International Russian dissident Navalny criticizes the banning of Trump

[Fox by the Sea]

In a Twitter thread, Navalny said he thinks the ban is "an unacceptable act of censorship."
"This precedent will be exploited by the enemies of freedom of speech around the world. In Russia as well. Every time when they need to silence someone, they will say: 'this is just common practice, even Trump got blocked on Twitter,'" Navalny wrote.
The Kremlin critic said that although Twitter is a private company, "we have seen many examples in Russian and China of such private companies becoming the state's best friends and the enablers when it comes to censorship."He complained that "cold-blooded murderers (Putin or Maduro) and liars and thieves (Medvedev)" have Twitter accounts.

https://www.dw.com/en/russian-dissident-alexei-navalny-criticizes-trump-twitter-ban/a-56183293

Well this is interesting
You think he is right?

 

[Orgasmo]

ACLU is expressing concern too:

 

[Ramon Antonio]

He’s right. Twitter as always being very selective in applying their policies.

People will say they’re a private company and nobody has the right to their service. Do you also agree that a restaurant should be able to not serve Asians?

 

[Fox by the Sea]

ACLU is expressing concern too:

i would imagine in the following days and weeks the chorus of dissenting voices will grow considerably. the mega-billionaires that can now at a whim de-person whoever they want, being cheered by supposedly level-headed individuals, is monstrous.

 

[Neph]

He’s right. Twitter as always being very selective in applying their policies.

People will say they’re a private company and nobody has the right to their service. Do you also agree that a restaurant should be able to not serve Asians?

What if those particular Asians are threatening to burn down the restaurant?

I'm pretty darn wary of the power that modern tech companies have but I don't think that's a very good parallel.

 

[Ramon Antonio]

What if those particular Asians are threatening to burn down the restaurant?

I'm pretty darn wary of the power that modern tech companies have but I don't think that's a very good parallel.

It is a good parallel because we’re not arguing about the reasons behind the ban, we’re arguing whether a private company should be allowed to deny service to whomever they please because they have no rights to that service.

I could ban gingers or people with blue eyes. The point isn’t whether that makes sense, the question is why am I not legally allowed to do that while Twitter being a private company can deny their service to whomever they see fit.

 

[Hidden_Hypocrisy]

What if those particular Asians are threatening to burn down the restaurant?

I'm pretty darn wary of the power that modern tech companies have but I don't think that's a very good parallel.

Burning down buildings................ Oh yes, a specialty of.............. Liberals............. That was incouraged on.......... Twitter.......... And nothing happened to the accounts.
Oh yes.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

It is a good parallel because we’re not arguing about the reasons behind the ban, we’re arguing whether a private company should be allowed to deny service to whomever they please because they have no rights to that service.

I could ban gingers or people with blue eyes. The point isn’t whether that makes sense, the question is why am I not legally allowed to do that while Twitter being a private company can deny their service to whomever they see fit.

They should be able to deny service to people who don't meet their terms of service as long as their terms of service are fair and the rules are applied fairly.

I don't think they have been here ftr.

 

[MilesAbove]

So y'all want the government to tell private companies they must spread government speak now? Seems like 1984, a book you all definitely read.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

They should be able to deny service to people who don't meet their terms of service as long as their terms of service are fair and the rules are applied fairly.

I don't think they have been here ftr.

so what's your opinion on what Navalny said?

 

[Hellowhosthat]

So y'all want the government to tell private companies they must spread government speak now? Seems like 1984, a book you all definitely read.

I wonder how many people think Trump being banned is fine but the bakers denying service to homosexuals was wrong though?

 

[Hellowhosthat]

so what's your opinion on what Navalny said?

I think he's right.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

I wonder how many people think Trump being banned is fine but the bakers denying service to homosexuals was wrong though?

the "it's a private company therefore it can do whatever it wants" is such a gradeschool level argument i feel embarrassed to involve myself in that. you are a braver man than i.

 

[ShinkanPo]

Looks like Navalny needs more Novitchok in his Man Panties.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Looks like Navalny needs more Novitchok in his Man Panties.

he may have survived the Putin poison but i suspect the Dorsey and Zuckerberg poisons are more potent.

 

[HereticBD]

Obvious statement is obvious...to anyone who isn't a moron.

 

[tonni]

Burning down buildings................ Oh yes, a specialty of.............. Liberals............. That was incouraged on.......... Twitter.......... And nothing happened to the accounts.
Oh yes.

Source?

 

[rearnakedchoke]

Trump had more than enough chances. He was warned.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

ACLU is expressing concern too:

That's a dumb argument.
He isn't being banned for who he is, he is being banned for what he says.
Charles Manson can have a twitter account so long as he doesn't go inciting violence and spreading verifiable lies while being a world leader.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

That's a dumb argument.
He isn't being banned for who he is, he is being banned for what he says.
Charles Manson can have a twitter account so long as he doesn't go inciting violence and spreading verifiable lies while being a world leader.

so what do you think about what Navalvy said?