The Stuff removed / changed / pulled relating to Trump

[Cheetodust]

Wow, Tim pool might be the dumbest fuck on twitter. People take him seriously?


Tim Pool (@Timcast) Tweeted:
After being told "its a private company" over and over by fake leftists defending censorship I had an epiphany about how wrong my past environmental activism was

BP is a private company and can do what they want

If you don't like oil spills start your own company to clean it up

 

[Houseman]

Wow, Tim pool might be the dumbest fuck on twitter. People take him seriously?


Tim Pool (@Timcast) Tweeted:
After being told "its a private company" over and over by fake leftists defending censorship I had an epiphany about how wrong my past environmental activism was

BP is a private company and can do what they want

If you don't like oil spills start your own company to clean it up

What's wrong with his argument?

 

[Cheetodust]

What's wrong with his argument?

It's fucking stupid.

 

[Revnak]

What's wrong with his argument?

Why isn’t Trump an advertiser? Why is he trustworthy despite engaging in advertising on a regular basis, a thing you think is a functioning method of deceiving people and influencing them toward behavior they otherwise would not engage in?

 

[Casual Shinji]

Wow, Tim pool might be the dumbest fuck on twitter. People take him seriously?


Tim Pool (@Timcast) Tweeted:
After being told "its a private company" over and over by fake leftists defending censorship I had an epiphany about how wrong my past environmental activism was

BP is a private company and can do what they want

If you don't like oil spills start your own company to clean it up

Oh right, I forgot; Tim Pool is leftwing. Cuz he says so.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[ObsidianJones]

Wow, Tim pool might be the dumbest fuck on twitter. People take him seriously?


Tim Pool (@Timcast) Tweeted:
After being told "its a private company" over and over by fake leftists defending censorship I had an epiphany about how wrong my past environmental activism was

BP is a private company and can do what they want

If you don't like oil spills start your own company to clean it up

*sighs*

I'm getting tired of Virtue Signaling people do over Censorship.

To act like we have a problem with one type of censorship yet we ignore all other kinds because it's 'normal' annoys me. Regular tv doesn't have curses or nudity. That's censorship. What if my artistic vision demands those things. What? Take it somewhere else? How Dare You Try To Silence Me?!

Jamele Hill made comments about Trump, and there were so much backlash on her other comments that ESPN and her 'decided if it was best for their parting of ways'.

Where was the outcry over that?

People gathering together to Boycott and Burn Nike Products because of Colin Kaepernick ISN'T cancel culture. It's voting with your wallets... even though destroying the item won't get your money back...

You know what? I actually don't have time to comb through it all. Here's a list, and remember that article was made in 2019. There's more.

When the Right calls for Action to remove or bar things they don't like, they are exercising their American Rights. When the Left Does it, it's Cancel Culture. Completely understood now.

And you know what? I'm actually fine with all of it. No one has any right to your money, just as no one has the compulsion to die on a hill they might not even believe in. But if we're being honest? I'm much more comfortable with siding with Trump sayin boycott Walmart due to believing he was treated unfairly (which I totally don't believe he really thinks that way) than I am trying to understand why his point that he shouldn't be banned when his words sparked an insurrection.

And read from the insurrectionists. It did:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/capitol-insurrection-trump-orders_n_6002040ac5b6efae62f88f31

Our president wants us here,” a man live-streaming from inside the Capitol building said, according to a New York Times report. “We wait and take orders from our president.”
“The President asked for his supporters to be there to attend, and I felt like it was important, because of how much I love this country, to actually be there,” Larry Brock Jr., an Air Force veteran who was seen on the floor of the Senate in a helmet and fatigues while holding flex-cuffs, told The New Yorker. (Brock was later arrested.)
“He said, ‘Hey, I need my digital soldiers to show up on January 6.’ And we all did,” Doug Sweet, a 58-year old who stormed the Capitol and was later arrested, told The Wall Street Journal.
Jacob Chansley, the spear-carrying and fur hat-wearing insurrectionist known as the Q Shaman, reportedly came with a group of “patriots” from Arizona, according to prosecutors, “at the request of the President.”
“My client had heard the oft-repeated words of President Trump,” Al Watkins, Chansley’s lawyer, said in a press release that also asked Trump to pardon Chansley. “The words and invitation of a president are supposed to mean something.”
Robert Sanford, an ex-firefighter who threw a fire extinguisher at police officers at the Capitol, was reportedly “following the President’s instructions,” according to a friend who reported Sanford to the FBI.
“We were invited here!” one insurrectionist can be seen in a live video yelling into a bullhorn on the Capitol steps. “We were invited by the president of the United States!”

