>>2662399

>99

A lady I talk to on facebook also said there is some african american woman lots of twitter pll follow who got suspended. So we know it's probably less about race and more that they are banning any conservatives who don't go along with the official CNN narrative. Here's the article she showed me, seems they suspended her for just posting what somebody else did (who did not get suspended):

https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/05/twitter-suspends-candace-owens/

>>2662487

Yes, they are banning conservatives and Nationalists of ALL races!!!

#VerifiedHate exposes the LEFT WING RACISM and we can use it to secure our place on their platforms!

>>2663066

>seems like we'd be losing a lot of traction if we stopped using #QAnon

We continue to use Q

>>2662710

#JUDGEMENTDAY

>>2662374

DONT USE YOUR HOME NETWORK.

BUY A THROWAWAY LAPTOP AT WALMART, CHROMEBOOK, VERY FAST, VERY CHEAP, PAY CASH, NOT WITH DEBIT CARD…

PARK OUTSIDE A STARBUCKS AND USE THE FREE WIFI SIGNAL TO CREATE A FAKE EMAIL THROWAWAY ACCOUNT.

CREATE A TWATTER ACCOUNT WITH AN ALIAS NAME.

POST TO YOUR HEARTS CONTENT…NEVER USE THIS DEVICE ON OR CONNECT TO YOUR HOME NETWORK

Gonna play devil's advocate here. Socialists and other left leaning users were getting banned for not following the narrative, and no one seemed to care about that. Here's the thing anon: Twitter is a private company, and they can ban whoever they want from the platform. I would like to point out that nothing is stopping anyone from creating a Twitter competitor of their own where they can implement rules of their own. I wonder if that may not be something to think about.

Another thing to think about is to maybe not use the term conservatives. Remember that a lot of people out there equate conservatives with "those people who lied us into two wars and lost 6.5 trillion and spent money like there was no tomorrow bombing the brown people". Don't say conservatives. Such labels are divisionary. Say Americans. We may not all be conservatives, but we're -all- AMERICANS, and it is Americans that are being silenced.

>nothing is stopping anyone from creating a Twitter competitor of their own where they can implement rules of their own

Do you have $1,000,000,000?

It's time to use the state and implement the 1st amendment for the internet.

>>2663669

And as my second post alludes to, that is indeed the other option. But I don't think people really fully understand the implications of that. Above all else, it more or less makes moderators illegal, for to curb speech would be to violate someone's first amendment rights, which is unconstitutional.Remember that the first amendment applies to speech you don't like or agree with just as much as it applies to your own.

I think a lot of people here simply do not understand that there is no such thing as a rule or law that only helps 'conservatives' and only hurts 'liberals'.

>>2663617

>nothing is stopping anyone from creating a Twitter competitor

Bullshit, Tech companies buy out any competition that emerges and they are all in cahoots so it only takes ONE of them to fuckup competition. Remember Vine? Remember What's App?

They just buy out the competition, which leaves NO competition. that is how monopolies work.

It's working guys keep the pressure up

>>2669039

me too is far right per SPLC? WTF Metoo was invented by hollywood libs.

>>2662304 (OP)

>The hypocrisy is palpable!

These people can't be hypocrites because that implies they have moral and ethical standards.

>>2669039

"Speaking before the Alliance Defending Freedom’s annual Summit on Religious Liberty, Sessions announced that the Justice Department would not partner with groups that discriminate against or defame others, singling out the Southern Poverty Law Center for its “hate group” campaign. Sessions accused the SPLC of wielding the “hate” designation as a "weapon . . . against conservative organizations that refuse to accept their orthodoxy and choose instead to speak their conscience."

"I have ordered a review at the Department of Justice to make sure that we do not partner with any groups that discriminate,” Sessions said. “We will not partner with groups that unfairly defame Americans for standing up for the Constitution or their faith.” Nor will the department associate with “hate groups,” he said, insisting, “At the Justice Department, we will not partner with hate groups. Not on my watch.” The SPLC, under its president, Richard Cohen, has, along with the Jewish extremist hate group the ADL, been one of the fiercest critics of the Trump administration, and used Trump’s face on the front page of one of its “Year in Hate” review…

The move to boot the SPLC will affect the FBI in particular, which currently “partners” with the SPLC on “hate crimes."

Source: https://newobserveronline.com/jewish-hate-group-splc-gets-boot-from-us-federal-government-partnership-programs/

If you look at the youtube 'top trending' (CNN, MSNBC) 100,000 + views vs youtubers that do not trend (Styxhexenhammer666). Styxhexenhammer will get 1,000+ likes before 10,000 views. The fake news (probably bots generating the traffic) need 120,000 views to get 1,000 likes.

>>2663617

< Twitter is a private company

No. It is a public company that is owned by millions of Americans. Twitter is on the S&P 500 index, so it's hard to avoid owning this company if you have a retirement account. Many of the Americans Twitter discriminates against are owners. The inmates are running the asylum. Even if Twitter was a private company, they are violating the law. For example, California Constitution (Article 1, § 2).

< they can ban whoever they want from the platform

Fraud, false advertising, and other abusive practices are illegal. So for example, even if it were legal for Twitter to discriminate based on race, they would need to rewrite their rules. Maybe something like: "In order to ensure that people feel safe expressing diverse opinions and beliefs, we prohibit behavior that crosses the line into abuse, including behavior that harasses, intimidates, or uses fear to silence another user’s voice. Unless the abuse is against people who are not Democrats, or are white."

< nothing is stopping anyone from creating a Twitter competitor of their own

Monopolies are. Apple and Google protect Twitter's market dominance by preventing Gab from distributing their apps to iOS and Android users.

< where they can implement rules of their own

None of these abused users object to Twitter's rules. Twitter has great rules, but Twitter's employees regularly misapply them in a very biased manner.

> a lot of people out there equate conservatives with "those people who lied us into two wars

There were a lot of trolls back then. Those trolls would name-call anti-war commenters with labels like "libtards" and "looney liberal". It wouldn't suprise me if many of the same people are shilling today. Their tactics are pretty much identical to today's shills that cry "alt-right", "free speech extremists", etc.

Recently during a required ethics presentation at a federal agency for employees and managers, we were told because of the Hatch act, we should refrain from participating in any political discussion on social media. When pressed, the rationale provided was agency employees are not allowed to influence other agency employees in political matters and if we participated in political discussions on social media, another agency employee might read our comments and be influenced. My understanding of the hatch act makes me conclude we were being given very bad information and this was a scare tactic being used for censorship. I was very taken aback and disappointed the agency was stooping to such a low level. Agency employees should have the right to engage in political discussions when they are off the clock and not in the workplace. Any ideas on how to rectify this censorship?

Forgot to mention we were also told we should refrain from talking about politics in a public restaurant because we might be overheard by another agency employee.