Current Affairs Social Media and Censorship

[Deckard2049]

Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

Suspension of @realDonaldTrump

blog.twitter.com

This is an interesting read. I do think he was right to be banned, but some of the points they raise here are a little iffy in my opinion. It sort of makes me think they’ve been wanting to do this for years, and now that he’s soon to be the ex-president and with what happened this week they’ve finally had the right situation to do it.

This if from twitters explanation of the permanent ban.

On January 8, 2021, President Donald J. Trump tweeted:

“The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

Shortly thereafter, the President tweeted:

“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

Due to the ongoing tensions in the United States, and an uptick in the global conversation in regards to the people who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, these two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks.

Can anyone really say him refusing to attend Biden’s inauguration is anything but him being a sore loser?

The more longer term issue is if social media platforms become so large that a majority of the population use them for debate, maybe the laws will need to be changed around them- on a basic level they’d be legally seen as a public forum. However despite how it seems the majority of the population are not on Twitter so it’s a long way to go for that. So until that day, a private company can do what they like if you’re deemed to break their rules.

 

[Shevin Keedy]

@Tubey ! you said this discussion was for another day, well here it is!

The day be upon us!!

 

[Prevenger17]

Due to the ongoing tensions in the United States, and an uptick in the global conversation in regards to the people who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, these two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks.

Can anyone really say him refusing to attend Biden’s inauguration is anything but him being a sore loser?

They did specify that this was in the context of broader events. In truth, it doesn't come down just to those two tweets, it comes down to the fact that he's been inciting hate for 'kin years and would have punted if he were anyone else but the president of the United States. This is a slam dunk, the man was a dangerous clown and people's lives have been impacted and, in some cases, ended as a direct consequence of his rabble-rousing. The only issue is that they didn't do it sooner

 

[Amw79]

 

[degsy]

Shouldve done it ages ago, not with 2 weeks left

 

[Deckard2049]

They did specify that this was in the context of broader events. In truth, it doesn't come down just to those two tweets, it comes down to the fact that he's been inciting hate for 'kin years and would have punted if he were anyone else but the president of the United States. This is a slam dunk, the man was a dangerous clown and people's lives have been impacted and, in some cases, ended as a direct consequence of his rabble-rousing. The only issue is that they didn't do it sooner

I was going to add at the end, part of me thinks they are trying to cover their own backs now. Once Trump is finally gone attention will turn on these platforms and what they’ve allowed to go on for years. How much traffic was trump generating because even people who hated him would follow and tweet about it? It’s a sinister version of the click bait phenomenon.

 

[Tubey]

@Tubey ! you said this discussion was for another day, well here it is!

The day be upon us!!

Ha indeed!

As said, I think the bloke committed a crime.

"Censorship" isn't a new concept on private platforms for known criminals. I doubt the Trump fans would be screaming censorship if Anders Behring Breivik or James Eagon Holmes signed up to and was banned from Twitter.

OK, he hasn't been tried and found guilty of the crime - yet - but he indisputably incited violence.

I can't blame Twitter on this one, even though generally I think there's a good argument to be made for further regulation of social media platforms given just how uniquitous to modern society and political discourse some of the platforms are.

 

[PhilM]

Shouldve done it ages ago, not with 2 weeks left

Again, I think momentum and circumstances have played a part as it's been easier to do so without repercussions: he's going soon; there's more support to do so.

Let's not beat around the bush, Twitter and Co. are using this to their advantage, but that doesn't complete negate that what they're doing is probably right.

Trump has used Twitter to his advantage for a long time and they've rightly or wrongly allowed that, which is another discussion, so perhaps it's karma.

 

[Shevin Keedy]

Ha indeed!

As said, I think the bloke committed a crime.

"Censorship" isn't a new concept on private platforms for known criminals. I doubt the Trump fans would be screaming censorship if Anders Behring Breivik or James Eagon Holmes signed up to and was banned from Twitter.

OK, he hasn't been tried and found guilty of the crime - yet - but he indisputably incited violence.

