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.
But it’s not by the by. It is the central reason for him being “closed down” (if you can call someone closed down when they have the ability to summon the world’s press corps to a press conference within 5 minutes and/or post on the official @POTUS Twitter handle.enormous enough to close down a President, that that President happens to be a fucking nutcase is by the by.
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.
It is not quite the same. If I go to WH Smith I buy the magazine I've chosen. Facebook etc allow others to insert content based on spend. So it would be like I've bought Womans Own but in the middle of it are 4 pages from QAnon Weekly.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.
I'm surprised at your stance. He, and his allies and followers, have been spreading falsities about people for their own benefit. Taking on such a group in court for libel/slander is going to be costly, potentially fateful and moreover, gives publicity to their poison, even if you win. Trump knows this.
If you think about social media as a newstand, with each account its own publication, that's more accurate. After all, you wouldn't expect W H Smith to sell QAnon Weekly*.
*Any similarity to actual publication is purely coincidental.
The Social media platforms have been banning political expression for a while though, a lot of stuff that i think is abhorrent. The likes of Tommy Robinson have been banned (fuck me i am sticking up for tiny tommy ten names) and this ban is an extension or furthering of that power or if you like censure.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.
Your “what ifs” are purely hypothetical and not based in the real world. But I’ll play along, yes, if Twitter/Facebook et al started banning content purely because they don’t agree with it’s political view then I’d be worried. But it hasn’t in the past and it shows no signs of doing so.
So can we all agree then that you have no issue with Trump finally being suspended as you’re aware that he would have been banned years ago if he was anyone else?
Did you actually see the two tweets (and their context) that finally got him the ban after his initial temporary suspension (for inciting violence that led to the deaths of 5 people)?
That is an interesting point.Reading this argument about Twitter or Facebook being right or wrong in banning trump, isn’t it same on every Internet forum including the very forum this debate is ongoing. Blue moon bans people for posting against its code of conduct. Online publications have moderators. If banning or removing content is t the solution, then what is the solution ?
An interesting thoughtful post, but who in a democracy gives Big Tech the right to act with such power. Who are they accountable too.The big techs are more likely to undermine democracy by not banning people than they are by banning them right now. Big tech as a platform certainly undermines democracies in Aftica similar to how big mining corporations did in the past.
Actually there is a nuance and one which the tech corporations might make. Trumps twitter account is neutral until he posts on it. It is the nature of Trumps posts that undermine or reinforce democracy. In that respect Twitter is like a piece of paper or the printing press. It is a method of communicating. The message communicated is the problem. Would you expect your postman decide what post you get? No but equally I don't want my postman delivering random crap I've not asked for.
So the question is does big tech have a responsibility to take away Trumps pieces of paper when he incites violence on them? With their reach and dominance they definitely have a responsibility to moderate how their platform is used because of the huge amounts of money they make - see facebook in Africa. They absolutely can't turn a blind eye as content being delivered over their platform is undermining democracy.
Some sunday morning thoughts whilst lying in bed and needing a reason to stay under the cosy covers rather than brave the cold and go for the wee I am increasingly becoming desperate for
And if the media seek to influence by nefarious means who can stop them?I repeat, if the media cannot or will not speak to power who will ?