Page 1 of 10 [ 157 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next

ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 949
Location: New Jersey, USA

09 Jan 2021, 6:59 pm

There is the cult of Trump. There is the cult of anti-Trump. I find both sides bizarre. It's almost like Trump was a character in some movie, or a mascot for one sports team who is loved by one and hated by the other.

Trump is now old news. He'll be out of office shortly. While his actions were appalling, he riled up the rioters in a public speech. The subsequent response: BAN HIM and others on all major social media.

While the cultists on both side are still obsessed with The Donald, it's like Big Tech is using a public speech (real world, not online), to justifying silencing everyone and anyone they see fit on the Internet.

Forget Trump, there's a very troubling precedent being set here. If your first response is: "Those crazies deserve it, you must be one of them!" then you've already missed the point of a very dangerous slippery slope being set and aren't seeing the big picture of the future.



Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 939

09 Jan 2021, 7:08 pm

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
There is the cult of Trump. There is the cult of anti-Trump. I find both sides bizarre. It's almost like Trump was a character in some movie, or a mascot for one sports team who is loved by one and hated by the other.

Trump is now old news. He'll be out of office shortly. While his actions were appalling, he riled up the rioters in a public speech. The subsequent response: BAN HIM and others on all major social media.

While the cultists on both side are still obsessed with The Donald, it's like Big Tech is using a public speech (real world, not online), to justifying silencing everyone and anyone they see fit on the Internet.

Forget Trump, there's a very troubling precedent being set here. If your first response is: "Those crazies deserve it, you must be one of them!" then you've already missed the point of a very dangerous slippery slope being set and aren't seeing the big picture of the future.


Where exactly have you been for the last four years? You think it will just end on the 20th? And in case you don't know, there was an insurrection a few days ago. Are you sure Trump can't do more damage?



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,570

09 Jan 2021, 7:12 pm

When Donald Trump decided to carry out his official business as US president through Twitter (a private company) he legally obligated himself to adhere to the rules set by the platform. This also applies to everyone else who signs on to Twitter, and it can similarly be extended to other platforms like Facebook, Instagram etc.

Another Twitter user actually set up an experimental account where he retweeted all of Donald Trump's tweets:
https://twitter.com/suspendthepres?lang=en

He was suspended multiple times, while Trump was not, indicating that Trump was in fact given favorable treatment by Twitter compared to other users.

Furthermore, Trump can instead use the numerous official channels provided for him as head of the Executive branch of the US government. These channels are all still open to him, and give him an opportunity for expressing his views several orders of magnitude greater than the average citizen in the US.

As I recall, no one is preventing Donald Trump from holding a press conference right now... and it most certainly will be well attended.


_________________
Omit needless words.


Last edited by GGPViper on 09 Jan 2021, 7:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.

ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 949
Location: New Jersey, USA

09 Jan 2021, 7:14 pm

Jiheisho wrote:
Where exactly have you been for the last four years? You think it will just end on the 20th? And in case you don't know, there was an insurrection a few days ago. Are you sure Trump can't do more damage?


Like I said, you've missed the point entirely. I'm talking about a cabal of Big Tech corporations deciding who can use the Internet and being the judge and jury of what can and can't be said.



Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 939

09 Jan 2021, 7:16 pm

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Where exactly have you been for the last four years? You think it will just end on the 20th? And in case you don't know, there was an insurrection a few days ago. Are you sure Trump can't do more damage?


Like I said, you've missed the point entirely. I'm talking about a cabal of Big Tech corporations deciding who can use the Internet and being the judge and jury of what can and can't be said.


So you prefer an open forum where violence and conspiracy can grow unabated? If you want to communicate on the internet, open your own site. You are not entitled to the services of a private company.



ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 949
Location: New Jersey, USA

09 Jan 2021, 7:22 pm

Jiheisho wrote:
So you prefer an open forum where violence and conspiracy can grow unabated? If you want to communicate on the internet, open your own site. You are not entitled to the services of a private company.


