35 minutes ago, Virt said:

I've been trying to follow various politicians opinions across the world and it's really a mixed pot of opinions 

 

Some says it's great, some say

It's censorship and some in between. 

 

I still think it's a dangerous path to walk, and since it's a private platform, what prevents them next time from just banning people, that are going against the owners political agenda? 

 

If this old article from 2018 about Twitter is correct then we have a serious problem. 

I have no idea if NY post takes side like Fox and CNN. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2018/08/04/how-twitter-is-fueling-the-democratic-agenda/amp/

NY Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"I still think it's a dangerous path to walk, and since it's a private platform, what prevents them next time from just banning people, that are going against the owners political agenda? "

 

It's a business, and businesses seek to make money.  If Twitter thinks a hard left turn will make more money it is free to do so.  The logic behind Fox News was that a right-wing news channel would make money, and it was correct. 

 

In the case of Twitter, Facebook, and all other social media I assume they will try to appeal to the broadest possible audience without getting into trouble.  Since being a platform for those who lie, promote violence and advocate the overthrow of the government invites trouble, these companies have a legal right and business logic on their sides in banning people who promote such activities.

 

Good post ????, but shouldn't the platforms show their true flags then?

 

Just like we all know which side Fox represent.

13 minutes ago, Virt said:

 

No idea but do they run platforms where both politicial sides are supposed to post? 

 

I'm not pro Trump or pro Biden, but tries to take a step back and looking at the whole picture. 

Are you claiming that bsnnimg Trimp is the same as bannimg all conservatives or most conservatives?

54 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I don’t know; do Breitbart or OAN publish my opinion piece on Trump and his Neanderthals or is it against their political agenda? 

I signed up to breitbart several years ago. Lasted 2 days before they banned me. They don't like the truth

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Are you claiming that bsnnimg Trimp is the same as bannimg all conservatives or most conservatives?

 No off course not ???? 

 

If they banned Biden if he posted similar things like Trump I would be just as mad. 

 

It's not about political sides, even though some think so.

It's about censorship which I'm not a fan of. 

 

I read up on the Qanons ideologies and boy oh boy, they have some messed up ideas. 

But I wouldn't want them banned too, even if I strongly disagree with their clueless concept. 

 

How anyone can believe in them is a mystery, but I still think those people should be allowed to say and write what they like. 

 

 

1 minute ago, Virt said:

 No off course not ???? 

 

If they banned Biden if he posted similar things like Trump I would be just as mad. 

 

It's not about political sides, even though some think so.

It's about censorship which I'm not a fan of. 

 

I read up on the Qanons ideologies and boy oh boy, they have some messed up ideas. 

But I wouldn't want them banned too, even if I strongly disagree with their clueless concept. 

 

How anyone can believe in them is a mystery, but I still think those people should be allowed to say and write what they like. 

 

 

As it was just proven, many fall for the lies and conspiracy theories. Hate speech has been banned. That should apply to these nut job right wing outlets.

1 minute ago, Jeffr2 said:

As it was just proven, many fall for the lies and conspiracy theories. Hate speech has been banned. That should apply to these nut job right wing outlets.

 

It's true that many falls for lies and weird conspiracy theories, but then it's enlightening that is needed and not censorship. 

 

That goes for both sides which has its part of extremists. 

44 minutes ago, Virt said:

 

Good post ????, but shouldn't the platforms show their true flags then?

 

Just like we all know which side Fox represent.

Their true flags will have the dollar feature. Rupert Murdoch represent typical ruthless capitalist with little patience for leader who lose power. 

12 minutes ago, Virt said:

 

It's true that many falls for lies and weird conspiracy theories, but then it's enlightening that is needed and not censorship. 

 

That goes for both sides which has its part of extremists. 

Extremists on the left are no where near as violent as these traitors on the right. But I do understand why some would think their efforts to combat climate change, etc, are extreme. ????

51 minutes ago, Virt said:

 No off course not ???? 

 

If they banned Biden if he posted similar things like Trump I would be just as mad. 

 

It's not about political sides, even though some think so.

It's about censorship which I'm not a fan of. 

 

I read up on the Qanons ideologies and boy oh boy, they have some messed up ideas. 

