Twitter Bans Misgendering & Deadnaming Transgender Community

Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,319
700
Australia
Public domain is a copyright term. For a work to be in the public domain it means it is no longer protected by copyright, such as the works of Shakespeare. It has nothing to do with free speech.

It seems you’re saying that free speech means not only the right to express your opinion, but to have it disseminated to a wide audience, in this case using other people’s property. That is a novel concept and has never been the case.
"everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".

Use whatever term you like, the intent is clear.
 
Jun 20, 2018
1,254
1,237
205
I can gaurantee you no hardships are befalling white people for policies put in place to try and create more equality for POC
True but you are a dishonest fuck and pretend all these policies are actual equal when we now know thats not the case, when you dont get hired because you are white its racism too, when the bbc sends out "no Caucasians need to apply" thats racism too, if you get fired for being white its racism too, if you release studies and they have a higher acceptance in the social science the more racist you are against white people its racism too.
The far left and democrats pandering to them have made racism against white people acceptable and something to be cheered on on social media. Do i really need to drown you in several pages of twitter racism, racism on campus, releasing fake studies just to see how deep the rabbit hole truly goes, or countless leftists claiming racism against white people isnt a thing cause we redefined the term to exclude white people?
The insane thing is, even if your crazy claim of white people "never having been a marginalized group before" is true (which it provably isnt) you would still be wrong because its happening right now thanks to the left and has been happening for some years now.
The fact that you have people on your side that now tried for years to redefine racism into meaning "you can be racist against every group with the exception of white people" and with that try to legitimate racism against white people should even tell you something.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Tygeezy
Apr 8, 2009
19,937
654
380
"everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".

Use whatever term you like, the intent is clear.
It’s pretty clear that the word “media” is intended to mean various forms of expression, such as film, music, sculpture, etc. It is not used in the sense of social media, such that individuals have the right to publish their views on an internet platform of their choosing.

The pre-internet analogue to Twitter would have been a wide-circulation newspaper. Do you think it was commonly believed that honoring free speech meant the New York Times had to publish the words of anyone and everyone?
 
Last edited:
Jun 13, 2017
236
265
185
I can gaurantee you no hardships are befalling white people for policies put in place to try and create more equality for POC

I can also guarantee you no hardships are being placed on non transgender people by policies attempting to limit harassment of transgender

I had nothing to do with slavery, Jim Crow laws or segregation that has affected blacks people for hundreds of years in America, but what does that matter? It’s not like the effects still aren’t felt. It’s on me to get over myself and realize it’s more important we try and make up for past injustices than “well I didn’t do it... hurr durr “
Affirmative action is definitly hurting plenty of people, that includes the people it's supposed to help.

The way to "make up" for whatever happened in the past is not to give anyone special treatment, it's to treat everyone the same and move the fuck on.

Slavery has happened in the world since forever, I understand you're from the US but you guys didn't invent it, black people have been enslaved, Asian people have been enslaved, white people have been enslaved, everyone has enslaved each other at some point in history so like I said before, you're going to be trying to correct this for a very long time if you want to give anyone who was hurt at some point or another special treatment.

If I told you we should treat white people better than black people you would scream discrimination, and you would be right.
When you say we should treat some people better than others, you're being an hypocrite.
 
Last edited:
Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,319
700
Australia
It’s pretty clear that the word “media” is intended in the sense of various forms of expression, such as film, music, sculpture, etc. It is not used in the sense of social media.

The pre-internet analogue to Twitter would have been a wide-circulation newspaper. Do you think it was commonly believed that honoring free speech meant the New York Times had to publish the words of anyone and everyone?
The NYT had far more competition than the social media giants. Moreover, the competition was politically diverse. It’s not an apt comparison.
 
Likes: RedVIper
Apr 8, 2009
19,937
654
380
The NYT had far more competition than the social media giants. Moreover, the competition was politically diverse. It’s not an apt comparison.
Not really. There were always only a few wide-circulation newspapers and their editorial stances were always squarely mainstream. In any event, those distinctions are irrelevant. Free speech has never been understood to include the right to use somebody else’s platform to broadcast your views more widely.
 
