the recent NY Post Biden-Ukraine story and today's Biden-China money stories and locking out all who tried to post them without any evidence disproving their credibility, unlike the barrage of disproven and discredited stuff that's gone out against Trump for 4 years and has never been filtered.



Stepping back and setting aside dislike for Trump, how is this fair or defensible?

---

sycasey said:

---

CaGoldenBears02 said:

---

Well that's a false equivalence. Twitter and facebook claim to not be publishers but rather just content hosts and expecting protection under the law because of that but they're making extreme editorial decisions that are drastic enough that they're even posting warning that links to the Post story may contain malicious malware and to not open them. They're not banning Democrat media and those associated with the Biden campaign in anywhere near the same number, nor are they censoring anti-Trump stories at all.

---

All fair in the free market, isn't that what conservatives believe? Or is that just until the free market starts turning against them?

---

blungld said:

---

I have no problem with an American company blocking known Russian disinformation that would misinform the American public and is targeted to effect an election in 2 weeks. And if this upsets you, you have lost the plot and are participating in foreign attacks and domestic corruption and complaining that the candidate and party you support needs to cheat to win.

And no the investigation into Trump and the resulting discussions on social media were not the same. They were based on American intelligence and confirmed by evidence and testimony under oath.

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

CaGoldenBears02 said:

---

Well that's a false equivalence. Twitter and facebook claim to not be publishers but rather just content hosts and expecting protection under the law because of that but they're making extreme editorial decisions that are drastic enough that they're even posting warning that links to the Post story may contain malicious malware and to not open them. They're not banning Democrat media and those associated with the Biden campaign in anywhere near the same number, nor are they censoring anti-Trump stories at all.

---

All fair in the free market, isn't that what conservatives believe? Or is that just until the free market starts turning against them?

---

Then why did Twitter's CEO say it was wrong?

https://apnews.com/article/business-media-social-media-censorship-ec529ef85c1e72cefe0ae9450e118b9c

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

CaGoldenBears02 said:

---

Well that's a false equivalence. Twitter and facebook claim to not be publishers but rather just content hosts and expecting protection under the law because of that but they're making extreme editorial decisions that are drastic enough that they're even posting warning that links to the Post story may contain malicious malware and to not open them. They're not banning Democrat media and those associated with the Biden campaign in anywhere near the same number, nor are they censoring anti-Trump stories at all.

---

All fair in the free market, isn't that what conservatives believe? Or is that just until the free market starts turning against them?

---

Then why did Twitter's CEO say it was wrong?

https://apnews.com/article/business-media-social-media-censorship-ec529ef85c1e72cefe0ae9450e118b9c

---

He made his own private decision to change his private company's policy. Both things (the original decision and the reversal) should be fine per conservative free-market principles, right?

It appears that you are in favor of "conservatives" being considered a special class protected from discrimination, though, right? You want identity politics applied in their favor now, so Twitter can't make this kind of mistake again. Just trying to clarify.

---

CaGoldenBears02 said:

---

for their unprecedented steps to block all traces of the recent NY Post Biden-Ukraine story and today's Biden-China money stories and locking out all who tried to post them without any evidence disproving their credibility, unlike the barrage of disproven and discredited stuff that's gone out against Trump for 4 years and has never been filtered.



Stepping back and setting aside dislike for Trump, how is this fair or defensible?

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

CaGoldenBears02 said:

---

Well that's a false equivalence. Twitter and facebook claim to not be publishers but rather just content hosts and expecting protection under the law because of that but they're making extreme editorial decisions that are drastic enough that they're even posting warning that links to the Post story may contain malicious malware and to not open them. They're not banning Democrat media and those associated with the Biden campaign in anywhere near the same number, nor are they censoring anti-Trump stories at all.

---

All fair in the free market, isn't that what conservatives believe? Or is that just until the free market starts turning against them?

---

Then why did Twitter's CEO say it was wrong?

https://apnews.com/article/business-media-social-media-censorship-ec529ef85c1e72cefe0ae9450e118b9c

---

He made his own private decision to change his private company's policy. Both things (the original decision and the reversal) should be fine per conservative free-market principles, right?

It appears that you are in favor of "conservatives" being considered a special class protected from discrimination, though, right? You want identity politics applied in their favor now, so Twitter can't make this kind of mistake again. Just trying to clarify.

---

This is about the 1st Amendment, something liberals used to believe.

---

No, the First Amendment prevents the government from favoring certain kind of speech over others, not private companies. You are talking about regulating a private company.

---

BearForce2 said:

---

Liberals don't believe in free speech anymore, this is just the beginning.

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

CaGoldenBears02 said:

---

Well that's a false equivalence. Twitter and facebook claim to not be publishers but rather just content hosts and expecting protection under the law because of that but they're making extreme editorial decisions that are drastic enough that they're even posting warning that links to the Post story may contain malicious malware and to not open them. They're not banning Democrat media and those associated with the Biden campaign in anywhere near the same number, nor are they censoring anti-Trump stories at all.

---

All fair in the free market, isn't that what conservatives believe? Or is that just until the free market starts turning against them?

---

Then why did Twitter's CEO say it was wrong?

https://apnews.com/article/business-media-social-media-censorship-ec529ef85c1e72cefe0ae9450e118b9c

---

He made his own private decision to change his private company's policy. Both things (the original decision and the reversal) should be fine per conservative free-market principles, right?

It appears that you are in favor of "conservatives" being considered a special class protected from discrimination, though, right? You want identity politics applied in their favor now, so Twitter can't make this kind of mistake again. Just trying to clarify.

---

This is about the 1st Amendment, something liberals used to believe.

---

No, the First Amendment prevents the government from favoring certain kind of speech over others, not private companies. You are talking about regulating a private company.

---