Big Tech censorship | Trump Banned from Twitter

I am quite cuddly really, thank you for the compliment. Likewise, you are a good lad and whilst we may disagree on plenty of things and fight like cat and dog over them, the fact we can fundamentally disagree and still have a pint and go to the match speaks volumes. Me and PB had a big debate about antisemitism and see things from totally different angles, that will not stop me saying hello and calling him a dwarf next time I see him at the match.

I also welcome abrasiveness, if it means healthy debate, all the better. It is when debate is stopped that i get concerned. I do not ask anyone to agree with me, all i ask is take on board my views as I will take on board yours and whilst sometimes never the twain shall meet, it is only politics and sometimes life is more important than that.
Fair enough.

You're still a totalitarian twat though. But since I am an arch-capitalist Yank dickhead with a superiority complex I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Can we agree Sterling shouldn't ever take a penalty again?
 
You’re not wrong Foggy but I know Russ in person. As I previously called him, he’s a mad old twat but he’s genuine and has a heart to gold. Before we ever met, we used to go at it rather hard on here as I couldn’t understand how anyone could be so wrong on so many things (in my opinion of course) but then we met and I now understand that his views are based solely on what he believe would be the betterment of society. I don’t agree with 95% of what he says but I understand his views aren’t nefarious and he doesn’t argue in bad faith (unlike certain posters I’ll not name). I can guarantee that you’d feel the same way about him if you attended a game or two with him as I’ve had the pleasure of doing. I don’t say that to make you less abrasive towards him (he deserves it!) but simply to give context to his mentalist totalitarian view.

I tagged him in the @jack post as it goes some way to showing Russ that Twitter isn’t being run out of a hollowed out volcano attempting an elitist corporate NWO.
OK, peace and love from now on.

I have too much rage, fear and anxiety inside clearly. Never had to truly worry about my country before. New to me.
 
OK, peace and love from now on.

I have too much rage, fear and anxiety inside clearly. Never had to truly worry about my country before. New to me.
No need for peace and love, we ain't hippies but look I do get your fears, i understand why you are anxious as events in your nation have been unprecedented and without wanting to go all doom and gloom on you, they may get worse before they get better.

I watch and read some of stuff about your country with astonishment, when you have the likes of Fox News spreading the poison they do, it is hardly surprising the nation is so fractured. I saw them describe Biden as a neo-Marxist FFS, and others such as AoC are routinely described as far left. In our political parties, Biden would possible be on the left of the Conservative party and AoC on the right of the Labour party. Thats why I must look like Stalin, Pol Pot, Trotsky and Lenin all rolled into one to you, as I am on the left of the Labour party. Yes I have been influenced by Marx, also by Lenin and Trotsky, but also by left wing figures such as Atlee, Benn, Foot and even though it is a little embarrassing Blair and Bill Clinton and I am a great admirer of Barack Obama. I actually think Michelle Obama would make a great President of the USA as i know you country will never be as left wing as I want my country to be, at least they care and are closer to my line of thinking than nutjobs like Trump, Bush et al.

Your country like mine is suffering from the influence of the Austrian and Chicago schools of economic thought that brought us neo-liberalism. Reagan instigated it in your country and Thatcher in mine and whilst we differ as nations we are also very much alike in that we do respect democracy and law and order. We value our institutions and we enjoy our freedoms.

My anti corporate stance has come about because of neo-liberalism, I am not anti business, I am in favour of limited state control of vital services and industry that allows smaller businesses room to develop. Corporations squeeze the room that small business has to develop and destroys there ability to compete, which concentrates power in the hands of too few people and enriches the few at the cost of the many.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/16/technology/inside-twitter-decision-trump.html


SAN FRANCISCO — Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s chief executive, was working remotely on a private island in French Polynesia frequented by celebrities escaping the paparazzi when a phone call interrupted him on Jan. 6.


On the line was Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s top lawyer and safety expert, with an update from the real world. She said she and other company executives had decided to lock President Trump’s account, temporarily, to prevent him from posting statements that might provoke more violence after a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol that day.
Mr. Dorsey was concerned about the move, said two people with knowledge of the call. For four years, he had resisted demands by liberals and others that Twitter terminate Mr. Trump’s account, arguing that the platform was a place where world leaders could speak, even if their views were heinous. But he had delegated moderation decisions to Ms. Gadde, 46, and usually deferred to her — and he did so again.

Mr. Dorsey, 44, did not make his misgivings public. The next day, he liked and shared several tweets urging caution against a permanent ban of Mr. Trump. Then, over the next 36 hours, Twitter veered from lifting Mr. Trump’s suspension to shutting down his account permanently, cutting off the president from a platform he had used to communicate, unfiltered, with not just his 88 million followers but the world.


