Emily Ratajkowski

[danmand]

Emily Ratajkowski called out Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for banning President Donald Trump on Facebook and Instagram after the Capitol riots on Wednesday.


The 29-year-old model said the act displayed the tech billionaire's power to blacklist potentially anyone else in the future.

"This gives Facebook/tech/Zuck THE MOST POWER. If he can shut the president up/off he can shut any of us up/off," the pregnant star tweeted on Thursday.

"My concern is that this gives big tech the opportunity to shut down ‘left extremists’ who are important political organizers," Ratajkowski added.

 

[danmand]

Emily, like children, should be seen but not heard.

 

[y2kmark]

Still, if Trump gets banned everywhere there needs to be someone to speak against such tyranny...

 

[shack]

Still, if Trump gets banned everywhere there needs to be someone to speak against such tyranny...

Rudy.

 

[Renus]

Emily, like children, should be seen but not heard.

Then see her.

 

[Insidious Von]

I'm all for free speech as long as the consequences are accepted. She's gorgeous but what is she famous for, a C list actress...she no Anya Taylor Joy.

The clampdown on Donato detritus is just beginning. Tim Pool an intelligent but horribly misguided man got the boot from YT.

At least Taylor Cochrane was an NCAA Volleyball star.

 

[mandrill]

Emily Ratajkowski called out Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for banning President Donald Trump on Facebook and Instagram after the Capitol riots on Wednesday.


The 29-year-old model said the act displayed the tech billionaire's power to blacklist potentially anyone else in the future.

"This gives Facebook/tech/Zuck THE MOST POWER. If he can shut the president up/off he can shut any of us up/off," the pregnant star tweeted on Thursday.

"My concern is that this gives big tech the opportunity to shut down ‘left extremists’ who are important political organizers," Ratajkowski added.

Sounds like she is left of centre and is just vaguely sort of concerned in a "what-abouty-outy" sort of way.

 

[mandrill]

https://twitter.com/SexyNatG

I 1-up you guys. The attached lady was a notorious Trump / Stop the Steal booster on Twitter and IG. She was so bad that I forced myself to unfollow her and stop looking at her. (Yup, it's not always easy having principles).

Her IG was deleted by IG admin and she's cleaned all the Stop the Steal horseshit off her Twitter a/c.

 

[Fun For All]

I think 'big tech' has been very good and patience with Trump...he abused that, not even the POTUS can do whatever he wants.

 

[jalimon]

Then see her.

Small waist big titties!

 

[Darts]

I think 'big tech' has been very good and patience with Trump...he abused that, not even the POTUS can do whatever he wants.

I think big tech was afraid to cross Trump when he held power as the president because he could destroy their companies. Now that he will soon be out of power they are free to speak their mind.

 

[mandrill]

I think big tech was afraid to cross Trump when he held power as the president because he could destroy their companies. Now that he will soon be out of power they are free to speak their mind.

I think that's part of it for sure. There are suggestions that FB ass-kissed him to avoid an anti trust suit that would force it to disgorge IG and other holdings.

They are probably now ass-kissing Biden and the Dems for the same reasons.

 

[Frankfooter]

I think that's part of it for sure. There are suggestions that FB ass-kissed him to avoid an anti trust suit that would force it to disgorge IG and other holdings.

They are probably now ass-kissing Biden and the Dems for the same reasons.

I think Zuckerberg shares a world view with Trump, he's always been fighting with the rest of his company about his support, but now that he's toxic he has to do this.
But I'm sure he's worried about anti-trust, privacy controls and Biden. Apple is just implementing a series of privacy controls that will hit FB in the ad revenue.

 

[contact]

the danger with social media banning sides is that they control what the public is allowed to hear. I think once the republicans regain control the big tech firms will face elimination of tax break new taxes and be broken up so they cannot control the flow of information

most here seem to think banning trump is good (I'm not arguing that particular point) but remember the most rights destroying governments have done this the nazis the commies and dictators ONLY allowed information broadcast that they want the public to hear .

tech companies have a monopoly and have grown too big they need to be reigned in and broken up

 

[curr3n_c1000]

She's aware tech companies are controlled by the government. Right?

 

[mandrill]

the danger with social media banning sides is that they control what the public is allowed to hear. I think once the republicans regain control the big tech firms will face elimination of tax break new taxes and be broken up so they cannot control the flow of information

most here seem to think banning trump is good (I'm not arguing that particular point) but remember the most rights destroying governments have done this the nazis the commies and dictators ONLY allowed information broadcast that they want the public to hear .

tech companies have a monopoly and have grown too big they need to be reigned in and broken up

It's to do with the fact that he's repeating baseless claims about the Democrats stealing the election and inciting violence.

If I used a Twitter account to advocate for the hunting and eating of small children, my "free speech rights" would end pretty swiftly as well.

 

[Mr.lover]

the danger with social media banning sides is that they control what the public is allowed to hear. I think once the republicans regain control the big tech firms will face elimination of tax break new taxes and be broken up so they cannot control the flow of information

most here seem to think banning trump is good (I'm not arguing that particular point) but remember the most rights destroying governments have done this the nazis the commies and dictators ONLY allowed information broadcast that they want the public to hear .

tech companies have a monopoly and have grown too big they need to be reigned in and broken up

There is a small difference. Stopping one from using a platform to incite violence, conduct a coup, or kill should be prohibited. This ban was for the good of everyone. They have the right to arms, but if you have a criminal record you cannot legally buy or own guns. Same principle here, if a person has the capability and power to direct a small army of brain dead issurectionist to violence then their right to free speech should be restricted.

 

[Boss Nass]

"The 29-year-old model said the act displayed the tech billionaire's power to blacklist potentially anyone else in the future."

Imagine that, a private company deciding what they want to do. THIS IS COMMUNISM!

 

[danmand]

It's to do with the fact that he's repeating baseless claims about the Democrats stealing the election and inciting violence.

If I used a Twitter account to advocate for the hunting and eating of small children, my "free speech rights" would end pretty swiftly as well.

Twitter could reasonably be held responsible for your hypothetical (I trust) posts as well as Trump's posts.

 

[Baller Time]

Diagnosis Deeeee-licious

Then see her.