27 thoughts on “The Right to Use Social Media”

  • nobody gives a fuck sargon, outside of a couple of hundred thousand people most twitter/facebook users don't have a clue this is going on and never will. Twitter doesn't care if you're upset. Give up on them and do something else

  • this is really an argument against the kind of capitalism our society has chosen to adopt. Jacks social view is in conflict with with legal responsibility to oblige his shareholders. it's crazy to think that Jacks own freedom has been suppressed by the fortunes of his own empire but that it the world we live in. if capitalists are speaking out against capitalism you know something will change sometime soon.

  • Buuzzsaw Touched Me says:

    Twitter don't Ban people for having Right Wing views, it's true (technically).

    But they do Ban people who express their Right Wing views, which to me is the definition of Fascism.

    It's also ironic, to label someone a Nazi, then take away their Free Speech. I'm not defending Nazi's (legit Nazi's) but how can you deem someone a Nazi, where in the same breath you tell them that they shouldn't use Twitter.

    P.S. Twitter supports Free Speech, just not the "wrong" type of Free Speech, an by "wrong" I mean anything that is anti-communist, anti-feminist, anti-sjw etc etc.

  • Would certainly be curious if EVERYONE and I do mean EVERYONE were to post "Learn to code" all in the same day on Twitter. Would they ban everyone then? Would sure love to see it transpire!

  • King Flippy Nips says:

    How about the rule of the social media being, "Be nice to everyone" and "No talk of religion or politics"

  • Christopher Fisher says:

    The issue isn't Twitter or any other platforms, it is the larger Corporate backed, Governmentally imposed attempts to restrict the public dialogue to only a couple of them, that are easily monitored & controlled. The addictive properties of social media, I believe, are a symptom of the commericialization of the human neet to connect. The explosion of tension on the internet was not a situation caused by the world finally being given a tool to turn hundreds of millions of eyes on our control systems but a reaction to the slow closing off of that tool. The folks left are the concentrated & shrinking pools that remain after the wave of Global human connection was shut off. It is not the individual Companies we need to be focused on but the larger Trans-National Conglomerates that have infected our leadership.

  • Aylcudoff Urclitoris says:

    Jack doesn’t have to explain anything. Logic is not expected or appreciated. At one time ideals were supported by factual evidence. This is no longer required. All he has to do is sit there like a vegetable and mumble incoherently. Freedom of speech will continue to be attacked by the left. It’s their only chance for survival.

  • Too many snowflakes and herbivores believe in freedom of speech and expression right up until they have to accept others right to free speech and expression.
    Oh that's different, apparently
    Another thought provoking video.

  • Paul V. Montefusco says:

    'Neutrality no, but impartiality yes?' How so, then? "Il y a à parier que toute idée publique, toute convention reçue est une sottise, car elle a convenu au plus grand nombre." There are those who can't see through the façade, then obviously. His twittering was anything but endearing, and his nonsense only bordered, at times, on English. We must be impartial but not neutral, he said. Reverse the two and it comes to another idiotism. I get what he's trying to say, but either way, he's a deceiver first.

  • Do you have a right, in the US, to keep and bear arms? Yes. Does that mean you can do anything you like with the arms? No. Terrible argument, Sargon. He might think everyone has a right to use social media. That doesn't mean he thinks they have a right to use it any way they like.

  • Coretta Hattereaux says:

    This is a conversation that needed to happen when the internet began. The Internet has never been subject to the same protections that say telephone conversations have had, and everybody knew that. The reason the platform cares is that the corporation may be liable in some way (or they perceive themselves to be at risk of being held liable). That’s only because it never became subject to protected free speech, though. It’s not their fault but ours. Continually blaming the companies for banning people from their media platforms makes as little sense to me as when black lives matter blames the police for enforcing ill-conceived laws, yet they remain entirely supportive of the politicians who wrote the policies and passed them into binding laws.

    I guess this proves that in their shoes Sargon would let his understandable frustration make him act similarly to BLM. Because he’s dealing with a much slighter consequence yet behaving just as irrationally by blaming another victim of poor legislative foresight (in his case, the company; in BLM’s case the police who don’t have the right to choose not to enforce the law).

    I’m glad this happened to give me some insight into what motivates the BLM people because I feel better knowing they’re not deliberately being ignorant. But ignorance won’t fix this either. I hope wiser heads prevail upon the legislators to offer protections of free speech defense to these companies so they won’t have to make these judgments on their end. Getting legislators to stop passing laws that unduly impact the black community is much harder because every law impacts the black community harder because they live are concentrated in cities. Where liberals need them, because that’s the left’s way of gerrymandering.

    But on the bright side, it’s a small world after all and kumbaya and bullshit or whatever. Hugs 🤗

  • Interesting. I seen a few of these flaming the podfather for the Dorsey interview. At least Sargon doesn't accuse Joe of being a Twitter shill. Devil's advocate, isn't Twitter a privately owned company? How does a small government conservative square that contradiction? X

  • Quintus Aurelius Symmachus says:

    If social media is a basic human right, then so is internet access. Is Jack gonna pay everyones internet and cell bill?

  • Arturo Garza says:

    Dorsey alllows porn whores on Twitter, but bans other people for having an opinion? Dorsey needs to get called out.

  • David Wenbert says:

    Sargon, the censorship isn't about Left vs Right, its about the eventual suppression of ALL dissent against the Establishment online. Just as they went after Alex Jones first, and then the rest of you, they're going after the stand-out Anti-Establishment voices first, and then will close in the more boring and pedantic dissidents later. It will get worse, not better; Jack Dorsey has no upside to changing things; neither does Mark Zuckerberg. At some point in the 2020s, along with a billion other people, you will be unboxing your new 5G wearable "HeadPhone", featuring full-duplex Brain Computer Interface, with unbridled delight. Just know that as you do, you're being "Assimilated" into a collective alien Hive Mind. All of this is prologue to that; we will discover, belatedly, that the 'Technological Singularity' and 'Extraterrestrial Disclosure' will turn out to be one in the same event. To think this is all about some butt-hurt Hillary supporters in Silicon Valley is to misread the last half century of Illuminati driven world history.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *