I'm beginning to think free speech advocates here don't believe in property rights. Big Tech can do what they want with their products. They own them.

There is a difference between “can” and “should”. Twitter has every legal right to do what they did, but I feel that the decisions they (and other social media companies) are making are extremely dangerous and misguided.

These platforms were used to incite a coup of our government. This is a perfect, clear-cut reason to ban a user/group.

Platforms ban bad actors all the time. Anyone taking advantage of a service against its TOS or against the country it is bound to is not welcome.

also keep in mind that i’m the united states, free speech is restricted.

you can’t shout fire in a crowded theatre and you also can’t use hate speech which can incite riots or cause violence.

i think people forget this too.

Tell that to Ma Bell.

Ma Bell has pretty strict privacy laws that it must adhere to.

Ma Bell was broke up into pieces.

But many of the legacy telecom laws remain on the books. It's tech that was exempted from these regulations, not legacy telecom. Sadly the privacy protections we had on phone calls were never applied to data. That would have resulted in a very different world than that in which we live today.

That was a scam. Follow the money. Lots of it was invested in 1990s/early 2000s, and every penny ended up in the pockets of ATT, VZN, and their executives and investment bankers. Only now, as sibling observes, common carriage and other requirements are gone.

? He repeatedly told them to be peaceful and then to go home. What/how exactly did he incite this?

Serious truth bending for political capital, which has been the DC establishment playbook the entire trump admin.

> He repeatedly told them to be peaceful and then to go home. What/how exactly did he incite this?

Exactly in the same speech: he repeated his claims that the election was stolen.

You're blaming election fraud as the culprit then not trump.

Half the country is mad as hell, because there's 3k+ signed affidavits, 140 congressmen, at least two majority of state congresses, reports from data scientists, cctv footage, voting machine forensic reports in MI and AZ, and a lot of dismissal by courts based on standing not merits. It's unprecedented and it's straight up totalitarian to say "no mention of election fraud is allowed"

Nobody is saying you can’t mention the idea of election fraud. What’s getting rejected are attempts to lie about it and still be taken seriously. It’s true that a large number of people are mad but that’s because people are feeding them propaganda instead of truth.

I don’t know whether you are intentionally repeating claims you know to be untrue or haven’t looked at the details but you should ask yourself what it tells us when the President’s own lawyers keep dropping these cases. They wouldn’t do that if there was any merit to the case – and they’re certainly not out of money. The claims just aren’t true and they know it - once the fundraising dries up they’ll move on to something else.

That was debunked by fact-checkers.

If that was the case, why do the people invading the capitol feel "betrayed" by his video condemning them?

No, it wasn't legally incitement. It was absolutely stoked by him.

Thank goodness for big tech for telling me when enough is enough, otherwise I wouldn't be able to think for myself. What a relief!

This has nothing to do with you.

This is their platform and they said enough is enough post the attempted coup.

You can think just as much for yourself as you could before.

Did Parlor tell you to think that ;) ?

free speech has always had restrictions in the united states. this clearly crosses the “can’t use it to incite violence” line