No, I'm worried about a slippery slope of sorts. Today they say they're going after the violent ones, tomorrow it's anyone who doesn't tow whatever the current agenda is. It's a principle of sorts. Anyone who says anything that isn't an approved part of the script of the day can be silenced on a whim. I'm not just talking politics. It's gonna be grim going forward. My, how the Internet (and our attitudes toward it) have changed.



Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,289
Location: Brisbane, Australia

09 Jan 2021, 7:41 pm

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
No, I'm worried about a slippery slope of sorts. Today they say they're going after the violent ones, tomorrow it's anyone who doesn't tow whatever the current agenda is. It's a principle of sorts. Anyone who says anything that isn't an approved part of the script of the day can be silenced on a whim. I'm not just talking politics. It's gonna be grim going forward. My, how the Internet (and our attitudes toward it) have changed.


What is the current agenda? Who is deciding what the script is and for what reasons?

Businesses want money, to push forward capitalism. If there is some political conspiracy on the part of big businesses it would be to push down the voices of people who want to tax the rich and big businesses more, not the people all about "freedom"(deregulation).

The people getting in trouble are literally the one inciting violence, because they would get less money from advertisers and stuff if they allowed it. That and harassment against minority groups that are the ones more likely to be silenced.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,323
Location: I'm on the streets like curbs

09 Jan 2021, 7:53 pm

Your so-called 'cult of anti-Trump' includes everyone who's still rooted in the reality-based world. Are you really upset that those who openly call for violence aren't allowed on these platforms? That seems like a pretty reasonable place to put a cap on what people are allowed to say on your platform. They have an obligation to ban those who promote terrorism, even when they're not Muslim.



ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 949
Location: New Jersey, USA

09 Jan 2021, 7:53 pm

Bradleigh wrote:
What is the current agenda? Who is deciding what the script is and for what reasons?

A small conglomerate of major tech corporations which have cornered the market and whatever interest groups are in bed with them.

Bradleigh wrote:
Businesses want money, to push forward capitalism...

You're actually raising a good point. Study American history and look into Standard Oil and AT&T. Those monopolies that cornered the market didn't willingly break up their corporate trusts.

Bradleigh wrote:
The people getting in trouble are literally the one inciting violence, because they would get less money from advertisers and stuff if they allowed it. That and harassment against minority groups that are the ones more likely to be silenced.

Forget about NOW. We're setting a precedent going forward. That's part of the problem when a handful of companies corner a market. They can pay off politicians who in turn agree not to break up their monopolies and these corporation then hold the power.

I think the Internet has gotten to the same point as long-distance telephone calls in the 1980s.



ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 949
Location: New Jersey, USA

09 Jan 2021, 7:57 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Your so-called 'cult of anti-Trump' includes everyone who's still rooted in the reality-based world. Are you really upset that those who openly call for violence aren't allowed on these platforms? That seems like a pretty reasonable place to put a cap on what people are allowed to say on your platform. They have an obligation to ban those who promote terrorism, even when they're not Muslim.


I believe everyone has a right to speak their minds. I've read all sorts of stuff I didn't agree with. Some engelical folks think the USA should be some sort of bible-based theocracy. I think that's nuts, but I respect their right to state their opinions (however strange).

If one of them advocated killing people and gets banned, fine. But to auto-ban anyone and everyone with those political leanings in extreme and undemocratic, even though I disagree with their politics themselves.

So it's important to get out of the cult zone and look at the bigger picture. Again, back to the real world and what could come down the pike.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,038
Location: temperate zone

09 Jan 2021, 8:02 pm

The First Amendment protects free speech from control by... the government. Not from private companies.

But youre saying that social media is monopolized by a few private companies to such a degree that they form "a cabal" that just as bad as a government. So what they choose to allow is just as chilling of free speech as what a government could do.

For one thing- what a company does does not set a "precedent" in the legal sense. If a court ordered them to do something that would set a legal precedent.

But arguably it is still a "precedent" in a moral sense.

