Trump silenced online: Facebook, Twitter etc balk at insurrection, shut the door after horse bolts and nearly burns down the stable After the trashing of the US Capitol by a mob incited by President Donald Trump on Wednesday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg found the rampage, which had been planned for weeks on social media, "shocking" and extended the temporary block placed on Trump's Facebook and Instagram accounts indefinitely, or for at least two weeks. …
Finally, indeed, and yet still not a solution I'm very comfortable with.
We've seen too many instances where Facebook, Google, Apple etc have arbitrarily booted out someone from FB, Youtube, AppStore etc without having any recourse, any way to really appeal the deplatforming, contact a real human person about it, have any certainty in a just resolution, and absolutely no hope of an independent arbiter.
Trump's case is particularly egregious, and therefore a no-brainer that should have happened ages ago, but allowing giant internet platforms full power to censor anything they want without transparency or recourse is just as bad as allowing anyone to post fake news, hate speech etc just so they can monetise the hits.
Globally I have to agree with you, but in this case I can only say : about fucking time.
This assclown should have been shut down three years ago.
A President of the so-called Most Powerful Country In The World should not be a continuous spewer of lies or a supporter of Nazis.
Facebook & Twitter could have shown the way, instead they just trail the news. Shutting down his account a week before he gets booted from the White House ?
Way, way too late.
Shutting down his account a week before he gets booted from the White House ?
You're surprised that they waited until he's almost out the door before really doing anything? The most powerful man in the world, who is president of the country in which Facebook and Twitter are headquartered, and could take actions that could seriously damage them?
As it is even if he gets a permanent boot after he leaves office (which seems likely since he'll eventually post something of the type so egregious it gets others kicked off, and he won't have the "but he's president so his words matter for the public" get-out any longer) I'll bet a decent portion of his followers will delete their Facebook and (especially) Twitter accounts in protest. Still, that will be a lot less harm than he could have done with executive orders or FCC action that targeted the companies.
They were acting out of a reasonable calculation that raising the ire of an unstable man child who thinks using presidential power to settle personal grudges is totally OK was a bad idea.
I agree that reasonably argued free speech has also been caught up in this furore, but considering the volumes that social media has to sift through, it is understandable that their algorithms do sometimes get it wrong,
I myself have had perfectly reasonable comments removed from numerous sites due to overzealous censorship, like for having the word circumnavigation in the dialogue, because it had "cum" in it.
Clearly, I needed to revisit the offending comment and reword it to get passed, and surely that is the option for everyone to follow. If it is still found unsuitable for the site, then perhaps it really is beyond the pale, and thankfully not broadcast to the world and his dog.
I find the ones most vocal about free speech, are the ones who want to fill your head full of shit, and it is they who are causing the censorship hammer to come down harder and more often. It is they who are eroding our right to free speech, not the establishment, who are trying to put a lid on the outbursts of nutters.
Yeah, Twitter and Facebook took action too late, Mitch McConnell finally denounced Trump after the riot, Kelly Loeffler finally withdrew her complaints about the election after it cost her her own senate seat and will very possibly force her to sell her WNBA team who all vocally oppose her.
No surprise whatsoever that so many are trying to save their own skins now, nor that some, such as Missouri Senator/oxygen thief Josh Hawley (seen saluting the protestors prior to the riot) are clearly making a play for the Trump base's continued support
Just saw he's had his book publishing cancelled and has thrown a massive hissy fit and is claiming it breaches his First Amendment rights. Apparently he doesn't know the difference between censorship (which this is not) and a commercial decision (which this is).
He also has no concept of irony, as his book is (or perhaps was) titled "The Tyranny of Big Tech" and he's bitching about the decision on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1347327743004995585
Just saw he's had his book publishing cancelled and has thrown a massive hissy fit and is claiming it breaches his First Amendment rights. Apparently he doesn't know the difference between censorship (which this is not) and a commercial decision (which this is).
If this pond scum Hawley thinks he has something to say, he can always self-publish, nobody is stopping him from using his own money to exercise his !st A rights. The publisher is just not going to fund his pathetic bleating.
For someone who clerked at the Supreme Court, he is showing an astonishing and likely willful ignorance of the law. The 1st amendment restricts the power of the government on free expression. Corporations have no such requirement to follow it.
What he's getting. is a lesson that with free speech comes consequences. I have no problem with reality educating him where law school and a Supreme Court clerkship could not.
On this side of the pond...
PM condemns Trump after years of fawning over US president by Tories
icon --> reference to the image in the above article
@Fruit and Nutcase
"PM condemns Trump after years of fawning over US president by Tories"
I read a lot of moaning in there from the irrelevant but nothing worth blaming the Tories over. Boris congratulated Biden back in november- https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54840746
Labour sound dangerously stupid if they would want to jump into America's political situation weeks ago, its for the US to sort out. Moaning that the condemnation isnt worded the way the cry babies want it is just stupid.
I read a lot of moaning in there from the irrelevant but nothing worth blaming the Tories over. Boris congratulated Biden back in november- https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54840746
I doubt this matters in the long term either. Trump will just be a distant memory by the time of the next UK-wide general election, and the Tories are probably going to suffer heavily in the May Scottish elections for other reasons.
The more important issue is how the new US administration views the Tories and the country they govern. I understand that the new US administration believes that:
a. The UK is far less important to the US than it was, since it is no longer an ally that can shape EU decisions.
b. Johnson is a "kind of a physical and emotional clone" of Donald Trump.
c. Supporting Ireland is far more crucial for American domestic politics than supporting the UK.
and will presumably frame their actions accordingly.
They are (relatively) popular in Scotland, or at least were. Firstly due to Ruth Davidson, who is very far removed from your average Conservative politician, and secondly because what happened in the North of England Labour heartlands happened in Scotland first. The old heavy industry areas which Labour took for granted for a generation have shifted to either the SNP or the Conservatives and are much more marginal than they were previously.
Davidson's decision to step down is probably going to hurt them badly, unless there truly is a smoking gun in the Salmond investigation files that the SNP are desperately trying to keep private despite Holyrood's decision to have them presented to the members.
To whoever obviously thinks Trump had fine hours, I offer a selection of just 10, from memory:
1) When he was listening to doctors describing all of the death caused by Covid, he paused and then started offering out pens instead of listening to them.
2) Being unable to close an umbrella on his way into Air Force One.
3) Sticking with AFO, climbing the steps to Air Force One with toilet paper on his shoe.
4) Sticking with toilet paper, don't forget him throwing rolls of it from a boat after a hurricane.
5) There was trying to bribe a foreign country to investigate the relatives of his political rival.