Last edited:
Nov 4, 2018
32
31
80
My objections are what I stated.
I don't want to come off as rude, but seriously...speaking like this does your opinion no favors.


Listening to opposing views with an open heart can be a good thing. Sometimes, common ground can be found in the unlikeliest of places.


I'll speak however I see fit. The topic of controlling speech does not deserve respect or an open heart. Opposing views are fine. I used to oppose many of the views I now have.
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,319
700
Australia
Not really. There were always only a few wide-circulation newspapers. In any event, those distinctions are irrelevant. Free speech has never been understood to include the right to use somebody else’s platform to broadcast your views more widely.
But if that platform has coopted the public domain, square, whatever you want to call it, it represents a change that the current laws haven’t accounted for. That belongs to everyone, and it’s not a problem if multiple competing corporations of diverse political leanings (if they must have any) carve out their own share. However, it becomes a problem when you have a handful of non-competitive, politically homogeneous corporations controlling the entire platform. That’s the road to the corporate dystopia that liberals should be against. You’re only choosing to ignore this because they’re on your team.
 
Oct 25, 2018
253
148
170
New Hampshire, USA
But if that platform has coopted the public domain, square, whatever you want to call it, it represents a change that the current laws haven’t accounted for. That belongs to everyone, and it’s not a problem if multiple competing corporations of diverse political leanings (if they must have any) carve out their own share. However, it becomes a problem when you have a handful of non-competitive, politically homogeneous corporations controlling the entire platform. That’s the road to the corporate dystopia that liberals should be against. You’re only choosing to ignore this because they’re on your team.
Is something stopping people from starting their own social media platform to bully people?
 
Last edited:
Apr 8, 2009
19,937
654
380
But if that platform has coopted the public domain, square, whatever you want to call it, it represents a change that the current laws haven’t accounted for. That belongs to everyone, and it’s not a problem if multiple competing corporations of diverse political leanings (if they must have any) carve out their own share. However, it becomes a problem when you have a handful of non-competitive, politically homogeneous corporations controlling the entire platform. That’s the road to the corporate dystopia that liberals should be against. You’re only choosing to ignore this because they’re on your team.
But Twitter/Facebook haven’t captured the public square. There are plenty of other sources for people to recieve information. A lot more people watch Fox News than read Twitter. Nor are Twitter, etc. homogenous. There sre a lot of conservative voices on them. And, of course, nothing is stopping people from using other outlets. Alex Jones still has his website. Milo could have published his book had he not defended kiddy-diddling. The demand that the government seize private property to force dissemination of a particular message is very illiberal. You only support it because Alex Jones and Milo and the like are on your team.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
2,619
1,778
240
But Twitter/Facebook haven’t captured the public square. There are plenty of other sources for people to recieve information. A lot more people watch Fox News than read Twitter. Nor are Twitter, etc. homogenous. There sre a lot of conservative voices on them. And, of course, nothing is stopping people from using other outlets. Alex Jones still has his website. Milo could have published his book had he not defended kiddy-diddling. The demand that the government seize private property to force dissemination of a particular message is very illiberal. You only support it because Alex Jones and Milo and the like are on your team.
Well said.
 
Jun 13, 2018
820
1,063
255
To them its just a name, but to a transgender individual its everything. Its every hardship, problem, roadblock, and severed relationship that led them to where they are now. They most likely went through personal hell to get to where they could choose a new name and be who they wanna be.
This is part of the problem. You're putting too much power into a name. Your whole identity shouldn't be based off your name or what you have in your pants. Besides the fact that it makes you a shallow person you're also making it extremely easy for others to hurt you.
If someone mistakes your gender you shouldn't go on a rage trying to get that guy fired . If you ever had long hair as a dude, you've probably been accidentally "misgendered" at least once.
But Twitter/Facebook haven’t captured the public square. There are plenty of other sources for people to recieve information.
You're right, there's always alternates for Twitter such as Gab. Oh wait I forgot, deplatforming works !
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2018
253
148
170
New Hampshire, USA
This is part of the problem. You're putting too much power into a name. Your whole identity shouldn't be based off your name or what you have in your pants. Besides the fact that it makes you a shallow person you're also making it extremely easy for others to hurt you.
I've someone mistakes your gender you shouldn't go on a rage trying to get that guy fired . If you ever had long hair as a dude, you've probably been accidentally "misgendered" at least once.

