-
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
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@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
The big tech companies have a monopoly on the market and are actively trying to shut the door on any competitors. They shouldn't be allowed to do that, and they shouldn't have the power to be able to do it so effectively. It's a problem that is much wider than just Trump being banned from Twitter, it's something that has been a big concern for a long time, with calls for the monopoly to be broken up over the years, but their control of the market only continues to grow.
-
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
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.
It is a very, very small chance in my experience, on any topic. The issue is a 280 character word-stick doesn't allow for a lot of context, particularly when nuclear energy fans are going up against wind and solar
Splitting the left and the right into separate platforms is not a good idea IMO.
I agree, but while it is nice to hang onto this fantasy that the internet was supposed to bring everyone together and exchange ideas in a big group love setup, human nature gets in the way of that. We've been tribal for too long.
US Politics