4 ms·

I'm curious if this will be possible 10 years from now. A single corporation to be able to censor a president. No matter who that president is or what is she/he

by tin7in 6y ago

I'm curious if this will be possible 10 years from now. A single corporation to be able to censor a president. No matter who that president is or what is she/he saying. What if that corporation is led by someone else with totally different political views or motivation?

redisman 6y ago
On one platform. He still can pull up a press conference whenever he wants just like every other president has done when they need to communicate with the public
- vipa123 6y ago
  Exactly. Censorship, which is done by the government, prevents speech on all platforms. If a person cannot tweet they can still blog, newsletter, email, and even whisper their truth via their free speech to the next person all they like.
  - bena 6y ago
    I'm going to stop you there. Private companies can censor. Censorship isn't the sole domain of the government. Twitter is censoring the President on its platform. As is their right to do so as Twitter is not the government. At least the last time I checked.
- wussboy 6y ago
  And that's precisely the danger of social media. If he must reach his following through a (relatively) neutral third party (the main-stream media) that third party can choose whether or not to pass that information on. If he always and at all times has unfettered access to a rabid following, there is no moderation, no mediation, and we get our current situation.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Recently I saw trump on tv at a press conference, the news anchors muted him and spoke over him.
- mandeepj 6y ago
  > He still can pull up a press conference whenever he wants Media can and has refused to publish his BS
  - redisman 6y ago
    Maybe he can install a radio in every home that can’t be turned off or down then?
- Amezarak 6y ago
  > He still can pull up a press conference whenever he wants just like every other president has done when they need to communicate with the public The media has regularly ignored presidential press conferences they didn't care about for decades now. Bush, Obama, and Trump all had many press conferences that received minimal coverage. In that light, it's no surprise that a President would seek our a more direct line of communication.
majormajor 6y ago
Couldn't any TV network or newspaper or radio station choose what to publish or not for ... ever, really?
acquiremoney 6y ago
Do not speak of unintended consequences let the people enjoy short term win.
fuj 6y ago
You need to look up the definition of censorship buddy
davidw 6y ago
He could call a press conference right now and be on every news network.
content_sesh 6y ago
He's not censored, he's not silenced and there are dozens of ways for him to send out messages, including: - Press releases - Holding a news conference - For emergencies, IPAWS Twitter not carrying his messages is akin to CNN choosing not to broadcast his rallies. It's not censorship.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> single corporation to be able to censor a president People on a medium tend to overstate that media’s influence. Newspapers routinely refuse to print politicians’ op eds. Twitter is more pervasive, but it’s far from universal. As long as it’s not fiddled with around elections, de-platforming is fine. The President does have certain abilities to commandeer media time, but that would require making an official address.
- kflzufkrbzi 6y ago
  Why does an election make any difference? I think if you agree with censorship it should apply all the time.
sergiomattei 6y ago
God damn, I'd have this discussion any other day but not today. The President is inciting violence by spreading dangerous misinformation and not condemning domestic terrorists. Our sacred democratic institutions and world standing have taken a big hit. And, even worse - American lives were lost today due to this rhetoric. We can't continue acting like this is a matter of hurr durr censorship anymore. It's time to move past idealism and into reality: people are in danger. Words have consequences. We saw today what happens when people with immense power spout extremist ideology for years without consequence. Let today's action by Twitter be part of the consequence. It's not censorship: it's consequence. Trump will not be arrested or chased for his rhetoric. He simply won't be able to spout it to the masses on a privately owned platform. A life was lost today. There should be some consequence.
- Amezarak 6y ago
  It is curious to me that the reaction to people rioting in a place of institutional, systemic power is much more negative than when people were rioting and damaging small businesses, homes, and killing regular people. That is, people seem to be reacting much more strongly to people rioting in a way that damages institutional power than when they were rioting in a way that damaged the powerless.
raldi 6y ago
Same thing that would happen if the owner of a restaurant asked the president to leave.
petercooper 6y ago
You make it sound like Twitter is the be all and end all of public discourse. Twitter isn't even in the top five. He could ramble on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Reddit or Snapchat before we even get down to Twitter.
TT3351 6y ago
>the inevitable Supreme Court hearing on this action I'm curious what you've been reading or watching that led you to believe that's likely

by tin7in 6y ago

redisman 6y ago

On one platform. He still can pull up a press conference whenever he wants just like every other president has done when they need to communicate with the public

vipa123 6y ago
Exactly. Censorship, which is done by the government, prevents speech on all platforms. If a person cannot tweet they can still blog, newsletter, email, and even whisper their truth via their free speech to the next person all they like.
- bena 6y ago
  I'm going to stop you there. Private companies can censor. Censorship isn't the sole domain of the government. Twitter is censoring the President on its platform. As is their right to do so as Twitter is not the government. At least the last time I checked.
wussboy 6y ago
And that's precisely the danger of social media. If he must reach his following through a (relatively) neutral third party (the main-stream media) that third party can choose whether or not to pass that information on. If he always and at all times has unfettered access to a rabid following, there is no moderation, no mediation, and we get our current situation.
chordalkeyboard 6y ago
Recently I saw trump on tv at a press conference, the news anchors muted him and spoke over him.
mandeepj 6y ago
> He still can pull up a press conference whenever he wants Media can and has refused to publish his BS
- redisman 6y ago
  Maybe he can install a radio in every home that can’t be turned off or down then?
Amezarak 6y ago
> He still can pull up a press conference whenever he wants just like every other president has done when they need to communicate with the public The media has regularly ignored presidential press conferences they didn't care about for decades now. Bush, Obama, and Trump all had many press conferences that received minimal coverage. In that light, it's no surprise that a President would seek our a more direct line of communication.

majormajor 6y ago

Couldn't any TV network or newspaper or radio station choose what to publish or not for ... ever, really?

acquiremoney 6y ago

Do not speak of unintended consequences let the people enjoy short term win.

fuj 6y ago

You need to look up the definition of censorship buddy

davidw 6y ago

He could call a press conference right now and be on every news network.

content_sesh 6y ago

He's not censored, he's not silenced and there are dozens of ways for him to send out messages, including: - Press releases - Holding a news conference - For emergencies, IPAWS Twitter not carrying his messages is akin to CNN choosing not to broadcast his rallies. It's not censorship.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> single corporation to be able to censor a president People on a medium tend to overstate that media’s influence. Newspapers routinely refuse to print politicians’ op eds. Twitter is more pervasive, but it’s far from universal. As long as it’s not fiddled with around elections, de-platforming is fine. The President does have certain abilities to commandeer media time, but that would require making an official address.

kflzufkrbzi 6y ago
Why does an election make any difference? I think if you agree with censorship it should apply all the time.

sergiomattei 6y ago

God damn, I'd have this discussion any other day but not today. The President is inciting violence by spreading dangerous misinformation and not condemning domestic terrorists. Our sacred democratic institutions and world standing have taken a big hit. And, even worse - American lives were lost today due to this rhetoric. We can't continue acting like this is a matter of hurr durr censorship anymore. It's time to move past idealism and into reality: people are in danger. Words have consequences. We saw today what happens when people with immense power spout extremist ideology for years without consequence. Let today's action by Twitter be part of the consequence. It's not censorship: it's consequence. Trump will not be arrested or chased for his rhetoric. He simply won't be able to spout it to the masses on a privately owned platform. A life was lost today. There should be some consequence.

Amezarak 6y ago
It is curious to me that the reaction to people rioting in a place of institutional, systemic power is much more negative than when people were rioting and damaging small businesses, homes, and killing regular people. That is, people seem to be reacting much more strongly to people rioting in a way that damages institutional power than when they were rioting in a way that damaged the powerless.

raldi 6y ago

Same thing that would happen if the owner of a restaurant asked the president to leave.

petercooper 6y ago

You make it sound like Twitter is the be all and end all of public discourse. Twitter isn't even in the top five. He could ramble on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Reddit or Snapchat before we even get down to Twitter.

TT3351 6y ago

>the inevitable Supreme Court hearing on this action I'm curious what you've been reading or watching that led you to believe that's likely