5 ms·

Politicians aren't the only ones spreading dangerous misinformation and conspiracy theories. They also aren't uniformly doing it; what prominent left-wing polit

Politicians aren't the only ones spreading dangerous misinformation and conspiracy theories. They also aren't uniformly doing it; what prominent left-wing politicians are doing so? This is just a lazy both-sides position but this isn't something that both sides are guilty of.

africanboy 6y ago
aren't we talking about Trump here? I never said right or left though, I've said all of them, even though from an American point of view I would be described as a "communist" (it wouldn't be far from the truth TBF ...) I am as far away from Trump as the Star Wars galaxy is from us. Politicians already have a platform, and the platform is "being a politician"
- AgentME 6y ago
  It's a big leap to go from <Trump gets banned for inviting violence through deliberate misinformation> to <while we're at it, let's ban all politicians because they're similar>. Most politicians have nothing in common with what Trump is being banned for. Politicians are some of the people most engaged with politics, and I don't think such a large chilling effect fully across the subject of politics would be good for people. There are policies and changes from the status quo that I think are very important to improve society (healthcare for all, addressing climate change) and I don't think removing the most influential voices discussing and pushing these would be good for these kinds of goals, or improve sites like Twitter.
  - africanboy 6y ago
    that's not what I've said at all. Elected officials shouldn't be in social networks not because they are all like Trump, but because they represent the people and don't need to be influencers or to have followers, they serve the people. if they want to be heard, they can speak with their actions and their messagge will spread on social networks through the people that supports them, the press whose job is to report what they do and official press conferences that have a wide coverage on media outlets. politicians shouldn't talk "directly to the people" because it's a lie and a distraction, we spend (waste) more time talking about what they tweet and policing what they tweet about than about what they actually do! they are not common people and shouldn't be treated like they were. they can have a social network account for their party and for their press office to report on their activities and that would be it. you would be surprised to know that Angela Merkel has closed her Facebook account with more than 2.5 million folowers. Also, social network accounts are one of the best way to leak private (or secret) informations. back to Frau Merkel, her Instagram account (which is actually the official account of Die Bundeskanzlerin) has ben targeted by Russian hackers from day 1 and they've also stolen documens from computers in the German Parliament. why risk it? last but not least, social networks are private companies and don't treat users equally, they offer their propaganda platform to some but not to others. for example Hassan Rhouani, Xi Jinping, Bashar Al-Assad, Kim Jong-un, they are all on Facebook, but not their oppositions and people of those countries are severely limited in the access to social networks or internet in general. so why give them a global platform? because they can pay? I say let's ban politicians and solve it. great powers -> great responsibilities

africanboy 6y ago

aren't we talking about Trump here? I never said right or left though, I've said all of them, even though from an American point of view I would be described as a "communist" (it wouldn't be far from the truth TBF ...) I am as far away from Trump as the Star Wars galaxy is from us. Politicians already have a platform, and the platform is "being a politician"

AgentME 6y ago
It's a big leap to go from <Trump gets banned for inviting violence through deliberate misinformation> to <while we're at it, let's ban all politicians because they're similar>. Most politicians have nothing in common with what Trump is being banned for. Politicians are some of the people most engaged with politics, and I don't think such a large chilling effect fully across the subject of politics would be good for people. There are policies and changes from the status quo that I think are very important to improve society (healthcare for all, addressing climate change) and I don't think removing the most influential voices discussing and pushing these would be good for these kinds of goals, or improve sites like Twitter.
- africanboy 6y ago
  that's not what I've said at all. Elected officials shouldn't be in social networks not because they are all like Trump, but because they represent the people and don't need to be influencers or to have followers, they serve the people. if they want to be heard, they can speak with their actions and their messagge will spread on social networks through the people that supports them, the press whose job is to report what they do and official press conferences that have a wide coverage on media outlets. politicians shouldn't talk "directly to the people" because it's a lie and a distraction, we spend (waste) more time talking about what they tweet and policing what they tweet about than about what they actually do! they are not common people and shouldn't be treated like they were. they can have a social network account for their party and for their press office to report on their activities and that would be it. you would be surprised to know that Angela Merkel has closed her Facebook account with more than 2.5 million folowers. Also, social network accounts are one of the best way to leak private (or secret) informations. back to Frau Merkel, her Instagram account (which is actually the official account of Die Bundeskanzlerin) has ben targeted by Russian hackers from day 1 and they've also stolen documens from computers in the German Parliament. why risk it? last but not least, social networks are private companies and don't treat users equally, they offer their propaganda platform to some but not to others. for example Hassan Rhouani, Xi Jinping, Bashar Al-Assad, Kim Jong-un, they are all on Facebook, but not their oppositions and people of those countries are severely limited in the access to social networks or internet in general. so why give them a global platform? because they can pay? I say let's ban politicians and solve it. great powers -> great responsibilities