Trump permanently suspended from Twitter

[djsFlames]

Don't incite violence, keep your social media accounts.

I don't see that as unreasonable at all or a gross misuse of censorship.

This is a circumstantial thing too, as the MAGA crowd was organizing follow up demonstrations, and there's little doubt to me that Trump would've given those people his blessing or empowered them with more poorly worded tweets as well if he kept his account until the end of term.

You're talking potential lives hanging in the balance of acting and not acting swiftly to pull the cord on these people's ability to organize.

Until these platforms start using their restriction powers more liberally for less egregious violations then I have no issues with it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the influence social media has had on society nor our dependence on it and what kind of power that grants them in this day and age. And I think we need to regain a certain level of independence as well as awareness on the dangers of over consumption and the influence that has on younger people especially. They have surpassed being merely useful tools, to being unrealistic outlets by which we now conform our lifestyles.

But as for this particular incident and circumstance, the actions taken were justified and arguably necessary to prevent further incidents.

[FlamesAddiction]

I think we need to stop putting politicians, no matter what their rank, on a pedestal.

As a bare minimum, they should be held to the same standards as regular people. But given their influence and ability to abuse it, there should be an even higher bar. I can see why a company like Twitter might get flack for holding a politician to a higher standard, but they certainly shouldn't be held to a lower standard.

No president, and especially not Trump, should be exempt from social media terms and conditions. If it were official statement on government websites or whatever, then fine.

I think all this shows is that the president of the U.S. is not bigger than everything and maybe that realization shocks people. People elevate presidents so high that when they are exposed for being weak, their reality is shattered.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If I take a dump on the counter in a few McDonalds and I get a lifetime ban from all McDonalds, are they not responsible for taking away my right to feed my family? Are we comfortable with them having this power?

Surely we need to look critically at McDonalds. If they can ban me and take away my right to purchase food simply for taking a dump on the counter, what's next? They could come for you too. The power imbalance is striking.

Tech media platforms are not fast food restaurants. There's a reason why anti-trust charges are being brought against them, and why calls have been growing for them to be regulated. In a lot of ways, they're more like a combination of newspaper publishers and utilities that have secured quasi-monopolies. Both newspaper publishers and energy utilities are regulated by government policies and oversight.

This isn't about Trump. Unless you think everyone raising red flags are closet MAGA supporters. But maybe Angela Merkel just wants to be able to incite riots and post conspiracy theories on Facebook.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think we need to stop putting politicians, no matter what their rank, on a pedestal.

As a bare minimum, they should be held to the same standards as regular people. But given their influence and ability to abuse it, there should be an even higher bar. I can see why a company like Twitter might get flack for holding a politician to a higher standard, but they certainly shouldn't be held to a lower standard.

No president, and especially not Trump, should be exempt from social media terms and conditions. If it were official statement on government websites or whatever, then fine.

I think all this shows is that the president of the U.S. is not bigger than everything and maybe that realization shocks people. People elevate presidents so high that when they are exposed for being weak, their reality is shattered.

If only..


Trump has crossed into deity territory to millions of people. That is disturbing given that he is less mentally fit than your average person. Whether it's a personality disorder or something else, his view of the world is deranged, narcissistic and devoid of empathy. It is far off of what can be considered normal or balanced. Having people like that put on pedestals and emulated is dangerous to society. The sort of individuals like Trump need help, not the most powerful position of the authority in the world.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Tech media platforms are not fast food restaurants. There's a reason why anti-trust charges are being brought against them, and why calls have been growing for them to be regulated. In a lot of ways, they're more like a combination of newspaper publishers and utilities that have secured quasi-monopolies. Both newspaper publishers and energy utilities are regulated by government policies and oversight.

This isn't about Trump. Unless you think everyone raising red flags are closet MAGA supporters. But maybe Angela Merkel just wants to be able to fly confederate flags and post conspiracy theories on Facebook.

How would regulating social media platforms prevent them from banning people who break their terms of service by inciting hate and violence?

You're confusing what anti-trust cases are about.

It's not like any of the people banned cannot access Twitter. This is where the McD's anology breaks down. Based on the current system, Pepsi could still eat at McDonalds whenever he wants. Just like how Trump and his fellow insurrectionists are allowed to keep using twitter. It is not a private "accounts only" platform. Anyone can read twitter.

[rohara66]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Disagree.

If the employees aren't getting banned for putting #### on the counter, why are you?

Take that back! There is nothing wrong with a triple bun, double patty, bacon burger.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

How would regulating social media platforms prevent them from banning people who break their terms of service by inciting hate and violence?

In the words of Merkel, restrictions should be “according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators – not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms”.

The government can establish consistent and transparent policies that meet the public need. Private tech companies can do whatever they like, according to their own private interests (which may or may not align with public interest). That's fine when you're deciding who gets to order a big mac. It's a different thing altogether when we're talking about the platforms with which we carry out much of our public discourse and political campaigning.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Tech media platforms are not fast food restaurants. There's a reason why anti-trust charges are being brought against them, and why calls have been growing for them to be regulated. In a lot of ways, they're more like utilities that have secured quasi-monopolies.

This isn't about Trump. Unless you think everyone raising red flags like Angela Merkel are alt-right MAGA supporters.

Tech media platforms are not fast food restaurants? My god, you don't say. That must be why nothing shows up at my door when I post "A CHEESEBURGER, EXTRA PICKLES, AND FRIES PLEASE" on Facebook.

Again, think critically. All red flags are not created equal. Merkel can raise a red flag and we can see that it's somewhat out of touch. Would she really be the first politician on earth to hold an opinion of something that might not be well-informed? Or, it suits you, so appeal to authority it is? On the other hand, some alt-right MAGA supporter can raise red flags which can be wrong for entirely different reasons. Who is lumping them together? Is it easier to pretend people are?

On that same wavelength, someone can raise concerns about Social Media and still miss what makes those concerns valid or come up with the wrong concerns. As I posted early, "questions" and "concerns" are a fart in the wind if that's where they end. "Engagement in society depends on that infrastructure"? Or your comment, "they're more like utilities that have secured quasi-monopolies?" Really. After a never-ending assurance that only 20% of people Americans use Twitter, even less daily, it's really just young white collar people, it's niche, a narrow slice, etc etc, you now believe it's more like a utility and nod along with a post calling it essential to engagement with our society?

Yeah right.

Again, there are issues around social media. At very least, every single one being brought up at this moment is using the banning of Trump, Parler, and those that incite violence and exist solely to sow hatred as a jumping off point. Even the growing calls to have them regulated, a big part of this is because they allow #### like this to happen, it's not based on "oh no what if they do this to someone else!" it's "why do they allow these things for so long."

So to say it has nothing to do with Trump... lol.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by rohara66

Take that back! There is nothing wrong with a triple bun, double patty, bacon burger.

Dear McDs,

Stop trying to make Big Mac debates a thing. It is not a thing. It will never be a thing. No one cares. Your brand isn't nearly important enough to warrant discussions about your burger names.

Sincerely,

Everyone

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Tech media platforms are not fast food restaurants. There's a reason why anti-trust charges are being brought against them, and why calls have been growing for them to be regulated. In a lot of ways, they're more like a combination of newspaper publishers and utilities that have secured quasi-monopolies. Both newspaper publishers and energy utilities are regulated by government policies and oversight.

This isn't about Trump. Unless you think everyone raising red flags are closet MAGA supporters. But maybe Angela Merkel just wants to be able to fly confederate flags and post conspiracy theories on Facebook.

Yes. Our world is rapidly and increasingly digitized. These platforms are the infrastructure of our digital world, which represents a larger and larger component of our lives each year, especially our public lives. They are essential infrastructure.

This is a case where private companies acted without direction from government, and obviously in opposition to the head of state, to cut off the access of the head of state to the fundamental infrastructure of engagement in public life that takes place in the digital sphere.

Was it warranted? Given the context, yeah, I think so, though not equally across all platforms. I don't really see the justification for Shoppify banning Trump, for instance. I also view banning his personal account differently than censoring messages posted via the official accounts of the POTUS or the WH. Overall though, I feel the world is made better by Trump being shut up and he deserved to have civil society turn its back on him.

Nonetheless, it's a demonstration of power that is a bit hair-raising. I can't help feeling that a democratic society should either have tight regulations on these types of decisions or have publicly-owned alternative service providers. Probably both. It's just too much power.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

In the words of Merkel, restrictions should be “according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators – not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms”.

The government can establish consistent and transparent policies that meet the public need. Private tech companies can do whatever they like, according to their own private interests (which may or may not align with public interest). That's fine when you're deciding who gets to order a big mac. It's a different thing altogether when we're talking about the platforms with which we carry out much of our public discourse and political campaigning.

Can you also provide a quote showing she was referring specifically to wanting the government to take over regulation of banning people who break the terms of service for inciting violence and hatred?

[nfotiu]

I question whether a sitting president should even be allowed to tweet. I'm not allowed to identify who I work for and Tweet about anything, and neither is the highest up person in my org. There really is not a place for a sitting president to send out flippant thoughts that may influence markets or have national security implications.

