'Murica! (100 Viewers)

[il brutto]

Where does it end though. Is it cool to ban people who criticize Biden and Harris because it could instigate violence? That would be the next logical step after this. So it's basically like Chinese-style censorship at the end of the day. It's fun if you're part of the chosen party but maybe not so much if the shoe is on the other foot.

Yes, I agree. You have to be really careful with where to draw the line, that doesn't mean that you should avoid drawing the line altogether. I acknowledge that it's a terribly difficult job to try and moderate a platform of that size. There have been many cases where these platforms have been used to incite violence, that have lead to (widespread) criticism of these platforms. Banning content that incites violence is not a new thing for these platforms. Now that it's happening in the US and the president is involved, people are just paying more attention.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[swag]

Hilarious

Mental illness is kind of sad, really.

Apparently the maga looters pooped all over the capitol in addition to killing a police officer

If they do DNA tests, I am sure it will come up as Trump's poop.

Woman trampled to death at U.S. Capitol held flag that read, “Don’t tread on me”

https://www.revolt.tv/news/2021/1/8/22221070/woman-trump-supporter-trampled-death-us-capitol

I shouldn't laugh, but I had to.

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html

It's the right call.

Trump on Twitter just toxic narcissist behaviour and it's filling people with hate and rage.

But you have to wonder what makes people so susceptible to fall for this dude. It's not as if Trump pretends to be a healthy, balanced grown up. He has been a belligerent cunt for decades.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk

It's really bizarre that it's over his tweets now. But I agree with the move less because it's about his tweets and more about the risk of continued damage to civil society in the next two weeks.

Perhaps they should. But banning alt-right platforms or any others that folks disagree with will only lead to more escalation. This very topic is partly why the alt-right is becoming more aggressive -- they don't have a right to exist on any platform, and now that Trump is basically silenced it will probably only lead to more radicalization. Plus "authorities" can easily track idiots making threats on said platforms.

Banning everything the left doesn't like will surely backfire in the long run.

Oh, I am sure that crap will go underground and isn't going away. I've come around to the belief that it is going to exist regardless. But it's better not to amplify it and lend it more public credibility than it needs to be. I think Germany got it right on this when it comes to public claims of falsehoods like the Holocaust never happened. What we have now are people stoking these binary-biased platforms creating filter bubbles to spread lies that trigger idiots and gullibles. The idiots and gullibles aren't going away, but squirting lighter fluid on the fire isn't the answer either.

Where does it end though. Is it cool to ban people who criticize Biden and Harris because it could instigate violence? That would be the next logical step after this. So it's basically like Chinese-style censorship at the end of the day. It's fun if you're part of the chosen party but maybe not so much if the shoe is on the other foot.

You can turn that argument around the other way too, though. Meaning: where does it end? Is it OK if Trump goes full on imam calling for the beheadings of all the infidels who stand in his way? Is freedom of speech somehow really damaged if we don't allow people to post the videos of senators and congresspeople being beheaded on YouTube? Where is that line, or is there no line, Andy?

This is beside the fact that this isn't even a free speech issue. The government is not silencing a citizen here. A business is making decisions in its own interest ... it has no law binding it to convey any personal opinions it doesn't want to convey.

I've been saying this since Wednesday: you've got Erdogan calling out America, but he'd be the first to round up everybody on Capitol Hill that day and have them executed.

 

[il brutto]

Saying "Twitter and Facebook are private, they do what they want at home" is a form of neo-feudalism. "The Lord does what he wants on the land where I live and which I cultivate". But feudalism was the middle ages. We have evolved since then.

Some don't realize the arbitrariness of the decision, and what it means for democracy that a platform that acts as an intermediary for hundreds of millions of people to talk to each other decides on its own who can talk there? A domino has fallen which will force social networks to justify keeping this or that account open, letting this or that thing be said, and in order not to take any risks, to censor them too. Where do dominoes stop?

The craziest thing is that those who find it normal seem to think that it is either to leave this power to the platforms without counter-power, or to let everything be said. But oh, didn't we invent something modern called "justice"?

You think the judicial system should decide who gets banned from Twitter/Facebook? There is some form of moderation on pretty much every single platform on the internet, even tuz. Also this is not the first time these bigger social media platforms have banned people so that "domino" has fallen years ago. They've already been making these decisions on daily basis.

- - - Updated - - -

It's like throwing extra few punches when opponent is already down. Twitts in question are lukewarm but you can interpret anything in a way that would suit your agenda, not your particularly. I wonder why they didnt ban him few months ago or when he became a president?

The threshold to ban the sitting president has to be pretty high, especially so when he is campaigning for re-election.

 

[Raphaël]

You think the judicial system should decide who gets banned from Twitter/Facebook? There is some form of moderation on pretty much every single platform on the internet, even tuz. Also this is not the first time these bigger social media platforms have banned people so that "domino" has fallen years ago. They've already been making these decisions on daily basis.

For 4 years they let him say what he wanted and since 3 days they have discovered a conscience. Ahah.

I don't know how it works in your countries, but in a state of law, yes it is justice to enforce the law if there is clear incitement to hatred or violence, and not to private companies which arbitrarily and without accountability will decide.

This man was a former Malaysian, and clearly calls for the killing of French people following the caricature affair (a teacher was beheaded by an Islamist), what is Twitter waiting for to deactivate his account ?

 

[il brutto]

For 4 years they let him say what he wanted and since 3 days they have discovered a conscience. Ahah.

I don't know how it works in your countries, but in a state of law, yes it is justice to enforce the law if there is clear incitement to hatred or violence, and not to private companies which arbitrarily and without accountability will decide.

