US Politics Thread

[DrBlueBob]

I've said it before and I shall say it again, you come up with some great tweets, Sam.

 

[Rascal]

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.

And my take is poor.

I get it, you don't like Trump, neither do I, allowing for corporate desires should be no part of democracy as their influence is certainly not benign.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

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.

Certainly no praise for Twitter from me. If it weren't for the fear or reprisals, they wouldn't have acted.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I've said it before and I shall say it again, you come up with some great tweets, Sam.

I follow Jeff on Twitter. He's as dry as the Sahara.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

And my take is poor.

I get it, you don't like Trump, neither do I, allowing for corporate desires should be no part of democracy as their influence is certainly not benign.

Allowing for corporate desires IS and SHOULD BE part of democracy. So should VOTING for REPRESENTATIVES who WRITE LAWS to REGULATE corporate desires.

Currently some Republicans are calling for Twitter and Facebook to be nationalized. Do you agree with them?

 

[Rascal]

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.

Funny aint it how us lefties who are supposed to be the ones who are all for cancel culture are the ones with misgivings about the banning of Trump.

Do you think they are snowflakes mate?

 

[I'm With Stupid]

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?

You say that like it hasn't been the status quo for over 100 years anyway. Almost every view that gets aired on a wide scale publicly has gone through the filter of some billionaire's media company. The difference, of course, is that what they publish (at least in the UK) is more heavily regulated than social media.

The question is whether social media should be obliged to host all views, should be regulated in the same sense as TV news (hard to do online when everyone can comment in real time) or should self-regulate and effectively decide what they want to host. There's the extra difficulty of having to exist worldwide. It's unlikely that any rules governing Twitter in the UK would be palatable in America, for example. Look at their TV news, for example.

 

[kaz7]

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.

No it about biden being a normal person ! He is not being inflammatory

 

[DrBlueBob]

Maybe so, I am still not comfortable with what i think is an over reach of corporate power. Banning a person who is democratically elected sets a dangerous precedent for future censorship of political views that don't appeal to certain corporate entities.

What if twitter decides to ban Biden next, the lack of response to the banning of Trump makes it more likely and before long they can start banning all politicians and we move into the realms of Corporate power crushing Democracy and states becoming Oligarchies.

Trump wasn't banned from Twitter for an opposing political viewpoint though, he was banned for his consistent lies and incitement of violence.
Also, do you honestly believe that it's Twitter that is the one who has been crushing democracy for the last four years?

 

[mat]

Funny aint it how us lefties who are supposed to be the ones who are all for cancel culture are the ones with misgivings about the banning of Trump.

Do you think they are snowflakes mate?

The way the most extreme one react you have to consider that argument.