7 ms·

Platforms that have banned or restricted Trump so far

47 points by catherinezng 6y ago

buttholesurfer 6y ago
This is pretty fucking insane and I hate the man They are banning everyone around him too. Groups that are for him... Its a shame.
- mech422 6y ago
  Cynically, I think this has less to do with politics and more to do with avoiding 'wrongful death' type lawsuits. With perhaps a side of "don't scare the advertisers".
jmcdl 6y ago
Anyone who thinks this is a good thing is a very poor student of history.
- zepto 6y ago
  The biggest problem is that it will likely lead to a bunch of less visible alternatives arising. Trump himself has claimed he’s going to start one.
  - Mountain_Skies 6y ago
    That and the temptation to ban more and more for an ever widening definition of wrong thought will be impossible to resist. Every time some entity gains this type of control, the use of it always ends up expanding until it reaches a breaking point. After that, things get really messy for everyone involved.
    - ianai 6y ago
      Society functions fine without these platforms. Their bans will work out ok.
    - nolongerlowres 6y ago
      Well, they didn’t ban him because he thinks wrong things. They very clearly banned him because his words on the platform were intended to cause violence and stop the democratic process in the US (but mostly only the former). I think it’d be foolish not to ban people who use Twitter to communicate plans to perform acts of violence. If anything I hope they (along with other platforms) use this opportunity to get better at it. Don’t forget this is Twitter exercising its right to free speech. If Trump is upset, he’s free to do the same and make his own Twitter-like platform. I’ve seen a few open source ones posted here that he could fork.
- bmiller2 6y ago
  History doesn’t have any precedent for this. Algorithmically defined echo chambers are a new frontier for society to tackle. We’ve tried the option of waving our hands and hoping for the best, and what we got was a literal riot at the holiest of holies. Maybe it’s time for society to reject extremists on the internet, like we reject them in our local communities.
  - admiralspoo 6y ago
    The fact the echo chambers are algorithmically determined or not is quite irrelevant -- the end result is the same -- cults. The historic precedent for minimizing bad influences of cults is decentralization and distribution so as to prevent systemic failure cascades in case where cultish behavior is endemic. This is federalism and anti-monopoly policies (for either government and private enterprise). The solution, therefore, is that these centralized echo chambers need to be broken up into smaller pieces.
    - meekmockmook 6y ago
      Yes. Antitrust enforcement is key to restoring democracy. Should be Priority #1
    - bmiller2 6y ago
      The end result is the same, but the mechanisms that create and persist that phenomenon are now a billion dollar industry driven by very smart people with shareholders that they answer to. The result is that the effectiveness and pertinacity of these creations far outstrip anything ever seen before in human history.
    - xg15 6y ago
      And yet, decentralisation and the social networks' "hands off" policies were exactly what started those cults. Those trolls, movements and "subcultures" were not started on r/all. They came from niche subcommunities which were effectively unmoderated before they gained media attention or from 4chan and all the other -chan, -booru, etc sites which already were exactly the kind of small decentralised, free-speech-above-all-else services you're talking about. > The historic precedent for minimizing bad influences of cults is decentralization and distribution so as to prevent systemic failure cascades in case where cultish behavior is endemic. If this is anything more than repetition of dogma then please explain how exactly this should be applied to the current situation. What should be done?
- Mountain_Skies 6y ago
  They assume they will control the monster they're creating forever, believing it could never be subverted by their ideological enemies or even end up creating an ideology of its own that oppresses every other ideology. They're playing with fire that has to potential to hurt far more than themselves or their perceived enemies.
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    By "they" do you mean the companies that own those platforms? Or somebody else? Do you mean that someone else could take their platforms away from them?
    - sieabahlpark 6y ago
      They is almost irrelevant if you continue reading past that word. It's very apparent it doesn't matter who the "they" is because the "they" can and >will< change over time.
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
  I assure you that in the US, the threat posed during a resurgent white supremacy similar to Wilmington 1898 is NOT someone being banned from a social media platform
- Fezzik 6y ago
  Can you elaborate? I don’t view Trump as being that far in likeness from David Duke, other than that Trump masks his hateful rhetoric every-so-slightly. Are you also all for having Davie Duke back on Twitter? And what in history enforces the idea that banning Trump is bad? I can’t think of a single incident that would indicate it will be anything but a boon for society. This reminds me of when a teacher finally blows-up at the idiot student that has been incessantly disrupting class and has him suspended and all the non-crazies can get back to being productively educated. This is a good thing. Edit, to add: not every shushing is the same. The context and circumstances can drastically change the nature of the shush.
- rasz 6y ago
  Remember that time Hitler was deplatformed and nobody published Mein Kampf?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- _jfoi 6y ago
  So you want this idiot to continue to have a platform to incite violence? You may be a student of history but your understanding of it is poor and honestly you sound like someone who supports this traitor.
- cecja 6y ago
  As a german I look at 1923 and the moderate response to hitlers coup and the only thing I can do is shake my head at people like you.
- xg15 6y ago
  Twitter is a private company. It's their decision who they do business with, or is it not?
  - sieabahlpark 6y ago
    It's their decision of whether to be regulated as a publisher in which they specifically choose what is published or exist as a platform. The issue is when you treat a small amount of very significant content as a publisher and the majority as a platform. Twitter has the power in the public forum to literally start wars between countries. This isn't something to take lightly. Since they claim to be the authority on information they are responsible for what they post. Except they're currently not and this is a problem.
throwawaysea 6y ago
