US Politics Thread

[SWP's back]

Come on Sam, you are brighter than this.

Go on, what in that post is incorrect.

 

[Rascal]

I'm sure others have put this far more eloquently and succinctly than I'm about to, but let's try and ask a couple of simple questions that we, as Blues, can relate to.

1. A couple of years ago, when Raheem was receiving vile abuse on Twitter (including threats of sexual violence to his child), do you think Twitter was correct to ban the individuals involved?

2. If yes to the above, why exactly in a democratic society should politicians be held to a different standard?

Genuinely interested in people's responses, especially those who've argued against Trump's ban.

The points you are raise are interesting.

I however have not argued against Trump being banned, i have argued against corporate power being used to ban Trump.

In the case of Raheem, as it is not political, i can see why Corporations in this particular case can be a power for good.

Why politicians should be held to different standards is again not really my point, my point is and has been from the start that corporate power has been used to affect politics in such a way that the corporations may benefit from it.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I'm sure others have put this far more eloquently and succinctly than I'm about to, but let's try and ask a couple of simple questions that we, as Blues, can relate to.

1. A couple of years ago, when Raheem was receiving vile abuse on Twitter (including threats of sexual violence to his child), do you think Twitter was correct to ban the individuals involved?

2. If yes to the above, why exactly in a democratic society should politicians be held to a different standard?

Genuinely interested in people's responses, especially those who've argued against Trump's ban.

Politicians should be held to exactly the same standards as the citizens they govern.

 

[Rascal]

Go on, what in that post is incorrect.

You need to detach Trump and focus on the power that corporations have wielded to ban Trump.

I have said repeatedly that this is about corporate power flexing their muscles and that is dangerous because it can lead to Oligarchy.

That it is Trump, is by the by, the question should be what if the corporations who have now flexed their muscles decide they don't approve of the actions of the next President, or the one after that. That power in the hands of a select few people can be devastating for democracy.

Look pal, I know Trump is a **** and I totally get why people want rid of him, I do too as he is certifiable and his actions have been a disgrace, but and it is my big but, putting trust in corporations over democratic legitimacy is one fucking hell of a slippery slope to go down.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

The points you are raise are interesting.

I however have not argued against Trump being banned, i have argued against corporate power being used to ban Trump.

In the case of Raheem, as it is not political, i can see why Corporations in this particular case can be a power for good.

Why politicians should be held to different standards is again not really my point, my point is and has been from the start that corporate power has been used to affect politics in such a way that the corporations may benefit from it.

So, let me get this straight: You're not arguing against Trump being banned, you're just upset he was banned by a corporate power?

Twitter has comprehensive terms of service (I'm sure we've all scrolled through the 23 pages of small print and checked the tick-box to agree to the terms) and if you cross the line, then the corporate entity are well with in the right to terminate your right to use their service. So unless you are advocating that politicians should be held to a different set of rules than the citizens they govern your argument makes no sense.

 

[kaz7]

@Ric as trump is about to be impeached please can we have his thread back , this one is far to general, thanks

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

As bad as it is, governments need to put measures in place to control content on the internet, and the service providers need to ensure it happens.

Freedom to say what the fuck we want has nearly resulted in turning democracy into a dictatorship. We get this every time there is new technology - radio, TV, printing press etc - Misinformation, divisions in society, wars. It needs govn controls and regulations.

 

[Roy Munson]

The points you are raise are interesting.

I however have not argued against Trump being banned, i have argued against corporate power being used to ban Trump.

In the case of Raheem, as it is not political, i can see why Corporations in this particular case can be a power for good.

Why politicians should be held to different standards is again not really my point, my point is and has been from the start that corporate power has been used to affect politics in such a way that the corporations may benefit from it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you been raising concerns about the precedent of Trump's ban and it's future implications? If so, you are arguing against Trump's ban.

Perhaps it's me, but I'm struggling to understand your point about corporate power.

Where is the line drawn? Which companies do we argue are corporate powers? Would it be ok for your local corner shop to ban a shopper for abusing a member of staff but not, for example, Wallmart?

Same logic applies here. Would it be ok for Ric to ban someone for racially abusive language or hate speech but not Twitter? Parler can't be considered a corporate power, so were you ok with allowing them to display horrendous hate speech without censor? You could easily argue that some of the stuff on there has had an 'affect' on politics over the last couple of days.

If anything, Twitter, as a corporate power, are far too lenient when it comes to what is deemed acceptable content.

 

[meltonblue]

So, let me get this straight: You're not arguing against Trump being banned, you're just upset he was banned by a corporate power?

Twitter has comprehensive terms of service (I'm sure we've all scrolled through the 23 pages of small print and checked the tick-box to agree to the terms) and if you cross the line, then the corporate entity are well with in the right to terminate your right to use their service. So unless you are advocating that politicians should be held to a different set of rules than the citizens they govern your argument makes no sense.

I think the argument is more around what’s within that code of conduct, who gets to decides that and how is it consistently enforced. It’s a bigger conversation than just in the context of what has happened to Trump.

I really think all of the Twitter conversation is for a different thread though.

 

[SWP's back]

I however have not argued against Trump being banned, i have argued against corporate power being used to ban Trump.

I’ve not argued against women being given the vote, I’ve argued against women voting...