Big Tech Authoritarianism

[Tom1138]

Its already been mentioned they should be fact checked if necessary however you provide no evidence of lies, where there is plenty for Trump.

Post up the conspiracy theory lies from the other side, we have had hundreds from Trump.
Post up the lies about covid, we have had hundreds from Trump.
Post something to validate your alt-fact opinion, as there are hundreds of examples of Trumps lies.

Your argument is simply deflection and fake news to obscure the point.

Well perhaps the biggest lie is the COVID relief package, $600 per American whilst $1.4billion headed to Egypt. Donald Trump held it up wanting more for the American voter. $2000 to be exact. People Nancy Pelosi disagree despite earlier hypocrisy.

But I know you won’t see this as a lie because she ain’t Trump.

 

[VincentHanna]

Why is this funny? Aren't twitter complaining about the government ordering ISP's to block social media etc? It says "being ordered to.." so presumably that means by the government.

That is ACTUAL censorship and what could happen if you place control of what can/cant be posted on social media in the hands of the government.

And that Trump was the one who wanted to get rid of section 230, only after Twitter started putting disclaimers on his tweets

 

[VincentHanna]

Well perhaps the biggest lie is the COVID relief package, $600 per American whilst $1.4billion headed to Egypt. Donald Trump held it up wanting more for the American voter. $2000 to be exact. People Nancy Pelosi disagree despite earlier hypocrisy.

Meanwhile, in the real World, what actually happend was that Nancy Pelosi and the democrats wanted to give $2000 extra to voters (as did Trump), and it was the Republicans who said no

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/24/house-votes-on-2000-stimulus-checks-after-trump-supports-them.html

 

[Junglist]

I don't understand why so many people are shocked a private company doesn't want to have Trump on there.

Twitter, facebook or just social media in general isn't a right. We sign up to their terms of conditions and if we break those, we get banned.

Simple stuff really.

 

[stockhausen]

Well perhaps the biggest lie is the COVID relief package, $600 per American whilst $1.4billion headed to Egypt. Donald Trump held it up wanting more for the American voter. $2000 to be exact. People Nancy Pelosi disagree despite earlier hypocrisy. . . .

Odd, very odd; nowhere in that YouTube clip does it seem even to mention Egypt

 

[KillBoY_UK]

I don't understand why so many people are shocked a private company doesn't want to have Trump on there.

Twitter, facebook or just social media in general isn't a right. We sign up to their terms of conditions and if we break those, we get banned.

Simple stuff really.

If there own TOC's where being applied evenly which they are not and alterative are getting removed so peeps have one where to go, but they are still there and they will just get worse

JP said it best
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO7paBcllck

 

[Junglist]

If there own TOC's where being applied evenly which they are not

I suppose that is a fair point but at the end of the day it is a private service if Mr Twitter decided he had enough tomorrow he could close down the entire platform.

As far as I know users don't have an option to pay for Twitter so if they were petty enough to not agree with a statement like "I think pineapple on pizza is wrong" and they were of the opposite opinion they don't have to have my opinion on there if they don't want to.

Their house, their rules

 

[mburn_83]

I don't understand why so many people are shocked a private company doesn't want to have Trump on there.

Twitter, facebook or just social media in general isn't a right. We sign up to their terms of conditions and if we break those, we get banned.

Simple stuff really.

The issue is that these platforms are not regulated properly - hopefully the government will take back control and put effective legislation in place to prevent the American tech monopolise dominance; it is time for them to be broken up and competition allowed.

 

[Yaayuh!]

I suppose that is a fair point but at the end of the day it is a private service if Mr Twitter decided he had enough tomorrow he could close down the entire platform.

I'm sure the shareholders would have something to say about that. Especially Paul Singer of Elliott Management.

 

[Junglist]

The issue is that these platforms are not regulated properly - hopefully the government will take back control and put effective legislation in place to prevent the American tech monopolise dominance; it is time for them to be broken up and competition allowed.

Nothing is stopping anyone from making a better alternative though. Well, nothing is prohibiting them from giving it a chance anyway. The money needed to challenge now probably makes it impossible in a realistic sense though

I'm sure the shareholders would have something to say about that. Especially Paul Singer of Elliott Management.

I was just being facetious! I don't want Twitter to go away, it's the place I go to to vent when I've received sub-par customer service!

 

[VincentHanna]

I was just being facetious! I don't want Twitter to go away, it's the place I go to to vent when I've received sub-par customer service!

Pretty much all I use it for as well

 

[Tom1138]

Odd, very odd; nowhere in that YouTube clip does it seem even to mention Egypt

Meanwhile, in the real World, what actually happend was that Nancy Pelosi and the democrats wanted to give $2000 extra to voters (as did Trump), and it was the Republicans who said no

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/24/house-votes-on-2000-stimulus-checks-after-trump-supports-them.html

If you watched the video I posted Nancy Pelosi was originally for it.

 

[mmj_uk]

I don't understand why so many people are shocked a private company doesn't want to have Trump on there.

Twitter, facebook or just social media in general isn't a right. We sign up to their terms of conditions and if we break those, we get banned.

Simple stuff really.

Because lots of people being banned are simply exercising their right to free speech (US 1st Amendment), if they are committing a crime it is up to a countries law enforcement to deal with it, we have justice systems we don't need Twitter and co replacing that with de-platforming and cancel culture. It's becoming like those dystopian sci-fi movies where corporations have taken over as government and so many people don't seem to see it.

If you're all for private companies having so much power via T&C's and to hell with rights and laws then are you okay with a landlord saying that he doesn't want black people renting his property and to hell with anti-discrimination laws? why can't he he's a private business if you don't like it go find another house to rent.

 

[VincentHanna]

If you watched the video I posted Nancy Pelosi was originally for it.

She wanted more, but couldn't get anymore more out of the Republicans - You remember those guys, Trumps party.

It's called a compromise.

 

[BowdonUK]

I think in a way these big tech companies have exposed themselves.

When the dust settles they are going to be called back to give evidence of how they aren't cartels, or stifling competition. Previously they denied this after coming under heavy attack from both the Dems and Reps. Now they have done this latest action they have proven they can't be trusted to keep a level playing field.

They have also proven themselves publishers, which in order to get section 230 protection it was claimed they weren't, that they were a benign organisation just being the conduit for peoples posts. The only requirement they had was to help law enforcement if someone made a post that broke the law, similarly to BT, VM, or the ISP's over here.

But with them in effect going beyond the law and deciding which posts are allowed and which aren't, they have crossed the line. Their own pages of the Trump tweets show they are sitting around discussing tweets. This isn't something they should be doing. The only discussion they should be having is "Is this post lawful by US law or not?".

I don't know how websites got section 230 protection in the first place. The original cause of section 230 was to protect ISP's from legal challenges. A website isn't a service.

 

[StriderX]

If you remove 230 protections for these websites, they will simply cease to exist because they aren't about to hire literally millions of people (algorithms are clearly not going to cut it) to moderate trillions of articles (comments, images, videos... whatever) made by billions of individuals.

Trump would not have become President if this were the case, which is palpably ironic.

I'm not sure what the overall solution is, the only thing I do know for sure is that targeted advertising must be regulated straight into the ground posthaste, it has very clearly caused actual damage to our politics and it must be made right.

 

[Junglist]

Because lots of people being banned are simply exercising their right to free speech (US 1st Amendment), if they are committing a crime it is up to a countries law enforcement to deal with it, we have justice systems we don't need Twitter and co replacing that with de-platforming and cancel culture. It's becoming like those dystopian sci-fi movies where corporations have taken over as government and so many people don't seem to see it.

This is where I draw the line. Is Twitter essential for life? If someone loses their access to Twitter has their quality of life degraded? No on both counts. Being able to use Twitter has nothing to do with free speech. If you lost twitter access right now, have you lost your ability to speak freely? No, you just can't use that particular platform - that's all. If anyone wants to set up a new 'free speech haven' they are free to do so as it's a free market.

If you were paying for the servers and electricity for a website and someone who says things you, rightly or wrongly, don't agree with, why should you have to put up with it on your platform you created?

If a guest in your house was saying things you don't agree with and you asked them to leave, no one would bat and eyelid. It's just that on a global scale.

Losing access to a social media platform =/= losing your ability to say whatever you want. You just can't say it on a private platform.

If you're all for private companies having so much power via T&C's and to hell with rights and laws then are you okay with a landlord saying that he doesn't want black people renting his property and to hell with anti-discrimination laws? why can't he he's a private business if you don't like it go find another house to rent.

I don't really see it that way. I see it more as you've rented a house from someone, they've explicitly said "no smokers and no pets" and as soon as you've got in you've smoked a 20 deck and you've picked up several dogs from the local dogs home. The landlord see's what you've done and has asked you to leave.

Whos to blame? The landlord or the one renting and breaking the rules?

 

[stuman]

I don't really see it that way. I see it more as you've rented a house from someone, they've explicitly said "no smokers and no pets" and as soon as you've got in you've smoked a 20 deck and you've picked up several dogs from the local dogs home. The landlord see's what you've done and has asked you to leave.

Whos to blame? The landlord or the one renting and breaking the rules?

The law is changing in regard to pets.

The deposit is there to protect from the damages caused.

Also, what happens if the landlord publishes that they will only accept white Christian tenants? Does that make it ok? Its the rules after all.

 

[Junglist]

The law is changing in regard to pets.

The deposit is there to protect from the damages caused.

Regardless if it's changing. The point stands, if a landlord asks you not to do something in their property and you do it anyway, why shouldn't the landlord be able to evict you assuming you've singed a contract saying you agree to those points?

Also, what happens if the landlord publishes that they will only accept white Christian tenants? Does that make it ok? Its the rules after all.

Well that would come under discrimination laws, which would make it illegal, wouldn't it? Being a smoker or having pets are not protected characteristics so you can say if you want/do not want those in your house. However faith, gender/sex or race are protected characteristics and you wouldn't be able to discriminate based on those.

So no, it's clearly not ok and not even remotely the same to breaking T&Cs

 

[dowie]

Why is this funny? Aren't twitter complaining about the government ordering ISP's to block social media etc? It says "being ordered to.." so presumably that means by the government.

That is ACTUAL censorship and what could happen if you place control of what can/cant be posted on social media in the hands of the government.

Oh so Twitter censorship was more of a larp would you say? Not ACTUAL censorship?