For another thing, Twitter, didnt just do this today out of the blue. Trump has made provacative, misleading, and lying , tweets for years. Twitter has bent over backwards to accommodate him, by allowing him to do so, but with Twitter posting disclaimers after his posts. Finally- he went to far- and his tweets had a real world bad effect. And Twitter finally axed him.

So its not as if Trump is being oppressed by Twitter. Its more like Twitter gave him a PG rating so to speak, and then had to give him an R rating, and finally... he went beyond XXX to making snuff films- so Twitter just couldnt deal with him anymore.

So this does not set any kind of bad precedent (moral or legal). Its no different than Alex banning you for breaking his forum's rules.

But maybe in theory in the future a few Moguls could strangle free speech on all social media. But that was already a theoretical possibility years before Trump's last tweet.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,323
Location: I'm on the streets like curbs

09 Jan 2021, 8:03 pm

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Your so-called 'cult of anti-Trump' includes everyone who's still rooted in the reality-based world. Are you really upset that those who openly call for violence aren't allowed on these platforms? That seems like a pretty reasonable place to put a cap on what people are allowed to say on your platform. They have an obligation to ban those who promote terrorism, even when they're not Muslim.


I believe everyone has a right to speak their minds. I've read all sorts of stuff I didn't agree with. Some engelical folks think the USA should be some sort of bible-based theocracy. I think that's nuts, but I respect their right to state their opinions (however strange).

If one of them advocated killing people and gets banned, fine. But to auto-ban anyone and everyone with those political leanings in extreme and undemocratic, even though I disagree with their politics themselves.

So it's important to get out of the cult zone and look at the bigger picture. Again, back to the real world and what could come down the pike.


So how tolerant of those who openly support ISIS should tech companies be? Do they only ban ISIS supporters who openly advocate for violence, or would just openly showing support be enough?



shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,771

09 Jan 2021, 8:09 pm

Free speech means you can't get put in jail for talking BS.

It does not mean anyone needs to publish what you're saying.

He didn't get banned from the jnternet, he got banned from Twitter. Twitter is not the internrt, I'm not even on Twitter, yet I'm alive and well.

That said: well, yeah, private corporations monopolizing public spaces -Twitter becoming a public forum - is very much a problem. Obviously, it means such a forum needs to be public, not private. Try telling that to the Trumpets: we need the government to run Twitter, so it's under democratic control and has public oversight.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 949
Location: New Jersey, USA

09 Jan 2021, 8:14 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
So how tolerant of those who openly support ISIS should tech companies be? Do they only ban ISIS supporters who openly advocate for violence, or would just openly showing support be enough?


Ideally, only banning those who openly advocate for violence. If someone said, "I'm a devout Muslim, and I don't think ISIS is so bad," I'd think they were nuts, but wouldn't put them in the violent offender category, no.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,323
Location: I'm on the streets like curbs

09 Jan 2021, 8:15 pm

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
So how tolerant of those who openly support ISIS should tech companies be? Do they only ban ISIS supporters who openly advocate for violence, or would just openly showing support be enough?


Ideally, only banning those who openly advocate for violence. If someone said, "I'm a devout Muslim, and I don't think ISIS is so bad," I'd think they were nuts, but wouldn't put them in the violent offender category, no.


So ISIS recruiting is acceptable?



ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 949
Location: New Jersey, USA

09 Jan 2021, 8:17 pm

shlaifu wrote:
That said: well, yeah, private corporations monopolizing public spaces -Twitter becoming a public forum - is very much a problem. Obviously, it means such a forum needs to be public, not private. Try telling that to the Trumpets: we need the government to run Twitter, so it's under democratic control and has public oversight.


I don't care what Trumpets say. Again, you're in one cult that's hung-up on another cult. I also don't advocate for a government-run Internet.

My grievance is when a successful company gets too successful and then corners a market and becomes de facto policy maker. In the USA, at least, we've had monopoly breakups and trust busting in the past for a reason.