Twitter May Soon Remove 'Likes' in Ongoing Effort to Promote Healthy Conversations

HEK

macrumors 68040
Sep 24, 2013
3,353
5,794
US Eastern time zone
Of all the problems on Twitter, when was the “like” feature ever a problem? I would think an edit button would be more useful. And maybe restricting bots, mitigating harassment, and shutting down users who threaten things like nuclear war.

I mean, come on.
What !!!!!!
You do realize shutting down users who threaten nuclear war would remove Kim and Donald. :confused:
 

jarman92

macrumors 6502a
Nov 13, 2014
506
903
[doublepost=1540898783][/doublepost]A “healthy” conversation, to Jack Dorsey, is one that complies with the globalist corporate agenda. Right now Twitter is already concentrating on the “literal nazis”, which, to them, means anyone on the right they find politically threatening. Since our 1st amendment prevents the government from doing it, corporations are doing the job of removing dissent. And they’re just getting started.
No, I think “literal Nazis” means literal Nazis. Who are literally on Twitter.

And if someone on the right threatens to bomb elected officials or murder Jews (which actually happened and was reported but not removed), or says that George Soros (i.e. globalist/Jew) is funding the immigrant “caravan,” they should be removed and banned.
 

miniyou64

macrumors 6502a
Jul 8, 2008
569
1,863
Yeah, cause I turn on South Park when I want to watch South Park. I go on social media when I want to hear about my friends, not about my friends' friends' radical ideologies. I'm sorry but there is only a small minority of people who really want to follow Alex Jones and such, and they still can, just elsewhere.

Just like I don't watch South Park with my girlfriend, only with the "bros." There's a time and place for everything.
There certainly is a time and place for everything, just forgive me if I don’t want people with your authoritarian mindest controlling what that means for everyone else.
 

fairuz

macrumors 68020
Aug 27, 2017
2,165
2,285
Silicon Valley
There certainly is a time and place for everything, just forgive me if I don’t want people with your authoritarian mindest controlling what that means for everyone else.
It's what the vast majority of people want. Facebook, Twitter, etc all just want money, which means they want users, so they do whatever gives them that. There's 4chan for the rest, and I do browse 4chan sometimes, or private messages, and there are things said in my group chats that you can't say outside.

And besides, it's not authoritarian to not want to discuss certain things. In any real-life social setting, you're bound to the same rules.
 
Last edited:

charlituna

macrumors G3
Jun 11, 2008
9,616
804
Los Angeles, CA
First amendment right of free speech pertains to the “government” not impinging on free speech.
while this is true it's something that all the folks that have been banned or rumored they will be banned from Twitter etc don't understand and they use their version of things to start PR wars that Jack et al don't want to get involved in. so when that side screams 'free speech' (which I even put in quotes the first time) the social media cave. making it ripe for someone to create a new social network without all the bots, the ads and the nasty posts. but no one is likely to because of the cost of getting something up and running that can compete
[doublepost=1540989441][/doublepost]
There certainly is a time and place for everything, just forgive me if I don’t want people with your authoritarian mindest controlling what that means for everyone else.
if you have an issue with folks telling you what's the time and place then you need to get off these boards cause MR has folks controlling what you can say even to the point of telling you that you can't use swear words or you'll be banned.