You're right, there's always alternates for Twitter such as Gab. Oh wait I forgot, deplatforming works !
To someone like you who was just born with a name, grew up feeling comfortable with it, it’s probably not a big deal

To someone who goes through a complete transformation as a person because they never felt comfortable in their own body, for whatever reason, is just looking for simple validation that this person they are now is shown the same respect a non transgender would have

Keep in mind most transgender folk have dealt with hate, harassment even from their own very families. It’s been an actual struggle to get where they are today, not sure why you refuse to see that

I think you are aware though, you just don’t care
 

Senior

Neo Member
Nov 21, 2018
19
18
85
Keep in mind most transgender folk have dealt with hate, harassment even from their own very families. It’s been an actual struggle to get where they are today, not sure why you refuse to see that
I am pretty sure everyone here has experienced hate and harassment themselves at least once. Are you saying that a straight white male cannot be harassed?
Everyone has their struggles including disagreements and all out conflicts with their family.

Trust me, I am all for equality. However, I am against preferential treatment.

How about a "don't be a dick to anyone" rule?
 
Last edited:
Likes: matt404au
Jun 13, 2018
820
1,063
255
It’s been an actual struggle to get where they are today
And that achievement shouldn't be diminished because a random dude on the internet didn't realize what gender they were.
This would be a much more epic own if Gab weren’t up and running.
Without funding and and seen by the rest of the world as a breeding site for white supremacists.
 
Likes: matt404au
May 22, 2018
2,619
1,778
240
This is part of the problem. You're putting too much power into a name. Your whole identity shouldn't be based off your name or what you have in your pants. Besides the fact that it makes you a shallow person you're also making it extremely easy for others to hurt you.
If someone mistakes your gender you shouldn't go on a rage trying to get that guy fired . If you ever had long hair as a dude, you've probably been accidentally "misgendered" at least once.
Its not up to you decide for transgender people that their chosen identity means nothing.
 
Apr 8, 2009
19,937
654
380
And that achievement shouldn't be diminished because a random dude on the internet didn't realize what gender they were.

Without funding and and seen by the rest of the world as a breeding site for white supremacists.
Why is it entitled to funding? What is wrong with people knowing what Gab is about?

Anyway, this isn’t really germane to the point. The would be Red Guards argue that the means of Tweeting needs to be seized because there are no alternatives for hot tskes. Gab shows that is not the case.
 
May 4, 2005
11,418
652
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
This is part of the problem. You're putting too much power into a name. Your whole identity shouldn't be based off your name or what you have in your pants. Besides the fact that it makes you a shallow person you're also making it extremely easy for others to hurt you.
If someone mistakes your gender you shouldn't go on a rage trying to get that guy fired . If you ever had long hair as a dude, you've probably been accidentally "misgendered" at least once.
I would agree in the sense that a name and pronoun, or gender identification is pretty irrelevant from an objective standpoint. Call me "she" and "Tanja" (even though I am male and am not named Tanja), and I really do not care much. But, you know, most people have things that are important to them and that they do care about more than the average.

For instance, I would not want to be called a Christian (or muslim, or other religious affiliation) because I find those religions to be very immoral, or a Nazi (or conservative, or neoliberal) because my political opinions are essential to who I think I am. My gender? Nah, pretty irrelevant. But you could probably hurt me by consistently calling me the above, whereas for some transgender people this might be no big deal, whereas they care a lot about their gender. It may be silly, but such are humans. They are silly, because little things are important to them. They are also human because little things can be important to them. In respectful conduct, you should respect that within reason.

To be disrespectful should not necessarily be illegal, but it is fine to have a code of conduct that requires a certain level of respectful discourse.
 