6) Oh, you remember him suggesting people inject bleach into their veins?
7) Just recently, I don't know if you caught this, but he spent an hour on the phone trying to pressure Georgia officials to, you know, overturn the election.
8) "Person, woman, man, camera, TV."
9) Remember when he just had to get into a car and do a drive-past while infected with Covid?
10) Pardoning some Blackwater murderers. And all of his friends who committed crimes on his behalf.
Bonus 11) Trying to execute as many people as possible after losing the election.
Number 15: As an ""intelligent man" and into real estate, he was unable to buy Greenland and Iceland.
NOTE:
We can go all year long -- There is just too many "material"!
No 17
Now throwing his own ' wonderfully loyal' Capitol Stormtroopers under the bus because (a) they failed to overthrow the legislature and consequently (b) their action threatens impeachment or Amendment 25.
Will he pardon himself? We can expect him to give it a try. Will he pardon them? Interesting question.
Will he pardon himself? We can expect him to give it a try. Will he pardon them? Interesting question.
And about pardoning himself, a related question that has seen some exposure recently:
WRT casino bankruptcy, I'm not sure all is as meets the eye. Remember Trump paid no tax in 10 of the last 15 years and just $750 in each of the last 2 years* . something that is possible if you declare your businesses to be loss-making. However I'm sure it's possible to somehow siphon money out of a successful business eg through supply payments to external, possibly offshore, companies. Result - the casino profits disappear where the IRS can't find them, and the casino 'losses' offset profits elsewhere in the group to get taxable income down to zero (or even negative to get tax credit).
Not saying that's what happened, but it's not certainly possible.
*IIRC that was teh result of NYT investigation into his tax returns
I think it was that time he said he'd been to 'real school, not book school' after contracting COVID-19. But maybe it doesn't count as a finest hour since I think he reverted to downplaying the virus before 60 minutes had passed.
He's back on Twitter, anyway. It's just virtue signalling for these social media platforms which still won't give up the 'clicks' unless they're made to.
Did you see the man in black? Full mask, with his police cable ties to secure the hands of prisoners? So planning to take prisoners then.
Third image in this set:
https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/news/politics/2021/01/06/protesters-storm-into-u-s-capitol/6568847002/#slide:6569086002
You take a Senator prisoner, and you stop certification of the vote and you achieve your goals of stopping the certification. But afterwards you can expect to spend your life in jail.....
Nobody would do that if they hadn't been promised a Presidential Pardon. This guy expected a pardon. He would have been promised a Trump pardon if he kidnapped some Senators. He's there looking for targets to kidnap.
And then there's the second problem, Maryland Governor was called by the Senators trapped in the building, asking for the National Guard. He had his National Guard ready on the border and could not get the necessary approval to bring them into Washington DC from the Christopher Miller at the Department of Defence. Miller delayed for one and half hours.
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/maryland/national-guard-assistance-requests-denied-capitol-riots/65-e3ad38e5-f574-49d2-bfee-d3f504d7e53f
Our Trump loyalist here, Christopher, the guy the former defense secretaries warn against, delayed for an hour and half before a General finally gave the authorization. Trump's people failed to kidnap their targets and only then could the National Guard from Maryland be allowed in.
He's also the guy blocking the transition to the Biden regime. This man is likely complicit.
You be clear what happened there. A failed coup. An attempt to kidnap the people who certify the vote, hold hostages and keep Trump in power against the wished of the people.
You need to remove Trump *NOW*.
Did you see the man in black? Full mask, with his police cable ties to secure the hands of prisoners? So planning to take prisoners then.You take a Senator prisoner, and you stop certification of the vote and you achieve your goals of stopping the certification. But afterwards you can expect to spend your life in jail.....
Nobody would do that if they hadn't been promised a Presidential Pardon. This guy expected a pardon. He would have been promised a Trump pardon if he kidnapped some Senators. He's there looking for targets to kidnap.
Err.. right. How to assemble a conspiracy theory that would make QAnon blush. Sadly, there are a few.. flaws with your theory.
1) Dress code: Ok, this could be a cunning bit of false flaggery, but person's simply obeying Covid mask advice, and/or following the fashions of other protests from last year.
2) Cable ties: I have several bags of those for, well, tying cables. Their presence doesn't automatically assume police issue. Presence of cable ties, duct tape also doesn't assume 'rape kit', just perhaps an IT worker. But much as in 1) cable ties were used in last year's riots, because if you loop them through door handles, the doors can be hard to open. Peaceful protestors could be seen doing this at police stations & other buildings in places like Portland, so people inside couldn't get out. Then trying to set the buildings on fire.
3) Prisoners: The US is somewhat smarter than the average conspiracy theorist. So you win 270 Electoral College votes. Congrats Mr/Madam President (ish). Those votes get counted, and if it's still at least 270, then it's congrats Mr/Madam President-elect. If it's not, then there's a contingent election where one chamber votes for President, the other for VP. But no need for a contingent election, and no way to force it with a spot of kidnapping. Might be some devil in the details, like the what happens if the votes go missing, but AFAIK, that's more embarassing than crisis-creating. No official President & VP by the 20th, and the Speaker gets the gig per rules of succession. Which I think also covers 'designated survivor' scenarios, or just why Pelosi would have been promptly whisked away.
So more a publicity stunt that practical given the real deadline of the 20th. Presumably there's also some CoG stuff where if the Capitol building's destroyed/uninhabitable, the paperwork can get sorted out in an off-site bunker, somewhere.
4) Pardon?: Err.. Sure. Contact theunrealtrump@pardonsrus.io for your copy. An extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence. As would the theory that this was all a cunning plan by Pelosi to assume the Presidency on the 20th, only averted by her leaving her favorite minigun at the hairdressers.
Otherwise, wasn't exactly much of a coup, and would only have delayed the inevitable. Made for some interesting TV though. Favorite bit was still CNN interviewing John Sullivan - founder of the far-left organization "Insurgence USA", who was right behind the woman that was executed. Awkward. Mr Sullivan may also find out just how useful an idiot he's been, if he's charged with terrorism. If he's not charged for being part of the protests, well, that could also be a bit awkward..
Might be some devil in the details, like the what happens if the votes go missing, but AFAIK, that's more embarassing than crisis-creating
There are, apparently as a holdover from the stagecoach era and the shenanigans common then, at least four copies being sent from each of the states to Washington, one copy is kept at that state's capitol, and yet one more sent to some government archiving institution.
I would expect that any of the copies remaining elsewhere could be used even if the ones that were being counted as the insurrectionists snatched them were shredded, blown up, eaten, buried in soft peat and recycled as firelighters, or shat upon, shredded and then blown up. And I'd wager a guess that even a photocopy that's verifiably identical to the ones stored elsewhere would do.
And I'd wager a guess that even a photocopy that's verifiably identical to the ones stored elsewhere would do.
Cheers. That's what I figured given there's a layered system, ie states certify the results, then sent to Washington to be counted. So given it wasn't exactly a close-run election, unlike 2016 where the Dems did try to drag out the count.. The 'coup' couldn't have achieved anything given the count could have been done at a CoG site elsewhere off alternative certified copies. As far as I could tell, other than tradition, the constitutional stuff doesn't specify a location where it has to be done. Is Blodgett's Hotel still standing*?
(I'm also now a tad curious if the US copies the UK tradition of having copies of documents like this on vellum, on account of it's longevity.. Even if it can be tricky to feed correctly into a laser printer.)
*Sorry about that 1814 thing, at least the US got to 'build back better'.
As far as I could tell, other than tradition, the constitutional stuff doesn't specify a location where it has to be done. Is Blodgett's Hotel still standing*?
AIUI it just needs to be done by a combined session of Senate and House, chaired by the VP, but no limitations as to location. Although it might need to be within DC because something something federal something, in that case ruling out Four Seasons Total Landscaping.
Yes, let's keep our heads down for a bit until the storm has passed, then we can quietly get back to making tons of money from the looney tunes goons.
I suspect that this won't be enough to stem the consequences resulting from what just happened once the new administration takes office, but you can be pretty certain that the lobbying effort will already be underway to fight back against any changes that will be proposed in the way these giant companies currently operate.
Still, the realisation may finally be dawning that if you let people play with fire in your house, you might end up getting burnt.
I'm torn on this. I'm a 95% free speech person - the 5% that I don't agree with is talking up physical harm to others, that kind of thing.
I strongly dislike some of Trumps policies, how he comports himself and I'm absolutely against what is happening at the moment in the Washington US.
However, if there is a lock down on free speech then it has to be even handed and I can't remember there being the same restrictive policies subjected to those in 2020 who advocated violence and destroying property. I.e. the rioters (I don't include the peaceful protesters as they had every right to protest). But perhaps I just didn't see them ... or hear them.
> if there is a lock down on free speech then it has to be even handed
This response doesn't seem even-handed to you?
I'm just as big of a supporter of free speech, but you have to admit the restrictions on it are very specific: you can't yell "fire" in a theater, you can't yell "bomb" on a plane, and you can't incite panic or violence.
He's been doing the latter for a very long time. I'm surprised these services haven't elected to ban his accounts permanently, or dish out longer suspensions than a few weeks. That seems a bit more even-handed.
you can't yell "fire" in a theater
Yes, you can. As Ken White puts it, "Holmes' [fire-in-a-theater] quote is the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech". Just stop using this bogus example, please.
Also, contra another post above, seditious speech is not generally against the law in the US today, thanks to SCOTUS decisions in cases such as Schafer, Brandenburg, and Yates. That hasn't always stopped the Feds from trying to bring sedition charges (based purely on speech) against someone, of course, but the current standard articulated by the court is a very high bar. In Brandenburg it's "where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action": the speech has to be intended to lead to breaking the law, and has to be likely to succeed.
In the US, you're perfectly free to say, "hey, I think it would be swell if someone overthrew the government by force". That seems reasonable to me, since you'd basically be paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson. I'm not much of a fan of Jefferson myself, but if we're going to go telling people that he was one of our great political thinkers, we shouldn't punish those who repeat him.
People who insist on discussing US free-speech law and the First Amendment should also read "Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About The First Amendment", if they haven't already.
> As Ken White puts it, "Holmes' [fire-in-a-theater] quote is the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech". Just stop using this bogus example, please.
I read your link(s), and it seems to equate this Holmes guy who maybe made up this phrase as an argument to prosecute journalists publishing any anti-war sentiment.
It should be obvious, but obviously needs to be said: just because a guy made a good point once, but then later tried to use it as a slippery-slope argument to arrest dissidents (which, btw, "free speech" encourages dissidents, that's kinda the point), doesn't make the original argument invalid.
Even somewhere in your second link, it quotes, "... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The letter of the law says it right there, but to summarize the whole 'theory' of Free Speech: "you're allowed to say whatever you want, UNLESS it [unlawfully] denies others their rights to LIFE, liberty, or property."
To put it simply, if you shout "fire" in a theater just because you think it's funny, and 2 children get trampled to death because of it, that's the exact limit of it. You will get charged criminally for inciting a panic, especially if there are deaths.
If you rally all your supporters to travel out-of-state to Washington D.C., then give a speech crying for them to march on the capitol and overtake it. You [should] get charged criminally for inciting a panic, especially if there are deaths.
Your man Holmes tried to equate a direct call for panic, like yelling fire in a theater, to people publishing a newspaper which might contain words they don't like. The line is very strict, even your examples seem to be ignorant of it.
I feel the same way, and it's upsetting to see so many downvotes on El Reg where people should know better.
The issue is not the message they are censoring - few reasonable people would agree with this vile nonsense - the issue is with the censoring itself.
Lots of people don't like Trump and are most likely cheering the censoring of his speech, but who gets to decide what should be censored? Should it really be a handful of for-profit companies who make money trading personal data?
What happens when gradually over 20 years an authoritarian government creeps into power and more harmless political speech gets censored? What if conservative groups start buying up these companies or forming their own and slowly censor abortion debates, or LGBT groups?
Allowing and cheering on censorship because it happens to be targeting someone you don't like today is very likely to come back and bite you in the ass 5, 10 or 50 years from now.
It's so nice to see someone else who actually understands these issues. All the pro-censorship cheering I'm seeing at the moment sickens me. It's like people have forgotten why free speech is important.
“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”
- Noam Chomsky
These platforms happily censor lots of other people who are not "big names" * - Trump has had special treatment in been allowed so much freedom without temporary account locks for so long
* e.g. I am aware of someone who had a 7 day twitter ban just for a critical tweet about a UK MP (Michael Gove the MP in question), which amongst other things called Gove a c**t. - plenty of other people have had 12 hour bans for similar rude word insults to politicians
a 7 day twitter ban just for a critical tweet about a UK MP (Michael Gove the MP in question), which amongst other things called Gove a c**t.
That ban wasn't due to the use of a profanity, it was due to the tweet breaking Twitter's fake news policy. If you publicly call Michael Gove a cunt, it clearly and inaccurately implies that he has some depth...
Goebbels also said
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
Unsocial Media have amplified this with their money making algorithms. Not just politics but across the board.