 

[Cheetodust]

For one the fact that there exist laws to regulate what kind of dangerous emissions, how much of it and in which ways a company can emit them. BP are free to try and leak oil into the Gulf of Mexico and the law will deal with them. There also exist laws regarding how and when a company can stop customers from using their services and Twitter is bound by them. Turns out that repeatedly breaking the Terms of Service is a wholly lawful reason for terminating a customer's ability to use the service.

Also, and here's a biggy, the ocean is a natural resource with living creatures in it and leaking oil into it is devastating to the ecosystem. Even if BP "owned" the area of the ocean they were drilling in the oil would spread into parts of the ocean they don't own and control whereas twitter banning your ass onky affects twitter and you.

Anyone who can not immediately tell why those two situations are not equivalent is either lying or a dipshit.

It reminds me of Ben shapiro talking about Elliot Page coming out because the headline said "Juno star Elliot Page comes out as trans" or whatever and according to him he was confused because he didn't remember "Ellen Paige's brother being in Juno" and just like, no you weren't confused Ben because you're not actually that stupid. Like why do conservative pundits have to pretend their incredibly stupid to make their points? Like half their arguments only make sense in the context of them being fucking morons who don't understand anything.

 

[Agema]

What's wrong with his argument?

You can do what you like with your property as long as it doesn't harm others. So if you keep the effects of your oil spill entirely on your property and no risk to anyone else, I guess it's fine.

If you do not wish to let someone use your property because you suspect that they may use it to harm other people, I would suggest you are well within your rights to do so.

 

[Houseman]

Why isn’t Trump an advertiser? Why is he trustworthy despite engaging in advertising on a regular basis, a thing you think is a functioning method of deceiving people and influencing them toward behavior they otherwise would not engage in?

For the same reason he isn't a professional wrestler.

For one the fact that there exist laws to regulate what kind of dangerous emissions, how much of it and in which ways a company can emit them. BP are free to try and leak oil into the Gulf of Mexico and the law will deal with them. There also exist laws regarding how and when a company can stop customers from using their services and Twitter is bound by them. Turns out that repeatedly breaking the Terms of Service is a wholly lawful reason for terminating a customer's ability to use the service.

You can do what you like with your property as long as it doesn't harm others. So if you keep the effects of your oil spill entirely on your property and no risk to anyone else, I guess it's fine.

If you do not wish to let someone use your property because you suspect that they may use it to harm other people, I would suggest you are well within your rights to do so.

He acknowledges the laws and preempts your arguments this in the next tweet.


He's treating online discourse as "the commons", "areas needed by all people", and arguing that corporations shouldn't just be able to control this without oversight.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Three days to go!

 

[Avnger]

He acknowledges the laws and preempts your arguments this in the next tweet.


He's treating online discourse as "the commons", "areas needed by all people", and arguing that corporations shouldn't just be able to control this without oversight.

Twitter's actions only affect online discourse on its own property. BP spilling oil affects the environment outside its property. Literally every political philosophy that recognizes private property understands the difference between these two events. Playing stupid doesn't work mate...

 

[Cheetodust]

Twitter's actions only affect online discourse on its own property. BP spilling oil affects the environment outside its property. Literally every political philosophy that recognizes private property understands the difference between these two events. Playing stupid doesn't work mate...

Won't stop him though.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Tim Pool I remember trying to argue Thanos's plan in the MCU was exactly what socialists want, and that's why you should never trust socialists. He doesn't understand movies or socialism, he doesn't understand leftist politics, probably doesn't understand his audience or why sticking his dick in a toaster leads to genital burns instead of orgasm. That he even has an audience speaks volumes of the bar of intelligence alt-righters stoop to for their cheap hit of bias validation.

 

[Houseman]

Twitter's actions only affect online discourse on its own property. BP spilling oil affects the environment outside its property. Literally every political philosophy that recognizes private property understands the difference between these two events.

The argument is that speech on these massive platforms, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc, should be considered as "commons", as it is how we communicate in the modern world. We know that's not how things are now, the argument is "this is how it's ought to be".

My gym exclusively communicates over facebook, for example. Being locked out of facebook or twitter or google has the potential to being locked out of businesses that rely on their services.

Twitter shouldn't have the unilateral right to just silence somebody because they feel like it. It does, but it shouldn't.

