It is very relevant, because the US could be in danger of becoming an Oligarchy rather than a Democracy.So, perhaps in a thread about American politics and Trump your posts are not relevant?
I think you need to distinguish between (a) the power of corporations and the judge-made law that they are "persons" under the 14th amendment and (b) whether one corporation should limit free speech on its own property to rational public debate or allow crazy fascists on it to incite insurrection against an elected government.Yes what ifs
But this "what if" already has form.
The trust people have in these corporations is worrying. They do not exist for the good of society, they exist to make profit and they will stop at nothing to make profit. If they can use their influence with politicians to make profit they will.
If people are happy to have their content controlled by the likes of Zuckerberg and Dorsey, neither of whom have ever stood to represent peoples views then it is a very slippery slope.
I reiterate, people are making this about Trump, it is not about Trump, it is about Corporate power.
I am sure everyone has concerns about corporate power. Globalisation and the real or perceived power of governments.Because it is not my view. This is not about Trump.
It is about corporate power and there influence.
It's not by the by, it's the point.It is very relevant, because the US could be in danger of becoming an Oligarchy rather than a Democracy.
Nobody has voted for Dorsey, Zuckerberg et al. yet they are wielding enormous power, enormous enough to close down a President, that that President happens to be a fucking nutcase is by the by.
Oh Michael.
Hitler was not democratically elected President, he was appointed as Chancellor by Hindenburg who was the President.
I reiterate, this is not about Trump, it is about how far Corporate power should be allowed to influence politics.
I think you need to distinguish between (a) the power of corporations and the judge-made law that they are "persons" under the 14th amendment and (b) whether one corporation should limit free speech on its own property to rational public debate or allow crazy fascists on it to incite insurrection against an elected government.
I'll side with you over your issue with (a) but (b) is the immediate problem.
Take two hours off and watch this.
Well I know the American answer to this and that would be free competition. If Twitter blocks him, move to Facebook, etc. And I'd be all in favour of regulations that prevent monopolising behaviour be it in social media or anything else. But let's be honest, Twitter is so important to Trump because he made it important. Would any other politician be impacted in the same way? If Boris Johnson was banned from Twitter, would it have any effect? Or would he just hold press conferences knowing that everything he said would be all over Twitter instantly anyway?Absolutely spot on, but my concern is not about that
My concern is the growth of corporate power.
What if twitter's CEO gets on to Biden and says we will ban you and your party officials and everyone associated with you unless you give us a a Billion pound tax break. After all as it has been pointed out it is there platform and they don't have to go a reason why they ban you. Same here, it is Ric's platform, he has a code of conduct but doesn't have to give a reason to unleash the banhammer.
I really do think some of you are far too trusting of these corporate entities, after all they exist to make money out of you not be your friend and I do believe it is bad for democracy that corporate power has the ability to influence politicians.
People are intent on making this about Trump, who i have repeatedly said i think is a ****, but it is bigger than that and if they can use their power to silence a President where does it end?
Then neither was Merkel democratically elected. Her party in 2005 got a lower share of the vote than the Nazis in 1932 and she became Chancellor.Oh Michael.
Hitler was not democratically elected President, he was appointed as Chancellor by Hindenburg who was the President.
I reiterate, this is not about Trump, it is about how far Corporate power should be allowed to influence politics.
You are taking the stance it is about Trump, i am saying it is bigger than Trump. We can argue about Hitler on another thread, as it is derailing this one.We should always be wary of corporate power but in this instance I believe you are wrong.
As to the parallels with Hitler, your point is that he had no mandate to be president is not true. However, Trump lost and has no mandate for anything.
We need the media to take a stance, if not who will ?
You’d have a point if you were bringing up someone who hadn’t spent 4 years getting away with posts that broke every code of conduct rule that exists on the platform.I reiterate, people are making this about Trump, it is not about Trump, it is about Corporate power.
Twitter is just a conduit for news, in the same way paper is for print media or pipes are for sewage. Trump isn't being silenced, he has/had other options, including acting responsibly.You are taking the stance it is about Trump, i am saying it is bigger than Trump. We can argue about Hitler on another thread, as it is derailing this one.
I also don't believe it is the media's place to take a stance either, they have far too much influence over politics as it stands. Politics should be about people not the stances of corporate or media entities.
In the UK we have seen the media destroy politicians, often by nefarious means, by all means hold them to account, but there has to be boundaries because Democracy is more important than the views of a corporation or a newspaper owner or editor.
Anyway I am vastly outnumbered on this, it is amusing that the forum Communist (that's for you Vic) is the one defending democracy whilst others are defending Corporate power.