The decision was a punctuation mark on the Trump presidency that immediately drew accusations of political bias and fresh scrutiny of the tech industry’s power over public discourse. Interviews with a dozen current and former Twitter insiders over the past week opened a window into how it was made — driven by a group of Mr. Dorsey’s lieutenants who overcame their boss’s reservations, but only after a deadly rampage at the Capitol.
Having lifted the suspension the next day, Twitter monitored the response to Mr. Trump’s tweets across the internet, and executives briefed Mr. Dorsey that Mr. Trump’s followers had seized on his latest messages to call for more violence. In one post on the alternative social networking site Parler, members of Twitter’s safety team saw a Trump fan urge militias to stop President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. from entering the White House and to fight anyone who tried to halt them. The potential for more real-world unrest, they said, was too high.
Twitter was also under pressure from its employees, who had for years agitated to remove Mr. Trump from the service, as well as lawmakers, tech investors and others. But while more than 300 employees signed a letter saying Mr. Trump’s account must be stopped, the decision to bar the president was made before the letter was delivered to executives, two of the people said.
On Wednesday, Mr. Dorsey alluded to the tensions inside Twitter. In a string of 13 tweets, he wrote that he did “not celebrate or feel pride in our having to ban @realDonaldTrump” because “a ban is a failure of ours ultimately to promote healthy conversation.”
But Mr. Dorsey added: “This was the right decision for Twitter. We faced an extraordinary and untenable circumstance, forcing us to focus all of our actions on public safety.”


Mr. Dorsey, Ms. Gadde and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.
Since Mr. Trump was barred, many of Mr. Dorsey’s concerns about the move have been realized. Twitter has been embroiled in a furious debate over tech power and the companies’ lack of accountability.
Lawmakers such as Representative Devin Nunes, a Republican from California, have railed against Twitter, while Silicon Valley venture capitalists, First Amendment scholars and the American Civil Liberties Union have also criticized the company. At the same time, activists around the world have accused Twitter of following a double standard by cutting off Mr. Trump but not autocrats elsewhere who use the platform to bully opponents.
“This is a phenomenal exercise of power to de-platform the president of the United States,” said Evelyn Douek, a lecturer at Harvard Law School who focuses on online speech. “It should set off a broader reckoning.”


Mr. Trump, who joined Twitter in 2009, was a boon and bane for the company. His tweets brought attention to Twitter, which sometimes struggled to attract new users. But his false assertions and threats online also caused critics to say the site enabled him to spread lies and provoke harassment.
Many of Twitter’s more than 5,400 employees opposed having Mr. Trump on the platform. In August 2019, shortly after a gunman killed more than 20 people at a Walmart in El Paso, Twitter called a staff meeting to discuss how the gunman, in an online manifesto, had echoed many of the views that Mr. Trump posted on Twitter.
At the meeting, called a “Flock Talk,” some employees said Twitter was “complicit” by giving Mr. Trump a megaphone to “dog whistle” to his supporters, two attendees said. The employees implored executives to make changes before more people got hurt.
Over time, Twitter became more proactive on political content. In October 2019, Mr. Dorsey ended all political advertising on the site, saying he worried such ads had “significant ramifications that today’s democratic structure may not be prepared to handle.”


But Mr. Dorsey, a proponent of free speech, declined to take down world leaders’ posts, because he considered them newsworthy. Since Twitter announced that year that it would give greater leeway to world leaders who broke its rules, the company had removed their tweets only once: Last March, it deleted messages from the presidents of Brazil and Venezuela that promoted false cures for the coronavirus. Mr. Dorsey opposed the removals, a person with knowledge of his thinking said.
Mr. Dorsey pushed for an in-between solution: appending labels to tweets by world leaders if the posts violated Twitter’s policies. In May, when Mr. Trump tweeted inaccurate information about mail-in voting, Mr. Dorsey gave the go-ahead for Twitter to start labeling the president’s messages.
After the Nov. 3 election, Mr. Trump tweeted that it had been stolen from him. Within a few days, Twitter had labeled about 34 percent of his tweets and retweets, according to a New York Times tally.
Then came the Capitol storming.
On Jan. 6, as Congress met to certify the election, Twitter executives celebrated their acquisition of Ueno, a branding and design firm. Mr. Dorsey, who has often gone on retreats, had traveled to the South Pacific island, said the people with knowledge of his location.
When Mr. Trump used Twitter to lash out at Vice President Mike Pence and question the election result, the company added warnings to his tweets. Then as violence erupted at the Capitol, people urged Twitter and Facebook to take Mr. Trump offline entirely.
That led to virtual discussions among some of Mr. Dorsey’s lieutenants. The group included Ms. Gadde, a lawyer who had joined Twitter in 2011; Del Harvey, vice president of trust and safety; and Yoel Roth, the head of site integrity. Ms. Harvey and Mr. Roth had helped build the company’s responses to spam, harassment and election interference.
The executives decided to suspend Mr. Trump because his comments appeared to incite the mob, said the people with knowledge of the discussions. Ms. Gadde then called Mr. Dorsey, who was not pleased, they said.
Mr. Trump was not barred completely. If he deleted several tweets that had stoked the mob, there would be a 12-hour cooling-off period. Then he could post again.
After Twitter locked Mr. Trump’s account, Facebook did the same. Snapchat, Twitch and others also placed limits on Mr. Trump.


