Katie Hopkins suspended from Twitter

Ban-jani said:
Im not trying to argue with you in every thread before I say this haha :-)

The problem with these private companies, such as Twitter, Facebook, Youtube etc. banning people whatever their politics or views is that they then have a lot of power when it comes to elections and democracy, I think they already have too much.

The influence of social media on elections is still underrated, despite it being well known.

Cummings knew this in 2016 and spent most of his budget on social media.

If Twitter or Facebook has a particular view, they have the power to ban those they dislike and influence democracy.

Don’t get me wrong, Hopkins is abhorrent and I am not defending her views at all, especially her “final solution” comment, which she knew full well what that meant, I just feel that there’s nothing restraining Twitter doing this with more moderate people.

Pornography on Twitter comes with a content warning, when you go to click on it, I feel they should do the same with those with more of the extreme views.

I don’t see it as just the same as a newspaper having a certain view, this is the main way people communicate now and the power and access of it is frightening.

I feel those who are moaning about the free speech point are missing the point a little, it’s not about defending that witch Hopkins, it’s about our main method of political communication being biased and authoritarian.
Click to expand...
Wait... there’s porn on Twitter???
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
No, but if everyone just ignored her the problem wouldn't exist. She's probably relying on the outraged guardians of the online moral compass to keep her relevant to her fairly 'niche' audience by banning her from stuff and giving her the attention she craves
Click to expand...
Give it a rest, she’s a ****. You don’t have to spend your life on social media to know this. It’s a well known fact.
 
Pablo1 said:
Give it a rest, she’s a ****. You don’t have to spend your life on social media to know this. It’s a well known fact.
Click to expand...
She is. But everyone appears to be overjoyed about a woman I rarely hear about being banned from something I rarely use.

I would suggest that if everyone else did this she wouldn't be an issue. Or relevant.

Good old social media.
 
Imagine not caring about giving a platform to a racist and bigoted **** just because you don't follow them.

Hitler would have loved society today.
 
Pablo1 said:
Give it a rest, she’s a ****. You don’t have to spend your life on social media to know this. It’s a well known fact.
Click to expand...
BimboBob said:
She is. But everyone appears to be overjoyed about a woman I rarely hear about being banned from something I rarely use.

I would suggest that if everyone else did this she wouldn't be an issue. Or relevant.

Good old social media.
Click to expand...
Do RAWK and Redcafe pay this this woman so much attention?
 
BimboBob said:
She is. But everyone appears to be overjoyed about a woman I rarely hear about being banned from something I rarely use.

I would suggest that if everyone else did this she wouldn't be an issue. Or relevant.

Good old social media.
Click to expand...

It's the same as the YouTube videos -- there are dozens if not hundreds -- of traffic violators being filmed on dash cams being pulled over by police for breaking the law and getting the karma they richly deserve.

It's not the same as the YouTube videos -- there are dozens if not hundreds -- of traffic violators being filmed on dash cams getting into horrific accidents and the rest of us going, "Oy, I'm really glad those lawbreakers got horribly mangled in the resulting collision."
 
Ban-jani said:
The problem with these private companies, such as Twitter, Facebook, Youtube etc. banning people whatever their politics or views is that they then have a lot of power when it comes to elections and democracy, I think they already have too much.
Click to expand...

They have far, far, far, far less power to edit and censor the views that are put forth through them than any media distribution platform known in the history of the human race. Not only that, they've chosen that very hands-off editorial policy as part of their way to grow both contributions and eyeballs exponentially.

This argument is quite literally 180 degrees wrong.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
They have far, far, far, far less power to edit and censor the views that are filtered through them than any media distribution platform known in the history of the human race. Not only that, they've chosen that very editorial policy as part of their way to grow both contributions and eyeballs.

This argument is quite literally 180 degrees wrong.
Click to expand...

This isn’t actually true, there’s a lot of noise on YouTube about people’s videos being buried of certain political persuasions.

They have much less power with random trolls but with prominent, well-known commentators, it’s quite easy for them to do it.
 
Ban-jani said:
This isn’t actually true, there’s a lot of noise on YouTube about people’s videos being buried of certain political persuasions.

They have much less power with random trolls but with prominent, well-known commentators, it’s quite easy for them to do it.
Click to expand...

That's not the argument.

Your post regarding the "power" these companies have implies that people expounding at Speakers Corner, newspapers, books, television, radio and all other sources of media had or have wider distribution at a lower cost and/or less editorial control than Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

In other words, a City editor at a paper has 35 different articles from reporters in front of him/her, and chooses 17 to be published, and that's less restrictive than Twitter, who has content that measures in the millions of pieces daily, and lets it ALL go to distribution save a handful that violate specifically-enumerated rules (and that AFTER the fact).
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
That's not the argument.

Your post regarding the "power" these companies have implies that people expounding at Speakers Corner, newspapers, books, television, radio and all other sources of media had or have wider distribution at a lower cost and/or less editorial control than Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
Click to expand...

It is the argument. Twitter and YouTube are now passing the likes of news, panel shows etc. and if, as private companies, they can have more unchecked power to silence prominent figures, it can throw up issues.

I’m not arguing it’s clear cut, I’m not even 100% in this view, I’m just uneasy about the amount of access and interest there is on private platform such as these.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top