Example video is Best diamond no life insurance when see that best jewelry 1

Oh snap!

I was about to post about this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSJdb_WZ5uc&feature=push-lbss&attr_tag=0U3qYF4mpsoo4ArP-6

^^^ Tim Pool Stream

SomeOrdinaryGamers covered it that is where I discovered it

@OliveBlanc Tim Pool reads your posts about BLM, Confirmed live on stream.

(Bureau of Land Management)

gathered info how different countries try to tackle misinformations: https://www.poynter.org/news/guide-anti-misinformation-actions-around-world

so where is tim going to announce any future livestreams

twitter?

How many views on the last one?

https://twitter.com/ANI/status/999499094904238080

Anyone want to speculate on what is going to come from the court claiming that Donald Trump cannot block people?

Nothing will come of it.

Not unless they plan on making Twitter a public utility

See, that's just the thing, though.

There are actually a LOT of hypotheticals to consider in this thing.

"U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald reasoned in her opinion that Twitter is a designated public forum, so blocking users based on their political speech "constitutes viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment."

This judicial opinion is absolutely LOADED with consequence.

For one thing, does this mean that political viewpoint is a protected class?

Also, if Donald Trump's twitter is a public forum

This would mean that Twitter would have a constitutional duty to unban US citizens who have been banned from the platform, right?

Because Twitter banning users who *might* use the open public forum would be against the first amendment. Especially if they were banned for political speech. (Hate speech is protected speech, as per the supreme court.)

Would Milo be required to get unbanned? 😄

Or prevent people from blocking if they are in positions of government.

People can troll govt officials in that case

This seems like a classic case of leftist authoritarian activists making demands in the moment without thinking of the consequences of what they're doing.

"no government official -- including the President -- is above the law." - Official opinion.

So, yeah.

Unban all the right wingers who were banned

open season.

Also, no doubt Twitter would be unable to censor US citizens in addressing the president or other government officials, as they have in the past.

Ugh. I'm actually reading the judgement.

The first few pages seem to be them defining everything about what Twitter actually is. I hate legalese.

```“A user’s Twitter
webpage may also include a short biographical description; a
profile picture, such as a headshot; a ‘header’ image, which
appears as a banner at the top of the webpage; the user’s location;
a button labeled ‘Message,’ which allows two users to correspond
privately; and a small sample of photographs and videos posted to
the user’s timeline, which link to a full gallery.”``` - Page 4, This fucking judgement

Yup. That's twitter, alright. -_-

```Twitter user can also ‘mention’ another user by including the other
user’s Twitter handle in a tweet.``` This judicial opinion is riveting.

Page 6.

```Because a retweet or a reply to a tweet is itself a tweet,
each retweet and reply, recursively, may be retweeted, replied to,
or liked. “A Twitter user can also reply to other replies. A
user whose tweet generates replies will see the replies below his
or her original tweet, with any replies-to-replies nested below
the replies to which they respond...```People used to tell me I should go into law. I'm really glad I disappointed them right now...

Is that to make it clear they are specifying twitter the company? Couldn't they just mention the parent company (if there is one).