Freedom of speech is not the real issue here, the platforms have acted with pure profit over peoples, regardless of the proof the harm it's doing. Their denial is no less than saying "I was only following orders"
OK seeing as we are diving down the semantics rabbit hole, lets rebrand the censoring of free speech to allowing "free speech, free of malice".
I think that suitably and concisely sums up where the boundaries of acceptable free speech meets the rhetoric of divisive malcontents.
No risks of 1984 being brought upon the world, because we needed some way of shutting some absolute fuckwits up.
[…] speaking generally, it is not, in constitutional countries, to be apprehended that the government, whether completely responsible to the people or not, will often attempt to control the expression of opinion, except when in doing so it makes itself the organ of the general intolerance of the public. Let us suppose, therefore, that the government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice. But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in or opposition to it. If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.— John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Chapter II.: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion
Actually, that's not the problem at all. The problem is these platforms are designed, through their algorithms, to wrap their uses into an echo chamber where they only hear what they want, or the platform thinks they want, to hear. Q-Anon wouldn't survive 10 minutes if the user heard pro and anti arguments, but once you start down that rabbit hole the platform artificially re-enforces your pre-conceived view by only continuing to show you articles that back up the original false view.
There isn't a universally recognized source of truth we all agree to anymore for the basic facts that form our public debate. That's the issue.
Nobody said anything about semantics.
"No risks of 1984 being brought upon the world, because we needed some way of shutting some absolute fuckwits up."
Well you've really turned me around on this. Here I was thinking that freedom of speech mattered and that public discourse and the ability to air unpopular opinions was important, and that there were shades of gray between and differences of opinion on what is "benign" and "malicious". But now I've seen the light and realise that with just a little bit of totally-not-censorship-because-we-rebranded we can shut those vegans (aka absolute fuckwits) up. So I'm totally on board.
Nice work! I can see your thoughts on this subject are incredibly well thought out, internally consistent, and not at all ripe for abuse.
I think "rebrand" is not the right word for what you're proposing, though. rather than calling it a "rebanding", let's just go with "totally not a propaganda marketing tactic".
Oh, rubbish! Facebook, Twitter, et al are not the authorities. They are private companies who offer a service with terms and conditions. They are perfectly entitled to enforce those terms and conditions if they see fit. And Trump is still free to spout his criminal lies wherever he can, to anyone who will listen, on any platform that wilshes to let him.
As I've just woken up, maybe I'm a bit behind on the news, but I haven't yet heard of the US gvernment attempting to remove Trumps freedom of speech, so where's the problem?
Thanks Esme - saved me a moderation is not censorship rant :)
Why can people not understand, this is not erosion of free speech, your 1st Amendment covers that, this is application of platform rules. They have been reluctant to apply them up to now but a line has been crossed that can not be ignored.
Trump can still post his BS on Parler, just not Twitter or Facebook - where is the censorship?
Funny, I just came here to update that Parler may not be the best example - what a difference a weekend makes!
Gab is still operational at the time of writing - maybe he could go there instead. There is also FOX news, OAN, The Blaze and any number of other right-wing outlets he can use to preach to his congregation
This post has been deleted by its author
When every major platform has banned a sitting US president, would you consider that censorship?
Whether or not you like Trump has to be removed from this debate. Free speech is an absolutely critical part of modern democracy, and that means that you can't shut people up just for being horrible. If someone says horrible things just forcing them off mainstream platforms onto right wing echo chambers is dangerous for everyone and causes even more division in society.
In many regimes around the world there is a nudge nudge wink wink approach to censorship where the government is not directly censoring content but very strongly suggesting that media companies should toe the line (the best example of recent times is Hong Kong). You can say it's technically not censorship and you may even support that because they are censoring someone you hate, but it's all fun and games until the censorship net starts getting widened.
There are already laws in place covering illegal speech such as threats or incitement and a judge should be enforcing those laws, not Facebook or Google.
What's missing from the debate here is the way these companies will feed you to keep you on their platform for as long as possible. The toxic reinforcement they use to make more and more money. Doesn't matter if it's QANUS; songs from the sound of music or the advantages of a starvation diet. Regardless of subjects you are encouraged to keep consuming for the sake of profit. Ain't algorithms a great thang for the off shore bank accounts
Allowing and cheering on censorship because it happens to be targeting someone you don't like today is very likely to come back and bite you in the ass 5, 10 or 50 years from now.
Allowing insurrectionists to take over the government is very likely to bite you in the ass today.
The US was at the brink of the abyss but the idea has not suddenly gone away. It will come back again by people who are more organised than the knuckle-dragging rabble that Trump whipped up if you allow it to and if it gets into power it will really take away your freedom of speech and lots of other things. When that happens you can look back and weigh up the merits of removing hate speech.
No, the issue is a little thing called Section 230, which ironically Trump has been pushing to repeal lately. And he was right to do so. Even Trump espouses good causes sometimes, albeit for the worst reasons.
Section 230 creates a legal anomaly whereby online publishers, like Facebook, Twitter and Google, get to pretend to be like "common carriers" - who are agnostic to the content they deliver - but, and this is the key point, they don't actually have to be anything of the sort. They get all the control and power of a publisher, but none of the legal responsibility.
I don't think this is either healthy or sustainable. Companies need to decide whether they want to be publishers or platforms - the two roles are not the same, and shouldn't be conflated. (Of course some, like Google, might try offering both services - but they would have to keep them separate.) Then, and only then, can we hold publishers to account properly.
I keep hearing about section 230, but if it is removed them it basically makes all platforms liable for anything on their sites. If that is the case i can see them either removing all user content (comments columns anyone) or heavily, and i do mean heavily restricting and monitoring what people post on these platforms. The oposite to what Trump thinks he would get.
Section 230 does not say what you think it does... Publisher vs. platform is a bit of a giveaway
It's a bit long but covers all of the common misconceptions:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml
Or a talk about 230 (jump to 3:00 for the start) which saves some reading:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=678EW8v09z8&feature=emb_logo
Ron Wyden (lawyer and s230 author) discussion:
https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/16/18626779/ron-wyden-section-230-facebook-regulations-neutrality
For info. most of the s230 issues that Trump etc. complain about are really covered by the first amendment. Removing the protections will have a massive effect but not in the way the detractors think it will. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3351323
Lots of people don't like Trump and are most likely cheering the censoring of his speech, but who gets to decide what should be censored?
The owner of the platform gets to decide. Just like I get to decide whether to allow you to stand in my front yard with a megaphone based on whether I approve of what you're saying or not.
They are free to start their own platforms and speak. Private businesses and homes are under no obligation let anyone say what they please and never were.
