US Politics Thread

[SWP's back]

Unfortunately democracy is a messy business and we need to hear all sides of an argument. If it’s clearly a bad argument then the sane people amongst us will say so. Democracy has taken a real hammering.

The unbelievable irony in that post.

 

[mat]

I am no lover of Trump, he is fucking nuts, but i am not comfortable with a democratically elected President being censored by a big tech corporation. I know it is there platform blah blah, but still it makes me uneasy that a Corporation can have so much power in a democracy.

It's a powerful point.

You only need to look at what certain tech firms have been found guilty of with regards to politics. I made a joke on Twitter that the real power in the US has spoken and President Jack Dorsey with his Vice President Zuckerberg finally decided to act to protect their country. I got some pelters from a few of our US Cousins.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

It's a valid point of view, but when someone, whoever it is continues to violate the terms and conditions of a platform that has banned thousands of people for a whole lot less then there comes a point where they must act.

It's difficult as tech companies have essentially been affording users on their social media platforms the same privileges in terms of freedom of speech as say telephone users in that they can pretty much say what they want (to a point). They simply aren't regulated in the same way radio and TV companies are.

Trump was using Twitter (and other platforms) to whip his followers into a frenzy with lies and mistruths. I think Twitter made the decision to distance themselves from him in case it blows up big time and they are somehow held partially liable.

I also agree Pie is wrong on this one. The thing about hosting such people on Twitter rather than some fringe Stormfront website is that it legitimises the viewpoint and risks bringing more moderate people along for the ride. Perhaps that would happen anyway, but your ordinary conservative-thinking person isn't likely to end up on some dodgy far right website, whereas they are likely to end up on Twitter. The alt-right wasn't a huge problem when it was just some fringe group on 4Chan rather than harassing people on Twitter. Twitter allows such fringe people to get a foothold and build a following in the wider conservative community. It's up to people if they think that's a good thing or a bad thing, but I don't think that hosting all sorts of vile views openly makes them less likely to become a problem. If anything, it makes them more likely to become accepted parts of normal discourse. Ultimately, I think it's up to Twitter themselves what they want to host on their website (unless it violates the law), but I certainly won't be praising them for banning someone they've been profiting off for 5 years who has written things that would get any other user banned several times a week.

 

[Ban-jani]

@bluethrunthru isn’t that bad!

He’s worse

 

[Ban-jani]

View attachment 8012

Very clever headline.

 

[Rascal]

He still has the POTUS account , he is the most powerful man in the world and they let him call to action a few thousand people to incite a riot , i would of knee capped him as well

His actions were crass, the man is a narcissistic clown, I don't like him at all.

People are confusing the two.

If twitter had banned Biden, the very same people on here who getting hot under the collar about my post would then be outraged at the banning of Biden and saying Corporate power has gone to far.

Because the issue is about Corporate power and how far it has seeped into society and how much it affects our lives and our democracy.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

That is of no importance to me, it is the over reach of corporate power that i find disturbing.

If they can use that power to ban a President, who knows where the use of said power will end. If they can ban a President what is stopping them banning anyone that disagrees with their corporate stance. It doesn't have to be against the code of conduct it can be just the corporate entity pushing boundaries to see how far their influence on democracy can go.

I am not comfortable with what they have done, because I believe Democracy is far more important than a corporation's desires.

So when a newspaper refuses to print your letter to the editor, for whatever reason, is that an attack on democracy and/or a violation of your rights?

Allowing for a corporation’s desires while regulating them is PART of a democracy.

Your take is bad.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Anyway, more importantly...

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

His actions were crass, the man is a narcissistic clown, I don't like him at all.

People are confusing the two.

If twitter had banned Biden, the very same people on here who getting hot under the collar about my post would then be outraged at the banning of Biden and saying Corporate power has gone to far.

Because the issue is about Corporate power and how far it has seeped into society and how much it affects our lives and our democracy.

Another bad take. If Biden had regularly violated the rules of conduct, I’d have ZERO problem with him being banned, and that goes for any user.

 

[west didsblue]

I’ve read a lot of posts in here eulogising over the Big Tech’s banning of certain topics.
That’s all well and good when you are against or dislike those topics but what will they feel when it’s their turn to be banned on the whim of some billionaire’s company?

Unfortunately democracy is a messy business and we need to hear all sides of an argument. If it’s clearly a bad argument then the sane people amongst us will say so. Democracy has taken a real hammering.

Democracy has taken a 5 year hammering from Trump using tools like Twitter and Facebook. The only reason he wasn’t banned years ago was because of his position. Anyone else using that level of incitement would have been banned a long time ago.

He still has the advantage of being in a position to summon the world’s media to listen to him and report it so he’s hardly been silenced.