“I Would Reverse the Permanent Ban”

[jimnyc]

Can you imagine the amount of heads exploding all at once?

---

“I Would Reverse the Permanent Ban” – Elon Musk Announces He Will Lift Twitter Ban of President Trump, Says It Was a Mistake

Tesla CEO and SpaceX founder Elon Musk announced on Tuesday that he would reverse the Twitter ban of President Donald Trump when he closes the deal, saying it was ‘a morally bad decision and foolish in the extreme’ to ban the former president.

During FT’s interview with Elon Musk at the Future of the Car conference, Musk shared his plan to buy Twitter and his dream for Tesla to become the world’s largest carmaker by 2030.

CNBC reported:

“Permanent bans should be extremely rare and really reserved for accounts that are bots, or scam, spam accounts… I do think it was not correct to ban Donald Trump,” Musk said at FT Live’s Future of the Car conference. “I think that was a mistake, because it alienated a large part of the country and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice.”

“I would reverse the permanent ban,” Musk added. “I don’t own Twitter yet. So this is not like a thing that will definitely happen, because what if I don’t own Twitter?”

Rest - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/05/reverse-permanent-ban-elon-musk-announces-lift-twitter-ban-president-trump/

[SassyLady]

Can you imagine the amount of heads exploding all at once?

---

“I Would Reverse the Permanent Ban” – Elon Musk Announces He Will Lift Twitter Ban of President Trump, Says It Was a Mistake

Tesla CEO and SpaceX founder Elon Musk announced on Tuesday that he would reverse the Twitter ban of President Donald Trump when he closes the deal, saying it was ‘a morally bad decision and foolish in the extreme’ to ban the former president.

During FT’s interview with Elon Musk at the Future of the Car conference, Musk shared his plan to buy Twitter and his dream for Tesla to become the world’s largest carmaker by 2030.

CNBC reported:

“Permanent bans should be extremely rare and really reserved for accounts that are bots, or scam, spam accounts… I do think it was not correct to ban Donald Trump,” Musk said at FT Live’s Future of the Car conference. “I think that was a mistake, because it alienated a large part of the country and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice.”

“I would reverse the permanent ban,” Musk added. “I don’t own Twitter yet. So this is not like a thing that will definitely happen, because what if I don’t own Twitter?”

Rest - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/05/reverse-permanent-ban-elon-musk-announces-lift-twitter-ban-president-trump/

How do you feel about this Jim? Haven't members here been permanently banned? I do believe in privately owned businesses having the right to run their business to their own standards. What makes Twitter different? When does a privately owned internet chat board reach the point of being required to be absolutist?

[jimnyc]

How do you feel about this Jim? Haven't members here been permanently banned? I do believe in privately owned businesses having the right to run their business to their own standards. What makes Twitter different? When does a privately owned internet chat board reach the point of being required to be absolutist?

That's a great question.

Twitter opened themselves up publicly. They have allowed in the news media, politicians & john doe public. They have the power over people and their communications to the world. Power over what news agencies can join and post. And the power over their content.

I look at it first like us here and the free speech attitude unless you are a spammer or similar. Folks shouldn't be banned unless they break a very small set of rules.

But then on top of that, with stocks involved now, I just think they also have, or should have, a larger set of responsibility to those members & more so to the public.

Can they ban people permanently? Yes, proven by the fact that they did so And can they then unban the permanently banned? Yes, of course, just as Musk is speaking of doing.

So they do still have those powers - but the repercussions would be different their to them and their members much more so than it would be at a place like ours. And we here have perma-banned members before & also lifted those bans.

--

I don't think members on Twitter should be permanently banned, not unless for the same as here - that they are spammers, scammers, lawbreakers & worse. They have the right to make decisions that are in the best interest for them, twitter. And such decisions, banning and/or censoring people, could very well have a financial impact on them. But keep in mind, the main thing here, is that Twitter has been publicly traded for like a decade now. That makes and is a huge difference between them and here. THAT is what makes twitter different. Bute even if they were fully private, I think what I wrote would still mostly apply. If I owned twitter, I would run it similarly to here. Same free speech but perhaps even more lenient, due to the restrictions above.

[Gunny]

That's a great question.

Twitter opened themselves up publicly. They have allowed in the news media, politicians & john doe public. They have the power over people and their communications to the world. Power over what news agencies can join and post. And the power over their content.

I look at it first like us here and the free speech attitude unless you are a spammer or similar. Folks shouldn't be banned unless they break a very small set of rules.

But then on top of that, with stocks involved now, I just think they also have, or should have, a larger set of responsibility to those members & more so to the public.

Can they ban people permanently? Yes, proven by the fact that they did so And can they then unban the permanently banned? Yes, of course, just as Musk is speaking of doing.

So they do still have those powers - but the repercussions would be different their to them and their members much more so than it would be at a place like ours. And we here have perma-banned members before & also lifted those bans.

--

I don't think members on Twitter should be permanently banned, not unless for the same as here - that they are spammers, scammers, lawbreakers & worse. They have the right to make decisions that are in the best interest for them, twitter. And such decisions, banning and/or censoring people, could very well have a financial impact on them. But keep in mind, the main thing here, is that Twitter has been publicly traded for like a decade now. That makes and is a huge difference between them and here. THAT is what makes twitter different. Bute even if they were fully private, I think what I wrote would still mostly apply. If I owned twitter, I would run it similarly to here. Same free speech but perhaps even more lenient, due to the restrictions above.DP's not a publicly traded company yet?:poke:

I don't recall people being banned for politics here. Bad behavior? You bet. I don't recall a single one of them that has come back and groveled appropriately not being allowed back, only to start their trolling BS again.

I think there is a big difference between the obvious, blatant political bias on Twitter being used as the measuring stick for "truth" and "news" and a board like this where I don't see much politics in play where banning or removing content for bad behavior is concerned.

