Current Affairs Social Media and Censorship

[Zezti]

Starting with the "These claims about election fraud are unverified" captions, Twitter has now permanently banned the former US President Donald Trump.
On one side you can understand a platform wanting to be a safe place for users of all ages without them being exposed things such as calls to violence.
On the other side you have freedom of expression.

So how far is too far, or should they even do it at all? Or perhaps its a battle of freedom of expression vs freedom to operate a private business.

Another question: people such as Trump claim they are planning a new platform with complete freedom of speech, would you join a platform like that over others like Twitter based solely on the difference being they wouldn't censor?

Social media platforms are massive and only getting bigger so they aren't going away and its topic that needs to be discussed.

Personally I think horrible people get ousted eventually no matter where they spew their words but I do fear that separation of people with different beliefs either by censoring or migration to different platforms would only lead to forming worse echo chambers than currently (as in, those you follow and those who follow you) and therefore division would only grow.

 

[RAFUH]

Starting with the "These claims about election fraud are unverified" captions, Twitter has now permanently banned the former US President Donald Trump.
On one side you can understand a platform wanting to be a safe place for users of all ages without them being exposed things such as calls to violence.
On the other side you have freedom of expression.

So how far is too far, or should they even do it at all? Or perhaps its a battle of freedom of expression vs freedom to operate a private business.

Another question: people such as Trump claim they are planning a new platform with complete freedom of speech, would you join a platform like that over others like Twitter based solely on the difference being they wouldn't censor?

Social media platforms are massive and only getting bigger so they aren't going away and its topic that needs to be discussed.

Personally I think horrible people get ousted eventually no matter where they spew their words but I do fear that separation of people with different beliefs either by censoring or migration to different platforms would only lead to forming worse echo chambers than currently (as in, those you follow and those who follow you) and therefore division would only grow.

They are private companies that have terms of service. Stay with in that and there’s no problem.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

If you get banned from GOT that isn't censorship, that's just you abusing the hospitality of a place that has been set up for conversations within certain boundaries.

 

[Prevenger17]

There are cases where revoking a person's access to social media is entirely justified. There is no slippery slope here, he violated the user agreements about a million times over and was only retained because he was a president. The man is an utter numpty and not a shred of free speech has been lost by kicking him off Twitter

 

[mill]

If you spout hate speech and encourage violence it’s not censorship.

You are allowed to censor hate.

Free speech isn’t carte blanche. Free speech doesn’t mean you can say whatever you like with no consequences.

There are laws regarding inciting hate and violence. You are free to say what you like but if you break the law in doing so then you go to jail.

 

[Blue 1]

Free speech doesn't extend to inciting a violent insurrection against the country you're meant to be leader of.

Also, the Pres could communicate via what were the previously normal channels, but he's too much of a coward.

 

[Melba Toast]

That poll question gives zero context.

the technical answer is no. Just because you’re a politician and have a big following you should not be censored by social media. That’s obvious.

If you’re a public figure who spreads extreme nut case, non factual conspiracy theories, and spreads hate and incites violence on others then yes, you should be censored. Even banned.

 

[PhilM]

First, his rights of 'free speech' have not been removed because ultimately, as the POTUS, he has the ability to hold press conferences and what not.

He's been removed from a platform that he joined and wilfully agreed to their terms and conditions; if he has breached them, they have the right to remove him.

This isn't someone being removed or censored without just cause or because of some form of bigotry or discrimination - they've responded to his actions.

On the other hand, it does open the discussion of how SM companies could interfere in politics e.g. could they silence people they don't like or agree with.

Nevertheless, we have to look at this for what it is in the here and now, while we can discuss the wider context later; Trump's been banned as he crossed the line.

 

[Hickson9]

Yes.

Fascists should be de-platformed.

Censorship is a key part of a civil society.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Don't much care, about Trump.

Although said media companies may have questioned their business model ethnic prior to facilitating his rise to Presidency. They made shed loads of money out of Trump and followers

And it was widely foretold, it turned a bit ugly and now these media companies are trying to distance and cleans themselves. Remains to be seen if they see the next one coming

Profit likes hypocrisy and double standards of moral responsibility it seems. Now let's all boast about grabbing some... Because they love a bit of it.

Meh cheese on toast.

 

[BlueDraka]

Yes.

Fascists should be de-platformed.

Censorship is a key part of a civil society.

I would say any group that espouses hate should be as well

 

[LostLegend]

Twitter made a rod for their own back with this whole affair.

They are a private company and as such are free to set their own rules and TOS. The problem is that Trump has repeatedly broken these rules and would have had his account removed long ago if not for who he is.

Twitter actually acknowledged this a while back and stated that they didn’t want to remove him as they felt that the office of the POTUS is important enough to need to be heard regardless of his conduct.

You get the feeling that the plan was to get rid after his term ends, but the issue now is that his words have caused an insurrection in which people (including a Police officer) have died.

I can imagine their legal team are getting twitchy about how their role in all this will be perceived by any resulting inquest, especially if Trump continues to escalate the situation and there are more deaths.

Same for Parler. I would bet Google and Apple dropping them has more to do with them not wanting to be caught in any fall out rather than any genuine concern for the integrity of government. (Am I being overly cynical? lol )

 

[davek]

Sina Weibo are very efficient at censoring inflammatory posts and tweets. Using keywords as guides to flag up possible transgression of company rules for posting, nearly all deletions are taken care of in 24 hours.

The east has proven to be far better at handling the Covid19 crisis, why shouldn't we look at their methods at enforcing rules on social media too?

 

[grandjoeblue]

Its a difficult one this as I'm left wing and it predominantly results in the right being censored which is an advantage for the left.

I don't think either side should really have an advantage when it comes to politics. Obviously far right nutters should be banned but I think the issue is where the line is drawn.

 

[gonetomorrow]

It's up to Twitter who they admit to their site. It's a business. It's not a public service although some people may have come to believe that it is given its huge profile and the fact that world leaders and stars are subscribers.
Of course it may have worked to Twitter's advantage to foster that belief over the years. That's subtle marketing.
At the end of the day other social media outlets are available.