But sedition, insurrection, calls for genocide, stochastic terrorism and wholesale violence were never protected free speech to begin with.
Nobody is being censored, they are just being told to bugger off and start their own outlets, of which there is no shortage.
THAT'S why you are getting downvotes. You do not understand how any of this works.
Actually, I was trying to point out a certain level of hypocrasy with (social) media. I.e. Willing to criticise one side when they use the tactics of violence but not willing to to do so with the other side. Perhaps I failed to be clear about that, although I do find the responses interesting. Either I've not done a great job of portraying my meaning (always possible), or some people are being a bit selective (known to happoen).
With regards the votes: I don't mind as long as people are honest in their arguments if they have an issue with what I'm saying (and that's not a dig at you).
Unfortunately, in order for free-speech to be protected it necessarily needs to be limited. This seemingly contradictory idea is described by Poppers Paradox.
Essentially, those ideas which would limit the free speech of others must themselves be censored. So, for example, homophobic speech seeks to limit the freedoms of homosexuals and must itself therefore be censored. Ditto racist, misogynistic and other forms of prejudiced speech.
I’d also go so far as to want to limit speech which goes against the evidence (at least insofar as not giving it equal weighting as evidenced fact), for example to limit lies about global warming not being real.
Unfortunately, in order for free-speech to be protected it necessarily needs to be limited. This seemingly contradictory idea is described by Poppers Paradox.
That assumes people understand Popper's words-
..If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
But you can't say that, I'm offended! It's hate speech! Deplatform this person now! So tolerance (or intolerance) becoming a matter of perspective. Or who wields the banhammer. Kathy Griffin's notorious pic of Trump's severed head is still available on Twitter. Trump's live, talking head was banned from twitter, facebook etc. One's a comedian, one's the President.. for potentially the next 12 days.
But such is politics. Comedians and satirists had a long tradition of using offence, or shock to get some fairly important points across. Like Bill Hicks on marketing. Now, it's be inoffensive (or don't offend us), or risk being 'deplatformed' or 'cancelled' for daring to offend the intolerant.. Which for comedians was already kinda self-limiting, ie offend your audience too much, and your audience won't buy tickets, and you'll self-cancel. It becomes ironic to the point of parody that currently the most intolerant people think they're tolerant, and justify their cancel-culture based on their interpretation of Popper's Paradox.
Not complaining that the protestors weren't blinded with non-lethal rounds or choked to death, but they certainly should have been tear-gassed and water-cannoned away before they reached the capitol.
And Biden / Harris are right that in the similair circumstances, majority-black protestors were handled VERY differently by police/security
Not complaining that the protestors weren't blinded with non-lethal rounds or choked to death, but they certainly should have been tear-gassed and water-cannoned away before they reached the capitol.
Well, the Capitol is (or was) public space. Even a 'sacred', non-secular space. And whilst tear-gassing, water cannons & baton rounds sounds like jolly fun.. That kinda thing lead to Democrat mayors in places like Seattle & Portland banning those kinds of tactics, calling to defund the police etc etc. Or they're the same tactics used by police in Hong Kong against peaceful protestors there, leading to cries that it's an affront to democracy, no place in civilised democracies, sanctions etc etc. It's the kind of stuff those pesky, foreign, brutal regimes do.
Which... is a bit of a problem for the Democrats, unless they're counting on short memories. Less than a year ago, condemning those tactics. Now, demanding them. What a difference a day makes, or just convenient when useful idiots are no longer useful.
But such is politics. Cities that have withdrawn support & funding from their police have of course also seen police officers leaving in droves, and crime rates rising. Much the same played out in DC with police actions heavily criticised, and resignations demanded. But much as in other cities, the violence was political. DC's mayor knew to expect large crowds and potential trouble. If it wanted crowd dispersal stuff like water cannons, the city should have made sure those were on hand. So the cities politicians were either incompetent, or negligent in not being prepared.
But much easier to throw the police under the bus, and suggest some were helping the protestors. insead of it being an obvious failure in city leadership.
And Biden / Harris are right that in the similair circumstances, majority-black protestors were handled VERY differently by police/security
Depends what you mean by 'handled'. But you're right. Things were managed very differently-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTg1ynIPGls
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences. It also does not mean that companies are compelled to give you a platform from which to speak from.
Trump has already had enormous freedom from the rules of Twitter, Facebook and the likes. Any normal person saying half the stuff he has would have been banned years ago.
Ultimately, Trump can stand on a podium and is free to say what he likes. However social media companies don't have any obligation to share those words with the world, and Trump still has to face the potential consequences for some of his words as well. Those are just things that go in-hand with the whole "free speech" concept.
Trump's real blunder this time was, he made the politicians - including his own party - feel physically threatened. They are not, on the whole, very brave people, and they will not forgive being scared like that.
That's why even those Republicans who've had his back all this time are now suddenly discovering what he has been all along. (Well, that and the good voters of Georgia have seriously damaged his mystique as a base whisperer.) Altogether, he very suddenly finds himself with many fewer friends, and that emboldens others to finally act against him.
Not only that, I think between the recording of his call to the Georgia SoS and his incitement to riot / sedition, they realize there's a high likelihood will be in prison before the 2024 election (but given the slow pace of justice, probably not the 2022 congressional primaries which is why more senators abandoned him than members of the house who have their next primary in 15-18 months)
Since he's publicly turned against Pence, the "I'll resign you and pardon me" scenario seems very unlikely, and while Trump will no doubt try to pardon himself no one seriously believes that will be upheld in the Supreme Court. Plus he can be charged in the state of Georgia and in Washington DC for these crimes so even if he can weasel himself a pardon shield for federal crimes those state/local charges won't go away. After the way he's gone after the governor of Georgia, there's zero chance he'll get a pardon from him, either.
He's really screwed himself during his lame duck period. I would have thought he could have had Pence pardon him, and the only thing he'd face would be charges in NY for stuff like tax evasion or insurance/bank fraud, which he'd probably end up settling for a lot of money and no jail time. Now I see little chance he doesn't end up behind bars. He will not be a force in the 2024 presidential election cycle, and those who have tied themselves to him like Hawley and Cruz will end up seriously regretting that.
The 1st amendment limits government's ability to censor free expression of ideas. None of the social media platforms is part of the government and is not constrained by the 1st amendment.
Using one's right to free speech does not provide freedom from consequences for the exercise of free speech.
The choice of moderation and/or censorship is, in the end, solely at the discretion of the private company. Even a publicly traded company is private in this context.
I'm rather disappointed he's been barred on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and Twitch (also his online stores have been taken down too) because he is likely having conniptions right now - not to mention kittens - and I would have very much enjoyed watching his melt down. It's probably driving him even more nuts that he's lost his voice. Perhaps he has an account on Parler with the rest of his very special friends whom he loves so much, but that's small peanuts compared to the giants. One can only hope he goes on a naked rampage down Philadelphia Avenue screaming how he's had his toys stolen from his pram, so I can laugh some more. Of course, four people are dead after this so I feel guilty about laughing but...I just can't help it. Come on Twitter, pretty please un-muzzle him, just for a little while, so I can revel in his madness for a bit longer. It likely won't affect his cult members very much because there are plenty of other sources for this madness so they are going to be just as mad for a while longer whether Trump is visible or he isn't. Just half a day Twitter, pretty please...let him hang himself in public for us all to see.
This post has been deleted by its author
Democratic Representative Bennie Thompson, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement he was “deeply frustrated that it took a group of domestic terrorists storming the Capitol” for Facebook to take action and wondered “if the decision was an opportunistic one, motivated by the news of a Democratically controlled Congress.”
We have an article about suppressing Trump's mad exhortations. Look closely at who has imposed sanctions on him. Not one of those individuals or organisations is a judge, magistrate, court or whatever. Our political and legal systems need updating and made more agile to deal with this sort of nonsense.
I also think that until we can work out how forums like Reddit (I'm a Redditor), /., FB and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, and even Hacker News and our lovely el Reg, etc etc can be made to function without "internet points" or finesse their use, then there will always be an incentive to outrage or incite for the sake of it by some individuals. For example: I'm pretty sure that a hunt for karma points is what caused a schematic for a guitar pedal to be posted as the Bill Gates chip in your CoVID-19 vaccine.
We all love being appreciated but some people will go to extreme lengths to be noticed and I think that internet points are fundamentally responsible for some worrying trends.
Not one of those individuals or organisations is a judge, magistrate, court or whatever. Our political and legal systems need updating and made more agile to deal with this sort of nonsense.
I think everyone agrees that Trump has exposed a LOT of weaknesses in the system, and I hope if there's one place we can find bipartisan agreement it is in the need to update our laws to better deal with an out of control president. Because there is nothing stopping Biden or any future democrat or republican president from pulling all the same shit other than respect for the office and the constitution that Trump lacks.
To plug ALL the holes we will need constitutional amendments, but congress can fix a lot of it with changes to the laws. The #1 thing I'd like to see is the Attorney General needs a 2/3 vote of the senate (to stop partisan appointments) and he personally picks everyone under him, and the president can't fire him - his term expires when the president who nominated him leaves office. If he goes rogue you impeach him and remove with a 2/3 vote of the senate.
That will keep the justice department separate from any political pressure and we won't see another Barr acting as the president's personal attorney, or another Nixon Saturday night massacre. That change alone fixes a lot of problems because a president can't protect himself, his cronies or his administration from investigation when they have committed criminal acts.
@DS999
"I think everyone agrees that Trump has exposed a LOT of weaknesses in the system, and I hope if there's one place we can find bipartisan agreement it is in the need to update our laws to better deal with an out of control president"
Unfortunately the democrats were talking about subverting the controls on the president by adding members to the Supreme Court. They are also considering removing the filibuster. I am sure it will suit them while they are in power but surely their dislike of the current president should give them pause.
There may be some democrats talking about doing that but you don't have to worry about it for at least two years. Joe Manchin of WV said months ago he wouldn't support either, and as they're at a 50/50+VP minimal majority, they would need his support.
Though I wouldn't blame them for increasing the SC by two seats, to make up the seat McConnell's two facedness stole (take your pick, either the one during Obama's term or the one seated a few days before Trump lost in November, he can't have it both ways and claim the moral high ground)
The filibuster thing was started by democrats, made worse by republicans, and one of them will eventually remove it entirely. Which will be sad, I would be in favor of having all actions of the senate require a 2/3 vote along with removing the speaker's power to decide what gets voted on (anything that can get 34 members signed on it must have an up or down vote) as a way of avoiding one side ramming through their ideology and forcing bipartisan cooperation/agreement in judges and legislation. Then the number of Supreme Court judges wouldn't matter because they won't be wildly liberal or conservative, but have to be more middle of the road to get 2/3rds approval.
A large part of what would keep Congress powerless in the case of requiring a 2/3 majority for any significant proposal is its partisanship, and especially the valueing of party over country to the extent that "it would hurt my constituents if it wasn't passed, but it will hurt yours more, neener neener".
And that's an inherent problem in a two-party system. Multi-party, especially with a larger number of small, narrow-issue parties is not without its problems, but at least it requires having to craft compromises, both for assembling a government as well as for individual proposals, some of which can be made to pass even if not supported by all the parties in government if enough of the opposition can be motivated to get behind it.
You fix the two party system a different way - get more states to go to ranked choice voting. Then voting for a third party isn't "a vote for the other guy". You can pick the one you want, and have the "but not those evil bastards in the party I hate" backup choice of a mainstream party.
That would come up particularly handy for republicans, as it seems like they would prefer to split their party into MAGAt party and a traditional republican party. And democrats would probably prefer to split into a progressive Bernie/AOC party and a traditional democrat party.
You put four parties (at least) into the Senate, and getting 2/3 won't be too difficult. There would be some good wheeling and dealing going on, and you'd see strange alliances of the "I'll hold my nose and vote for that thing you want if you hold your nose and vote for that thing I want" variety.
"it is in the need to update our laws to better deal with an out of control president"
My real point is not about an out of control President: I actually think you have that covered - fex: your recent defence budget was approved by overriding Trump's veto. That was full on classic Democracy in action and something I think that the US should be very, very proud of. It required both parties to work together and they did - OK it was close to a point of honour but still, it showed that the fundamentals are still in place.
My real point is that we (the entirety of humanity - soz, only those with internets (sad face - lol etc)) really are behaving like sheeple and that needs to stop or be fixed in some way "mmmm, om nom nom internet points".
I'd like to oblige but our local paper's 'letter to the editor' page is paywalled. There's a couple of beauties in it this week -- one is titled "Democrats need to let go of their anger", the other "President Trump deserves the Nobel Prize" (actually, you don't really need to read them.....unless you're a masochist).
There are plenty of Trumpers about even now and even in our ultra-liberal neck of the woods. For an introduction to their literature genre try https://off-guardian.org/ -- the two most recent articles will tell you that its all a put up job anyway. Enjoy the comments.....there's plenty more where they come from.
(....and you thought this insanity was over? Big Mistake....)
