Big Tech censorship | Trump Banned from Twitter

[domalino]

Yeah, that’s partly why I said they don’t follow it consistently!

The important thing is that they have established a line now.

They banned trump because he was genuinely inciting real, imminent violence. Not just hateful rhetoric or propaganda, or even the kind of generic "death to xxx" you might see from some religious extremists, he was inciting real, happening violence by encouraging the rioters while it happened and then made statements they felt would lead to future violence.

Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

Suspension of @realDonaldTrump

blog.twitter.com

They laid out their reasoning very clearly and now we just have to hold them to upkeeping that standard for any other heads of state / political figures.

 

[meltonblue]

Their house, their rules. Anyone who doesn't like them is free to leave.

That’s got nothing to do with what I put though. Are you saying there should be no regulation at all apart from what they decide themselves? Do you think that about the press too...?

 

[Maly]

That’s got nothing to do with what I put though. Are you saying there should be no regulation at all apart from what they decide themselves? Do you think that about the press too...?

It’s impossible to regulate unless you’re the business, so I’m afraid we’re stuck with them regulating themselves, much the same as the MODs regulate this board, or should that also come under legislation?

I’m not saying you’re wrong with wanting regulation, but how would you suggest it would be implemented?

Comparing social media to the press isn’t a particularly good argument in my opinion as I can’t get any of my thoughts word for word in the press, but I can with social media, so you’re comparing chalk with cheese.

 

[meltonblue]

It’s impossible to regulate unless you’re the business, so I’m afraid we’re stuck with them regulating themselves, much the same as the MODs regulate this board, or should that also come under legislation?

I’m not saying you’re wrong with wanting regulation, but how would you suggest it would be implemented?

Comparing social media to the press isn’t a particularly good argument in my opinion as I can’t get any of my thoughts word for word in the press, but I can with social media, so you’re comparing chalk with cheese.

I was only comparing them in the context of the post I was replying to in that if it’s “their platform, their rules”, does that apply elsewhere too? You can’t get your thoughts in the press only because they’re not allowing you access to their platform, should anyone who does be allowed to say whatever they want as long as the newspaper owners allow them to?

On your main point, it’s nigh on impossible to regulate I agree, that’s why I said it’s a difficult one. I don’t think it’s impossible to legislate though, although that is tricky too with these being global platforms.

 

[Rascal]

Maybe i am not the fucking idiot that many think i am in taking the line i did.

My concerns are now on the BBC news at 10pm and it is now becoming a proper debate.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

This is SIMPLE.

Trump violated the Terms of Service of a PRIVATE service provider MULTIPLE TIMES.

The ONLY scandal here is that he wasn't banned SOONER.

 

[Maly]

I was only comparing them in the context of the post I was replying to in that if it’s “their platform, their rules”, does that apply elsewhere too? You can’t get your thoughts in the press only because they’re not allowing you access to their platform, should anyone who does be allowed to say whatever they want as long as the newspaper owners allow them to?

On your main point, it’s nigh on impossible to regulate I agree, that’s why I said it’s a difficult one. I don’t think it’s impossible to legislate though, although that is tricky too with these being global platforms.

Definitely tricky. The world has moved with such pace technologically speaking these past 10 years or so.

I thought we had freedom of press in the Uk where they could print anything the chief editor allowed them to as long as it wasn’t breaking laws or risking national security? So their house, their rules almost applies, although I am aware their is a regulatory body for the press in the UK

No 100% if the above is fact or just what I thought to be true, so I stand to be corrected by anyone with more knowledge than myself.

With Twitter the major difference is that things can only be removed retrospectively, unless you’ve already been banned.

Also, As It’s individuals posting & not employees on Twitter, again I’m struggling to think what could be brought in to legislate this, especially seeing as you don’t have to use your own details or name on any social media platform.

If you got to choose how social media was run, what would you like to see done differentlet?

 

[Maly]

Maybe i am not the fucking idiot that many think i am in taking the line i did.

My concerns are now on the BBC news at 10pm and it is now becoming a proper debate.

I think it’s safe to say, in answer to your first post too, it’s global corporations that run the world & have done for the past 50yrs +

Used to be petrochemical companies with all the power to influence governments, but the tech sector is gaining more influence as the years go by.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Maybe i am not the fucking idiot that many think i am

You are. Really. But occasionally you talk some sense. ;-)

 

[FCBarca]

Indeed it's all about where you draw the line. Today it's fairly obvious but tomorrow? We tend to view things through a bit of a myopic lens. Will we silence or ban those opinions we deem incendiary because they differ rather than actually incite any sort of violence or instability in the future? I think it's a fair question to consider going forward

I am obviously no advocate of Trump or fascists but we may look back in a few years at this as a milestone and realize how debate began to be silenced/controlled in the digital age. All the BS that came from Homeland Security post 9/11 has not made the world safer, just militarized travel