But I wouldn't want them banned too, even if I strongly disagree with their clueless concept. 

 

How anyone can believe in them is a mystery, but I still think those people should be allowed to say and write what they like. 

 

 

They do, because Trump promoted and empowered them.

QAnon supports Trump and vice versa

 

Trump endorses QAnon supporter Marjorie Taylor Greene after Republican primary win | The Independent | The Independent

 

On 1/9/2021 at 1:10 PM, harada said:

So sad, Twitter doesn’t want him, Facebook doesn’t want him, his neighbors at Mar a Lago don’t want him,   Vlad and Kim won’t want him now that he’s a LOSER, perhaps he could move in to the new mansion with Ivanka and Jared there should be plenty of mirrors for all.

SDNY sure wants him!

Mwuhahahaha!

3 hours ago, Virt said:

No idea but do they run platforms where both politicial sides are supposed to post? 

If they’re not, it means they’re running platforms where only one political side is supposed to post — which seems to be exactly what you’re blaming Twitter trying to do, no? 

 

Quote

what prevents them next time from just banning people, that are going against the owners political agenda? 

 

2 hours ago, Virt said:

 

Good post ????, but shouldn't the platforms show their true flags then?

Isn’t the following “true flags” enough? “Violence, harassment and other similar types of behavior discourage people from expressing themselves, and ultimately diminish the value of global public conversation. (...) You may not...” (https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules)

 

Quote

 

Just like we all know which side Fox represent.

Is Fox putting a disclaimer in their broadcasting telling everyone “Please note that most of our contents are far-right fake news and conspiracy theory nonsense”? 

3 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Is Fox putting a disclaimer in their broadcasting telling everyone “Please note that most of our contents are far-right fake news and conspiracy theory nonsense”? 

One of my favorite gif's.

5 hours ago, Berkshire said:

So you agree with Merkel, that freedom of opinion should be determined by legislatures, i.e., the government.  That sounds a lot like censorship to me.   

you missed the point, once more.

 

The issue is why, and how and who is doing the censorship. Twitter jumped the shark, and lot of politicians are seeing a dangerous trend here. It usually leads to some form of authoritarianism.

1 minute ago, GrandPapillon said:

you missed the point, once more.

 

The issue is why, and how and who is doing the censorship. Twitter jumped the shark, and lot of politicians are seeing a dangerous trend here. It usually leads to some form of authoritarianism.

Twitter is a private company.  They can do what they want.  Many sites are very strict with regards to what's posted.  Many aren't. 

 

Kudos to Twitter for their actions.  Time for the rest of them to man up also. Enough is enough.

7 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

In that same article, it says the majority of Germans approve of the ban.  Same is true in the US.  His approval rating is way down.  As it should have been years ago.

it's not a popularity contest <deleted>, it's about principles, not mob rules. Twitter and AWS actions is the digital equivalent of mobs rule.

1 minute ago, GrandPapillon said:

it's not a popularity contest <deleted>, it's about principles, not mob rules. Twitter and AWS actions is the digital equivalent of mobs rule.

You're calling Twitter a mob?  Wow...

2 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Twitter is a private company.  They can do what they want.  Many sites are very strict with regards to what's posted.  Many aren't. 

 

Kudos to Twitter for their actions.  Time for the rest of them to man up also. Enough is enough.

because those digital platforms have such an impact in our life, and public life, they are subject to standards that goes beyond one of private companies. I suspect upcoming legislation will address that. They jumped the shark, and I think a lot of legislators are going to want to "regulate" how Tiwtter and friends must take decisions on how to censure contents.

 

It's GDPR++

2 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Twitter is a private company.  They can do what they want.  Many sites are very strict with regards to what's posted.  Many aren't. 

 

Kudos to Twitter for their actions.  Time for the rest of them to man up also. Enough is enough.

So, if a private company can "do what they want", would it be OK for Twitter to ban all black people? For Facebook to ban all left-handed people? 

The problem isn't so much the strictness or guidelines, it is the hypocrisy and uneven application.  Vladimir Putin still has a Twitter account, as does the Ayatolla Khameni. 

