It’s just schadenfreude, mate.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Katie Hopkins suspended from Twitter
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
Mike Cledford
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2019
- Messages
- 5,248
- Team supported
- Man City
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.
Do RAWK and Redcafe pay this this woman so much attention?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.
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
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.
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."
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 18,450
- Team supported
- FC Zurich (and city of course)
Yes, I suppose so, but without the oxygen of publicity this gives her she would quickly vanish.It’s just schadenfreude, mate.
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
Don’t know don’t care.Do RAWK and Redcafe pay this this woman so much attention?
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
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.
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).
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.
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.