I can't blame Twitter on this one, even though generally I think there's a good argument to be made for further regulation of social media platforms given just how uniquitous to modern society and political discourse some of the platforms are.

No you can discuss Trump in the other thread. Here you can discuss what you were saying the other day (and you can discuss it freely and without fear of impeachment), that you think it is a "bit off" for social media deciding what can and cannot be said. Have at you!

 

[Tubey]

I was going to add at the end, part of me thinks they are trying to cover their own backs now. Once Trump is finally gone attention will turn on these platforms and what they’ve allowed to go on for years. How much traffic was trump generating because even people who hated him would follow and tweet about it? It’s a sinister version of the click bait phenomenon.

Their rationale for allowing him is sound though.



Can't really argue much with that.

The only argument is whether Twitter should be subject to some sort of international law/regulation that commits them to allowing certain accounts and/or banning access when meeting a threshold that is more codified than just their private ToS.

 

[Prevenger17]

I was going to add at the end, part of me thinks they are trying to cover their own backs now. Once Trump is finally gone attention will turn on these platforms and what they’ve allowed to go on for years. How much traffic was trump generating because even people who hated him would follow and tweet about it? It’s a sinister version of the click bait phenomenon.

They knew right well what they were doing. And they knew he was violating their policies all over the shop but, because he was box-office and the most free publicity you could ever ask for, they contrived some ridiculous excuse about exemptions for world leaders and positions of importance that most people could see held no water. They were cowards and now they're trying to close the stable door after the horse bolted, rampaged all over the country destroying buildings and trampled thousands of people to death underfoot.

 

[Tubey]

No you can discuss Trump in the other thread. Here you can discuss what you were saying the other day (and you can discuss it freely and without fear of impeachment), that you think it is a "bit off" for social media deciding what can and cannot be said. Have at you!

Yeah I do feel that way about it. But I mean in terms of banning an ideology/silencing voices.

Once there's a risk of actual crime based on proven evidence then that goes out the window. Twitter published their rationale clearly; I agree with it.

The people saying "why wasn't he banned before" - for me it's fairly obvious; what he did 6 January stepped across a line that few would ever step across. I don't think it sets a precedent for Twitter really except for having to codify their world leaders' strategy.

 

[Tubey]

They knew right well what they were doing. And they knew he was violating their policies all over the shop but, because he was box-office and the most free publicity you could ever ask for, they contrived some ridiculous excuse about exemptions for world leaders and positions of importance that most people could see held no water. They were cowards and now they're trying to close the stable door after the horse bolted, rampaged all over the country destroying buildings and trampled thousands of people to death underfoot.

They put it clear what would amount to a ban though.

World Leaders on Twitter: principles & approach

An update on Tweets from world leaders

blog.twitter.com

That's the thing - for all that Trump has done, this is the first time that he's promoted actual terrorism.

 

[ashwuk76]

So a criminal network uses a social media platform, doesn't have to be a well known one, uses said network to discuss crimes, much like Trump did by inciting violence, this is then shut down to prevent further crimes happening. Should we leave said criminals to freely discuss committing crimes just because we dont want to "censure" them? I think I would rather these criminals be shut down, it's the same with Trump, hes effectively committing a criminal act by inciting this mob, at least that's a criminal offence here in the UK. So yes he should be shut down. Ask yourself another question, do you think Britain First should be allowed to spread hate on social media or should this be shut down? This isn't just about Trump, its wider than this and its about time these companies took some responsibility for the hate that's spewed on their platforms.

I for one welcome this "censorship"

 

[Tubey]

So to answer the poll question, I went with "Yes, for other reason" - and that reason being not if the political figure is spouting BS you disagree with, no matter how extreme, but only if they cross the threshold into promoting terrorist acts or encouraging violence. As that's beyond politics.

But I actually think that decision shouldn't be for Twitter; I think there should be some sort of regulation or independent panel that can enforce a ban when such things occur, because Twitter are, after all, a business, and rules that can be changed are only there for when they don't matter enough to cost you money.