[–] totes_magotes 0 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago 

Normally I'd say that Trump needs to focus on more important things but since his tweets are considered official white house statements, it needs to be handled in an official capacity.

[–] RoBatten 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I think there is some difference between his personal account and the official POTUS account though.

[–] totes_magotes 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Since he's not allowed to block people even on his personal twitter account, I'd say the point is moot.

[–] nebuvico88 4 points 19 points (+23|-4) ago 

Getting a law forcing free speech for companies that have monopolies is essential to our survival.

[–] GapingAnus 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Are we talking de jure or de facto monopolies? Or just a strong market share? In the case of the latter, the EU actually has this as a legal term where your right to censor opinion ceases when you have a "strong market share" and your platform essentially becomes public space even if privately owned.

It's the same reason why a mall can't turn away people handing out, say, political leaflets provided they don't cause any disturbance doing so or hinder other visitors from going about their business.

[–] nebuvico88 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Hard to judge because if 2 or 3 companies control a market (social media for ex.), they can completely shut down free speech easily, since most of them are marxists...

your right to censor opinion ceases when you have a "strong market share" and your platform essentially becomes public space even if privately owned.

Didn't know that, interesting. But since there is no free speech at all in the E.U., that's useless anyway unfortunately. Didn't know that.

[–] CallASpadeASpade 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

How about whatever definition encompasses the most anti-white social media sites possible?

[–] Turn_Coat 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Any company that represents upwards of 70% market share.

[–] gonadsofsteel 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

100% agreed.

[–] Caesarkid1 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Well at least the secretly government funded ones like Twitter, Facebook, and Google.

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Twitter doesn't have a monopoly. Not even close.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 


[–] facepaint 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

Mark Dice videos are annoying as fuck. Too bad because his subjects are normally interesting.

[–] blumen4alles 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Yeah its annoying they are usually only about five minutes long, I wish they were longer too. Dice is the only jewtuber I regularly check out.

[–] Jay_Mac 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Publicly traded companies should only be removing illegal material.

[–] GapingAnus 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

This is dumb. Here's how that investigation will go:

"Are you censoring people?"
"No! We would never do that! Honest! Also, here's a campaign contribution and you love Israel, don't you?"
"We're done here"

[–] generate 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

and investigate fucking reddirt swamp!

[–] Mylon 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

How about /r/politics strict moderation preventing any pro-conservative views? It's a bit harder to prove that their "communtiy driven" moderation isn't part of the agenda, but I'm pretty sure the admins are complicit and their suppression of /r/t_d is part of the problem.

[–] IndigoElectric 5 points 0 points (+5|-5) ago 

"Barack Obama vows investigation of voat for "anti-Semitic" posts"

Imagine that were the headline, you would all lose your shit.

[–] MrPim 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

Is Voat the company removing pro-semitic posts? And what kind of market share does Voat have? What kind of influence does this site have?

[–] IndigoElectric 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

Not the point, it's not the government's responsibility to monitor and control how a platform censors/promotes a users posts.

[–] ruck_feddit 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

IF a case is made about obstructing free speech in a public arena, that's breaking the law. Keep in mind I said "if" a case is made.

In your example, investigate all you want, Obama. Antisemitism isn't against the law.

[–] IndigoElectric 6 points -2 points (+4|-6) ago 

No, Twitter is a private company. They should be allowed to censor who they want on their platform. Same with voat.

The first amendment states that the government can't make a law obstructing free speech.

[–] CallASpadeASpade 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

So? Obama was an anti-white racist deliberately trying to destroy the fucking country. Leftists don’t apply their principles to us SO WHY THE FUCK SHOULD WE DO IT FOR THEM!!!

Fuck, autistic libertarians are beyond stupid.

load more comments ▼ (3 remaining)