4 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Not sure better late than never is OK.  Without facebook allowing these nuts to spew their conspiracy theories and propaganda, we might not have had domestic terrorists break into the capitol.  Or, might not have had as many deaths from covid as the BS stuff about it being like the flu, masks don't work, blah, blah, blah, would have been banned. 

 

Facebook is totally to blame for a lot of this. 

Agree, that’s why I wrote “better late than never” which implies that “earlier” would have been better. 

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

Are you trying to imply that insurrection never happened prior to social media? May I be the one to introduce you to a thing called "history".

 

I'm well aware of history thank you ????

I just meant that Trump wouldn't have the same chance of becoming president without todays media platforms and we wouldn't be in the same situation without them. 

17 minutes ago, Virt said:

 

I'm well aware of history thank you ????

I just meant that Trump wouldn't have the same chance of becoming president without todays media platforms and we wouldn't be in the same situation without them. 

I have no idea why you believe that if you are a student of history.

 

The past is literally overflowing with examples for you.

 

Ideas, good or bad, spread just fine prior to instant messaging.

trump banned from Youtube for one week.

 

YouTube removes Trump videos and bans him from uploading new content for a minimum of 7 days, citing 'ongoing potential for violence'

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-bans-trump-from-posting-new-videos-for-one-week-2021-1

1 minute ago, mtls2005 said:

trump banned from Youtube for one week.

 

YouTube removes Trump videos and bans him from uploading new content for a minimum of 7 days, citing 'ongoing potential for violence'

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-bans-trump-from-posting-new-videos-for-one-week-2021-1

FB & Twitter should have done something similar.

11 minutes ago, mikebike said:

I have no idea why you believe that if you are a student of history.

 

The past is literally overflowing with examples for you.

 

Ideas, good or bad, spread just fine prior to instant messaging.

 

 

Sure did, but not as fast and prior to internet and printed media it would take longer for news to spread. 

 

 

58 minutes ago, Virt said:

 

 

Sure did, but not as fast and prior to internet and printed media it would take longer for news to spread. 

 

 

So your only issue with social media vs traditional dissemination of information is it's faster...

 

News flash.  Every advancement of communication has made it faster. But, no advancement of communication has changed human behaviour.

 

Plus c'est la change, plus c'est le meme chose.... or something to that effect.

10 minutes ago, mikebike said:

So your only issue with social media vs traditional dissemination of information is it's faster...

 

News flash.  Every advancement of communication has made it faster. But, no advancement of communication has changed human behaviour.

 

Plus c'est la change, plus c'est le meme chose.... or something to that effect.

With a slight difference as social media platforms allow Trump to skip the filter of MSM which would fact check his statements , MSM which   Trump labelled as enemy of the people - so that his followers would not believe them if ever they published unpleasant truths. 

+ Trump retweeting from questionable sources to his audience, it's just all out of control 24/7

And the result is Millions of Trump followers turned into parrots to spread his lies.  

1 hour ago, Virt said:

 

 

Sure did, but not as fast and prior to internet and printed media it would take longer for news to spread. 

 

 

The big difference is...30 years ago, there were only a few TV news stations and nothing online.  The few TV news stations vetted their news very well.  The standards were very high.

 

Today, there are thousands and thousands of 'news' outlets.  With many not doing any vetting at all, and many profiting off the ignorance of the masses.  Alex Jones at InfoWars is a perfect example.

 

Most of these 'news' outlets don't have a news desk, where everything is vetted before being released.  Newsmax and OANN are great examples of this.

 

Sadly, these outlets need better regulation.  As was proven this week....

8 minutes ago, mikebike said:

So your only issue with social media vs traditional dissemination of information is it's faster...

 

News flash.  Every advancement of communication has made it faster. But, no advancement of communication has changed human behaviour.

 

Plus c'est la change, plus c'est le meme chose.... or something to that effect.

And from what I've read, one of the biggest problems is the proliferation of conservative talk radio shows.  They can spew whatever they want, and for many, are an easy source for info.  Sadly, fake info.

11 minutes ago, Opl said:

With a slight difference as social media platforms allow Trump to skip the filter of MSM which would fact check his statements , MSM which   Trump labelled as enemy of the people - so that his followers would not believe them if ever they published unpleasant truths. 

+ Trump retweeting from questionable sources to his audience, it's just all out of control 24/7

And the result is Millions of Trump followers turned into parrots to spread his lies.  

I was talking historically. Was there a MSM issue 100, 200, 300 yrs ago etc? Information has always been disseminated and authoritarians have always existed - pre MSM and pre social media.

5 minutes ago, mikebike said:

I was talking historically. Was there a MSM issue 100, 200, 300 yrs ago etc? Information has always been disseminated and authoritarians have always existed - pre MSM and pre social media.

how easy was it 100, 200, 300 years ago, for a lambda to instantly reach an audience of Millions of people and organize a protest march gathering people from all the US? ... Ask Ali Alexander

1 hour ago, Opl said:

how easy was it 100, 200, 300 years ago, for a lambda to instantly reach an audience of Millions of people and organize a protest march gathering people from all the US? ... Ask Ali Alexander

The point is you DO NOT need to "instantly" reach your audience.

 

You must be perplexed at how the French and American revolutions were planned if the above is your understanding of communication.

2 hours ago, Opl said:

And the result is Millions of Trump followers turned into parrots to spread his lies.  

Parrots? Watch some videos of that Capitol mob. It’s like the Walking Dead. Like they’ve opened a nuthouse. Zombies from a parallel reality hunting the aliens in their head on auto-pilot. Disturbing.  
 

 

 

31 minutes ago, mikebike said:

The point is you DO NOT need to "instantly" reach your audience.

 

You must be perplexed at how the French and American revolutions were planned if the above is your understanding of communication.

The point is that social media make it possible to an unknown average  joe - with little efforts -  and no cash,  to trigger and coordinate a violent riot mobilizing enough people (4000 activists) - this is to compare to how a looting mob operates, and it has little to do with a Revolution.  

 

I think it's long overdue to have a look at all the social media platforms , if you think about it the technology is only about 15 years old.  Life before 2005 were a lot easier for everyone, we trusted the news media , the conspiracy theories were few.  

Of course nobody likes to lose money, but both Twitter and the rest of them can do a lot more to stop all the hate messages and lies. Our kids are paying the prize right now, getting brainwashed. 

 

1 hour ago, Opl said:

The point is that social media make it possible to an unknown average  joe - with little efforts -  and no cash,  to trigger and coordinate a violent riot mobilizing enough people (4000 activists) - this is to compare to how a looting mob operates, and it has little to do with a Revolution.  

 

Whatever. Keep your head burried and ignore historical precident. Why are you SO focused on the speed issue. 

 

As thru history the speed of communication has increased. The effect, most certainly, has not. 1 hour or one month, historically the result is the same.

57 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Whatever. Keep your head burried and ignore historical precident. Why are you SO focused on the speed issue. 

 

As thru history the speed of communication has increased. The effect, most certainly, has not. 1 hour or one month, historically the result is the same.

I'm not focused on the speed issue, I'm focused  on the easy access to a large audience and to the POTUS social media allow, available to the first averaje Joe, which is all to the benefit of little extremist groups  which otherwise would never have such a large resonance for being just one tweet away.   

Reason why the GOP finds itself hostage of these mobs and reluctant to antagonize them. 

If it's Revolution to you, then consider we in France have an episode every saturday. 

  

42 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Whatever. Keep your head burried and ignore historical precident. Why are you SO focused on the speed issue. 

 

As thru history the speed of communication has increased. The effect, most certainly, has not. 1 hour or one month, historically the result is the same.

With social media there are essentially zero barriers to entry, zero cost to disseminating your message, zero filters/fact checking/sanity checking of your message, and if you can come up with something (anything) that gets forwarded your audience is only limited by the number of people with internet access.  All this can happen in hours.

 

What other form of communication in the past came close to this?

On 1/12/2021 at 2:45 AM, Nout said:

I can reference you tweets from some of the vilest regimes in the world...

But you wouldn't care because you approve and support non elected regimes around the world, including the odious CCP having access to social media. You do not believe in freedom of speech...you believe in censorship of words, thoughts and ideas....The essence of dictatorship and Marxist Lenninism.

You apparently know nothing about what I believe or support.  Please point out my approval of any vile, non-elected regime.  As for freedom of speech, it's not been censored.  He can walk into the press room of the White House and his remarks will be heard by every major network.  

Twitter and FB do not have to accommodate his incitement of violence just like a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a gay couple.

 

Twitter react to the and admit it's somewhat problematic with bans. 

There are several tweets from him. 

 

 

Snapchat has now banned him.

 

facebook, instagram, twitter, youtube, snapchat.

 

is that a phone hitting the wall i just heard?

11 minutes ago, Virt said:

Twitter react to the and admit it's somewhat problematic with bans. 

There are several tweets from him. 

 

 

Not only was it correct but it was long overdue! A non politician's account would have been 100 times based on Mr. trump's atrocious online behavior. 

 

Mr. trump can communicate instantly to entire planet anytime he wants. All he has to do call in the cameras. 

 

However, after he leaves office (thankfully very soon) that access will become more limited. 

8 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Snapchat has now banned him.

 

facebook, instagram, twitter, youtube, snapchat.

 

is that a phone hitting the wall i just heard?

A clown without an audience, how sad.  ????

 

Why is it I can't stop smiling?  ????

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Not only was it correct but it was long overdue! A non politician's account would have been 100 times based on Mr. trump's atrocious online behavior. 

 

Mr. trump can communicate instantly to entire planet anytime he wants. All he has to do call in the cameras. 

 

However, after he leaves office (thankfully very soon) that access will become more limited. 

 

It's true that the average Joe probably would have been banned faster, but this quote from Jack shows the essence of it all, and why bans are problematic. 

 

Having to take these actions fragment the public conversation. They divide us. They limit the potential for clarification, redemption, and learning. And sets a precedent I feel is dangerous: the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation.

4 minutes ago, Virt said:

 

It's true that the average Joe probably would have been banned faster, but this quote from Jack shows the essence of it all, and why bans are problematic. 

 

Having to take these actions fragment the public conversation. They divide us. They limit the potential for clarification, redemption, and learning. And sets a precedent I feel is dangerous: the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation.

How much clarification, redemption, and learning takes place on Twitter?  Or any of the other short post media sites?  How much discussion can take place in 140 characters?

6 minutes ago, Virt said:

 

It's true that the average Joe probably would have been banned faster, but this quote from Jack shows the essence of it all, and why bans are problematic. 

 

Having to take these actions fragment the public conversation. They divide us. They limit the potential for clarification, redemption, and learning. And sets a precedent I feel is dangerous: the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation.

And yet, banning him and others who spread misinformation and hate speech, helps save lives.  I'll opt for this approach.  The nutters will just have to find their dark corners to hide in and still spew their BS.