1 hour ago, GrandPapillon said:

not all speech, hate speech for sure, and I think they want to regulate the process for which censure will be applied. The Twitter way is definitely not an option. Thank you Trump, your sacrifice was helpful ????

Ya don't think they would clamp down on someone saying some of the things Trump has said? In fact, prison sentences await those filing hate speech laws in many European countries. As far as I know, Twitter isn't running any prisons.

20 minutes ago, mikebike said:

No. It is not.

 

Maybe you are confused?

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/

For what my opinion is worth, I think Trump's twitter account and FB account should be suspended, not banned. Too often the analogy of shouting fire in a crowded theater is invoked to justify suppression of speech. But in this case Trump's speech fueled the flames. But maybe a month after Biden is in office, Trump's accounts should be reinstated. Once he's out of office, he'll be pretty ineffectual. Both his supporters and his opponents forget how much the inveterate liar's influence is due to the office he holds.

23 minutes ago, mikebike said:

A simple question for you:

 

How did you exercise your free speach prior to social media?

I’ve asked this question two times. Guess why he’s not answering it? 

11 minutes ago, mikebike said:

A simple question for you:

 

How did you exercise your free speach prior to social media?

 

Turn it around and ask yourself if this chaos would have started in the first place, if we didn't have social media. 

 

I'm not so sure Trump would stand a chance without todays platforms. 

 

At times i miss the days without cellphones or internet fora/platforms. 

 

We're all experts and reporters these days and it leads to a lot of tension.

 

Let's blow up the internet and run naked in the fields once again ????

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

For what my opinion is worth, I think Trump's twitter account and FB account should be suspended, not banned. Too often the analogy of shouting fire in a crowded theater is invoked to justify suppression of speech. But in this case Trump's speech fueled the flames. But maybe a month after Biden is in office, Trump's accounts should be reinstated. Once he's out of office, he'll be pretty ineffectual. Both his supporters and his opponents forget how much the inveterate liar's influence is due to the office he holds.

The same should apply to all politicians. Social media is a horrible way to communicate with the people. No controls at all. Kinda like what happens here in Thailand.

3 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I’ve asked this question two times. Guess why he’s not answering it? 

Smoke signals are preferred.

46 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

That is a simplistic argument. Companies are quite often placed under rules that prohibit discrimination for arbitrary reasons. If what you say was correct, then restaurants could simply hang signs that say "no coloreds, no Asians" and it would be OK.  

 

Not to mention the simple fact that the "rules" are applied in a capricious and vindictive manner, generally based on political viewpoint rather than on actual behavior.  It is a sign of the adage that conservatives may disagree with you but don't think you are evil.  Leftists think you ARE evil if you disagree with them. Therefore, any measure to silence you is justified. 

Conservatives don't think progressives are evil? My god, the whole Qanon movement is based on the fact the Democrats are Satanists.  And how do you think Trump's fundamentalist supporters characterize progressives?  And Obama was a Muslim fundamentalist who was ineligible to be President because he wasn't born in the USA. Remember who headed the Birther movement? Your assertion is ludicrous.

On 1/9/2021 at 8:55 AM, ThreeEyedRaven said:

Shame they didn't do so a long time ago. God knows how many mistruths have been told through it and picked up by his followers.

Is ANTIFA and BLM allowed to use social media platforms?

3 minutes ago, Nout said:

Is ANTIFA and BLM allowed to use social media platforms?

Don't deflect.

3 minutes ago, Nout said:

Is ANTIFA and BLM allowed to use social media platforms?

First off, Antif isn't even an organized movement, so what does that mean. As for BLM, does it post tweets calling for violence? BLM has a lot of people who support it. Asking if BLM is allowed to post is akin to asking if the Democratic and Republican party are allowed to posts. If individual members or followers violate the rules, they can be banned. Just like Trump. He's an individual, not comparable to a party or cause.

7 minutes ago, Nout said:

Is ANTIFA and BLM allowed to use social media platforms?

Oh firchrissake - heavy sigh . . .

 

Antifa is an idea, not a group (who is the Antifa CEO? Treasurer?).

BLM is a peaceful group trying to bring attention to people like you that oppression must be rebuked. You mocking them displays ignorance and I recommend you educate yourself on their movement.

21 minutes ago, Virt said:

Turn it around and ask yourself if this chaos would have started in the first place, if we didn't have social media. 

I did, and it didn’t answer the question whether we had freedom of speech before Twitter. 
 

It did answer the question whether it was right (albeit too late) to ban Trump though. 

 

21 minutes ago, Virt said:

At times i miss the days without cellphones or internet fora/platforms. 

The days of Usenet and first discussion forums was quite constructive. I guess we need laws holding the platforms liable for harmful content they don’t delete. It’s not acceptable that every small website owner can be prosecuted if he doesn’t swiftly moderate what users post in his forum, whereas Facebook & Co. seem to get a free pass.

 

15 minutes ago, Nout said:

Is ANTIFA and BLM allowed to use social media platforms?

You have been taken in by snake oil Trump’s campaign rhetoric on Antifa and BLM who demonstrated for social justice while he distract gullible supporters like you from the violent white supremacists and conspiracy theorists violent insurrection.

30 minutes ago, placeholder said:

For what my opinion is worth, I think Trump's twitter account and FB account should be suspended, not banned. Too often the analogy of shouting fire in a crowded theater is invoked to justify suppression of speech. But in this case Trump's speech fueled the flames. But maybe a month after Biden is in office, Trump's accounts should be reinstated. Once he's out of office, he'll be pretty ineffectual. Both his supporters and his opponents forget how much the inveterate liar's influence is due to the office he holds.

Yes and no. 

I would bet the house that if his twitter posting is restored that he will then break the published rules (that apply to all) again, and again, and again.

He got a pass before as a president.

I would agree let him hang himself as a citizen.

31 minutes ago, Nout said:

Is ANTIFA and BLM allowed to use social media platforms?

So you are equating trump supporters to antifa and blm? Therefore in your opinion they are all terrorists? You support violence?

 

If anyone asks for violence then yes ban them. Trump is banned. His supporters are not.

 

Unless they post hatred and violence. Is that too hard for you to understand?

1 hour ago, KhaoNiaw said:

He only prefers Twitter because there's much less scrutiny and he can't be questioned. He wants to get the lies out there without any pushback.

Indeed, this is the draw of most online forum nonsense. The lack of accountability, or at least perception of it.

 

In some conservative forums they're crying foul over the Capitol insurrection participants being "doxxed", that is, named and identified, so that they're being arrested or losing their jobs. Hah! I suppose a harsh lesson that real life isn't like trolling on the Internet anymore.

 

"Give us free speech!" Ok, have at it. "NOOOO! Don't dox me!" One of life's mysteries.

9 minutes ago, CrunchWrapSupreme said:

Indeed, this is the draw of most online forum nonsense. The lack of accountability, or at least perception of it.

Exactly. Scream “bomb” in an airport and you will get punished. The guy next to you who tries to stop you from doing it or who tips off the police will not be blamed for violating your free speech rights. Do it online and some people think those rules shouldn’t apply. 
 

Share kiddy porn with your neighbor and you will get punished. They guy who tries to stop you from doing it or who tips off the police will not be blamed for violating your free speech rights. Do it online and some people think those rules shouldn’t apply. 

 

Put posters up in your neighborhood with a mugshot of your neighbors accusing him of being a kiddy fiddler and you will get punished for defamation. Your wife who rips off the posters will not be blamed for violating your free speech rights. But do it online and some people think those rules shouldn’t apply. 
 

 

 

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

For what my opinion is worth, I think Trump's twitter account and FB account should be suspended, not banned. Too often the analogy of shouting fire in a crowded theater is invoked to justify suppression of speech. But in this case Trump's speech fueled the flames. But maybe a month after Biden is in office, Trump's accounts should be reinstated. Once he's out of office, he'll be pretty ineffectual. Both his supporters and his opponents forget how much the inveterate liar's influence is due to the office he holds.

Pointless. You're not allowed communication devices in prison.

Twitter Bans Over 70,000 QAnon Accounts in Conspiracy Crackdown

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/twitter-bans-over-70-000-033705171.html

I am as anti-Trump as anyone else that has the ability to dress themselves unaided. However, for me, there is a much, much bigger issue at stake here, because I am also anti-censorship and vehemently pro freedom of speech.

 

It is not possible to sanitise freedom of speech to your own dictum  ….. If you don't believe in freedom of speech for those whose views you oppose, or even despise, then you don't believe in it at all.

 

This kind of censorship that we are now witnessing from these huge silicon valley companies is truly alarming; they are succeeding in brainwashing people into accepting the destruction of their own fundamental rights, simply by censoring something that they personally agree should be censored .

 

I find it hugely more edifying to engage in debate with those that hold views contrary to my own. I don't want anybody silenced simply because I don't share their views or political persuasion.

 

I think we all need to realize what is happening here, rather than simply rejoicing in the silencing of the incumbent spaceman    

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

18 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

I am as anti-Trump as anyone else that has the ability to dress themselves unaided. However, for me, there is a much, much bigger issue at stake here, because I am also anti-censorship and vehemently pro freedom of speech.

 

It is not possible to sanitise freedom of speech to your own dictum  ….. If you don't believe in freedom of speech for those whose views you oppose, or even despise, then you don't believe in it at all.

 

This kind of censorship that we are now witnessing from these huge silicon valley companies is truly alarming; they are succeeding in brainwashing people into accepting the destruction of their own fundamental rights, simply by censoring something that they personally agree should be censored .

 

I find it hugely more edifying to engage in debate with those that hold views contrary to my own. I don't want anybody silenced simply because I don't share their views or political persuasion.

 

I think we all need to realize what is happening here, rather than simply rejoicing in the silencing of the incumbent spaceman    

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You can't debate with someone yelling fire in a crowded theater or who is actively inciting terrorism. Sorry but there need to be at least some limits to the radical.purity that you suggest.

9 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

I am as anti-Trump as anyone else that has the ability to dress themselves unaided. However, for me, there is a much, much bigger issue at stake here, because I am also anti-censorship and vehemently pro freedom of speech.

 

It is not possible to sanitise freedom of speech to your own dictum  ….. If you don't believe in freedom of speech for those whose views you oppose, or even despise, then you don't believe in it at all.

 

This kind of censorship that we are now witnessing from these huge silicon valley companies is truly alarming; they are succeeding in brainwashing people into accepting the destruction of their own fundamental rights, simply by censoring something that they personally agree should be censored .

 

I find it hugely more edifying to engage in debate with those that hold views contrary to my own. I don't want anybody silenced simply because I don't share their views or political persuasion.

 

I think we all need to realize what is happening here, rather than simply rejoicing in the silencing of the incumbent spaceman    

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

No. 45 is not an "incumbent spaceman." He was the leader of the free world. His words carried enormous weight. People have died because of his words.

 

Sure, I've been suspended from Facebook. Try typing in the words "Men are pigs." You'll get at least 3 days on the beach. I find those words inoffensive, particularly in the context I used them in. I tried appealing, it fell on deaf ears.

 

Twitter et al showed enormous restraint not banning him years ago out of deference to the office of the president. As well, they broadcast their punch. They gave the loser-in-chief plenty of warning, but his enormous ego didn't care.

 

Yes, we live in a world where we have to be concerned of Orwellian Big Brother killing free speech, but when it comes to saving lives, I'd rather err on the side of caution.

Twitters shares went down more than 10% after this ban - and rightly so. 

 

If this continues - they'll reverse the ban.

16 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

Twitters shares went down more than 10% after this ban - and rightly so. 

 

If this continues - they'll reverse the ban.

Yeah . . . no.

Conservative voices are obviously muzzled by Facebook! (Sarcasm alert!) 

 

32 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You can't debate with someone yelling fire in a crowded theater or who is actively inciting terrorism. Sorry but there need to be at least some limits to the radical.purity that you suggest.

It could well be argued that Trump wasn't shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, but only because he was too busy lighting the fire in a crowded theatre.  The right of free speech extends to those who talk about a criminal event (though sometimes not even then), it does not cover those who perpetrate said event.

55 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You can't debate with someone yelling fire in a crowded theater or who is actively inciting terrorism. Sorry but there need to be at least some limits to the radical.purity that you suggest.

Unfortunately, for myself that is, you ignore the whole concept of my comment. I am anti-Trump, but also anti-dictatorial censorship. The Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei still has an account on Twitter, as does the Chinese Communist Party … but their respective and appalling records of human rights issues, that remain unsanctioned by Twitter, will not, I’m sure, be of any interest to you. My comment was about the necessity to understand the dangers of allowing any censorship to be controlled by political bias

 

….. cheers, have a good day

4 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Unfortunately, for myself that is, you ignore the whole concept of my comment. I am anti-Trump, but also anti-dictatorial censorship. The Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei still has an account on Twitter, as does the Chinese Communist Party … but their respective and appalling records of human rights issues, that remain unsanctioned by Twitter, will not, I’m sure, be of any interest to you. My comment was about the necessity to understand the dangers of allowing any censorship to be controlled by political bias

 

….. cheers, have a good day

That just highlights how incredibly evil 45s behavior has been on Twitter.

As far as Twitter they aren't judging a leaders real life actions and policies.

It's about their posts on Twitter!

1 hour ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

I am as anti-Trump as anyone else that has the ability to dress themselves unaided. However, for me, there is a much, much bigger issue at stake here, because I am also anti-censorship and vehemently pro freedom of speech. 

 

1 hour ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

I am anti-Trump, but also anti-dictatorial censorship.

 

yet you seem to be ok with Twitter’s first amendment rights being violated by dictating them what they should publish. You seem to wish for Chinese conditions in which media is supposed to shut up and publish the propaganda the Fuhrer on top wants it to publish, no matter how big the lies.