Jun 13, 2018
820
1,063
255
Its not up to you decide for transgender people that their chosen identity means nothing.
Never have I said that. Either read more carefully or don't deliberately misconstrue my comment.
I would agree in the sense that a name and pronoun, or gender identification is pretty irrelevant from an objective standpoint. Call me "she" and "Tanja" (even though I am male and am not named Tanja), and I really do not care much. But, you know, most people have things that are important to them and that they do care about more than the average.

For instance, I would not want to be called a Christian (or muslim, or other religious affiliation) because I find those religions to be very immoral, or a Nazi (or conservative, or neoliberal) because my political opinions are essential to who I think I am. My gender? Nah, pretty irrelevant. But you could probably hurt me by consistently calling me the above, whereas for some transgender people this might be no big deal, whereas they care a lot about their gender. It may be silly, but such are humans. They are silly, because little things are important to them. They are also human because little things can be important to them. In respectful conduct, you should respect that within reason.

To be disrespectful should not necessarily be illegal, but it is fine to have a code of conduct that requires a certain level of respectful discourse.
Agreed for the most part. Would you be okay with Twitter making a new rule so that if someone calls you a Christian they would get banned because they misrepresented your religious belief?
Anyway, this isn’t really germane to the point. The would be Red Guards argue that the means of Tweeting needs to be seized because there are no alternatives for hot tskes. Gab shows that is not the case.
The point is that when an alternative was shown for Twitter it was quickly labeled by the media as an alt-right site for the actions of a small minority. Something that could've been said for Twitter as well. They had mass shooters using their platform, Youtube had Elliot Rodgers posting his videos daily. Yet nobody wrote anything about Youtube being an alt-right website.
 
Likes: matt404au
Apr 8, 2009
19,937
654
380
The point is that when an alternative was shown for Twitter it was quickly labeled by the media as an alt-right site for the actions of a small minority. Something that could've been said for Twitter as well. They had mass shooters using their platform, Youtube had Elliot Rodgers posting his videos daily. Yet nobody wrote anything about Youtube being an alt-right website.
So what? The solution to this supposedly false speech is more speech, not nationalizing Twitter.
 
May 22, 2018
2,619
1,778
240
Never have I said that. Either read more carefully or don't deliberately misconstrue my comment.
Bull shit. You literally said

This is part of the problem. You're putting too much power into a name. Your whole identity shouldn't be based off your name or what you have in your pants.

So you are telling transgender individuals that their name shouldn't mean that much to them and that they shouldn't base their identity off of it. Therefore you are trying to tell them what is and isn't important to them. You are trying to dictate what they should find important in regards to their identity.



Thats not for you to decide.
 
Last edited:
May 4, 2005
11,418
652
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Agreed for the most part. Would you be okay with Twitter making a new rule so that if someone calls you a Christian they would get banned because they misrepresented your religious belief?
Stated like that: No I would not be OK with that, because errors can happen. Stated as "targeted misrepresentation of religious belief can lead to a ban" I would be fine with that. It's not like I demand such a rule; while I find it pretty offensive if people (deliberately) call me a Christian, I can live with it. But people who continously get attacked by various people on a basis that is important to them may be more sensitive to it than someone like me, who rarely if ever gets attacked in such a manner.
 
Likes: Helios
Jul 25, 2013
5,257
213
390
England
A private company that has flipped the definition of public domain on its head. Free speech is not just the freedom to express ideas without government interference; it’s the freedom to express ideas in the public domain without interference from the government.
Why would you directly equate a private company creating a policy to prevent consistent, targeted harassment of people dealing with sensitive issues, with the removal of "freedom to express ideas" without interference from the government?
But my point is that the intent of free speech laws is no longer being met due to technological change.
That still doesnt answer the question of why you'd directly equate a private companys decision to try to prevent consistent, targeted harassment of trans people for being trans, with the removal of "freedom to express ideas" without interference from the government?

If your point is that in order for the intent of free speech laws to be met, we must be able to express ideas in the public domain without interference from government, why is a private company taking measures to prevent consistent, targeted harassment of trans people for being trans in breach of that?

Is the freedom to express ideas synonymous with purposely and consistently targeting and harassing trans people?
 