This man was a former Malaysian, and clearly calls for the killing of French people following the caricature affair (a teacher was beheaded by an Islamist), what is Twitter waiting for to deactivate his account ?

You are mixing things here. These platforms are not giving sentences for criminal offences, they are banning people from using their platforms because people continuously break the terms of use. In the same way on tuz moderators give bans and infractions to people who break the rules of use here. The argument that it's the job of the judicial system is just silly.

 

[IliveForJuve]

You are mixing things here. These platforms are not giving sentences for criminal offences, they are banning people from using their platforms because people continuously break the terms of use. In the same way on tuz moderators give bans and infractions to people who break the rules of use here. The argument that it's the job of the judicial system is just silly.

Grown men should be able to understand they are violating ToS. But the Donald thought he was above everyone else and wouldn't get banned.

I don't see why anyone who isn't an orange dick cocksucker would defend him in this case.

 

[Osman]

For 4 years they let him say what he wanted and since 3 days they have discovered a conscience. Ahah.

I don't know how it works in your countries, but in a state of law, yes it is justice to enforce the law if there is clear incitement to hatred or violence, and not to private companies which arbitrarily and without accountability will decide.

This man was a former Malaysian, and clearly calls for the killing of French people following the caricature affair (a teacher was beheaded by an Islamist), what is Twitter waiting for to deactivate his account ?

You somehow bizzarely managed to confuse court system and laws for anyone who commits a crime relating to threatening behaviour, with a private social media company banning people from using their service for breaking terms of use (one that they let him abuse for years, didnt want to touch that shit pile until absolute last limits were reached)
.


Funnily enough you give them 10 times more power for equating it with justice system with its real consequences for limiting your freedom physically or otherwise. With a private entity giving you a computer page saying virtually banned from one site/app from the comfort of your home.

 

[Vlad]

The threshold to ban the sitting president has to be pretty high, especially so when he is campaigning for re-election.

Exactly my point. A wrong message here. When you are in power, you can do whatever the fuck you want. You can advise people to inject disinfectants But once you descend to mortals, we will take you out. Banning him will further galvanize his supporters.

 

[Bjerknes]

CNN has now pivoted completely on the police and keep showing video of an officer getting crushed by a mob. They wouldn't show any video of the countless officers getting injured through the summer, but now it fits their narrative and they "stand by them". These freaks aren't even masters of propaganda because what they're doing is so obvious -- they're basically Russians meddling not only in our elections, but in every major piece of news that occurs in this country. They're basically a foreign enemy at this point.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Murica: Season 2: Episode 2: Info Wars

 

[Bjerknes]

Yes, I agree. You have to be really careful with where to draw the line, that doesn't mean that you should avoid drawing the line altogether. I acknowledge that it's a terribly difficult job to try and moderate a platform of that size. There have been many cases where these platforms have been used to incite violence, that have lead to (widespread) criticism of these platforms. Banning content that incites violence is not a new thing for these platforms. Now that it's happening in the US and the president is involved, people are just paying more attention.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934

These outlets are just social engineering platforms at this point, which was outlined in the Social Dilemma.

- - - Updated - - -

You can turn that argument around the other way too, though. Meaning: where does it end? Is it OK if Trump goes full on imam calling for the beheadings of all the infidels who stand in his way? Is freedom of speech somehow really damaged if we don't allow people to post the videos of senators and congresspeople being beheaded on YouTube? Where is that line, or is there no line, Andy?

This is beside the fact that this isn't even a free speech issue. The government is not silencing a citizen here. A business is making decisions in its own interest ... it has no law binding it to convey any personal opinions it doesn't want to convey.

But this is where people should be arrested for making threats. If Trump said he was going to kill Nancy Pelosi, he should be arrested for the threat. But he didn't do that. Now the precedent is set where anything said about a politician or party can be thought to incite violence. It will surely be used to protect Biden and Harris at this point, with the media strong-arming everyone into compliance, so it will be impossible to actually question anything anymore as a citizen unless it's directed towards the hated group. Like I said, this is more like living in China than America, and poses a bigger threat to our future than a bunch of rednecks storming the capitol.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Has anyone considered banning social media? The world will be a much better place

 

[Bjerknes]

Absolutely shocking. The antifascists are really the fascists.


- - - Updated - - -

 

[JuveMkd]

Twitter is not the government. They’re a private company and can set whatever rules they want for posts on their platform. Trump still has his full freedom of speech.

He’s just suffering the consequences for it, much like one would if they were to scream “bomb” in an airplane.

Then why everybody lost their shit over Cambridge analytica and Facebook??

 

[X Æ A-12]

CNN has now pivoted completely on the police and keep showing video of an officer getting crushed by a mob. They wouldn't show any video of the countless officers getting injured through the summer, but now it fits their narrative and they "stand by them". These freaks aren't even masters of propaganda because what they're doing is so obvious -- they're basically Russians meddling not only in our elections, but in every major piece of news that occurs in this country. They're basically a foreign enemy at this point.

Yea the turn around to suddenly caring about the lives of police is hilarious

 

[abstract]

caring about the lives of police is hilarious

true

 

[Bjerknes]

Notice how the police lives suddenly matter when the politicians get a little uncomfortable. The protected class love their cops then, don’t they.

 

[icemaη]

Dude still uses a flip phone. Love it.

 

[ALC]

Dude still uses a flip phone. Love it.

And that’s the people talking about section 230 smh

 

[JuveMkd]

Then why everybody lost their shit over Cambridge analytica and Facebook??

@ALC You don't say nothing when it doesn't suit you huh.