[jimnyc]

DP's not a publicly traded company yet?:poke:

I don't recall people being banned for politics here. Bad behavior? You bet. I don't recall a single one of them that has come back and groveled appropriately not being allowed back, only to start their trolling BS again.

I think there is a big difference between the obvious, blatant political bias on Twitter being used as the measuring stick for "truth" and "news" and a board like this where I don't see much politics in play where banning or removing content for bad behavior is concerned.

Not a single person has ever been banned simply for a political opinion stated.

At Twitter, it's basically the opposite. Hell, I've seen spammers last forever, dang terrorist group leaders and more. So long as you can write in 140 characters or less, then they couldn't give a crap. But if you post 70 characters simply supporting Trump, it will be either censored, deleted or even have you banned. Same thing goes should you post any kind of negative theory about covid-19, or full and factual information about it.

Write certain things about lefties and gonzo. They are just a classier version of DU. Leftists. A monster sized communications platform oversaw by lefties. They can and will and have censored various information about conservatives, positive information, or information that could be damaging to the left.

[jimnyc]

Of course the first thing they set out to do is vilify the man they don't like and make up lies about what his direction for the company would be. Sure, he would spend $43 billion and run it into the ground. :rolleyes: More like he will likely make it into a powerhouse of some sort.

And the whole directly to declaring them private is what is flat out wrong. Remember when Trump banned some folks, and the courts ordered a reversal of his actions? Why do so if it were a fully private company? The court would NEVER do the same about posts here, but being publicly traded - when folks then post publicly, it's open to the public then.

Another article below.

---

Musk is the one who's 'flat-out stupid' about Trump on Twitter

Twitter is a private platform, with broad free speech rights. Under the 1st Amendment, it can choose, if it wishes, to be a home for bigots, liars, demagogues and supporters of violence, allowing them to spread their dangerous messages to the company’s hundreds of millions of users.

If he succeeds in becoming Twitter’s new owner, Elon Musk can opt to stop policing content on his awesomely powerful new platform. He can populate Twitter with QAnoners and antisemites and shady Russian apologists and liars of all stripes, allowing them to spread disinformation and adding to political polarization and division.

And he can justify it in the name of unfettered freedom of expression.

That’s exactly the direction Musk — the world’s richest man, who is in the final stages of buying Twitter for $44 billion — seems to be headed. On Tuesday, he said that the company’s decision to ban Donald Trump in wake of the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riots had been “morally wrong” and “flat-out stupid." He said that if his Twitter deal goes through, he would reverse the permanent ban.

Rest - https://news.yahoo.com/column-trump-far-too-irresponsible-224012720.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall


Is Twitter A Private Company? (Explained)

There’s a lot of debate over certain companies and the power they wield.

Many confuse companies with being a branch of government.

They believe that these companies are acting on the orders of the government.

Some public companies do have ties to the government in some capacity.

Private companies do not.

Considering that Twitter is a huge social media platform, you may wonder if it’s a private company or a public one.

Here’s what you need to know about Twitter and what it means to be a private company.

Is Twitter A Private Company?

No, Twitter is not a private company.

Twitter used to be a private company, but it put up an Initial Public Offering.

This means that anyone with enough money can invest in its stocks, and it’s listed on the NASDAQ.

That entitles it to certain rights and protections.

What’s The Difference Between A Private Company And A Public Company?

The primary difference between a private company and a public company is whether it trades in the stock market or not.

Here’s what you need to know about the differences between a public and a private company.

...

Is Twitter A Private Entity?

The debate over Twitter being private or public grows a bit murkier when asking if Twitter is a private entity or not.


While Twitter is a public company, it’s also considered a private entity.

This means that the platform, itself, is private.

However, when a user engages with the platform and posts something on their Twitter, then they’re potentially transitioning from a private forum to a public forum.

Twitter works in such a way that users can post small quotes or thoughts with a limited number of characters.

They then post the message, called a tweet, on their profile.

Using various hashtags, users can then enter that tweet into a larger pool of tweets with the same hashtags.

Users who search for that specific hashtag can then look through Twitter and read all the tweets that use that hashtag.

It may prompt them to follow a certain user because they enjoyed their tweet.

By following that person, they’re able to see future tweets that the user makes.

One of the issues that some people took with Donald Trump’s use of the platform was whether he was unlawful when he blocked certain users from viewing his tweets.

This occurred when some users were responding to his tweets with accurate facts to dispute his claims.

He chose to block them to keep them from voicing their opinions on his posts.

The courts found that Trump was unlawful in doing this.

This was because they believed that by posting on Twitter, Trump was opening a public forum.

A public forum is where anyone can enter the debate and have their Freedom of Speech protected.

Since he blocked these individuals who had already voiced their opinions in the public forum, he was denying them their Freedom of Speech.

This issue then becomes even more complex when examining Twitter’s role in blocking certain users’ tweets, and adding warnings about fact checking.

Since the court ruled that Twitter, itself, is a private entity, it indicates that the company has the right to block those they wish.

That’s based on the fact that the company isn’t a public forum.

Its platform is one.

Twitter also gives users the ability to turn off comments and retweets on their tweets.

Those that use this feature are not entering a public forum because they’re not opening their tweet up for discussion.

They’re simply posting a thought or opinion.

By keeping the matter private, they’re not unlawfully prohibiting anyone’s Freedom of Speech since it isn’t public to begin with.

Twitter is a private entity whereas its platform can open up as a public forum.

Rest - https://www.thecoldwire.com/is-twitter-a-private-company/#:~:text=While%20Twitter%20is%20a%20public%20compa ny%2C%20it%E2%80%99s%20also,from%20a%20private%20f orum%20to%20a%20public%20forum.