May 4, 2005
11,418
652
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Bull shit. You literally said




So you are telling transgender individuals that their name shouldn't mean that much to them and that they shouldn't base their identity off of it. Therefore you are trying to tell them what is and isn't important to them. You are trying to dictate what they should find important in regards to their identity.



Thats not for you to decide.
I think you are overextending the quote here. He says that it should not be all that you base your identity on, but does not state it should not be of any (or high) importance whatsoever. Worded as crass as he did there, basing all of one's identitiy on the gender, I would say that should be uncontroversial. It would be a sad state for someone to solely define himself just by his gender. Still, that wouldn't be up to Helios to decide, sure, but it would be indicative of a pathological view on oneself.
 
Nov 3, 2013
3,195
685
415
31
t to a transgender individual its everything. Its every hardship, problem, roadblock, and severed relationship that led them to where they are now. They most likely went through personal hell to get to where they could choose a new name and be who they wanna be. And people can't stop being assholes long enough to even pretend to care or understand. Its disgusting and its honestly depressing.
Everybody has its own "everything" that represents "every hardship, problem, roadblock and severed relationships that led them to where they are now".

The diference is that not everybody wants to be a snowflake or want THIS thing to be their own definition of who they are.
 
Likes: matt404au
Jun 3, 2013
4,282
1,632
410
Canada
Is something stopping people from starting their own social media platform to bully people?
Gab had their payment processors drop them as a client I believe, no? Aren't they back up though or something? I don't follow it that closely, but some are trying to prevent others from starting free speech platforms.
 
Oct 25, 2018
253
148
170
New Hampshire, USA
Gab had their payment processors drop them as a client I believe, no? Aren't they back up though or something? I don't follow it that closely, but some are trying to prevent others from starting free speech platforms.
Find another company for payment processing? Companies are free to drop support of clients at will for any reason, including distancing themselves from controversy and promoting hateful speech

And if a platform can’t find ANY company to back them... well maybe that’s for a reason... hmm
 
Jun 3, 2013
4,282
1,632
410
Canada
Find another company for payment processing? Companies are free to drop support of clients at will for any reason, including distancing themselves from controversy and promoting hateful speech

And if a platform can’t find ANY company to back them... well maybe that’s for a reason... hmm
That's the crux of the issue though isn't it? Service providers are deciding who is getting access to the public sphere of influence, based on politics.
 
Likes: matt404au
Jan 13, 2018
217
90
180
I think gab got frozen because of a literal spree shooter being radicalized partially because of their platform. And even then they got reinstated, it was only a temporary freeze until they cleaned their shit up.
 
Jun 13, 2017
236
265
185
Find another company for payment processing? Companies are free to drop support of clients at will for any reason, including distancing themselves from controversy and promoting hateful speech

And if a platform can’t find ANY company to back them... well maybe that’s for a reason... hmm
Yes monopolies don't exist, companies never engage in anti-competive practices, facebook, youtube, twitter, etc, it's not that every competitor get's shut down by them or bought out.
 
May 9, 2016
1,389
157
240
If your entire persona is based on a factoid like what gender you feel like or what turns you on you're probably a shallow person?
Like every other group you could imagine, there are some genuine people and some shallow people. There are people who are playing at gender identity, and people who have been suffering a great deal.

I understand where you're coming from - there's a subcultural element as well. If there was an otaku person who wanted you to call them Rei-Chan, you might - depending on your relationship - but you probably wouldn't take it very seriously. It actually seems quite annoying, because it's obviously a choice they're making.

Do you think (most) trans people are choosing to feel this internal and external conflict? Do you think the subcultural perks outweigh the costs suffuciently to encourage shallow, attention seeking people?
 
Last edited:
Jul 7, 2018
921
818
200
can gaurantee you no hardships are befalling white people for policies put in place to try and create more equality for POC

I can also guarantee you no hardships are being placed on non transgender people by policies attempting to limit harassment of transgender
WE ARE ALL EQUAL AND WE HAVE PROTECTED CLASSES AND SPECIAL RULES THAT PROVE IT!
 
