Skip to comments.Conservative pundit says he was trying to avoid getting kicked off Twitter
Posted on 11/27/2018 8:46:33 AM PST by yesthatjallen
Conservative commentator Jesse Kelly, who was banned from Twitter last week, said on Tuesday that he was actually trying to avoid getting kicked off of the social media platform.
"I honestly have no idea," Kelly told Hill.TV's Buck Sexton when asked why he was banned from Twitter.
"The truth is, I understand how sensitive Twitter is. I understand that they are run by leftists, and they're trying to run off people on the right, so knowing that I'm fairly careful with it," Kelly said. "Especially because it was a big tool I used to promote my show, to promote my show, to promote things that I had written. So I wasn't trying to get kicked off, I was trying to be good, and I got kicked off anyway."
Kelly went on to say Twitter was not a platform, but rather a publisher.
"They're clearly a publisher, and they want to be treated under the law like a platform, but a platform is simply an open forum where people, as long as they're not promoting violence, can post whatever they want to post. That's clearly not the case," he said.
It is not clear which one of Kelly's recent tweets led to the ban.
Twitter informed Kelly on Sunday that his account had been permanently suspended due to "multiple or repeat violations of the Twitter rules."
However, Twitter's "range of enforcement options" states that users should be provided with an explanation as to why their accounts have been suspended.
"When we permanently suspend an account, we notify people that they have been suspended for abuse violations, and explain which policy or policies they have violated and which content was in violation," according to Twitter.
he has a point. It is time for someone to sue twitter for the offensive, false attacks made by twitter users.
When Twitter tries to defend itself as merely a “platform”, depositions can be held, using discovery to get the details of how twitter makes these decisions to blacklist conservatives.
And I have no doubt that these depositions will prove that twitter is making editorial decisions not based on generic principles like “personal attacks” or “offensive content”.
And once it can be shown that twitter is, in fact, making editorial decisions on CONTENT, they can then be held responsible for every attack they allow to stay on their media, just like a newspaper could be held responsible for publishing false letters to the editor that slander other private citizens.
Yea, but I believe it’s their right to do so. And I’m not sure I agree with the author’s basic premise.
Question....What would you consider Free Republic (a forum obviously), but given the choice, a publisher or a platform?
The only reason I have Twitter is to read the Presidential tweets . One can only imagine the fall out if he got banned.
If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
What possessed this guy to think he could associate with facists?
Whatever rules Twitter uses, they clearly don't apply them evenly and fairly to all users.
I'm not asking for government action but the company itself needs to explain their actions.
They won't do that because they can't. They are clearly targeting conservative political speech and give people no reason and no recourse on how to resolve these issues.
Sue Twitter for defamation of character embodied in the act of shutting down his account.
The fact that conservatives are upset over Twitter shows just how remarkable and invaluable an invention it is.
Why can’t conservatives compete in the tech game?
Here is the left’s plan; (which appears to me to be organized and coordinated between silicon valley and portions of the deep state)
1) Censor all non-liberals from the primary social media platforms
2a) All non-liberals are successfully censored and have no major alternative platforms. Desirable outcome
2b) Non-liberal media sources, publishers and content creators successfully migrate to alternative platforms and grow their exposure organically.
3a) The censored are still censored
3b) A major coordinated campaign is begun in the MSM to associate all the moderate non-liberal publishers with the radical ulta-right hate-groups, included faux groups created or sponsored by the deep state as well as to tie them all to any crimes or negative news stores, or perhaps false-flag ops.
4a) The censored are still censored
4b) Prosecution begins against the alternative platforms to censor all the un-censored non-liberal publishers
Pure bovine feces. Look at Rush Limbaugh, who revolutionized talk radio. Breitbart with it’s own platform. Even FR. Instead of bitching about FB, Twitter and Google compete with them.
If Jim Acosta has a Constitutional right to a Hard press pass, then Twitter should not be able to suspend people with out due process.
You say that but when people try that, they get banned by the internet as a whole. Read up on Gab!
Maybe we should start a "Ban the Man" movement?
Rush Limbaugh has made a very obvious and admitted effort never to associate or promote fringe groups or opinions. Breitbart has moved toward the middle in recent years after the alg-right MSM blitz nearly appeared to get them a few years ago.
My post is a warning to platforms more than the publishers themselves. When moderate conservatives get censored on twitter or facebook or where-ever, you will be very careful to to accept a new platform that permits the radicals and promote free-speech, because you WILL get lumped in with them, and it’s by design. The operators of upstart platforms need to be smart if they want to be a true alternative platform and achieve success. You’re not going to be out of the woods until you are too big to shut down and fully self supporting.
Gab didn’t have its own ISP. They relied on a 3rd party vendor.
Ask yourself why FR has never been de-platformed. Because Jim controls everything with his site.
Well you can’t start up and control payment systems either. Many Conservatives are not being denied payment options such as PayPal, etc...
It is an organized attach and FR is vulnerable as well.
> It is time for someone to sue twitter for the offensive, false attacks made by twitter users.
It is time to hold Twitter employees, executives especially, personally liable for crimes committed using their no-longer-eligible-for-common-carrier-protections website.
Any crime in which Twitter plays a part, Twitter is now a co-conspirator - as a direct consequence of choosing to allow criminal content while censoring legal content.
If the payment processor or domain registrar decides to have a problem with FR, he’s going to have the same problem Gab had.
What you highlight (promotion of off-Twitter websites) is exactly why they booted him without saying why.
My bet is that they determined his success was a net loss of users for them. People found his website and bookmark him and never came back to Twitter.
So they gave him the boot, his being conservative was an added motive, but the real reason would be loss of users.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.