Big Tech Authoritarianism

Colonel_Klinck said:
Its Twitter ffs. He has the biggest podium in the world. He can step into the press briefing room or open his mouth anywhere and cameras from every TV network will beam him across the world. You make it sound like twitter was his only way to speak to the public which is nonsense. Twitter has rules which we all have to follow, so does he. He didn't, he's gone. Boo hoo.
Click to expand...

Seperate the issue from who was banned. Replace trump with a faceless politician. Trump is a polorising figure and tends to enflame debates pointlessly. The debate is not about him being banned, the debate is the issue of social media platforms influencing/controlling the public sector.

Twitter claims the breach was due to incing violence. I think we can bot agree that various prominant twitter users have said something before that could be seen as inciting violence. As was previously mentioned in this thread, what he said during BLM protests could have also been viewed as incitement of violence and people died in those protests and riots.

If they did not ban him then why did they ban him now and why is a private company making this subjective interpreatation of who can and cannot use the platform that is de facto part of our communicaition infrustcture.
 
Diddums said:
I mean, given that it involves your Messiah, it comes as no surprise whatsoever that you lack the comprehension skills to see why this was done, so here's your usual video:


It'll also be interesting to see if you actually engage in a conversation or just post'n'run as always.
Click to expand...


I approve of this post a lot
 
Nerusy said:
Seperate the issue from who was banned. Replace trump with a faceless politician. Trump is a polorising figure and tends to enflame debates pointlessly. The debate is not about him being banned, the debate is the issue of social media platforms influencing/controlling the public sector.

Twitter claims the breach was due to incing violence. I think we can bot agree that various prominant twitter users have said something before that could be seen as inciting violence. As was previously mentioned in this thread, what he said during BLM protests could have also been viewed as incitement of violence and people died in those protests and riots.

If they did not ban him then why did they ban him now and why is a private company making this subjective interpreatation of who can and cannot use the platform that is de facto part of our communicaition infrustcture.
Click to expand...

They gave him more leeway than probably any other person because he is the President. They would have stuck with that until the 20th until the events of Wednesday and his response on Twitter to what happened. At that point they made the decision that he couldn't be trusted on their platform to not make the situation worse so they banned him. Trump has himself and only himself to blame for this.
 
SquirrelMadness said:
The people who say "it's a private company they can do whatever" are so stupid beyond belief. It's like their brains are incapable of seeing the future ramifications of this move.

Now that Dems have so much control the ban hammer will come down hard. They are even thinking about deplatforming Fox and some other news networks from the infrastructure side (cable service providers).

We will be seeing Cloudflare, ISPs, app stores etc... kick more and more websites off just because they allow "wrong" political views or unfiltered opinions.

Mark my words now they will be targeting comments sections next and forums to the point where all information (including opinions) is only what they want you to see.
Click to expand...

The ramifications aren't Twitters problem. Unlike us stupid people, you seem to be conveniently missing that part.

Think of it like walking in to a shop, make a mess and getting kicked out. You think your actions after that moment are the shopkeep's responsility? No, of course not. The second you walk out you're no longer his proble.
 
Nerusy said:
Discriminaton laws would disagree with you here.

The government regulates companise, they are not completely free to do what they want.

The government (which means technicallg mean we the people) can tell private companise what they can or cannot do.
Click to expand...

Can you give a few examples of this?
 
Jonathan Pie sums it up pretty well, I also think that banning Trump now is going to cause far more harm. It is just confirming what he has been saying all along about the media and its control, and will likely push his cultists even further.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
They gave him more leeway than probably any other person because he is the President. They would have stuck with that until the 20th until the events of Wednesday and his response on Twitter to what happened. At that point they made the decision that he couldn't be trusted on their platform to not make the situation worse so they banned him. Trump has himself and only himself to blame for this.
Click to expand...
Exactly!
The question isn't that Twitter have now permanently the Toddler-in-Chief, but why did it take them so long?

Any normal user who constantly breached Twitter's policy and use the platform to incite stuff like Trump did would have been banned ages ago.
Yes, rather than Twitter's themself finally having the courage to enforce their terms, it would be better if some neutral body would do so.
But what neutral body?
Even if a law was passed (and freedom of speech has never been without freedom of consequences even in the US), judges are so political in the US that it would be hard to enforce but gun-totting MAGA idiots would never accept a court's decision anyhow.
 
MadMossy said:
Jonathan Pie sums it up pretty well, I also think that banning Trump now is going to cause far more harm. It is just confirming what he has been saying all along about the media and its control, and will likely push his cultists even further.
Click to expand...


Absolutely!

Two conversations today with people ditching Facebook and Twitter and going to Parler.

I’d say it was an own goal really but it’s not it’s exactly the plan. More them and us more division in society more look over here at the shiny shiny.
 
Diddums said:
Can you give a few examples of this?
Click to expand...

What i had in mind was anti racism and anti homophobia.

One could argue (and people did) that private companise are not obliged to serve non-whites or gay people. We have laws that state private business cannot refuse to serve such people.
 
Nerusy said:
These two post contibuted nothing to the discussion. No opinion. No information. No thought.

You just merely here to state that the the group who you consider oppsoite to yours is s dim-witted. This does not help anybody. This is not interesting to read for anybody. If you want an echo chamber that will insult those who you consider different to your political leaning then go on reddit and post memes and the great thing about reddit you can find an eco chamber for any view you might have, left, right middle, up, down, so you will feel at home.
Click to expand...
Your first paragraph is very true.

What makes you think twitter is such a critical part of the 'global comms infra'? Demographic? Reach? Ubiquitous access? Multiple translations? Good quality journalism? Interested to hear your perspective.
 
