It's ok for a private company like twitter to do what they want with their platform

>it's ok for a private company like twitter to do what they want with their platform
>it's not ok for a private company like Sup Forums to do what they want with their platform
How about a little consistency there Sup Forumsflakes? No one is forcing you to come here, feel free to make your own imageboard if you don't like the recent changes :^)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Alison_Parker_and_Adam_Ward
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Sup Forums hates white women because they have tiny dicks and can't please them

thot patrolled

>Sup Forums

what are the chnges? i didnt notice any

>thot

Get off the internet, kiddo

the fact that Sup Forums is anonymous makes it an entire different ballgame. I dont think someone should be called a stupid nigger on a platform where they're using a personal profile, but here its really not as big of a deal

>twitter
Why they don't use Gnu Social or something like that?

yes indeed I prefer my women black and with HUGE dicks

>waah why don't you complain about problems with websites you don't use?!!

>it's ok for a private company like twitter to do what they want with their platform
Considering that most of Sup Forums are simply disillusioned libertarians, this is simultaneously a valid stance and something we will deny from jews, niggers and liberals. Just like Twitter on paper is for inclusive society while simultaneously suppressing redpilled whites.

Sup Forums being redpilled libertarian that understands the left will never respect NAP, never leave us alone no matter what we do, is forever denying same rights for niggers, kikes and liberals.

It's going to be very interesting to see how west will transform once boomers and cuck genXers die off.

>redpilled
And here comes the shitposting.

>uding the smiley with the carat nose

>it's ok for a private company to serve malware to its' users

>company like Sup Forums

They can do what they want with their platform and the user has the right to have an opinion about it.

>it's not okay for a private ISP company to regulate what kind of content their customers have access to on their service
>it is okay for a private social media company to regulate what kind of content their customers have access to on their service
I hate normies

Fake as hell

In a town with a ISP you can live without twitter(and should be) but you can't live without that ISP.

how do you miss at this range

I can live without an ISP just the same I can live without Twitter. One can live without a lot of things.

Black people can't aim.

>download torrent of animes without a ISP
What kind black magic is that?

>I'm not allowed to disagree with the decisions of a private company
Obviously gookmoot can legally serve malware, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. The same goes with twitter and banning users for wrongthink.

>white hand

The guy shooting is black tho.

I'm as anti Sup Forums as you can get, but these situations are different.
These 3 new domains could potentially serve malware, which is much worse than twitter shutting down accounts they don't like.

He was black retard, search "alison parker".

/thread

I read "delusional libertarians" and the first paragraph made so much sense.

It is ok for Twitter/Sup Forums to do what they want in their own platform. It is also okay for users to complain about it.
Also fuck off

Typical lefty retard that has to lie to push their politics

no that was a real thing, he was their coworker

>website does something that'll make my experience better
>support it
>website does something that makes my experience worse
>oppose it

>normies
Pro net neutrality stance was a thing when internet and computers in general where something for nerds only.
The anti net neutrality camp are fucking newfags.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Alison_Parker_and_Adam_Ward

>private company like Sup Forums

Three a difference between oppose and nationalized , faggot.

Are you kidding? Sup Forums doesn't even represent Sup Forums. They're all from /r/the_donald

They were from stromfront?

Go ahead, ban Sup Forums and Sup Forums. You're playing Russian roulette with six loaded chambers.

Fake af kys losers.

There's millions of websites I can decide I want to use based on their actions. There's like two ISPs in my town I can pick from.

He hit them, blood doesn't come spurting out of the wounds instantly like on movies

BAKE THAT CAKE, CITIZEN

You can live without internet. Also there is always phone and satellite internet.

So? Why should your lack of choice have any bearings on the freedoms of the ISPs? Freedoms are not just eliminated because you get a little uncomfortable.

>imagine believing this

Boy it's too bad that Net Neutrality got repealed, then maybe these huge corporations wouldnt abuse their power.
Free speech is in danger online.

Wait a sec are you talking about the malicious ads?
Because as far as we know, that wasn't a choice by Hiro and one of the ad companies he's using decided to be assholes.
Or, worse case scenario, he did it on purpose which honestly is a fucking stupid thing to do because we can just use NoScript and continue browsing like nothing happened and new users (more ad revenue) are going to run like hell.
Also, Sup Forums fags dont like the shit Twitter does with censoring people and aren't support of it. Where did you get the idea that Sup Forums actually likes Twitter censoring right wing opinions while leaving actual Communist postings up?

A better answer would be that if there are only 2 ISPs in an area and one decides it's a good idea to block Netflix or something, the other would will not do the same because they will get the business that leaves the other ISP.

I don't think you know what NN did user.

I was being sarcastic.
Reddit tards were saying that "free speech is in danger" even though every social media site already censors people and ISPs have never done so.

oh right

nvm i'm dumb as fuck sorry

Wrong board nigger

A website lives and dies on its userbase, and if you're doing something that they hate you'll lose them.
This is obvious to most people but honestly I'm glad people are leaving Sup Forums. Fuck off.

ex-coworker

how to spot a 13-year-old

>You can live without Internet.
Stop lying to yourself, user.

It's not okay for Twitter to censor people for having conservative opinions.

Sort of like how it's not okay for Sup Forums to censor people for having conservative opinions.

How's that for consistency?

>It's not okay for Twitter to censor people for having conservative opinions.
Racist hate speech is not 'conservative opinions'.

Because it is their TOS. But the best part of all this drama is see how much Sup Forums care about Twitter, Facebook and Reddit while ignore better option.

>it's a Sup Forums teenagers think private companies are bound by the first amendment episode

>it is their TOS
don't really matter when the Supreme Fucking Court says you can't take away a person's access to social media.

Getting ONE account on ONE website suspended doesn't remove access to social media.

If you really want to post your gas the kikes memes without getting banned you can always just go to gab. :^)

Holy fuck you are fucking stupid. That is only a fraction of what that Supreme Court ruling said.

It didn't declare Facebook a public square, it had nothing to do with Facebook. The ruling said that the state had no right to limit the free speech of a pedophile. Facebook can still ban, censor and delete any post that pedophile makes but the point is the fucking state cannot

>Getting ONE account on ONE website suspended doesn't...
It sort of does when that website accounts for a whole quarter of everyone on the internet.

Imagine if you were suddenly banned from speaking to 1/4 of the student population at your middle school because you said Hillary Clinton killed a man. I bet you'd feel wronged.

Merry Christmas. Have a .jpg.

tell me

>muh twitter
Just use Gnu Social, Sup Forumstard.

There's only one broadband provider in my area

>I read something so blatantly wrong I think the SCOTUS did something it didn't but I'm going to insist it anyway

If what you said was true why does Facebook still ban, censor, and delete people's posts and shit if it's a "public space"? Oh wait they still do because they still can because that's not what the ruling said

Either Facebook, the corporation notorious for spying on people with NSA levels of proficiency, well known for collecting and selling your private data, is doing nothing wrong, or they're corrupt.

Yeah... they're probably not doing anything illegal, right? I trust Mark Zuckerberg with my social security number.

Nice moving the goal posts. I never said or insinuated any of that shit but what ever tirade you want to sperg out on be my guest.

your Indian tech support image is 7/11 in the thread

I'm not moving the goalposts.

You said "if it was illegal, facebook wouldn't do it." Which is clearly false, since facebook is well known for doing tons of illegal shit.

Lot of bigots in this thread. This wouldn't have happened if Google, Amazon, Netflix and Facebook had become president.

Clearly not. Facebook wasn't a litigant in this court case, they weren't given any court orders to do anything. No matter how you want to convolute the ruling won't make it any less wrong. You won't find any court documents telling Facebook to cease anything nor will you find any responses or rebuttal documents from Facebook because they were never told to do anything.

You are fucking retarded

In fact if this was true you would find these things including a separate lawsuit to force Facebook to comply.

And yet there isn't at all

>It's ok for a private company to have different price plans
>it's NOT ok for a private Internet Service Provider to have different price plans

What were the left thinking here? Baffles my mind.

>Facebook wasn't a litigant in this court case
No shit, Sherlock. You brought up Facebook for no reason. I was talking about Twitter and Sup Forums.

Now whose moving the goalposts?

It's not the same because I say so ok Nazi.

But Netflix delivery all content for all plans. The difference would be the speed of bandwidth.

Are you arguing that we should nationalize the broadband network because I'm 100% behind that.

No you did. You want to say that Facebook was a public square when in reality it had nothing to do with facebook

The state of North Carolina was infringing on someone's rights

You literally can't tell the different between sabotaging somebody's property and setting social rules for privately owned websites?

So posting a video of muslims beating up a white guy is not racist hate speech?
Imagine being this fucking delusional.

Her fault for running an interview on 2fort's bridge

non whites nor non-christians can't be racist, baka :^)

like nazis? :^)

>using the smiley with the carat nose

>Racist hate speech is not 'conservative opinions'.
Looking at the list I can see some generic mainstream conservative commentators that are well known, a mainstream Canadian conservative commentator who is well known who would barely be right wing to American standards, and a few centrist youtube skeptics. None of those entries would violate the platform's TOS, yet they seem to be mixed in with; well known trolls, nationalists, conspiracy theorists, and neo-nazis. That seems suspect, though this image was likely pulled out of someones ass.

So a private company can do what they want except when it comes to gay weddings? Neck yourself

CNN did that when they showed it on TV.

>all the ebil capitalism nazi fascists are from leddit
Hmmm

Public stock companies use to be untill clinton iirc "fixed" it

yeah and stormfront but the stormfront ones were okay. You redditards are just fucking cunt bags.