"Jake will be here soon. He's a Trump fan. Probably will claim he isn't, then go into a long boring story about the fifties.
Still. Long as it keeps his mind from IR35."
You are confusing @jake with someone else. Whilst he isn't a huge fan of some of the fringe liberal lunacy, he most definitely hasn't shown any signs of being a Trump supporter (or any right-wing lunacy). Also, as an American (albeit with some history in the UK), IR35 is irrelevant to him. I don't recall seeing him having any view one way or the other.
Actually there was about 70 million that voted for him and 30 million or so now don’t trust the election process anymore. News and discussion blackouts have made it worse, not better. The last failsafe this country has is the ability to remove those in power that the majority of states citizens believe have wronged them. Everyone must believe they get a rematch in 2 years.
Remember, we are a nation of states. Even with the grandstanding (fundraising process) congress understands this. The idiots that tried to stop that process need to read up on how this country was formed. States had decided who they wanted to be president and that was how they made it public.
We have to have a better election process. (Block chain?). We are tech guys and know that systems can be altered either by those that designed it or by bad actors. We all can make the difference. Every time someone says Trump is an idiot or Biden is senile, it pushes us closer to the edge.
You should concentrate on the policies of these administrations and if they carry them out to your satisfaction.
Understand - THE FUSE HAS BEEN LIT. We no longer have a failsafe.
Understand the other half of the country, listen to their FACTS and respond with FACTS.
We all are being played - follow the money. We need to stop being used , divided and distracted
If you're not happy with the voting system in your state then there are remedies. One of the simpliet would be to sign up as a poll worker and see how everything works. Look at it from a systems perspective and see if you can find the cracks and, if so, how difficult (or not) it would be to 'adjust' the vote count.
I know that in our backwater our system isn't 100% builletproof but its certainy close to 100% fraud proof.because any attempt to interfere with the votes at the precinct level will stick out big time. Its then possible to back check to see if any votes have been added or removed. This is just one of many polling locations, though, so to influence votes at the state level you'd have to rinse and repeat through literally thousands of jurisdictions. Tricky. Its much easier to just purge the rolls, put in laws making it difficult for some demographics to vote, thin down selected voter locations and make mail in voting difficult to impossible. This is the bit the noisemakers just don't get -- the vote fiddling goes on at the front end. Then, of course, there's the matter of 'big money'.......
(The fundamental problem is that people don't turn out to vote in off year elections. This allows the relatively obscure, normally non-partisan, office of 'Secretary of State' to slide into the hands of extremists. They set the rules for who votes and how.)
I know that in our backwater our system isn't 100% builletproof but its certainy close to 100% fraud proof.because any attempt to interfere with the votes at the precinct level will stick out big time. Its then possible to back check to see if any votes have been added or removed.
How would you rate voting-roll purges?The, eh, overly-zealous ones, not perfectly normal administrative purging of dead people who are actually dead, but the ones that disenfranchise people from voting because there's some irrelevant error in their registration. That's not the type of fraud that interferes with the cast votes after the fact, which I'll accept your word for that it's near-100% watertight, but it's still a method of affecting the outcome.
Or just relocating (or closing) polling places so that voters face more travel, longer queueing. time and effort which they may not be able to afford.
He has only promised an orderly transition of power now after spurring on the storming of the Capitol, because he is worried that their are now calls to remove him from office before the 20th Jan, either through impeachment or the VP taking power. And if this happened he might not be able to pardon himself and all his other law breakers and face some serious charges. We don't even know if he will pardon those who stormed congress yet. He still has another 12 days to seriously fsck things up.
I think now the democrats have both houses they need to push for a change of the constitution to how pardons can be give by a president. Because its only going to get worse in the future if Trump stands again and wins in 2024 and can pardon anyone who commits crimes on his behalf.
Trump won't be able to run in 2024 because he'll be in jail. Even if he can get himself pardoned for federal crimes he committed criminal acts in Washington DC by urging his followers to riot, committed crimes in Georgia when he called the SoS trying to get him to commit election fraud, and crimes in NY for tax, bank, and insurance fraud. And there are still 12 days to go, he might find more states to commit crimes in before he leaves office.
If it was just NY I think he would have avoided prison because they'd rather have his scalp in a conviction and financial settlement that admitted guilt than have to actually house him in prison, but DC and even Georgia (thanks to him going after the governor so hard) won't have any qualms about that.
I found trump highly entertaining because as Zappa said politics is the entertainment division of the military industrial complex. Let's face it our political systems are not really much more than cover for maintaining.establishment power.
Real change can be made but history shows violent overthrows are the only method for paradigm shifts and indeed the US has done this many times in the 20th century. Will we get to a point where our democratic apple is so rotten that this becomes necessary? At what point do you think the limit will be reached where you consider this the only option left?
Generally though human nature being what it is regardless of whom is in charge things tend to end up the same anyway in terms of building and maintaining systems that benefit certain groups to the detriment of others so the whole thing is pointless really.
Sigh.
Um, buddy, I don't know if you've been following current events, but that apple is not only rotten, it is decomposing while you watch.
The United States is officially a shithole country. One can only hope that Biden + Harris manages to turn that around but, even if, there's a whole lot of rot to cut away.
there's a whole lot of rot to cut away
The US could start by performing a dickectomy on itself and cutting away Florida. They're going to lose the state to climate change anyway, so best just to make the cut now and save some money.
>The US could start by performing a dickectomy on itself and cutting away Florida.
Or just draw a line across the country and remove all those south of it.
Do you think they could be persuaded to come together into some sort of confederation and succeed ?
Trump's problem is that he's been so incompetent.
Anyone else trying to keep hold of power like he did, would have been organised ahead of time, so that at least some military or para-military would have stood alongside him at the critical hour.
The fact that he didn't organise in advance only proves his incompetence.
It does not suggest that this problem in US politics has gone away. The opportunity is still there for anyone who can get their act together better.
BTW - not supporting him, just pointing out facts.
I've said many times we are lucky he is so incompetent, and telegraphs his crimes before he commits them so we can be prepared (for example, slowing down the mail to try to gum up mail in voting)
Since he's exposed so many weaknesses, we have a handy list of things we need to fix. I see no reason why we won't get bipartisan support in congress for plugging those holes because no member of congress wants a president of the other party to be able to do the things Trump did. While normally presidents don't want to sign bills that limit their power, I think the "powers" that would be limited are mostly powers Biden doesn't want for himself and definitely doesn't want for a future president to exercise so he'll sign them.
The tough part is that some fixes would require constitutional amendments, which are by design rather slow moving, but we can get most of the way there with changes to federal law.
Not so sure he was "incompetent" at what he was aimed to do.