Maccapacca said:
Do you mean forming an opinion through a broad range of views from a broad range of people? Which will not be able to happen if you shut people down however nutty they are.

If you don’t read the Sun where on earth do you get you’re hair cut? asking for a friend.
Click to expand...
Not sure what your first or second paragraph mean.
Theophany said:
Drives a mild merc and thinks he's somehow better than everybody. Could it get any more cliche? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Interesting you took the time to search post history to make this comment.
 
MadMossy said:
Jonathan Pie sums it up pretty well, I also think that banning Trump now is going to cause far more harm. It is just confirming what he has been saying all along about the media and its control, and will likely push his cultists even further.
Click to expand...

The thing is it was all happening anyway. Its not like if Trump wasn't banned things would get better. He would only get worse and because he's on twitter his audience is far larger and he can just divide the country even faster. Let him move to Parler. That platform is perfect for him, a complete echo chamber or hate, bigotry and conspiracy theories. He'll fit right in. Another "Trump" was always coming for 2024, hopefullyhis actions and those of his his boot lickers in Congresson on Wednesday have weakened their chances in 2024 with moderate Republicans, people who will always vote red but want a candidate that is not a complete lunatic. If that isn't the case then its too late anyway and America is completely broken.
 
dLockers said:
Your first paragraph is very true.

What makes you think twitter is such a critical part of the 'global comms infra'? Demographic? Reach? Ubiquitous access? Multiple translations? Good quality journalism? Interested to hear your perspective.
Click to expand...

Saying critiacal is perhaps a hyperbole. It is definitely a large part of it as all breaking news come from twitter first most of the time. Any and all big people/companise have twitter presence. It especially seems to me like a great platform to engage with the eloctorate and I thnk that is how it is being used right now (albeit this is my view not based on statistics).

Even it it was a smaller part of communication infrostucture the point would still stand, I do not like private companise inceasing their control of the public sector.

I tnink social media explosion has surpassed regulation and regulation is not catching up to the changing environment. Some form of regualuation is needed to combat both fake news which have far more reach now due to itnernet but also regulation agains private companise having a monopoly on what is allowed to be said or not.
 
They don't seem that fussy with other pretty awful accounts out there.

Jonathan Pie's take on it is spot on. It's just going to create bigger echo chambers.
 
Nerusy said:
Saying critiacal is perhaps a hyperbole. It is definitely a large part of it as all breaking news come from twitter first most of the time. Any and all big people/companise have twitter presence. It especially seems to me like a great platform to engage with the eloctorate and I thnk that is how it is being used right now (albeit this is my view not based on statistics).

Even it it was a smaller part of communication infrostucture the point would still stand, I do not like private companise inceasing their control of the public sector.

I tnink social media explosion has surpassed regulation and regulation is not catching up to the changing environment. Some form of regualuation is needed to combat both fake news which have far more reach now due to itnernet but also regulation agains private companise having a monopoly on what is allowed to be said or not.
Click to expand...
I think your giving Twitter a lot more credit than due, by quite a significant amount. It's reach and representation of the electorate is fractional.

The word control is not correct either - no more so do they control the public sector than news outlets that get significantly more reach and a wider demographic. People chose which channel they subscribe to and will be 'at the mercy' of that channels political bias. This has always been the way, with print media famously leaning one way or the other. Consolidation of these platforms becomes tricky as the influence gets much broader reach, hence the Murdoch family case studies being so interesting.

Twitter as a standalone platform has no where near the political reach or meaningful consolidation of the world of communications to be as egregiously controlling as you make out.

Agreed on your final paragraph excluding your final sentence. Twitter may be very relevent to you, but it is certainly not a monopoly. Facebook on the other hand and its ability to deliver precise messages to segments of its user base should absolutely be explored as it's influence could be 'too strong' for the limited reach it has. Hence, radical pockets of the population in their own echo chamber. Much like your Reddit remark (or someone else's).
 
Theophany said:
Call it confirmation bias. You're free to search mine if you want to equate the newspaper somebody reads, the company they keep and the car they drive with their ability to form opinions.
Click to expand...
The type of newspaper you read is classically linked to your confirmation bias and there are lots of peer reviewed studies that explain this.

Thanks for the offer of searching your post history, but I have better things to do with my time than single individuals out to search their past, as much as that is in vogue at the moment. You got my point though. It's why things like flat earth, 5G and anti-vax movements are gaining traction in certain factions.
 
mmj_uk said:
Donald Trump, the still President of the United States of America has been censored by Twitter, a corporation elected by nobody and along with corporate media who clearly hate him that now means he cannot talk directly to the American people who elected him.

A group of people cry that he is a fascist, but he was Democratically elected, didn't start any wars, abolish future elections and/or make himself dictator for life. He defended the US constitution from those who seeked to take away peoples right to bear arms, not something a tyrant does.

Those decrying him as a fascist are cheering on the censorship and algorithms that social media employs to boost the outreach of some users (corporate media etc) whilst suppressing, censoring or banning other ideas. Big tech censorship and banning is not a new thing, they've just never been so emboldened as to do it to a sitting US President before.

Now for all those cheering it on and who think it is fighting fascism or whatever, I would like to share a few quotes from a school grade text book on the Nazi's:



Are we not being lead in that direction by those claiming to be fighting Fascism? who tore down historical statues? who bans books/users and all manner of things that don't agree with their point of view (deemed to be 'offensive')? who is trying to disarm the population?

Why do people who believe to be fighting authoritarianism/fascism or whatever cheer on billionaire corporation owners who in unison now act like them?
Click to expand...

Your posts just get more and more desperate and hilarious. Also your understanding of history is appalling and nothing to be proud of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom