-
@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:
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.
-
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
They just banned the President of the US, but can't ban the President of Iran for even worse posts? Come on.
Of course they can. They just choose not to - for whatever reason. Maybe they've got a sweet advertising niche in Iran.
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
Lets say your strange line in the sand
You're missing the point: I'm not saying there is a line. You and a few others are, using the leader of Iran (bizarrely) as your stalking horse for why Trump shouldn't be banned and how there should be the same treatment applied to everyone.
I'm saying Twitter don't have a line, and they'll take certain political issues differently depending on the factors around them.
If people want some semblance of fairness, I don't think Social Media is where you start looking, particularly given their growing ability to generate confirmation bias to users programmatically.
If you're worried about privacy, then I'd consider not being on the internet at all.
-
I haven't chipped in too much on this but one point, is it so hard to believe Twitter and Facebook have just decided they don't like trump? do they have to be completely neutral? lots of companies take stands on political or social issues, I know my company (American) does all the time
they may have just decided if people don't like it they can stop using our service and we'll survive
-
@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...
💯. Media is reporting lots of major corporates making changes based on support for Trump. The PGA for example has stripped the hosting of the PGA championship from one of Trump's golf courses because it runs counter to "what the PGA stands for"
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
I haven't chipped in too much on this but one point, is it so hard to believe Twitter and Facebook have just decided they don't like trump? do they have to be completely neutral? lots of companies take stands on political or social issues, I know my company (American) does all the time
they may have just decided if people don't like it they can stop using our service and we'll survive
The problem with this is when an alternative platform like Parler is also effectively banned, by denial of website hosting, app availability, payment services etc.
It's no good saying "if you don't like it, leave" and "they're a private company" if the alternatives are now getting cancelled.
-
@TeWaio said in US Politics:
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
I haven't chipped in too much on this but one point, is it so hard to believe Twitter and Facebook have just decided they don't like trump? do they have to be completely neutral? lots of companies take stands on political or social issues, I know my company (American) does all the time
they may have just decided if people don't like it they can stop using our service and we'll survive
The problem with this is when an alternative platform like Parler is also effectively banned, by denial of website hosting, app availability, payment services etc.
It's no good saying "if you don't like it, leave" and "they're a private company" if the alternatives are now getting cancelled.
Is it owned by Amazon? The Trump brand is suddenly being seen as toxic after the recent events at the Capitol
-
@taniwharugby said in US Politics:
@canefan been a bit of beef between Trump and PGA before, think they moved a PGA event from one of his courses in Florida to a Mexican course, well down as well as you can imagine!
Yeah, easy decision for them. It was the only example I could remember. But an article I read the other day listed a bunch of big firms
-
@pakman said in US Politics:
Grotesque man, but his foreign policy record is miles better than Obama.
I'm really not sure that is saying much. Obama was arguably the weakest POTUS I can remember - made Dubya look professional. His do-nothing approach to Assad's activities bordered on criminal.
-
@TeWaio said in US Politics:
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
I haven't chipped in too much on this but one point, is it so hard to believe Twitter and Facebook have just decided they don't like trump? do they have to be completely neutral? lots of companies take stands on political or social issues, I know my company (American) does all the time
they may have just decided if people don't like it they can stop using our service and we'll survive
The problem with this is when an alternative platform like Parler is also effectively banned, by denial of website hosting, app availability, payment services etc.
It's no good saying "if you don't like it, leave" and "they're a private company" if the alternatives are now getting cancelled.
and so Twitter and Facebook aren't allowed to take political and social stands like other companies because everyone just decided it was easier to use their shit than make an alternative at any point over the last 10-15 years?
I dont really use Twitter and so havent really considered it a right in any form
US Politics