The bit that I remember about the very beginning was Bannon stating quite baldly that his intent was to disrupt and cause the perception of catastrophe. This was on his theory that every (x) years, catastrophic events happened that caused political and social reorganisation with fresh focus, and it was generally for the better, but uncontrolled.
He wanted to control that change by artificial disruption, and Trump was what he was aiming to use to disrupt.
That plan was definitely ethically "very questionable", and the theory tenuous, but a lot of activity I've seen over the last few years always put me in mind of that Bannon statement early on when I was trying to find context and meaning for things.
What definitely wasn't planned was having a "Random disrupter and catastrophe generator" in the driving seat when the largest actual catastrophe and disruption of the last 80-100 years struck.
This is of course, completely conjecture and one of many possibilities, so take with an entire truck load of salt. :)
If ever there was an example of the manner by which social media and digital connectedness has the power to cheapen / poison political engagement and discussion I think that the Trump administration carries the crown there. Finally it turns out that the guy is nothing more than a mere egotistical showman after all and regrettably he has led a lot of people up the garden path, with some serious consequences. But, however distasteful and egregious the actions of a few of his ardent supporters are, it should not be ignored that in general those who backed Trump do have genuine concerns and grievances that need airing and inclusion in discussing the political landscape that lies ahead. As difficult as that inclusion may seem, to ignore them would be to leave the embers of the fire which Trump has ignited to smoulder dangerously (and worse, this is something which he could no doubt take advantage of for himself once again in the future!) This is not to ignore the fact that there are many other groups who also need their voices heard, voices which have been muffled for a lot longer indeed!
I guess what I am trying to say is that it is time to respond to the potentially damaging divisiveness of social / digital media messaging, now, urgently and in such a way that folk truly feel politicians take their words seriously, truly engage with them and share their plight and anxieties. Passing digitised comments, tweets and posts back and forth at lightning speed may look appealing on the surface, but does it really provide a truly effective political service to the people! Or does it just neatly parcel various groups up into clans and followers whose digital segregation simply serves to reinforce their own feeling of separation in a vicious political death spiral! (something no doubt seen as an appealing outcome to those politicians who seek to serve only themselves rather that the greater populace!). Sorry, I don't have any answers as to how to achieve this right now, but I do know that it's time that we came in from the playground, put away the shiny, shiny technology we are all so terribly addicted to and gathered around a big table to discuss it in a grown up, inclusive and listening way.
Perhaps a first step to take on the way forward would be to rid ourselves of the arcane two-party adversarial systems which predominate in our political scene(s). I mean does this system really serves us well in this day and age, it would appear ever more so to serve only those with office inside it!
All part of the Gleichschaltung of the Right Thinking Class.
And confirming yet again that half the population of the US (the ordinary working class folk) are completely correct about the authoritarian and totalitarian tendencies of the current ruling class, its nomenklatura , its apparatchiks, its enablers, and the coat tail wannabes.
Remember boys and girls you may all think you are going to be one of the Jack Lints of the New World Order, one of the cosseted few, one of those in control, but you are much more likely to end up as one of the Sam Lowery's in the long run. Watch the film, thats the kind of world you are actually applauding. That is the future you are welcoming.
This is a totally opportunistic situation. Most US conservatives agree.
What happened at the US Capital was bad and those who did it deserve punishment. Law and order matters for everybody.
Facebook Twitter et al are trying to shut conservatives out of their sites. This is just an excuse. Antifa and Black Lives Matter the folks responsible for riots last summer are still present.
The only thing they are doing is helping alternate social media sites. "Get woke, go broke."
Social media is there to make money, and for that they need users. So if you don't agree with the actions of these platforms who have been enabling Trump and other extremists both left and right, then stop using them. Life goes on even without a twitter feed. Believe me, as someone who has never used Facebook/Whatsapp/Snapchat nor Twitter I can assure you, you won't miss out on the tweets, etc, because this seems to be one of the main sources of press articles theses days - just repeat and analyze a tweet - questionable journalism but there you have it.
These companies operate as monopolies - if anyone gets close to their market, they either try to drive them out of business or if that doesn't work, then they buy them (Facebook bought Whatsapp) - is this ethical? Its certainly a warped kind of capitalism and its no doubt destroying a lot of innovative efforts.
No power for these companies without users. Are you part of the problem or part of the solution? I am by no means a luddite - but giving information to Mark Zuckerberg and his ilk just never seemed like it was going to work out in my favor....there is no free lunch.
here's a start: https://www.facebook.com/help/224562897555674
Trump had the foresight to establish a foothold in the alternative social media years ago. People were already leaving Facebook, Google, Twitter & any corporation associated with these companies. These moves will accelerate people leaving these previously useful social media sites and build their replacements.
Finally!
After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter — we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html
Some might say "too little, too late" and it's cynical attempt to curry favour with the incoming administration but I suppose it's better than nothing.
They've also closed down a lot of QAnon and even Apple have got in on the suddenly pious act and have told Parler to instigate moderation or be closed down on the Apple platform.
Total BS facesaving political theatre posing.
All these social media platforms have not changed a wit. They collect information on individuals, they continue to fine tune algorithms to identify the gullible and send them any content that the gullible might swallow whole. They of course don't give a rats ass if the content is anti-social, fascist, racist, seditious, or treasonist.
The constitutions give you free speech, not a free printing press, broadcasting station or world internet platform. If you want to speak to more than your neighbor it's on you to come up with the means.
This idiocy will continue, their will be more bombings like Oklahoma City, more Nazi riots, until 230 is history.
They of course don't give a rats ass if the content is anti-social, fascist, racist, seditious, or treasonist.
Sure they do. But only if it affects their bottom line. So advertisers stop spending unless the mess is 'cleaned up', or polticians threaten tougher regulation. Banning or restricting 'free' speech, expression or publication is perfectly Democratic, and not at all like the terrible repression found in say, Turkmenistan, N.Korea, or even Hong Kong.
The constitutions give you free speech, not a free printing press, broadcasting station or world internet platform. If you want to speak to more than your neighbor it's on you to come up with the means.
Or the government to attempt to regulate free speech. Or just explain why the 1st Amendment doesn't automatically protect you and allow you to call someone a Nazi. Or explain why banning a sitting US President is.. a sane decision. Or even why Apple or Google's decision to ban Parler, a Twitter competitor is a good thing for democracy, or even just competition.
But such is politics.. And politicians. The decision is a GoodThing because it provides a mechanism to stop the wrong kind of free expression. And also make it a lot harder to monitor the real nutjobs, who'll no doubt be installing any of the many alternative messaging software that's available.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
