Big Tech censorship | Trump Banned from Twitter

I'm With Stupid said:
If Trump owned Twitter it never would have got off the ground. And a social media platform that banned everyone who disagreed with its owner would find itself very quickly superseded by other platforms, unless it was allowed to engage in anti-competitive, monopolistic practices. That's why a well-regulated market is the best solution all round.
Click to expand...

Those rules don't apply to the winner takes it all arena of Big tech. Trump would have never been able to run Twitter into market dominance that's true, but hypothetically he could have behaved like the Mad King after inheriting or acquiring it.

Twitter has behaved in anticompetitive practices, just look up Twitter acquisitions. They have acquired numerous companies who developed add-ons to their ecosystem or bullied them into submission when they have refused to do business by threatening IP action (twitpic) is an example. Not as successful as Facebook with whatsapp and Instagram but the same playbook in action.

I agree about the bolded part, the current situation is that tech companies have lax regulations or special rules that exempt them. At the moment Facebook have escaped antitrust action because the USA's position is to allow monopiles in tech because it's the only viable model, and they want American companies to have market dominance.
 
Rascal said:
Capitalism is inherently flawed and the effects of it are clear in the banning of Trump from a corporate Capitalist platform.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you've really understood the issue here Russ. It's a failure of politics, rather than an economic system.

Merkel is arguing that the state should regulate social media, not leave it to the corporation to do so. This is the EU's approach to the problem. Whether that is a better or worse approach is debatable.

But the fact is it's quite possible to have a capitalist economy with effective regulation or where socialist principles (like the NHS for example, with healthcare free to all at the point of use, or the welfare state) apply.
 
Rascal said:
It is time for your daily patronising.

Corporatism is one of the bedrocks of fascism. Why on earth do you think I am against corporate power?

Umberto Eco wrote in his 14 common features of fascism

Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology."

This is corporate power, it is the monied elites showing contempt for the weak by ignoring democracy and influencing government for their own ends, not the ends of the people (the weak)

He also wrote

“There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”

This is what the big tech corporations are doing, they are attempting to become the voice of the people, although it can also be argued Trump is doing exactly the same thing, the difference being Trump was elected the Tech companies have no mandate.

Eco also wrote

The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”

This definitely relates to Trump and his follower's and I would argue that the banning of Trump by the big tech corporations feeds that obsession rather than starves that obsession.
Click to expand...
Always appreciate the way you act with such grace (genuine). Personally, if it feeds and outs the Trump obsessives that sounds like a good thing.
 
Rascal said:
It is time for your daily patronising.

Corporatism is one of the bedrocks of fascism. Why on earth do you think I am against corporate power?

Umberto Eco wrote in his 14 common features of fascism

Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology."

This is corporate power, it is the monied elites showing contempt for the weak by ignoring democracy and influencing government for their own ends, not the ends of the people (the weak)

He also wrote

“There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”

This is what the big tech corporations are doing, they are attempting to become the voice of the people, although it can also be argued Trump is doing exactly the same thing, the difference being Trump was elected the Tech companies have no mandate.

Eco also wrote

The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”

This definitely relates to Trump and his follower's and I would argue that the banning of Trump by the big tech corporations feeds that obsession rather than starves that obsession.
Click to expand...

Corporatism isn’t the power wielded by companies but the power wielded by groups with similar needs, such as unions. I’m surprised you are against it mate but that’s Marxism for you
 
metalblue said:
Corporatism isn’t the power wielded by companies but the power wielded by groups with similar needs, such as unions. I’m surprised you are against it mate but that’s Marxism for you
Click to expand...
That was how Mussolini envisaged it, but he also employed gangsterism to make sure unions acquiesced.
 
super_city_si said:


Posted using twitter on an iphone. YUP.
Click to expand...

The irony of complaining about being silenced on the platform that was silenced.
and the irony that Trump could just hold a news conference at his local 4 seasons garden centre at any point , means he’s not silenced at all.
 
Hart of the Matter said:
The man is holding a smoking gun quite literally at a murder scene. Not vengeance (a typical deflection by apologists). If I had incited a riot, let alone an insurgency, at a public meeting, which led to deaths, I would currently be suiting in a cell with no bail...to argue differently is enabling.
Click to expand...
You are misunderstanding, Trump has been banned, fine OK.
People then want full clarification of the reasons from the tech company involved. The company then lists its COC and specifies the reasons and their rules, again, fair enough, as many people have said, it's their bat and ball, they can do as they wish.
When those rules are not being applied across the many infringements that are
on their site, many openly advocating murder, death and destruction, then, understandably, they will be accused of censoring what they personally dislike,
and citing the rules becomes a flippant dismissal that will, again not go down too well. They're saying, by their inaction, that it's only what they don't like that gets banned, and again, there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Twitter stock has dropped, I believe this will hurt them, millions will/are switching to other platforms, which is another discussion.
 
