Political rants

You say that social media companies act public; therefore, they are public. That is your basic argument. That is a simplistic naïve argument. Let me give the following two analogies. If I feed the poor. If I kick people out of God’s temple. If declare myself to be the son of God. If I act in every way imaginable like the Jesus Christ. Does that make me Jesus Christ? Under your simplistic logic. Because of how I act. That would make me Jesus Christ. But I am not actually Jesus Christ. What about the following. If a female that was born male acts girly. Acts like a female by wearing dresses. Acts like a female by wearing makeup. Walks like a girl. Talks like a girl. Acts like a girl in every way imaginable. Does that make that male a biological female? Under your simplistic logic. Because of how they act. That would make that male a biological female. Which is not true. Just because someone acts a certain way. Does not mean that they are what they actually act like. There are a huge multitude of reasons that determine what someone is, beyond just simply acting. Which extends to social media companies. Just because they act like their public, does not mean that they are actually public. Social media companies are private entities. Social media companies are not public entities owed by the government. But people like to usebthis bs excuse of "well the amendments only apply for government". Like dude please.” Stating like dude please is not a cohesive logical argument. Stating that something is BS is again, a feelings-based argument with no logical foundation. Go up to a federal judge arguing federal law and state. “Well your honor, that’s obviously BS.” The judge will say. “Noted, your absolutely right Pandus!” That will not happen. Like please dude. Come up with a cohesive logical argument. Stating that something is BS, because it is BS. Is a circular nonsensical argument. BTW, I read the article that you posted. The article actually supported everything I said, Lol. Come on now. If you don’t have basic reading comprehension skills. I can break the article down for you. All you have to do is ask. You obviously don’t know the difference between a public and private entity. Public entities are those owned by the government. Places like public parks, public streets, public sidewalks, public libraries, public schools etc. Social media companies are not owned by the government. Social media companies are owned by private individuals and/or other corporations. If social media companies are not owned by the government, then they are not public property. Oh, but the article you posted says that they are public. Actually, no you’re wrong. It stated that what president Trump posted on twitter made a public forum. Key word is public forum, not public property owned by the government. The president is the government. The government cannot ban people from social media. As the government cannot infringe on free speech. But Twitter is not the government. Twitter can do whatever the hell they want with their private property. According to the article that you posted Pandus, “Accordingly, the First Amendment ordinarily would not apply to private conduct on private sites like Twitter”. Twitter is a private forum owned by a private company. You can’t just say they ought to be public because you feel like it. Because it triggers you with how a private company governs their business. Which goes to my following point. Under conservative principles. You want limited government, not big government. The government passing laws to comply with your biased ethics and morality towards free speech is big government intervention. No more different than the big government passing laws stating that you have to address someone by their LGBT alphabet name. The government under the 1st amendment. “Congress shall pass not laws abridging the freedom of speech.” Which includes laws against private companies’ free speech and individual’s free speech. The government cannot force anyone to address someone by their LGBT alphabet name. The government also cannot force private companies to comply with whatever message the government wants. Unless you want the big government to solve your problems. Which isn’t very conservative of you.

