To all you guys complaining about Twitter

Think of Twitter as a Christian bakery and Trump as a gay wedding cake.

I'm just joking, so take it easy with the MS. I'm kind of taking a stab at both sides.

Comments (19)

Jan 9, 2021 - 8:09pm

And the bakery was required by courts to make the cake...

You just owned your own side and disproved yourself. Congratulations.

  • 1
Jan 9, 2021 - 8:13pm

Think of the baker who refused to make a cake for the gay couple as having a monopoly on the entire baking industry lol 

  • VP in IB - Ind
Jan 9, 2021 - 10:09pm

Then the gay couple can go and make other bakeries great again, Jesus 

  • Analyst 1 in IB-M&A
Jan 9, 2021 - 10:09pm

TLDR: the establishment can suck it. Political parties are now irrelevant.


But then their website is removed because AWS doesn't agree with them.

In 2015ish when the right was complaining about big tech enforcing anti-right censorship, the left said "go make your own social media website."

In 2019 when people started realizing there was a monopoly/oligopoly on social media, the left told us to deal with it and it's just how the world work.

In 2020, Parlor kicked off and gained popularity.

In 2021, there were purges of more mainstream right wing figures (no longer was it just Milo and Gavin kicked off, it became the sitting US president). Of course, there was always Parlor to join...right?

Oh wait, not anymore. Now, AWS can kick off Parlor for BS reasons. So, what does the right wing/gay couple do in this situation? Ideally, we'd live in a world where the rules were enforced equally. However, given that the left and political establishment of both sides controls the narrative it becomes justified to discriminate against their "out groups" i.e. anti-establiment political figures and semi fringe rightwing groups.

Unfortunately (and every fiber of my being hates me saying this) I think the government needs to step in at some point. If there are systems in which people's fundamental liberties are stripped away, then the government needs to make sure either everyone is granted basic rights, or that they are at least equally enforced.

also, don't come back with "bad orange man advocated violence" because the entire left wing encouraged blm/antifa mobs all summer. This is a plain case of unequal enforcement of rules with a political motivation. Throwback to when trump couldn't block people on twitter because of 1st amendment too. There is a systematic issue with legal enforcement in the US. And I'm only singling out right wing groups because this is the current discussion. There are anti establishment/out groups groups on the left facing the same issues in unfair enforcement.

Imo, the world under Trump turned from R vs D to Establishment vs People very quickly. And while many don't see it that way, people need to adjust and stop trusting the media, politicians, billionaires, and celebrities and start trusting their own intuition, analysis, and experiences.

Rant over.

Jan 9, 2021 - 8:28pm

I don't think you can really compare the two. One is a bakery, if they refuse you can just go to another bakery. Can't really go to another twitter. One makes cakes, the other is used by a lot of influential people and has control over the flow of information. Sure, they can refuse to do business with people, as private business they have that right. But to what extent? How should we deal with social media companies that control a channel of communication and to one which alternatives don't really exist? It's a slippery slope when you start banning people. While twitter may not be banning people left and right, it sets a precedent and that's the real danger here.

Jan 9, 2021 - 10:04pm

Not only did an alternative not really exist, but when one WAS attempted, we saw Google, Apple, and AWS pull it from app stores and now web hosting services. It was never about those companies taking a stance against violence. The BLM riots caused more deaths and WAY more destruction, including to government buildings, than the Capitol Hill one, yet those are completely supported. If we're going under the argument that it's a private company and should be able to do whatever they want, then they shouldn't get Section 230 protections.

Start Discussion

Popular Content See all

Girlfriend vs PE
+85PEby Investment Analyst in Private Equity - Growth Equity">Investment Analyst in PE - Growth
I’ll never take WSO for granted again
+51OFFby Principal in Venture Capital">Principal in VC
What's so good about Evercore?
+41IBby Prospective Monkey in Investment Banking - Mergers and Acquisitions">Prospect in IB-M&A
I'm tired man
+29IBby Intern in Corporate Finance">Intern in CorpFin
First year analyst, still feel incompetent and like I haven’t learned anything
+21IBby 1st Year Analyst in Investment Banking - Mergers and Acquisitions">Analyst 1 in IB-M&A
Friends in IB are chilling hard, how can I get this?
+19IBby 3rd+ Year Associate in Private Equity - LBOs">Associate 3 in PE - LBOs

Total Avg Compensation

January 2021 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (9) $911
  • Vice President (31) $349
  • Associates (141) $232
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (18) $155
  • 2nd Year Analyst (87) $152
  • Intern/Summer Associate (90) $144
  • 1st Year Analyst (346) $134
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (298) $83

Leaderboard See all

LonLonMilk's picture
Jamoldo's picture
Secyh62's picture
CompBanker's picture
redever's picture
frgna's picture
NuckFuts's picture
bolo up's picture
bolo up
Addinator's picture
Edifice's picture