Mar 3, 2010
27,201
105
600
You would think a person taking their identity into their own hands and defining it fully within their own agency would be something the free minded conservatives would actually support.
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
2,000
2,870
360
True but you are a dishonest fuck and pretend all these policies are actual equal when we now know thats not the case, when you dont get hired because you are white its racism too, when the bbc sends out "no Caucasians need to apply" thats racism too, if you get fired for being white its racism too, if you release studies and they have a higher acceptance in the social science the more racist you are against white people its racism too.
The far left and democrats pandering to them have made racism against white people acceptable and something to be cheered on on social media. Do i really need to drown you in several pages of twitter racism, racism on campus, releasing fake studies just to see how deep the rabbit hole truly goes, or countless leftists claiming racism against white people isnt a thing cause we redefined the term to exclude white people?
The insane thing is, even if your crazy claim of white people "never having been a marginalized group before" is true (which it provably isnt) you would still be wrong because its happening right now thanks to the left and has been happening for some years now.
The fact that you have people on your side that now tried for years to redefine racism into meaning "you can be racist against every group with the exception of white people" and with that try to legitimate racism against white people should even tell you something.

I think you may really enjoy this video. Shows the idiocy of the far left and how desperately the non-academics have tried to change the definition of Racism.
 
Oct 24, 2017
5,234
3,851
315
But Twitter/Facebook haven’t captured the public square. There are plenty of other sources for people to recieve information. A lot more people watch Fox News than read Twitter. Nor are Twitter, etc. homogenous. There sre a lot of conservative voices on them. And, of course, nothing is stopping people from using other outlets. Alex Jones still has his website. Milo could have published his book had he not defended kiddy-diddling. The demand that the government seize private property to force dissemination of a particular message is very illiberal. You only support it because Alex Jones and Milo and the like are on your team.
This is so wrong. Twitter and facebook have HUGE influence in our daily life. They are the public places of the inernet. You can not ignore this no matter what. That is also why the Government jumps now in. regarding hate speech and fakenews, false propaganda etc.
 
Likes: matt404au
Aug 24, 2016
921
238
255
Thank you very much for your kind words! :messenger_smiling:




As @sahlberg mentioned, I don't view a sense of gender as a social construct. Sure, there are certain societal traits or associations typically seen as either feminine or masculine, but they are not universal and can be stereotypical in nature. I know in certain circles, it is unpopular to say that the brains of men and women are different...but the fact is, there are irrefutable physical differences between the sexes...and evidence that the brains of transgender people vary from the typical formations of their birth sex, brought on by abnormal prenatal hormone exposure. (In my case, by the synthetic nonsteroidal estrogen Diethylstilbestrol).

As far as why many trans people change their names, I suppose it depends on the person and the name. "Alex" is an easy one, as it is often used for both sexes. However, some names...such as the first and middle names I used to have...are not. The legal name I have now is something chosen very carefully and has a deep personal meaning for me in many ways. If you would like, I would be happy to talk about it in more detail through a private conversation.
Sure send me a DM>

However, middle names aren't really gender specific. I know many real women that have "jerome" or "Farley" as middle names. But maybe the area your in is different. this is a big country after all.
 
Likes: Ailynn
Aug 24, 2016
921
238
255
Also I don't understand this. The issue is alternatives are hard to make because these tech companies have or are pushing for changes to law and policies so that they can grow and gain more control while making it harder to start an alternative. Heck half the search engine alternatives to google aren't even real alternatives they are all powered by Bing. Verizon owns Aol and Yahoo mail through buyouts and mutual interest contracts. Almost all other mail competition died off. So if I want to make an alternative to Google and have it even be only 14% as successful it would require majors headaches to even get going. Yet a small competitor that's considered on the same team or useful for any of the Big tech companies can make a start-up and get it off the ground quickly.

Then you have advertising. A lot of agencies are in some cases even being forced to integrate with Google, Bing, Facebook, etc. for promotions outside of TV. So again, how do you mass advertise if the big tech companies block promoting alternatives that are actually equal or better in quality?
 
