Seeing as though my points are not welcome elsewhere in other threads, either through a lack of interest in the points I am trying to make or a because of the sheer hatred of Trump, i will have my own thread to discuss what i was saying in the hope somebody might look beyond Trump and see the point i was trying albeit clumsily to make.
Now I have found someone who gets it, somebody far more eloquent and far cleverer than i will ever be, so maybe if you listen to him you make take notice.
Let's suppose Twitter was around in the 1930's and Hitler, after becoming Chancellor, and Goebbels were on it every day spewing antisemitism and inciting hatred and violence against Jews. Or the Hutu leadership in Rwanda were doing the same to the Tutsi population. Or Serbs were tweeting hate against the Bosnian Muslims and saying what they were going to do. Etc.
Would you expect them to be banned? I'd hope they would be. The problem isn't that Twitter has banned someone it believes broke their rules. The problem is they don't ban enough people. You can't complain about a company enforcing its rules. You can however complain because you don't think they've enforced them enough or inconsistently.
Social media companies have an absolute responsibility to help avoid people preaching hatred and incitement, and seeking to foment unrest. Just like the police have the responsibility to maintain law and order.
There is no such thing as absolute 'free speech' and nor should there be.
The issues for me is that they don’t consistently apply those CoCs and also, as Merkel says, should they be creating them or following legislature.
I get the argument around they’re private platforms but ultimately, Facebook and Twitter are essentially the biggest forms of mainstream media there is nowadays. It’s a really tricky one.
Now Mr Fog he's got a naughty eye that flickersYeah . . . except the guy who started this thread said he wouldn’t even FUCKING VOTE since the choice was between Biden and Trump if he were American. How the hell does that help?
It steams the snot out of me when people like him pontificate aimlessly with no stake in the outcome nor — if he even had the chance to effect slight change — even take the opportunity to do so. It’s hypocritical chickenshit.
It definitely should be in this thread, because it is the point I have been trying to make all along.Dunno if this should be in this thread or widen the debate.
Watching MSNBC this morning and a former Republican senator was questioning his own beliefs stemming from the rise of Trump and how Corporate America got involved. He came to the conclusion this is 40 years of unchecked corporate power who belittled governments and their institution to the point they could be destroyed.
The very point Nawaz makes with the CCP and the Uighurs.Let's suppose Twitter was around in the 1930's and Hitler, after becoming Chancellor, and Goebbels were on it every day spewing antisemitism and inciting hatred and violence against Jews. Or the Hutu leadership in Rwanda were doing the same to the Tutsi population. Or Serbs were tweeting hate against the Bosnian Muslims and saying what they were going to do. Etc.
Would you expect them to be banned? I'd hope they would be. The problem isn't that Twitter has banned someone it believes broke their rules. The problem is they don't ban enough people. You can't complain about a company enforcing its rules. You can however complain because you don't think they've enforced them enough or inconsistently.
Social media companies have an absolute responsibility to help avoid people preaching hatred and incitement, and seeking to foment unrest. Just like the police have the responsibility to maintain law and order.
There is no such thing as absolute 'free speech' and nor should there be.
The only problem is they waited 5 years to ban him.
Let's suppose Twitter was around in the 1930's and Hitler, after becoming Chancellor, and Goebbels were on it every day spewing antisemitism and inciting hatred and violence against Jews. Or the Hutu leadership in Rwanda were doing the same to the Tutsi population. Or Serbs were tweeting hate against the Bosnian Muslims and saying what they were going to do. Etc.
Would you expect them to be banned? I'd hope they would be. The problem isn't that Twitter has banned someone it believes broke their rules. The problem is they don't ban enough people. You can't complain about a company enforcing its rules. You can however complain because you don't think they've enforced them enough or inconsistently.
Social media companies have an absolute responsibility to help avoid people preaching hatred and incitement, and seeking to foment unrest. Just like the police have the responsibility to maintain law and order.
There is no such thing as absolute 'free speech' and nor should there be.