danger/u/
Trump ban from social media and "censorship"

| Some people are going around saying that blabla this is censorship and where is the freedom of speech.
They also believe social medias are now gonna be strict about who's in and what can they say and many people will abandon the site due to this.

... my question is.
Does anyone think this is as bad as they say?


| Yes in some ways, it just shows how much power these companies have, not only that, but it will aggravate trump supporters more while causing more internet purges that, lets be real, are just excuses to abuse power.

Also trump supporters wont disappear out of existence just because trump is not on twitter they will just move somewher else.


Its just a dumb move that will make the politicla segregation worse


| You dont end a devide by segregatingation, especially when it segregates almost half of the people who voted



| I don't think it changes anything at all. Trump, and other "celebrities" has enjoyed special privileges ever since being elected and has said things which have gotten other users banned without a second thought. Facebook et al are just afraid of being associated/held responsible for the events at Capitol Hill, nothing more.

You can be sure that if anyone else were connected to "terroristic actions" that they'd soon find their accounts terminated as well.


| Well i come from a 3rd world country. And as we say in my country "give power to those in power and they'll fucc you harder". This in my opinion is the beginning of censorship in America. Right now they're targetting Republicans but once they're no longer a threat. You'll have to be crazy to think you're special and they won't do that to you as well. It's arrogant to think the past cant repeat. Power always wants more power, and control always wants more control. Look at China.


| Good that companies ban him, he lost election in fair fight. Yet was stating everywhere that it was cheated, and begin to tell people to do illegal things.


| >>729424 all the procedures he he used to contest the election were legal and constitucional and he never told people to get violent


| >>72ea50 Moreover, he told people *not* to get violent.


| Yanks


| >>729445 oh I was going to ask where you were


| >>729418 true, firstly Trump, then others. Trump may be 'bad' or whatever, but this precedent is really really not good. Because they always start with 'bad' people. You just don't notice when it's not only them.


| There're currently three major issues (not only but most prominent) in the USA:
1 Antitrust law failed on big companies. Most significant in the "tech" industry, which rarely is "tech" industry in the first place
2 Big capitalist corporations took liberal society values as their hostage
3 Any kind of criticism on the capitalist system, even if it's constructive, is treated as blasphemy. And everyone who only makes statements in this direction gets branded as evil communist unperson


| If you let corpos decide what can be said or not, then they can control what society values as "important problems". Most important stuff worth discussing can be offensive, but since social media in this day and age is basically the millennial and gen z equivalent of a town square, social media companies should allow freedom of speech unless it goes against the law (aka calls for violence and threats).
So While i don't disagree with Twitter's ban of Trump, i am worried about it


| Not really much of a fan of trump or American politics but I found it laughable that the president could be banned from social media that's more or less owned by the people of his country regardless of the fact that he won't be president for anymore.


| >>729629
>social media that's more or less owned by the people of his country

Fact 1/3:
Capitalism = Private property of production means

Fact 2/3:
Communism = Public property of production means

Fact 3/3:
Social media platform = production mean

Question 1/2:
Do the USA have a capitalist or a communist system?

Question 2/2:
Who absolutely owns social media platforms? (Hint: it's not "the people", neither more nor less)


| >>729631 answer: big tech companies that have been cuddling with the government of many places on earth for a while and have a massive influence over the people wich creates as huge devide between the people who thinkt the companies are helping them and the people who think the companies are censoring them


| I still think the deresolution of 8ch by cloudflare was way more of an important result of censorship. it seems like most of the big tech companies have taken some sort of action against larger and more external groups. twitter banning trump from their platform is much less of a reach of power imo than that type of censorship attempt.


| It's up to the platform to moderate itself and ideally no one should get special treatment. That idiot incited violence that got people killed, and with how twitter refused to moderate him until that happened, he should've been banned sooner.


| >>730112 censorshio is still censonrship even if it can be politicaly justified.

It wasnt only on twitter, he is banned everywhere and these companies ganged up on smaller plataforms to either make them ban him or get shut down, this is a big tech monopoly, they control what is isnt considered violence

Kill nazis, riot in the name of antifacism: mostly peaceful incitement

Lets cheer for the politicians contesting the election, be at DC it will be wild: incitement of violence


| They gave special treament already, I wont agree with the ban if they ban trump but dont ban antifa and the politicians who supported the "mostly peaceful protests".

