Posted: Jun 17, 2022 4:36 pm
Their conflicting obligations to advertisers, users, shareholders and governments must be my fault then, right?Spearthrower wrote:
So I answered your question.
And then you answered mine. Twice. In those two answers, you completely contradicted yourself - it's not possible to maintain a position that is both X and Not-X - this is impossible even in Post-Truth world.
Because I said earlier that I don't think free speech can exist on an online platform.
All the ones they have obligated themselves to host.
Therefore, the current question is:
Do you agree that Twitter is not obligated to host all forms of speech?
I don't think they can.
Don't they already have terrorists on there? They are allowed to ban, but if they ban in a way that exposes them to legal action, they'll be sued.
Either it is obligated, and therefore Muslim terrorists etc.
I don't have an absolutist position. I could listen to, and try to understand Biden OR Trump, for example.
Or it isn't obligated, and therefore you've destroyed your own absolutist position, and then there's just horsetrading about what should or shouldn't be hosted.
We all know that you actually agree with the latter, we all know that you don't think Twitter should be obligated to host all forms of speech, but you can't say that because it demolishes your own vapid and repetitive trolling.
I think twitter should be required to be transparent about their actions, when in business relationships with advertisers, users and investors.
It's an impossible position to be in, but I'm not trying to be twitter, or defend their business model.
What 'core point'? That twitter is biased?
You lost your own core point. So we know very well why you're wiggling about unable to answer it directly, but that doesn't mean anyone's obliged to stop asking just to make you feel more comfortable. Isn't that... also exactly what you've been arguing?
The new owner said so. He has made a good case (as have many others)
Or are you hoping my position is something you fantasized, rather than something I wrote?
So anytime you like, and stop trying to distract people when no one's distracted and everyone recognizes you as a failed troll.
The difference we have isn't what you think it is.
Here is a hint - if you have to pretend you know what I 'really meant', I'll just assume what YOU really meant, and that is one way we might proceed.
Or, I could ask you if you think twitter is biased against republicans, and see if your answer comes from an informed place, or TDS.
They got caught suppressing the Hunter Laptop story. That's how twitter treated their favoured political candidate. If you like Biden being in charge, then great. You got your way. If, alternately, you wanted them to be fair, you would have to acknowledge that they are taking political sides, while pretending they aren't.
I don't think they can survive their conflicting obligations honestly. Do you? Or are you in agreement with me that online platforms simply can't provide/protect free speech?
Would twitters efforts to mislead their public extend to this movie? (just to try to stay on track with the topic of the thread)