Notre instance Nitter est hébergée dans l'Union Européenne. Les lois de l'UE s'y appliquent. Conformément à la Directive 2001/29/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 22 mai 2001 sur l'harmonisation de certains aspects du droit d'auteur et des droits voisins dans la société de l'information, « Les actes de reproduction provisoires visés à l'article 2, qui sont transitoires ou accessoires et constituent une partie intégrante et essentielle d'un procédé technique et dont l'unique finalité est de permettre : une transmission dans un réseau entre tiers par un intermédiaire, […] d'une oeuvre ou d'un objet protégé, et qui n'ont pas de signification économique indépendante, sont exemptés du droit de reproduction. » Aussi, toutes les demandes de retrait doivent être envoyées à Twitter, car nous n'avons aucun contrôle sur les données qu'ils ont sur leurs serveurs.

Joined October 2011
If you don't already, do yourself a favor and follow @BillyM2k. He may not always be right but he's always worth hearing out. Hands down the #1 user on the platform.
Replying to @elonmusk @micsolana
It 100% is, you have to power to start the fight, preserve the evidence and collaborate with someone who has standing (was impacted by gov't direct "review") and get the court fight started ASAP.
Replying to @BillyM2k
Agreed but I'd take it a step further and say that politicians, especially sitting ones, committed actual 1A violations in asking in the first place, someone impacted should test this in court.
A member of the government directing speech to be reviewed for censorship is illegal. This is true of both Repub. And Dem. but as stated, internal bias at Twitter moved the needle to more Dem. First Amendment violations. That is what it this is, 1A violations, illegal.
Replying to @BillyM2k
Great thread you mean. Thanks for the laughs while it lasted. XD 9. Killed me especially
If you don't already, do yourself a favor and follow @BillyM2k. He may not always be right but he's always worth hearing out. Hands down the #1 user on the platform.
Replying to @DJSnM @elonmusk
I have appreciated your videos in the past but if you think less freedom of speech = more "freedom" I don't know how I can trust your rationality for such a science focused channel. In service of hope: How exactly do you think speech can limit freedom?
Replying to @jordanbpeterson
Voted disagree but I wanted a nuanced agree option. Unaccountable virtualization enables psychopathy, a totally anonymous virtual identity can still be held socially accountable in is own domain given proof of stake, such as a Twitter Blue fee, and a stable pseudo-identity.
They feel somewhat uncomfortable to use, rather lumpy, but have positive results in supporting the head and neck. Bought one to test and gave it a few nights despite bad first impression due to bad "head-feel" but bought another one or was clear it had good helpful support.
If you want Twitter to be a platform for speech it must be a platform for even gross speech.
Happy to have you back on Twitter, though very much disagree; well respected political writers of the past wrote under pseudonyms. But a name has to mean something. "Anonymous" accounts, like mine, need much stricter name change limits so they remain identifiable as an alias.
The math of how we vote doesn't work out with anything but two parties, trying to avoid them is just burying your head in the sand, if you want politics to matter less you should do as Elon says and minimize political power by distributing it as wide and as low as possible.
Probably because guns aren't the evil you think they are, and climate change is a concern but not an emergency like you think it is, plenty of Republicans are happy to see a transition to green tech, we just don't want to kill the economy to make it happen sooner than needed.
Replying to @hankgreen @elonmusk
Why do you believe it does that? Is it just because you disagree with the assessment? Never heard you raise your complaints about Twitter bias before, and I'm a frequent watcher of your YouTube content, for now at least.
Replying to @BillyM2k @elonmusk
I wasn't going to purchase it because at face value Twitter does not provide me with $8 of value per month, but I've decided Twitter + supporting actual free speech online does, I hope others in a similar situation will do the same.
This is the crossover I didn't know I needed, The Drinker and Elon Musk. Appreciate your videos sir, hope someday soon people re-realize good art can be political but it has to first and foremost be good art.
What I think the other poster was trying to point out: If you're still getting paid you're not terminated yet. If they get paid (with no gap in pay status) for 60 days then they got the required notice, the employer doesn't have to have them actually do work.
He didn't sell out, he refused to sell out, which is why he left. A prior director for the series said that multiple writers actively hate The Witcher's source material. He has been clear he only wants to stay if they actually tell the story faithfully. They aren't so he's gone.
Replying to @autismfather
Privilege: Thinking that giving draconian control to a central authority is a good idea because you were lucky enough to be born free and have never had to experience the true oppression that has been born from "good intentions".
This is why nobody in the world who still has their natural right to bear arms should ever give that up and those who have been denied that right should seek to take it back immediately.
Replying to @AndrewYang
Unconstitutional, please read Article III of the constitution.