Current Affairs Social Media and Censorship

[Deckard2049]

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.

From my understanding they can censor whomever they like, but they don’t actually take any legal responsibility for anything that gets posted on their site- meaning they can’t be sued for libel, defamation etc, because they’re only a platform for views not a publisher. I think both sides of the debate think they need to be held to a different standard than they currently are- admittedly for very different reasons.

 

[degsy]

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.

Not doubt big tech will want a quid pro quo from Biden

 

[Tubey]

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"

Really interesting one that.

Facebook banned them for having a "mission of hate/violence" - "violence" is easy to prove and ban on... but "hate"? That's much more difficult.

Another example of why regulation is the way forward IMO.

 

[Tubey]

From my understanding they can censor whomever they like, but they don’t actually take any legal responsibility for anything that gets posted on their site- meaning they can’t be sued for libel, defamation etc, because they’re only a platform for views not a publisher. I think both sides of the debate think they need to be held to a different standard than they currently are- admittedly for very different reasons.

That isn't going to change though, nor should it. Just the nature of it - if Dan on here was legally responsible for every single comment on GOT, he'd rightly shut it down today.

 

[TheBigIguana]

You just can't hold the position that government regulation is bad and also it's bad when private companies make decisions for themselves which is the position the GOP is going to try and hold.

 

[ashwuk76]

That isn't going to change though, nor should it. Just the nature of it - if Dan on here was legally responsible for every single comment on GOT, he'd rightly shut it down today.

No but he moderates the forum to ensure it doesn't cross into illegality, which is what a responsible social media platform should be doing.

 

[trueblue84]

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.

Whose regulation though? The problem we have now is multinational organisations.sitting across multiple countries. If they fall foul of one country's rules, do they just move to another?

The simple solution is they shouldn't be regulated, but the should not be given any credence by mainstream media. All this "have your say on twitter" or "follow us on Facebook" from every organisation in the world needs to stop.

I would prefer to see the TV license scrapped and replaced with an internet license. We have IP v6 which has enough addresses to assign one to every household. This would remove anonymity and immediately remove some of the toxic behaviour that takes place online.

 

[Prevenger17]

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

View attachment 113543

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

What about "threats to an individual". Ask Gretchen Whitmer what it's like to be on the end of one of his Twitter crusades. Dr. Fauci has to have an armed guard now. The man is 'kin menace and there were millions of people who predicted that his goons would do something like this if you kept letting him pour petrol on the fire.

I'm not saying ban him because I don't like his politics (which I don't) or I don't like him personally (which I certainly don't). I'm saying it because he was clearly a danger long before this and it was obvious to any reasonable person with eyes and a twitter account.

 

[Amw79]

With Parler now being targeted by google and Apple there’s a clear direction of travel. All the Q Anon and conspiracy stuff that has now become mainstream is down to the social platforms allowing clearly false information to proliferate, under the guise of free speech.

It used to be hidden away with a small number on 4chan and 8chan but has been allowed to infect the mainstream, culminating in a complete breakdown in the trust in political institutions and media.

 

[Tubey]

Whose regulation though? The problem we have now is multinational organisations.sitting across multiple countries. If they fall foul of one country's rules, do they just move to another?

The simple solution is they shouldn't be regulated, but the should not be given any credence by mainstream media. All this "have your say on twitter" or "follow us on Facebook" from every organisation in the world needs to stop.

I would prefer to see the TV license scrapped and replaced with an internet license. We have IP v6 which has enough addresses to assign one to every household. This would remove anonymity and immediately remove some of the toxic behaviour that takes place online.

People put stock in Twitter, so it has gained importance naturally. The only way to stop that is to ban Twitter; not happening.

The regulation would have to be multinational. It's not easy but it's becoming clear that social media isn't like most private companies in terms of their impact on societal discourse.

 

[davek]

Really interesting one that.

Facebook banned them for having a "mission of hate/violence" - "violence" is easy to prove and ban on... but "hate"? That's much more difficult.

Another example of why regulation is the way forward IMO.

No organisation will use the word 'hate' in its self description. But when Britain First states in its policies that it "is committed to preserving our British cultural heritage, traditions, customs and values. We oppose the increasing colonisation of our homeland through uncontrolled, mass immigration", you know its a vehicle for those that hate others.

It's just sophistry to toy about with words and ignore the content of what these people espouse.

 

[Tubey]

What about "threats to an individual". Ask Gretchen Whitmer what it's like to be on the end of one of his Twitter crusades. Dr. Fauci has to have an armed guard now. The man is 'kin menace and there were millions of people who predicted that his goons would do something like this if you kept letting him pour petrol on the fire.

I'm not saying ban him because I don't like his politics (which I don't) or I don't like him personally (which I certainly don't). I'm saying it because he was clearly a danger long before this and it was obvious to any reasonable person with eyes and a twitter account.

Of course, but then it can be interpreted in any direction you wish if you lower the threshold to that.

AOC on Twitter has been quote tweeting Hawley, Cruz and Graham, making them personally responsing for the Capitol attacks.

While she's absolutely correct, what if someone reads that and goes out and shoots one of them in the head? Technically, AOC has "encouraged hate" in that scenario.

Opinion will always generate emotion in politics.

 

[davek]

No but he moderates the forum to ensure it doesn't cross into illegality, which is what a responsible social media platform should be doing.

Yes. And anyone who's observed the evolution of this forum over a decade will see how much its changed. For the better in most respects. Just outlawing bad langage has had a massive effect in that respect. Take away people's ability to post expletives not only moderates language it also forces people to rethink how they approach answering someone and content changes accordingly. That's just one example. And that's down to having good mods too. Vigilant ones.

But mega social media companies dont have that hands on approach. They are lazy money making operations.

 

[roydo]

That isn't going to change though, nor should it. Just the nature of it - if Dan on here was legally responsible for every single comment on GOT, he'd rightly shut it down today.

Thats why we are a bit tittish about streams being posted; quite simply, we are not sure if we/Dan would be responsible for breaking rulez or not, and cant afford to find out.

 

[PhilM]

No but he moderates the forum to ensure it doesn't cross into illegality, which is what a responsible social media platform should be doing.

Exactly. There's free speech and there are some questionable things said, but Danny and Co. set the guidelines (the line in the sand) and they enforce this.

We're given freedom within the constraints that he/they set and the choice is ours regarding whether we follow them or not, with the consequences set out.

If you breech the rules, you're spoken to. If it carries on, you're sanctioned (ban) and serious breeches result in you being jettisoned immediately.

Trump knew those rules and agreed to them when he signed up - prior to being a politician - and as such his expulsion now is acceptable.

If you don't like the rules or the enforcement for not following their expectations, the choice is for us to not use the platform.