I'd be perfectly happy if Biden shut down his Twitter once he took office.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I question whether a sitting president should even be allowed to tweet. I'm not allowed to identify who I work for and Tweet about anything, and neither is the highest up person in my org. There really is not a place for a sitting president to send out flippant thoughts that may influence markets or have national security implications.

I'd be perfectly happy if Biden shut down his Twitter once he took office.

I agree.


But I have a solution. We should set up a regulatory body to review all tweets first. This should not be in the hands of big tech. Nor should it be politicized. We need an independent government body to review and make all decisions fairly.


Unfortunately, this also means that any tweets sent from any verified source will take 18-180 months to review. So get used to hitting submit and not seeing your tweet go live for 1-10 years. You know, red tape and all that.

I guess they could just raise my taxes to hire more regulators but who the hell wants that?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It's a different thing altogether when we're talking about the platforms with which we carry out much of our public discourse and political campaigning.

Like, I'm sorry, does anyone buy that you actually believe this?

The fact that the active user base of twitter isn’t anything close to being representative of the population at large, but journalists behave as though it is.

I don’t offer any opinions that aren’t expressed already in mainstream media sites. The only people who would find my comments at all unusual are those who get their news from twitter.

For those here who get their news from twitter and won't bother going to the NYT

Which is why people who use twitter and reddit for their frame of references are often shocked by things like election results, or figures showing most people still have cable and land lines.

that's the narrative that has emerged from twitter and the media channels you use. But you're not taking into consideration that these channels are aimed at only a narrow slide of the electorate.

When it comes to twitter, it's not even a lot. 20 per cent of Americans have active (used at least once a month) twitter accounts. Only half of those, about 10 per cent of Americans, use it daily.

Of course journalists are on it for hours every day. So they have a distorted sense of how popular and representative it is.

But yeah, sure. Now it's where we carry out much of the public discourse. Now it's more like a utility essential to engagement with society!

[djsFlames]

So when does Trump's guy incognito account pop up?

Does he come back as "a black gay guy" a la Dean Browning?

I'm not sure he's capable of writing a tweet without excessive capitalizations and exclamation marks though. Would require too much creativity for him.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I think it's pretty reasonable to think Trump deserved to be deplatformed, be glad that it has happened, and yet still be uncomfortable about how it has happened.

Merkel seems to be uncomfortable with it too, even as the leader of a country with very strong interest in curtailing hate speech. This is from her spokesperson:


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...ht/ar-BB1cEQZa

Personally, I have been really looking forward to the day that Trump's platform was closed down, but I'm not comfortable with how it has happened either. I wish it had been something arrived at through a legal process by democratically elected representatives rather than private corporate management.

Big tech companies own the infrastructure of our intellectual world. Engagement in society depends upon access to that infrastructure. That is tremendous power to wield privately, and seeing it successfully exercised in deplatforming a head of state who is still legally in office is a bit of a disturbing demonstration of the extent of that power. Should that type of power rest in private hands?

Would it be okay for private companies to own all our roads and pathways with the power to make private decisions to stop people using them without a judicial process? If it is, would we consider being allowed to go where you want as long as it's only cross country on public lands a reasonable standard of freedom of mobility?

It seems obvious to me that Trump being silenced and removed is good for society, but these dramatic, cross-platform bans without judicial processes or involvement of elected representatives doesn't feel like rule of law either.

[In my best, southern drawl]

Careful there Johnny B, that sounds a whole lot like socialism...

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Like, I'm sorry, does anyone buy that you actually believe this?

But yeah, sure. Now it's where we carry out much of the public discourse. Now it's more like a utility essential to engagement with society!

A) We’re talking about more than just twitter. We’re talking about all social media platforms.

B) Your cyberstalking is starting to genuinely creep me out.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

A) We’re talking about more than just twitter. We’re talking about all social media platforms.

And we're talking about private enterprises that have reputations to worry about. They also recognize they have a responsibility to society and establish acceptable use standards for users to meet. For years they have allowed this cyberbully to ply his wears on these platforms, and it has led to insurrection and death of innocents. Them say enough is enough is just being good citizens at this point. Maybe you can explain to me why this is any different than the deplatforming of Stormfront?

B) Your cyberstalking is starting to genuinely creep me out.

Cyberstalking? More like correcting your terrible logic. Stop saying stupid things and he'll stop correcting you.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

B) Your cyberstalking quoting me from this very forum is starting to genuinely creep me out.

I wish you'd stop the self-pwnage.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I wish you'd stop the self-pwnage.

Pepsi follows me around making snarky digs multiple times a week. He seems to have turned it into some kind of game. I know that’s how he gets his kicks on this forum, but I’m not interested in playing that game.