Is this another little game of questions? — NOS4A2

I think it was rhetorical?

Was there a point in there somewhere?

You're condemning Twitter's freedom of speech, this is wrong. You want to limit it.

Again, I never said Twitter’s new feature is illegal or not protected by the first amendment, so it’s stupid to keep trying to nail down that irrelevant point, as if someone was disputing it or arguing the opposite. Is this how lawyers argue? — NOS4A2

Says the guy who earlier claimed that it violated a human right. That would be illegal and is a legal argument.

I’m saying it’s wrong to alter someone’s expression and essentially violate their human right. — NOS4A2

Wriggle wriggle.

I do not.

That’s absurd. That’s like saying the first amendment protects itself.

Yes you do, you want the company to change its behaviour to not express themselves in the way they see fit. You want them to manage their business in accordance with your moral intuitions. You have criticised both of these in the past, on the basis of limiting freedom of speech. You've expressed that you see both as protected activities under freedom of speech.

I'm not surprised you don't see the contradiction; you don't seem to care about the arguments you make, you only seem to care about what the arguments support or rebuke,

So basically anyone can point to what is referred to as "a wingnut" of any persuasion and paint any group with a broad brush. One would assume or gather that each party, hopefully, has it's own productive and worthwhile goals and aspirations that coincide with logic, decency, and pragmatism that will benefit supporters and the nation alike. Whereas these individuals are more focused on how it can benefit themselves in a way that loses sight of anyone or anything else in a myopic and frankly stupid way thus unintentionally (or perhaps, in spy lingo, covertly aka intentionally) damaging or greatly reducing the chances of either and so can be discounted. Up until the point the group begins to embody or act on these views garnishing social stigma. Which though detrimental to the group itself, would be a victory for an opposing party. Just something to think about. Not for any prolonged period though. Basically. It's game of thrones, y'all. It may be a show. But we're all living in it.

Apparently this is a draft of Trump's executive order on social media.

Far too long for Trump to be able to even browse it through, altogether to understand it. Far better would be to say that it is a draft floated in the Trump administration (if correct).

Holy shit the double think is real.

I do not want to limit their expressions nor dictate how they run their website, and instead of assuming what I want you might as well just ask me.

Now I have the right to use hate speech in the United States. It's protected speech. Do I believe it is right to use hate speech? No. Now because I think its wrong to spew hatred, does this mean I want to interfere with the speech of racists or terrorists? Do I want them to conduct themselves how I see fit? No. I would use my own speech to say why it is wrong.

No. I would use my own speech to say why it is wrong. — NOS4A2

Just what happened to Trump.

Yay Twitter!

You'd be fine if someone did that to you?

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

That explains everything.

You know you're caught in a contradiction, so all you're doing now is trying to reframe all the exchange we've had in terms of you being freedom loving (and supporting Trump's censorship of Twitter) and me being authoritarian (and thinking that's Twitter's call, and I'm glad that they're doing something towards how terrible its discourse is). You don't want to make the point in an argument, because you know you're inconsistent, so you're making it by trying to control the conversation towards a narrative favourable to you.

You gave not a single fuck when Twitter was culling Isis propaganda. Not one.

You know you're caught in a contradiction, so all you're doing now is trying to reframe all the exchange we've had in terms of you being freedom loving (and supporting Trump's censorship of Twitter) and me being authoritarian (and thinking that's Twitter's call, and I'm glad that they're doing something towards how how terrible its discourse is).

You gave not a single fuck when Twitter was culling Isis propaganda. Not one.

Utterly false. If only I had the power to add a little link to fox news under your misinformation.

What's absurd is to argue the exercise of free speech infringed on Trump's right to free speech, even a violation of his human rights, and then pretend that that was intended as a moral argument.

Utterly false. If only I had the power to add a little link to fox news under your misinformation. — NOS4A2

If you had the power you wouldn't use it though.

If you had the power you wouldn't use it though.

Of course not. You guys are all adults, aren't you?

Does this really need explaining?

If someone points out that what I'm saying is false, and provides a factual source that contradicts me, it's fine. It doesn't matter if it's Twitter that does it, it doesn't matter if it's a forum member that does it. I want people to correct me when I'm wrong.

The fucking POTUS can't handle that so hard he's supporting censorship of social media platforms. And you dupes are happy because it's being defended in terms of freedom of speech.

Does this really need explaining?

If someone points out that what I'm saying is false, and provides a factual source that contradicts me, it's fine. It doesn't matter if it's Twitter that does it, it doesn't matter if it's a forum member that does it. I want people to correct me when I'm wrong.

The fucking POTUS can't handle that so hard he's supporting censorship of social media platforms.

Apparently it does, because Twitter didn't simply "say it was false", as if they made a statement. They altered the code of the website in a discriminatory fashion.

His words would discourage his own base from voting. That would be cool.

Twitter fact checked Trump. Trump was misleading. That's it. That happens on the forum every day,

All you're doing now is trying to get me to go down a split hair so that the facts get lost in the fog. Not playing that game.

This is why no one should take NOS seriously and just laugh at his shitness.

It's the first time it happened!!

I'm done now.

It's the first time it happened!! — NOS4A2

This was the first time it happened.