Has anyone heard any more about this? (Page 2): Agree. Twitter was allowing other politicians to post stuff, so they shouldn't be able to single out Nunes for doing the same thing.

Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX

Kickaha wrote:

You're right Twitter, Facebook, etc. are private c... (show quote)

Agree. Twitter was allowing other politicians to post stuff, so they shouldn't be able to single out Nunes for doing the same thing. They were hoping to keep him from being reelected and removed from the intel committee.

debeda

Peewee wrote:

Agree. Twitter was allowing other politicians to post stuff, so they shouldn't be able to single out Nunes for doing the same thing. They were hoping to keep him from being reelected and removed from the intel committee.

AGREED

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

I don't care who you are, as long as everybody plays by the same rules. Go ahead and say want you want. If we don't agree, I'll be happy to explain where you are wrong. You don't have to tell me when I am wrong, my wife tells me all the time.

Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX

Kickaha wrote:

I don't care who you are, as long as everybody plays by the same rules. Go ahead and say want you want. If we don't agree, I'll be happy to explain where you are wrong. You don't have to tell me when I am wrong, my wife tells me all the time.

Good! We think just alike. Someone even kicked the President off Twitter for 24 hours. Then he was reinstated and a rogue employee was blamed and the president account was opened back up. Someone was either really brave or really dumb to do that. I wondered at the time if Trump made a phone call to the CEO Jack Dorsey and explained to him how the cow eats the cabbage.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

teabag09 wrote:

How about if he was baking cakes? Mike

Ah yes. That little bit of 'government overreach' didn't work out the way it was supposed to either, did it?
Of course, Twitter, Facebook or Google are hardly 'government', are they? Point of fact, they are privately held businesses that are not subject to constitutional restrictions and/or obligations. They can allow or ban anything they please, any time they please, for any reason, or no reason at all, and unless you own a piece of it, you have no say in the matter.

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

Larry the Legend wrote:

Ah yes. That little bit of 'government overreach' didn't work out the way it was supposed to either, did it?
Of course, Twitter, Facebook or Google are hardly 'government', are they? Point of fact, they are privately held businesses that are not subject to constitutional restrictions and/or obligations. They can allow or ban anything they please, any time they please, for any reason, or no reason at all, and unless you own a piece of it, you have no say in the matter.

Agreed, they are private companies. But they have a contract with the users of their service. It is called the terms of use. It spells out the rules for using their service. If you violate the rules, they can take wh**ever action is specified in the terms of use. If the companies suspended or terminate users for other than breaches of the terms of use, you have the basis of a breach of contract suit against them.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

Kickaha wrote:

Agreed, they are private companies. But they have a contract with the users of their service. It is called the terms of use. It spells out the rules for using their service. If you violate the rules, they can take wh**ever action is specified in the terms of use. If the companies suspended or terminate users for other than breaches of the terms of use, you have the basis of a breach of contract suit against them.

I see. And how much money changes hands in signing this 'contract'? By the way, did you see the little bit at the end where they reserve the right to change these terms and conditions at any time with or without notice? Go ahead, litigate to your heart's content. Even if you actually find a judge who thinks you have 'standing' and he has jurisdiction, you will not win.