Ancient Citizen said:
You are misunderstanding, Trump has been banned, fine OK.
People then want full clarification of the reasons from the tech company involved. The company then lists its COC and specifies the reasons and their rules, again, fair enough, as many people have said, it's their bat and ball, they can do as they wish.
When those rules are not being applied across the many infringements that are
on their site, many openly advocating murder, death and destruction, then, understandably, they will be accused of censoring what they personally dislike,
and citing the rules becomes a flippant dismissal that will, again not go down too well. They're saying, by their inaction, that it's only what they don't like that gets banned, and again, there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Twitter stock has dropped, I believe this will hurt them, millions will/are switching to other platforms, which is another discussion.
Click to expand...
Their stock may have also dropped if they had not suspended. Social media is under the spotlight anyway.
 
Ancient Citizen said:
You are misunderstanding, Trump has been banned, fine OK.
People then want full clarification of the reasons from the tech company involved. The company then lists its COC and specifies the reasons and their rules, again, fair enough, as many people have said, it's their bat and ball, they can do as they wish.
When those rules are not being applied across the many infringements that are
on their site, many openly advocating murder, death and destruction, then, understandably, they will be accused of censoring what they personally dislike,
and citing the rules becomes a flippant dismissal that will, again not go down too well. They're saying, by their inaction, that it's only what they don't like that gets banned, and again, there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Twitter stock has dropped, I believe this will hurt them, millions will/are switching to other platforms, which is another discussion.
Click to expand...

They banned Trump because he led/promoted/encouraged an act of insurrection. They are banning accounts that amplified this act of insurrection. Amazon also removed other platforms from their servers that were seen to be enabling this act of insurrection and also encouraging further acts of insurrection.

There is a bipartisan move to impeach Trump for the same reasons and federal authorities are looking to prosecute on the same grounds.

It has nothing to do with banning something ‘they dislike’. All platforms were quite happy with the money they were making on the back of Trump. Insurrection though threatens their businesses way more than a drop in share price.

Trump and his followers are now being perceived as ISIS are perceived. A threat to America. A large percentage of his followers want to eliminate the FBI, CIA, Congress and the Justice Dept. They also want to scrap the constitution, and install the military to oversee a ‘new America’ under Trump and General Flynn.
 
Hart of the Matter said:
Their stock may have also dropped if they had not suspended. Social media is under the spotlight anyway.
Click to expand...
Doubt it, they have now, isolated an enormous sector of their
business, and people are sacking it in numbers. Still, it's their decision, although I'd be surprised if shareholders are ecstatic.
 
It’s interesting that many kicking off about this were the people defending that cake shop for not making a wedding cake for that gay couple. Strange how they were all for private businesses having the right to refuse services to who they want back then but as soon as their orange overlord gets banned they scream foul and chat shit about free speech.
 
RandomJ said:
It’s interesting that many kicking off about this were the people defending that cake shop for not making a wedding cake for that gay couple. Strange how they were all for private businesses having the right to refuse services to who they want back then but as soon as their orange overlord gets banned they scream foul and chat shit about free speech.
Click to expand...
Well I'm not one of those calling foul, because I'm all for private companies doing what they want, within the law, so Twitter, Amazon and Co. are welcome do so.
Personally, I hope the competition in this industry blossoms, and far
more, actors come into play, competition is healthy.
 
RandomJ said:
It’s interesting that many kicking off about this were the people defending that cake shop for not making a wedding cake for that gay couple. Strange how they were all for private businesses having the right to refuse services to who they want back then but as soon as their orange overlord gets banned they scream foul and chat shit about free speech.
Click to expand...
We need to make a list of these people and expose them. It just shows how quickly this whole qanon thing has sprouted from a seemingly insignificant homophobic confectioner.
 
How do you guys handle Freedom of Speech issues? It seems to me that some hate speech can have criminal consequences in England. Is that true and are there any other reasons your speech could break the law?
 
BTW, legally we can call a cop a f#*?ing assh*le right to their faces and not be in any violation of a law. What a lot of Americans don't realize is that the cop can still shoot you or beat you to death and then claim you were threatened them. So we don't have true freedom of speech anyway and it certainly isn't equal because people with money's speech goes a lot further than average citizens.
 
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