What I have observed today on social media is that censorship has been ramped up dramatically all in one day. And I don't mean Trump. I'm seeing even posts from conservative accounts that unequivocally condemned the capitol raid getting deleted, and entire accounts being deleted with no notice. This to me feels a lot like a digital political genocide, the culmination of an ascendant group with significant power (progressive left allied with tech giants) suddenly unleashing it upon their political enemies. I dislike Trump, but the claim that he has incited violence is without evidence, and we see that in Twitter's blog post announcing his ban (https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...), since it offers no hard evidence and only subjective leaps of the imagination. The call to delete his account because of the current political context is unacceptable, and it is also total hypocrisy given that this logic was not applied when BLM riots caused billions of Dollars in damage in the last year. It's also hypocritical given that nearly identical incidents (riots at the capitol) have taken place several times before and not resulted in this type of coverage or censorship. Several of these incidents are in the past few years, such as the climate riot which AOC participated in (https://theintercept.com/2018/11/13/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-sunrise-activists-nancy-pelosi https://theintercept.com/2018/11/13/alexandria-ocasio-cortez...) or the riots concerning Brett Kavanaugh's appointment (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/04/kavanaugh-supreme-court-protests-washington https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/04/kavanaugh-su...) or the 600-person riot protesting immigration law (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/womens-march-protesters-call-end-family-separation-capitol/story?id=56240419 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/womens-march-protesters-call...). This isn't about riots. It isn't about violence. It isn't about a coup. It isn't about Trump even. It is only about big tech bowing down to the new incoming leaders who control their fates, and with the changing of the guard, they have become comfortable showing who they are - powerful partisans who will put the power of their monopolies to work if left unimpeded. That should scare anyone who knows where this path leads based on history. I'm genuinely worried, because as always, these changes come in response to an event that scared people and now they are naively welcoming authoritarian changes.
- upbeat_general 6y ago
  The other “riots” you refer to are not riots. They appear to all be sit-ins. No windows were broken or police overpowered/attacked. These types of protests are common in the Capitol (and I’m pretty sure in most other US legislatures buildings). People often enter legally, protest, refuse to leave, and then are arrested. This is not what happened on January 6th.
mimikatz 6y ago
https://twitter.com/DaveLeeFT/status/1347724201331814401 https://twitter.com/DaveLeeFT/status/1347724201331814401 They banned him from his email lists. Strange Trump tries a sudo(overtish?) coup on the US and the Tech industry sudo coups a sitting president. With only the shrinking broadcast network will soon be his only outlet.
armchairhacker 6y ago
Here is my opinion on this, in case you're interested for some reason. I consider myself centrist but usually agree with liberal policies, however I also believe in free speech. I honestly don't have a problem with mainstream platforms banning the radical right, because I don't really care about their speech. In case it isn't clear I think Donald Trump and his policies are awful. The problem, and the reason I argue we need free speech: I believe any attempt that would actually censor them would also have to censor innocent people caught in the crossfire. - Suppose these people start using code-words. Now, in an effort to ban these covert discussions, you risk misidentifying and banning random people. - Suppose these people brigade more moderate groups and subreddits. Now you may ban moderate Conservatives and libertarians who don't deserve to be banned. Believe it or not, there are Conservatives who hate Donald Trump, who are reasonable people, and who occasionally discover flaws in the left party, because even though I mostly side with the left party they aren't perfect. - Suppose these people move to decentralized platforms like Signal. In order to break or monitor their communication, you must enable Signal to break or monitor anyone's communication, including activists who need it for good purposes. - Similarly, if governments or ISPs can block these people from hosting their own website, that means governments or ISPs can block anyone from hosting their own website, so in the future they could block the good guys. Another thing you have to note is that this is a decent amount of the population. Even though they're idiots, you can't ignore them and you can't suppress them. A lot of these people are your average people, they just grew up in a biased society so bias is all they know. When you aggressively threaten and censor them, you're only scaring them, so they become more irrational and dangerous. Unfortunately I don't know how else you're going to restrict or convince right extremists. I'm sure it's possible, if you offer them something. Or more likely, if they get bored and distracted by something else, which would require the news to stop covering Donald Trump and start covering another, more interesting drama.
- Mountain_Skies 6y ago
  Step one would be to stop being so sanctimonious and believing that you are their better. You cannot convince someone of something or find common ground if you start off the conversation spitting in their face and telling them how much smarter you are than them.
- 6y ago
copperwater69 6y ago
Thats spooky. I didn't realise so many of them did it. >Reddit >Twitch >Shopify >Twitter >Google >Youtube >Facebook >Instagram >Snapchat >Tiktok >Apple >Discord >Pinterest And then the article ends with "Trump is quickly losing access to all the platforms where he once was able to spread his message freely, but groups of his supporters will still be able to gather online."
ZeroClickOk 6y ago
Witch hunt. All conservative voices will be silent now. Really a sad day for the humam history.
- subjectsigma 6y ago
  I have been thinking about this a lot lately. I personally know many conservatives who do not support Trump, have never supported him, and are now scared. I wonder - will any sane person vote R for the next decade? What would that do to your image? Best case scenario the Reps clean up their act. Worse case scenario the US becomes a one-party system when our corporate overlords realize they can just get rid of any politicians they don't like.
  - mech422 6y ago
    >>I wonder - will any sane person vote R for the next decade? I actually wonder what Rs are doing...chasing the 'base' has literally destroyed their brand. And the 'base' isn't big enough to win national elections... So what is their logic ??
    - edbob 6y ago
      The "base" is basically "people who don't consume as much Democrat-aligned media". It doesn't matter if Republicans try to appeal people outside the "base", because those people won't get the message. They will only get the message they get from the media, which in almost 100% of cases that I've looked into is completely different from what the Republicans actually said. They have no real choice.
      - xg15 6y ago
        If you're on the highway and you find that everyone else seems to drive on the wrong lane, it may be worth considering if it isn't you who is driving on the wrong lane.
        edbob 6y ago