It just isnt fair


| If these companies had real standadarts they would either ban both or ban nobody


| It's not really an act of censorship but of public relations. Smaller accounts, left and right, are banned for much smaller shit all the time. The only reason Trump *hadn't* been banned yet was because a ban on a sitting president would be called censorship and would cause an uproar.


| >>729539 With both news and social media operating as for-profit businesses, it's not a matter of "letting" corporations control the conversation, they already do (and have done for a long time).


| >>730500 and that's a problem


| >>730520 Absolutely. But it's difficult to find a solution. Decentralized social media seems great, but that doesn't solve the problem of news (and has also historically been made irrelevant by the sheer scale of for-profit sites). Ideally you'd remove the profit motive but that still means the news outfit is to some degree bound to whoever is paying the editors and journalists, most likely a state.


| We're suddenly at the very core of politics, aren't we? lmao


| >>730524 thus is what happens when big tech decides to colude with government


| >>730527 I'm curious what makes you think big tech is colluding with government in this instance.


| >>729631 capitalistic, and media are in hands of owners.. here is not problem with political system, but social media should be more regulated


| >>730125 peaceful? It was a failed couple attempt and people died


| >>730709 *coup


| >>730709 Honestly Trump could go on live TV and eat a baby and people would still cheerleader for him and act like he's the victim.


| >>730709 if it was actually a coup the people wouldnt enter there to sit around and take selfies, all the patterns and actions indicate that they werent a coordinadited group, also if it were coup he could have used the military to do it.

It was his supporters fault not his


| >>730712 same goes the other way around, he could literally solve world hunger and people would still compare him to Hitler


| >>730774 remember when he wanted to call back the troops in asia? Well pro war articles were bombing during that time, I thought was was bad in their eyes.


| >>730774
The reason why liberal media attacks trump is not because what he does. In fact his politics wasn't that different from most previous conservative and even liberal presidents. The thing they are annoyed by is how he communicates it. It was frustrating for them to see that you can actually make bad destructive politics with bad and destructive rhetorics. Trumps campaigning successfully aimed on the lowest and most egoistic motivations of people. He unleashed a tamed beast.


| The big problem is that trump himself underestimated how the dynamics of such developments could turn against him quickly. Another problem is Trumps own massive egomania. His personality structure simply fails to meet such a high position. George W. Bush was also a stupid asshole. But he was more under control by the establishment. The establishment was and still is shitty, but the alternative trumps provide (which is himself as savior) isn't better at all.


| >>730520
But trump doesn't solve this problem. He only makes an opportunity out of it for his own personal goals with an ideological background that says everyone who is against him belongs to an evil communist conspiracy while nazist, fascists and racists aren't that bad at all.
As always: The case of Trump shows that there are massive societal issues. But different to the portrayal he and his fanbase create, they aren't a solution but one of the worst implementation of the issue.


| As long as the left doesn’t try and pull a coup like these fuckwits did, I think we’ll be okay. Tech companies prefer having more people.

When qualified experts begin to be silenced the world will take notice. There is a line and we’re very far from it. So don’t worry about it.


| Take a look at Myanmar by the way. FaceBook allowing the unregulated spread of fake news caused a genocide, since Facebook is where most Burmese get their news. Obviously some regulation is needed. The hard question is about who should hold the reins.


|


| Ah, right-wingers. I never understood how people can be so (s)low brained. Years ago, when I was against the iraq war, they told me I'm unpatriotic not to support the nation in its "war on terror". Ten years later the last idiot realized and admitted that they just fucked up an already fucked up region. Another ten years later it was suddenly "the liberals" fault.


| Same is now with twitter, facebook & co. Back then, when those platform launched and became bigger and bigger I said "don't use this shit! They just want your data for advertisement, corporate/estate surveillance and crowd and become informational service monopolists."
They shouted at me being a retarded communist who just envies the success of smart patriotic us entrepreneurs.
Now they call them communists for banning them from their platforms. What a bunch of brainwashed idiots!


| >>731146 This.


| >>731146 not totaly wrong but it lumps toghether a bunch of different groups and has too much generalization, its more complicated than that


| >>731103 I think that might be why people who dislike Trump dislike Trump and denounce him, but I am under the suspicion that the liberal media did that mostly because it got them clicks and thus money.


| >>731550 true, trump revived twitter, not only that but 25% of verified accounts there are journalists, a lot of people have been loosing their audience even since trump was banned.

I dont like trump but ammount of people needlesly ragging on him for things that others already did, exaggerated truths, tendencious articles, clickbaity articles and things that are not even his fault just makes me feel obligated to defend him.


| >>731556 I think by defending Trump though one is defending his actions. I don't think anybody will think you don't like him if you also defend him. Especially if you denounce the content of the article, or really anything regarding one specific article rather than the whole system. In the end both parties did something wrong, and I would say it's ok to point that out.


| >>731560 true. This is why I want them to investigate all election fraud claims, it will either show the election is secure or it will expose fraud and flaws to be corrected in the system but no democrats were too busy calling people antidemocracy racist nazis, while republicans were fighting eachother to decide if they were or were not going to contest the election, the midia decided to profit on that and bam! 50% of voters belive there is fraud and want to fight for it


| It could have been solved if both sides decided to talk it out, but no, they decided to throw insults and fight.

50% think america is being controled by fraudsders commanded by chinese communist spies
50% think a bunch of facists russian bots are trying to subvert the election

This is the set up for civil war and whar are they doing? Banning one side while praising the other when both suck and have problems that need to be addresed

Total number of posts: 50, last modified on: Sat Jan 1 00:00:00 1611005487

This thread is closed.