-
@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.
-
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
Splitting the left and the right into separate platforms is not a good idea IMO.
which is pretty much what the Facebook algorithms do anyway, showing you what you want to see etc
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
Splitting the left and the right into separate platforms is not a good idea IMO.
which is pretty much what the Facebook algorithms do anyway, showing you what you want to see etc
That makes them a big part of the problem
-
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
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,
And nothing done for years - this is an issue for Trump because he benefits hugely from platforms and wouldn't want them altered to his detriment, yet has at times accused them of colluding with the Democrats.
Interfering with them also goes against the free market ideals for success: they simply did it better than everyone and have a position of power. Now they have the ability to buy startups who threaten their model without even breaking sweat.
Hegemony is very hard to break, and only happens with a radical change in thinking e.g. Tesla. Remember MySpace?
While certain measures can be introduced e.g. Apple can run the App Store but not sell its own apps, how do you break up Facebook effectively without creating the tribes you're trying to avoid? Can you remove some of the targeted advertising and still have them remain viable?
This isn't necessarily a tech problem. A stick is just a stick until you stab someone with it.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
Trump got in a whack of political rhetoric over the years, and more recently about election results.
So did a lot of MP's in the UK. Many wanted the Brexit referendum result annulled and re-run. A lot spewed out fake news while others blamed Israel and "Zios". Politicians have been caught making racists & anti-Semitic tweets while other have advocated law-breaking during last summer's BLM unrest. One MP posted private addresses of her opponents and encouraged protesters to "make their feelings known"
None were banned from Twitter. But when Trump does essentially the same thing, uniquely, he gets banned. Why the double standards?
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@NTA said in US Politics:
Trump got in a whack of political rhetoric over the years, and more recently about election results.
So did a lot of MP's in the UK. Many wanted the Brexit referendum result annulled and re-run. A lot spewed out fake news while others blamed Israel and "Zios". Politicians have been caught making racists & anti-Semitic tweets while other have advocated law-breaking during last summer's BLM unrest. One MP posted private addresses of her opponents and encouraged protesters to "make their feelings known"
None were banned from Twitter. But when Trump does essentially the same thing, uniquely, he gets banned. Why the double standards?
Because he is the American President, and his supporters stormed the Capitol, and Twitter and FB are american companies? Hypocritical, and maybe unfair. But who says the world is fair
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@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.
The point is that as things stand there is a reasonable argument to be made that Facebook and Twitter don't care about violence at all. They pretend to care about violence as a pretext for giving Trump a kicking.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
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,
And nothing done for years - this is an issue for Trump because he benefits hugely from platforms and wouldn't want them altered to his detriment, yet has at times accused them of colluding with the Democrats.
Interfering with them also goes against the free market ideals for success: they simply did it better than everyone and have a position of power. Now they have the ability to buy startups who threaten their model without even breaking sweat.
Hegemony is very hard to break, and only happens with a radical change in thinking e.g. Tesla. Remember MySpace?
While certain measures can be introduced e.g. Apple can run the App Store but not sell its own apps, how do you break up Facebook effectively without creating the tribes you're trying to avoid? Can you remove some of the targeted advertising and still have them remain viable?
This isn't necessarily a tech problem. A stick is just a stick until you stab someone with it.
Buying up the competitors is one thing, a handful of big companies working together to block competitors from being successful is quite another.
They banned Trump from Twitter, saw subscriptions to Parler go up so banned the Parler app from their app stores and then removed their site from AWS. That's Google, Apple and Amazon working together to ensure they keep their monopoly while not allowing content they don't like.
I don't have an easy answer to how to solve that problem, but to deny it's even wrong (not that you are denying that) is really sticking your head in the sand.
US Politics