Actually, you are completely wrong. Just like Pandus. You also have no idea what a public vs private entity means. Public entities are those owned by the government. State parks, public schools, public roads, public sidewalks, the DMV etc are all owned by the government. Social media companies are not owned by the government. Hence social media companies are not public. Twitter is a publicly traded company. A “publicly traded” company does not mean it is “public entity.” Publicly traded has a completely different meaning to a public entity. A publicly traded company means that anyone from the general public can buy. Publicly traded means that private individuals can buy parts of a private company. A public entity means it is owned by the government. The government is not buying shares of twitter. Private every day individuals are buying shares of twitter. The government buying up company stock would make twitter a nationalized public entity. The government nationalizing private companies is equivalent to communism. A publicly traded company is not owned by the government. Hence social media companies are not a public entities. Under your own faulty logic. If a private entity is “beholden to some government regulation” then “they are no longer private.” That is actually completely unfactual. If anything that is beholden to government regulation is public, then there is no such thing as private a entity. Pretty much everything is beholden to government regulations. From bridges, to medicine, to airports, to restaurants. Now, if I remember correctly. Don’t you own a restaurant Bunny? Do restaurants have to comply with some government regulations? Because if you do. Then under your own faulty logic. Your restaurant isn’t private, but rather public. If it’s public, then your restaurant isn’t owned by you or your family. Your restaurant is owned by the government. Government owned restaurant sounds like a communist utopia. That is where your faulty logic for government regulation takes you. Bunny, you stated that you. ”Believe personal politics shouldnt be a reason to fire anyone.” Oh really? is that so? Let’s put your principles to the test then. Since I believe you’re a business owner. Your business makes it so that you interact with lots of people. Interacting with many people across different background and races. Your business would make for a pretty good platform to spread whatever word or message. A pro BLM employee suddenly has a brilliant idea. He or she can use your works' platform to pass out pamphlets to every customer that walks through the door. If an employee started passing out pamphlets stating that they supported BLM, defund the police and other liberal hivemind nonsense. Many customers would reasonably be put off by this pollical talk. You start to lose a lot of business. How would that make you feel? You can’t fire them because under your own principles. You “believe personal politics shouldn’t be a reason to fire anyone.” If you fire the pro BLM employee then you would fire someone for their personal politics. Which would go against your so-called free speech principles. I think that under a free capitalist society. If an employee makes you lose a substantial amount of money. An employer as every right to fire them. Regardless if they are gay, black, white or the little green men from mars. Let’s say that you changed your mind. Nevermind, you say. I want to fire them because of their dumb politics. The pro BLM employee is using your business as a political platform. Under Pandus’ communist run free speech utopia. “There should be no reason people are being deplatformed if they arent calling for violence or commiting any crimes.” As your employee is different than the typical BLM supporter. Your pro BLM employee isn’t calling for violence. Your pro BLM supporter isn’t in favor of looting and shooting in the streets. Under Pandus communist free speech utopia, you can’t deplatform, hence can’t fire your employee. However, let's say that you still lose business. As many regular people are still put off by BLM. Do protect you private capitalist interest or do you support whatever speech your employee says to make you lose money? I don’t know about you, but I’ll rather live in a democratic capitalist republic than a free speech communist utopia. @taiyou

I also recommend you watch this lawyers break down of free speech and public forums. He makes very subtle arguments. He breaks it down in a way more elegant, logical way than I do. Kinda long, but still worth it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PdcXXNk74s&ab_channel=LawfulMasseswithLeonardFrench

Melt your brains with the mental gymnastics that your about to pull to try and rationalize the illogical inconsistencies that you believe in. I mean you can. With a big ol does of cognitive dissonance

"A public entity is an organisation or body providing services to the public on behalf of the government or another public entity. The public service and its employees are examples of public entities. ... State government departments fall under this category." It is not owned by the government you are infact wrong here and my source is a government website https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.qhrc.qld.gov.au/your-responsibilities/for-public-entities/are-you-a-public-entity&ved=2ahUKEwj4l9i059_xAhWKKM0KHVcMDJAQFjADegQIJhAF&usg=AOvVaw0dmNgchBKbJhbGEJORNO4j

Im trying to find another government site to use but this was the only one. The rest are law websites and they dont mention anything about being owned by government they just say it is the government or a railroad. They dont even talk about parks and all that

Public entities work within the interest of a government. Many of our own government officials use these outlets to distribute information as alot of the population generally uses these websites. It is easier to reach the masses through media almost instantly. Twitter operates as a public forum owned by a private company.

@a1ephy No. Officially twitter is a publically traded company. Which comes after IPO Also your anology does not work, as we are a restaurant, and therefore our business and any social media is pertaining to food. Did twitter lose business for trump tweeting? No. Did gina carano being on mandalorian cause decrease in views. Maybe? I dont think so. But then they lost MORE after firing her. My point still stands. I dont think they should be fired for political beliefs, especially if it doesnt cause a loss of revenue. If it does thats different. I understand whats a public and private entity. And twitter by its company type that you can look up... IS PUBLIC. BECAUSE IT IS A PUBLIC TRADED ENTITY. This means that they DONT get to do what they want, because they HAVE to listen to share holders... which is NOW can be held by anyone... because its... public. You need to brush up on corporate stuff. And even if it wasnt, you cant allow yourself to be used as a platform of speech, and then take that away. Thats like the government telling you you cant speak because they own the country.

Becareful taiyou he is gonna say the government cant say you cant speak because its in the constitution, then go on to say twitter isnt owned by the government.