For example, people have been cut off from hearing from The President. Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, they've all denied to carry his speech. Now it's harder to hear what he has to say. If he wants to make a quick statement the size of a tweet, he's going to have to, what, set up a press briefing for each one? He's been given a huge barrier to entry which makes it harder for him to communicate with anyone. This makes it harder for us to listen to him. This affects us all, for better or for worse, outside of their "private space".

There's nowhere I can go to see Trump make a quick quip about negative press covfefe anymore

 

[Agema]

He's treating online discourse as "the commons", "areas needed by all people", and arguing that corporations shouldn't just be able to control this without oversight.

1) They aren't "the commons". I mean, they patently aren't the commons and never have been. The commons are natural resources that existed before mankind and countries and will exist after we have gone (presuming we don't destroy them). Social media are man-made creations, designed by paid labour, underpinned by privately-developed intellectual property and hosted on privately-owned and maintained hardware.

2) They are not needed by the people. Every man, woman and child on the earth can live perfectly good lives without social media accounts. People lived for thousands of years without Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, etc. If we ever needed proof that social media is not needed, we need merely consider those of us who don't have social media accounts. Indeed, I do not have a Twitter account. And yet here I am, healthy, successful (in an averagely middle class kind of way), happy, fulfilled. Every man, woman and child in the world still has the (theoretical, if not guaranteed practical) ability to communicate across thousands of miles of distance to millions of people without social media.

3) What threshold defines when an online media service turns into commons from being a private company? Is The Escapist commons, just because people can create an account and post messages?

4) What recompense is society going to pay social media companies for taking away their property and turning it into commons? What regulation systems are we going to put into place over this commons, now we've taken control of them - and are we really happy that control over content is now dictated by the government? Are we going to make sure we pay appropriately for all the enforcement and legal services to ensure proper oversight?

* * *

Now, all of this is not is to say I am necessarily happy with the power that social media giants exercise over information and communication and that the status quo is ideal. It is to say that comparing cancelling a social media account to an oil spill is fucking stupid. Thinking social media is the commons is fucking stupid. And the common discourse over "censorship" (not just on social media) generally is fucking stupid.

 

[Houseman]

1) They aren't "the commons".

They technically aren't, but they should be. It's how a lot of people communicate with families. A lot of businesses rely on them for communication. It might be viewed as the modern equivalent to the public square.

2) They are not needed by the people. Every man, woman and child on the earth can live perfectly good lives without social media accounts. People lived for thousands of years without Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, etc. If we ever needed proof that social media is not needed, we need merely consider those of us who don't have social media accounts. Indeed, I do not have a Twitter account. And yet here I am, healthy, successful (in an averagely middle class kind of way), happy, fulfilled. Every man, woman and child in the world still has the (theoretical, if not guaranteed practical) ability to communicate across thousands of miles of distance to millions of people without social media.

Needing social media is like needing a car. Is it absolutely vital for life? No. Might life be made significantly more difficult without it for some people? Yes.
People lived for thousands of years without it, yes, but society has changed over the course of a thousand years. Now, some businesses rely exclusively on social media. Getting locked out of those means getting locked out of those businesses.

I don't have a Twitter account either, but that doesn't stop you from reading tweets, like the ones posted in this topic. You are still being influenced, to a degree, by the speech that twitter allows or disallows.

I always ask the following whenever this subject comes up:

How would you like it if Russia or China were in charge of Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc.
Can you see the potential for harm, there? Could you see how those "platforms" could be misused in order to spread propaganda or suppress truth?
Assuming that you can see the potential for harm, what safeguards do you think should be implemented to protect us from that?

If nothing else, please answer these questions, as this is what I believe to be the crux of the matter.

3) What threshold defines when an online media service turns into commons from being a private company? Is The Escapist commons, just because people can create an account and post messages?

I dunno, a million users, let's say.

4) What recompense is society going to pay social media companies for taking away their property and turning it into commons? What regulation systems are we going to put into place over this commons, now we've taken control of them - and are we really happy that control over content is now dictated by the government? Are we going to make sure we pay appropriately for all the enforcement and legal services to ensure proper oversight?

No clue, that's for someone else to figure out.

 

[Seanchaidh]

They technically aren't, but they should be. It's how a lot of people communicate with families. A lot of businesses rely on them for communication. It might be viewed as the modern equivalent to the public square.

And yet you declined to support my proposal to make these public squares owned and controlled by the public.

 

[Houseman]

And yet you declined to support my proposal to make these public squares owned and controlled by the public.

When was that? I don't recall.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED