American Election

Hmmm. I'm not sure here and Twitter have quite the same impact.

The whole role of social media was that it removed the bias of media. But if you can only talk on their platform (or in the case of apple/Google download certain apps) if they agree with you that's a worrying trend.

Of course, breaking the law or inviting people to break the law is different but its a very fine line to tread before it becomes censorship.

 

Oh give over. He got banned from using a company’s own platform as a consequence of his own actions. He’s spent the last few months spreading absolute bollocks about election fraud, anybody else would’ve have removed ages ago.

 

I'm not saying he was right in what he was saying, but censorship of views - within the law - is never a good thing. You don't change incorrect opinions or claims by banning people.

Just my opinion, if you're happy with this sort of censorship then that's up to you.

 

He's still free to air his opinions, within the law, elsewhere. He's just not allowed to talk shite on Twitter anymore.

 

Its a tough one. I get that certain people on social media push it too far (Trump and the election fraud fiasco probably a good example). But at what point does the host of the show dictate what can and cannot be said? Surely its up to the audience to decide for themselves what denotes right or wrong? 88 million 'followers' says a lot of people tune in for the next instalment of Trump twitter regardless of the rights and wrongs. Always a dodgy road when a chosen few decide to censor what can and can't be said regardless of whether it can be said elsewhere.

 

I understand where you're coming from. This kind of thing does make me uneasy. It feeds into the far right/white supremacist/Trumpist narrative that all the media is left wing and conspiring to censor and marginalise their views (as if Twitter and FB are left wing ).

On the other hand, Trump was spewing out lies about postal voting equating to election fraud months before the election and has kept up a constant stream of lies about election fraud since he lost - despite every credible source dismissing those ideas - which was aimed at and has succeeded in undermining faith in US democracy. And he has been gradually ramping up the rhetoric about 'being strong; fighting back; resisting; showing no weakness' etc and praising those threatening to take the law into their own hands.
How long can you let an unhinged narcissistic sociopath have free reign to incite civil insurrection in order to instigate a coup?

It's a genuine dilemma for social media companies. Do they allow people like Trump to spread lies, undermine the law and deliberately stir up racial hatred - with fatal results, as we saw - or do they get accused of unwarranted censorship?

 

It certainly doesn't help the idea that Twitter has become, or is becoming, a left wing echo chamber. Has any left wing personality ever been banned from there, I don't know?

I like social media because you could hear a wide variety of opinions, including those you disagreed with, without editorial oversight and bias. That isn't to say that people on there aren't biased but the platform was open to everyone within the law.

Your point about lying is completely pertinent to Trump but if that is the criteria for banning it will be a very empty platform very quickly. Its notable that Chinese politicians and official accounts are Tweeting things about their treatment of the Uighur, are they to be banned as well?

It's a slippery slope.

 

Social media is a dangerous place but i only see a path where twitter and facebook are more dangeous than Donald Trump will ever be when they decide who we can and cannot read and make an opinion on then we are on a very slippy slope. One of the reasons i don't use facebook and only use twitter via a football forum. Theres a lot of 'bending the truth' on all sides of debate, not just Trump. Like only reading one newspaper because of your political leaning then thinking everything they say is gospel.

 

I think it's really tricky. I don't like censorship, but where do you draw the line? Most people would say that terrorists, be they Islamist jihadis or white supremacist neo-nazis, should not be given a platform to recruit, radicalise and organise violent events. So when a President uses his social media to encourage such people to go to the Capitol and challenge the lawful election process by 'fighting back' does that not amount to the same thing?
I think Twitter and FB are genuinely worried that there will be a much more serious incident from Trump supporters, either at Biden's inauguration or in the weeks afterwards - we know there were pipe bombs found - and they are trying to put as much distance between themselves and any such incident as possible.

 

Sticking to just the two events you're focussing on: I don't think it's a case of being over-prepared for the one, but the under-preparation for the other is so striking that it makes the first seem over-the-top.

Allow me to veer off into Structuralism, in which you eliminate what is irrelevant to a story and focus on just the essential actions. E.g. the Flood appears in the Bible, Mesopotamian myth, and Greek myth. Essential points are: i) humans anger a diety (or dieties), ii) the deity wants revenge, iii) revenge means elimination of the humans, iv) there will be designated survivors to repopulate the world. The identity of the humans, gods, or even the method of destruction, are irrelevant in this kind of an analysis.

* * *
i) group "X" intends to hold an event (demonstration/rally/march...)
ii) such an event has the potential for violence against people and criminal damage to property

(You know this for various reasons. i) you've seen it happen before in events involving "X"; ii) you're familiar with the platforms "X" uses to publicise themselves and their objectives; iii) you know that "X" is a mix of types, some of whom are truly innocent of any (desire for) wrongdoing but others of whom are using "X" for their own ends -- I could probably add more here, but you get the picture.)

iii) the event will take place in and around an area of national importance (Capitol Hill)
iv) people of national importance may be affected by the event (members of the national government)
v) suitable preparations must be made for this event

And your job is to make those preparations! What will you do?

Note that at no time have I identified a specific "X"; my points apply equally to both your groups/events.
* * *
Gross incompetence just barely begins to describe the preparations for Wednesday's event. There was enough "chatter" around, publicly available, to suggest that robust defences would be a good idea. And now we learn that reinforcements were offered, but the offers were refused.

Some of those who should have known better are now saying they just didn't believe something like this would happen. I can actually believe that -- it is not within our normal behaviour to expect the head of state and one of his trusty lieutenants (Giuliani) to basically inflame a crowd into a mob and incite a riot against his own government and country! -- but still...

RCB

 

I’m not sure banning Trump from Twitter is really a ‘free speech’ thing. If Twitter don’t want to give him a platform then they’re entitled to - nobody is prosecuting Trump as a result of saying what he’s saying he’s just having this specific platform removed from him because the providers aren’t happy with it.

The guy has a whole room of his house dedicated to press conferences, can appear on cable news networks whenever he wants, and besides which, it’s incredibly cheap and easy for anyone to set up their own website and publish anything (legal) they want on it.

Nobody has a right to free amplification, and nobody’s really stopping him from saying anything he wants to.

 

What should worry you more is your whatsapp messages will be sent to Facebook for cross matching to build up a social ID of your online activity

 

I possibly shouldn't laugh but my WhatsApp consist mainly of asking my daughter to do her chores and Facebook likes of nonsense

 

How is brexit even relevant to a far right mob trashing the capitol to the point people were killed, thats just a deflection

 

its for twitter to decide who they allow to use their platform. they dont control free speech they control twitter. hes more than welcome to go down hyde park at speakers corner and twitter wont stop him at all.

 

I bet you wouldn't say that if they started banning people you agreed with though? That's not really the point of having what is essentially a portal for debate, you have rules and then apply them. Otherwise we'll end up with right wing social media and left wing social media and everything will just echo around and polarise even more.

It's part of the issue. People are happy to criticise or be happy when things go against "the other side" and it just goes round in circles.

 

Nobody was really debating whether they agreed with the things he said, more whether this constituted a violation of the right to free speech.

As I said above, nobody has the right to be amplified, and nobody is prosecuting him for what he’s saying. Donald Trump has a lot of ways to say whatever he wants to say - and is perfectly free to set up his own website that anybody can freely read.

 

If they banned people for that it'd be a very quiet platform.

 

What you mean like Parler which is being removed by Apple and Google? Have they really become the de facto arbiters of what is acceptable?

Nobody has a right to be amplified is an interesting point but does free speech really mean anything if you can only shout into an empty room?

You are right that Trump may always find a way to express his views but that's only part of the issue. It's about who decide what views are acceptable seemingly over and above their stated rules.