-
Wow. Which button did I push? Merely meant to point out there is a duty of care (and a question of scale and impact) regards a world leader accused of using Twitter (or whatever) to stage a coup and a bullied teenager (or their bullies).
I believe the social media giants should be regulated and that they blur journalism and duty and so forth when they feel like it. But currently, they are private companies and IMO can ban who they like. And yes, there are huge gaps in the laws protecting citizens from them, but I could say giant media companies also still seem to shirk responsibility (the phone tapping scandals were disgraceful).
The question of privacy is different (I hope) to question of access. -
@nostrildamus said in US Politics:
@Siam said in US Politics:
@JC said in US Politics:
@voodoo And right on cue, Matt Hancock, the ex-Culture Secretary in the UK, has flagged up the Trump ban as an area of interest:
“It means that the social media platforms are taking editorial decisions,” he told the Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme on Sky News. “And that is a very big question because then it raises questions about their editorial judgments and the way that they’re regulated.
“It is obviously one for the culture secretary — but as a former culture secretary I can tell you that I think it does lead to very interesting questions about the role of social media and the role of the social media companies in the decisions, in the editorial decisions that they take.”
I think they may rue the day they stepped into this. Any person who considers they have been done harm on these digital platforms can legitimately ask why the editors aren't acting quickly enough to mitigate it. What do they say to the mother of an anorexic teenager who is being targeted with pro-ana bullshit? When can we expect the purging of any anti-vax promotion? How will they balance conflicting jurisdictional requirements - for example if the UK proscribes unconscious bias training but the US promotes it?
Glad some light is being shed on big tech. These guys have the potential for changing life all over the globe, and not in a good way. Biggest issue facing humanity in my opinion
Does your teenager have direct access to nuclear codes or crowds of angry young men and women with plastic ties, pipe bombs, and unattractive beard grooming habits? Oh and threatens national security?
Consider him/her blocked then.All my teenagers are in ISIS and Khomeni's death squads. They've already murdered and beheaded countless innocents by hand.
We watch them recruit other teenagers on twitter everyday though...
Then again, of course, Twitter almost solely enabled Trump to win an election 4 years ago. Made a good coin from him too🤔
-
@nostrildamus said in US Politics:
Wow. Which button did I push? Merely meant to point out there is a duty of care (and a question of scale and impact) regards a world leader accused of using Twitter (or whatever) to stage a coup and a bullied teenager (or their bullies).
I believe the social media giants should be regulated and that they blur journalism and duty and so forth when they feel like it. But currently, they are private companies and IMO can ban who they like. And yes, there are huge gaps in the laws protecting citizens from them, but I could say giant media companies also still seem to shirk responsibility (the phone tapping scandals were disgraceful).
The question of privacy is different (I hope) to question of access.Probably read more shrill than I intended.
The private company line works if they are not publishers. Publishers have different liability under US law, and IMO they have crossed the line with recent actions.
I’m also sick and tired of Google and Facebook, and a lesser degree Twitter, buying their competitors or working in collusion with other service providers to make competition impossible.
They are pulling up the ladders behind them and controlling the 21st century’s version of electricity. It’s deeply concerning for our democracy, our right to privacy and just having choice as a consumer.
-
The best part of the latest Republican presidency for me was pushing back on critical race theory.
Calling the bluff of the self flagellating, racist Princeton University was a pretty clever move. Never heard the follow up though:Now that orange man has gone, for the best, I hope the next administration is analysed and assessed as vigorously as the previous one.
-
In the first sign that perhaps the world is starting to return to normal (yeah, right) Piers is writing things I totally agree with again
TL;DR ... twitter if your going to dump Trump, but let everything else that goes on from other world leaders, it's politically motivated and subsequently these platforms are taking a view.
-
Putting aside the rights and wrongs of Trump, and the laws around 230 and platforms/publishers etc, and taking into account Kirwans legitimate concerns above, it still doesn't strike me as being the absolute worst thing in the world if Twitter and other platforms performed a deep purge of their platforms and stopped giving voice to anyone preaching violence, genocide and the like.
Obviously not an easy task, very tough to do fairly or uniformly, but you'd think starting with people with war crime records or accounts with obvious links to terrorist groups would be a decent place to start.
-
Aren't these 'whatabouts' regarding who is on twitter actually examples of what people are wanting Twitter to do? They are allowed to use the platform as long as they don't break behaviour code. Even then it is the posts that get deleted until they keep infringing and then they get cut.
Seems very similar to the moderation here in fact. -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Aren't these 'whatabouts' regarding who is on twitter actually examples of what people are wanting Twitter to do? They are allowed to use the platform as long as they don't break behaviour code. Even then it is the posts that get deleted until they keep infringing and then they get cut.
Seems very similar to the moderation here in fact.There are posts up there right now calling for the genocide of Israel from the leader of Iran, so your point is incorrect.
-
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Aren't these 'whatabouts' regarding who is on twitter actually examples of what people are wanting Twitter to do? They are allowed to use the platform as long as they don't break behaviour code. Even then it is the posts that get deleted until they keep infringing and then they get cut.
Seems very similar to the moderation here in fact.There are posts up there right now calling for the genocide of Israel from the leader of Iran, so your point is incorrect.
100% this. There are Iranian women's rights activists that have had large accounts consistently incite violence against them, they report them, and nothing happens. The enforcement of their terms appear completely arbitrary which is why the obvious conclusion is to say they are politically motivated.
-
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
There are posts up there right now calling for the genocide of Israel from the leader of Iran, so your point is incorrect.
However, Twitter would point out that the genocide of Israel has NOT happened, or even been attempted, during Twitter's life span, therefore whatever the leader of Iran tweets is political rhetoric - another form of free speech.
Trump got in a whack of political rhetoric over the years, and more recently about election results. Now he's at the point where what he's saying and doing in the last month gives Twitter an easy out:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/capitol-mob-trump-supporters.html
As his aides and supporters did what they could to forestall the inevitable — a lawsuit by the Texas congressman Louie Gohmert, a 36-page report alleging election fraud by the Trump adviser Peter Navarro — Mr. Trump continued tweeting. Dec. 27: “See you in Washington, DC, on January 6th. Don’t miss it. Information to follow.” Dec. 30: “JANUARY SIXTH, SEE YOU IN DC!” Jan. 1: “The BIG Protest Rally in Washington, D.C. will take place at 11:00 A.M. on January 6th. Locational details to follow. StopTheSteal!” That same day, a supporter misspelled the word “cavalry” in tweeting that “The calvary is coming, Mr. President!” Mr. Trump responded: “A great honor!” The next day, Jan. 2, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and 11 other Republican senators joined another Republican, Josh Hawley of Missouri — as well as more than 100 Republican members of the House of Representatives — in vowing to object to the certification of Mr. Biden’s election.
Given the events that unfolded on Jan 6th thereafter, both in the Capitol and the threats to other politicians who have disavowed Trump in favour of legal standards and the Constitution, it is no shock that Twitter made this statement:
“After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence,” the company said in a tweet.
...
Twitter said that Trump’s tweet that he would not be attending Biden’s inauguration was being received by a number of his supporters as confirmation that the November election was not legitimate.
Yeah pretty sure they already think it isn't legitimate
It said another tweet praising “American Patriots” and saying his supporters “will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” could be seen as “further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an orderly transition.”
So they're effectively looking at what he tweets and what he says in public and joining the dots to come up with a single conclusion: he can't be trusted not to incite further violence in the current climate, based on the solid evidence they have of his words and tweets inciting violence.
No doubt pressure was going to (or already) be brought to bear by other actors like security agencies, perhaps also the Democrats, and some in the GOP who are tired of the charade as well. EDIT: and that isn't how Twitter should be running this, but if they'd tried to ban Trump for his utter bullshit before he was voted out, what would the result have been?
Ultimately, Trump - who could easily be seen as breaking his Oath of Office at this point - made his own bed and will have to lie in it. Pun intended.
-
That's not their stated policy, it doesn't have to have happened. They have purged plenty of people just talking about violence against people.
And besides, they have attacked (by proxy) Israel (line items in their budget supporting known terrorist organisations).
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@NTA letting him continue was bound to have commercial consequences as well
Perhaps. Twitter are a US organisation and having this shit go down on home soil probably brings a bigger emphasis than some shit happening in the MidEast that has been happening for donkeys...
-
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
That's not their stated policy, it doesn't have to have happened.
If we all relied on what was stated policy, and never handled special cases, we'd have to redraft policy every second day.
I don't believe you can treat an outgoing President with 88M followers and a lunatic fringe the same as Jimbob up the street who is saying he'll go attack an abortion clinic but is always too drunk to do so.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@NTA letting him continue was bound to have commercial consequences as well
Perhaps. Twitter are a US organisation and having this shit go down on home soil probably brings a bigger emphasis than some shit happening in the MidEast that has been happening for donkeys...
Twitter may be a US company, but it's a worldwide application.
Lets say your strange line in the sand is a valid and we only look at US users. There have been examples pointed out of left leaning journalists calling for violence against Trump supporters.
Accounts still active, and attacks did happen.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
That's not their stated policy, it doesn't have to have happened.
If we all relied on what was stated policy, and never handled special cases, we'd have to redraft policy every second day.
I don't believe you can treat an outgoing President with 88M followers and a lunatic fringe the same as Jimbob up the street who is saying he'll go attack an abortion clinic but is always too drunk to do so.
They just banned the President of the US, but can't ban the President of Iran for even worse posts? Come on.
-
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@NTA said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@NTA letting him continue was bound to have commercial consequences as well
Perhaps. Twitter are a US organisation and having this shit go down on home soil probably brings a bigger emphasis than some shit happening in the MidEast that has been happening for donkeys...
Twitter may be a US company, but it's a worldwide application.
Lets say your strange line in the sand is a valid and we only look at US users. There have been examples pointed out of left leaning journalists calling for violence against Trump supporters.
Accounts still active, and attacks did happen.
He's an Aussie. He knows where the line is.
-
@voodoo said in US Politics:
Putting aside the rights and wrongs of Trump, and the laws around 230 and platforms/publishers etc, and taking into account Kirwans legitimate concerns above, it still doesn't strike me as being the absolute worst thing in the world if Twitter and other platforms performed a deep purge of their platforms and stopped giving voice to anyone preaching violence, genocide and the like.
Obviously not an easy task, very tough to do fairly or uniformly, but you'd think starting with people with war crime records or accounts with obvious links to terrorist groups would be a decent place to start.
The problem I see with a big purge of people from the mainstream platforms is those people don't just sit around doing nothing, they go underground to sites like 8chan etc, the sites Tarrant frequented, where they go further and further down political rabbit holes in those echo chambers until something gives and they act out violently.
There's a lot of truth to the saying sunlight is the best disinfectant for bad ideas. Bring them to the surface, shine a light on them and challenge them properly so that people can take more moderate positions instead of getting more and more extreme.
Even within Twitter there are some serious echo chambers, I follow people from the far left to the far right and you see some really extreme stuff on both sides that get a lot of support. At least they are on the same platform though so there's some chance of debate. Splitting the left and the right into separate platforms is not a good idea IMO.
US Politics