Likes: matt404au
Jan 13, 2018
217
90
180
Also I don't understand this. The issue is alternatives are hard to make because these tech companies have or are pushing for changes to law and policies so that they can grow and gain more control while making it harder to start an alternative. Heck half the search engine alternatives to google aren't even real alternatives they are all powered by Bing. Verizon owns Aol and Yahoo mail through buyouts and mutual interest contracts. Almost all other mail competition died off. So if I want to make an alternative to Google and have it even be only 14% as successful it would require majors headaches to even get going. Yet a small competitor that's considered on the same team or useful for any of the Big tech companies can make a start-up and get it off the ground quickly.

Then you have advertising. A lot of agencies are in some cases even being forced to integrate with Google, Bing, Facebook, etc. for promotions outside of TV. So again, how do you mass advertise if the big tech companies block promoting alternatives that are actually equal or better in quality?
You're just describing the workings of a capitalist economy. What does this have to do with twitter not allowing harassment of transgenders? Unless you wanna start a whole new platform entirely dedicated to calling transpeople by their original genders?
 
Jul 7, 2018
921
818
200
Aug 24, 2016
921
238
255
You're just describing the workings of a capitalist economy. What does this have to do with twitter not allowing harassment of transgenders? Unless you wanna start a whole new platform entirely dedicated to calling transpeople by their original genders?
Uh no it's not, because socialist type policies are why it's becoming harder to compete. the whole point of capitalism is competition and letting the results fall where they lay. These companies are integrating themselves together and trying to push for policies and law changes that do the exact opposite of that.

Google, twitter, Facebook didn't get to their CURRENT states through capitalism, they literally did the opposite and they have been brought up in court for it.
 
Likes: matt404au
Jan 13, 2018
217
90
180
Uh no it's not, because socialist type policies are why it's becoming harder to compete.
So a gigantic corporation holding an obscene amount of capital and using it to destroy all competition is not capitalism? It's actually socialism? Can you explain the logic behind that one?

the whole point of capitalism is competition and letting the results fall where they lay.
That's exactly what happened here. Twitter did not receive any government subsidies to my knowledge. It was entirely their own entrepreneurship and risk taking that netted them an effective monopoly in this field.

These companies are integrating themselves together and trying to push for policies and law changes that do the exact opposite of that.
Again, just capitalism. You own capital and you use it to further expand your business.

Google, twitter, Facebook didn't get to their CURRENT states through capitalism, they literally did the opposite and they have been brought up in court for it.
You'll have to explain this one too. How did they get as big as they did if not for creating a demand for a service? Did they just happen on a bunch of gold?
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2017
5,234
3,851
315
So a gigantic corporation holding an obscene amount of capital and using it to destroy all competition is not capitalism? It's actually socialism? Can you explain the logic behind that one?
No that was never the philosophy of capitalism. Capitalism is about exponential grow in which in therory everyone would have profited. Humans however used this to create a way more unbalanced form of it because unlike the ideology and the therorie they never gave it to the working peole with raising loans etc.
 
Aug 24, 2016
921
238
255
So a gigantic corporation holding an obscene amount of capital and using it to destroy all competition is not capitalism? It's actually socialism? Can you explain the logic behind that one?
No it's a group of corporations trying to destroy the possible creation by competition by trying to work and integrate with the government. That's socialism.


That's exactly what happened here. Twitter did not receive any government subsidies to my knowledge. It was entirely their own entrepreneurship and risk taking that netted them an effective monopoly in this field.
Twitter has worked with the state of california to make it hard for competition to grow in silicon valley and has worked with the state government on many occasions, there's no capitalism there.
 
Jan 13, 2018
217
90
180
No it's a group of corporations trying to destroy the possible creation by competition by trying to work and integrate with the government. That's socialism.
Ah so the end goal is to create a supergroup of megacorporations and merge with the government? Which is not a for profit entity? So they're doing it all with ulterior motives?

Twitter has worked with the state of california to make it hard for competition to grow in silicon valley and has worked with the state government on many occasions, there's no capitalism there.
Did they already have an effective monopoly in their field when they did that?