But Mr. Dorsey was not sold on a permanent ban of Mr. Trump. He emailed employees the next day, saying it was important for the company to remain consistent with its policies, including letting a user return after a suspension.
Many workers, fearing that history would not look kindly upon them, were dissatisfied. Several invoked IBM’s collaboration with the Nazis, said current and former Twitter employees, and started a petition to immediately remove Mr. Trump’s account.
That same day, Facebook barred Mr. Trump through at least the end of his term. But he returned to Twitter that evening with a video saying there would be a peaceful transition of power.
By the next morning, though, Mr. Trump was back at it. He tweeted that his base would have a “GIANT VOICE” and that he would not attend the Jan. 20 inauguration.
Twitter’s safety team immediately saw Trump fans, who had been saying the president abandoned them, post about further unrest, said the people with knowledge of the matter. In a Parler message that the safety team reviewed, one user said anyone who opposed “American Patriots” like himself should leave Washington or risk physical harm during the inauguration.
The safety team began drafting an analysis of the tweets and whether they constituted grounds for kicking off Mr. Trump, the people said.
Around noon in San Francisco that day, Mr. Dorsey called in for an employee meeting. Some pressed him on why Mr. Trump was not permanently barred.
Mr. Dorsey repeated that Twitter should be consistent with its policies. But he said he had drawn a line in the sand that the president could not cross or Mr. Trump would lose his account privileges, people with knowledge of the event said.
After the meeting, Mr. Dorsey and other executives agreed that Mr. Trump’s tweets that morning — and the responses they had provoked — had crossed that line, the people said. The employee letter asking for Mr. Trump’s removal was later delivered, they said.


Within hours, Mr. Trump’s account was gone, except for an “Account suspended” label. He tried tweeting from the @POTUS account, which is the official account of the U.S. president, as well as others. But at every turn, Twitter thwarted him by pulling down the messages.
Some Twitter employees, fearing the wrath of Mr. Trump’s supporters, have now set their Twitter accounts to private and removed mentions of their employer from online biographies, four people said. Several executives were assigned personal security.
Twitter has also broadened its crackdown on accounts promoting violence. Over the weekend, it removed more than 70,000 accounts that pushed the QAnon conspiracy theory, which posits that Mr. Trump is fighting a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles.
On Wednesday, employees gathered virtually to discuss the decision to bar Mr. Trump, two attendees said. Some were grateful that Twitter had taken action, while others were eager to leave the Trump era behind. Many were emotional; some cried.
That afternoon, Mr. Trump returned again to Twitter, this time using the official @WhiteHouse account to share a video saying he condemned violence — but also denouncing what he called restrictions on free speech. Twitter allowed the video to remain online.
An hour later, Mr. Dorsey tweeted his discomfort about the removal of Mr. Trump’s online accounts. It “sets a precedent I feel is dangerous: the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation,” he wrote.
But he concluded, “Everything we learn in this moment will better our effort, and push us to be what we are: one humanity working together.”
 
^^^^
so definitely not a decision either taken lightly nor was it an attempt to control speech in favour of corporate elitism/oligarchy.
Reading that it was 100% the correct decision.

I was skeptics of anyone being banned off Twitter previously but when US democracy itself is at risk, the means justify the ends.
 
Reading that it was 100% the correct decision.

I was skeptics of anyone being banned off Twitter previously but when US democracy itself is at risk, the means justify the ends.
He also comes across (in the article) as the opposite of arrogant. More someone stuck between a rock and a hard place. It must be how Ric feels when he has to ban me for telling someone I’d break their face (though I don’t think I’ve had a ban in about 5 or 6 years. I’m losing my touch)
 
OK, peace and love from now on.

I have too much rage, fear and anxiety inside clearly. Never had to truly worry about my country before. New to me.
That, mate, is integral to their method. Scare and anger people with critical minds, so they couldn't keep influencing their target audience. I reached apotheosis about two weeks ago. Going into an obvious COVID disaster, and the riot.

Anger has to work for us. I read a book a long time ago about this. My view is that we have to be able to do our own reading, research, thinking, and talking/posting/writing without strong emotions pushing and pulling us. That includes the emotional pull to be heard, or the need to dismiss a voice with a message we know will upset us further if we consider it. The anger is there to reinforce our steadfastness in the absolute need for us to do the 'work'.

Clear, prolonged thinking will lead to clearer understandings and clearer statements. That's what our teachers instilled. Unlike the internet, and modern mass media, history class and so on were not bear pits full of people trying to distract and confuse us. People were not running around screaming the end of the world was nigh, forming gangs, playing on insecurities, subverting discussions by instigating 'compulsory' conspicious dick waving contests, shouting and calling names, rude words, nonsense, riddles, and mixing it all up as a form of entertainment.
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.