3 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

because those digital platforms have such an impact in our life, and public life, they are subject to standards that goes beyond one of private companies. I suspect upcoming legislation will address that. They jumped the shark, and I think a lot of legislators are going to want to "regulate" how Tiwtter and friends must take decisions on how to censure contents.

 

It's GDPR++

IMHO, social media is probably the worst thing to happen to us in the past 10 years.  Honestly, who really cares about Twitter?  Other than 14 year old girls.  And I guess Trump supporters.  Maybe they've read all of his 57,000 tweets?

3 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

So, if a private company can "do what they want", would it be OK for Twitter to ban all black people? For Facebook to ban all left-handed people? 

The problem isn't so much the strictness or guidelines, it is the hypocrisy and uneven application.  Vladimir Putin still has a Twitter account, as does the Ayatolla Khameni. 

absolutely, completely missed by our anti-Trump friends here,

 

if BLM was banned on Twitter, it would be an uproar from the usual suspects about Democracy, freedom of speech etc...

 

it's a 2 way street, can't ask for one without the other, like it's being demonstrated by anti-Trump crowd, completely missing the point about the banning.

3 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

So, if a private company can "do what they want", would it be OK for Twitter to ban all black people? For Facebook to ban all left-handed people? 

The problem isn't so much the strictness or guidelines, it is the hypocrisy and uneven application.  Vladimir Putin still has a Twitter account, as does the Ayatolla Khameni. 

Ummm....there are laws about racism.  And bigotry. And....

11 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

The issue is why, and how and who is doing the censorship.

Since there wasn’t and isn’t any censorship, it’s a non-existent issue. 
 

11 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

Twitter jumped the shark, and lot of politicians are seeing a dangerous trend here. It usually leads to some form of authoritarianism.

Because before Twitter and Facebook we were all living in an authoritarian world without freedom of speech. Yup. Right. 

Just now, Jeffr2 said:

Ummm....there are laws about racism.  And bigotry. And....

Actually not. At least not in the USA. You are allowed pretty much absolute freedom of speech without fear of breaking any law.

1 minute ago, Jeffr2 said:

IMHO, social media is probably the worst thing to happen to us in the past 10 years.  Honestly, who really cares about Twitter?  Other than 14 year old girls.  And I guess Trump supporters.  Maybe they've read all of his 57,000 tweets?

this is debatable, you can choose to live disconnected from the real world and deny that social media is there to persist,  but for a lot of people, Twitter is very useful and important, and social media is very much needed for marketing purposes of a lot of small companies and startup.

1 minute ago, Jeffr2 said:

IMHO, social media is probably the worst thing to happen to us in the past 10 years.  Honestly, who really cares about Twitter?  Other than 14 year old girls.  And I guess Trump supporters.  Maybe they've read all of his 57,000 tweets?

The reason it is important is that this kind of political de-platforming is going beyond Twitter .Facebook is banning prefectly peaceful groups based solely on their political beliefs. Amazon and Google are doing the same. Apple is delisting downloads to apps. Youtube is demonetizing and banning content based on politics.   The whole of the tech world is becoming authoritarian, while at the same time trying to enjoy status as a protected form of business. 

2 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

absolutely, completely missed by our anti-Trump friends here,

 

if BLM was banned on Twitter, it would be an uproar from the usual suspects about Democracy, freedom of speech etc...

 

it's a 2 way street, can't ask for one without the other, like it's being demonstrated by anti-Trump crowd, completely missing the point about the banning.

Well, if BLM was banned, Twitter would probably lose a lot of customers. They already have lost quite a few. But it does have the right to do so.

2 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

 

if BLM was banned on Twitter, it would be an uproar from the usual suspects about Democracy, freedom of speech etc...

 

it’s a 2 way street

BLM is banned on Fox News, OAN, Breitbart, and I’m pretty sure on Parler and GAB as well, but that seems to be ok for you and your “2 way street”

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Actually not. At least not in the USA. You are allowed pretty much absolute freedom of speech without fear of breaking any law.

...and thank God for it.  People forget that the speech that needs protecting the most is the speech of the unpopular, the deplorable, the powerless, the detestable.  Who wants the government climbing into our heads and thoughts trying to regulate our very souls?