47 points by catherinezng 6y ago

This is pretty fucking insane and I hate the man They are banning everyone around him too. Groups that are for him... Its a shame.

mech422 6y ago
Cynically, I think this has less to do with politics and more to do with avoiding 'wrongful death' type lawsuits. With perhaps a side of "don't scare the advertisers".

jmcdl 6y ago

Anyone who thinks this is a good thing is a very poor student of history.

zepto 6y ago
The biggest problem is that it will likely lead to a bunch of less visible alternatives arising. Trump himself has claimed he’s going to start one.
- Mountain_Skies 6y ago
  That and the temptation to ban more and more for an ever widening definition of wrong thought will be impossible to resist. Every time some entity gains this type of control, the use of it always ends up expanding until it reaches a breaking point. After that, things get really messy for everyone involved.
  - ianai 6y ago
    Society functions fine without these platforms. Their bans will work out ok.
  - nolongerlowres 6y ago
    Well, they didn’t ban him because he thinks wrong things. They very clearly banned him because his words on the platform were intended to cause violence and stop the democratic process in the US (but mostly only the former). I think it’d be foolish not to ban people who use Twitter to communicate plans to perform acts of violence. If anything I hope they (along with other platforms) use this opportunity to get better at it. Don’t forget this is Twitter exercising its right to free speech. If Trump is upset, he’s free to do the same and make his own Twitter-like platform. I’ve seen a few open source ones posted here that he could fork.
bmiller2 6y ago
History doesn’t have any precedent for this. Algorithmically defined echo chambers are a new frontier for society to tackle. We’ve tried the option of waving our hands and hoping for the best, and what we got was a literal riot at the holiest of holies. Maybe it’s time for society to reject extremists on the internet, like we reject them in our local communities.
- admiralspoo 6y ago
  The fact the echo chambers are algorithmically determined or not is quite irrelevant -- the end result is the same -- cults. The historic precedent for minimizing bad influences of cults is decentralization and distribution so as to prevent systemic failure cascades in case where cultish behavior is endemic. This is federalism and anti-monopoly policies (for either government and private enterprise). The solution, therefore, is that these centralized echo chambers need to be broken up into smaller pieces.
  - meekmockmook 6y ago
    Yes. Antitrust enforcement is key to restoring democracy. Should be Priority #1
  - bmiller2 6y ago
    The end result is the same, but the mechanisms that create and persist that phenomenon are now a billion dollar industry driven by very smart people with shareholders that they answer to. The result is that the effectiveness and pertinacity of these creations far outstrip anything ever seen before in human history.
  - xg15 6y ago
    And yet, decentralisation and the social networks' "hands off" policies were exactly what started those cults. Those trolls, movements and "subcultures" were not started on r/all. They came from niche subcommunities which were effectively unmoderated before they gained media attention or from 4chan and all the other -chan, -booru, etc sites which already were exactly the kind of small decentralised, free-speech-above-all-else services you're talking about. > The historic precedent for minimizing bad influences of cults is decentralization and distribution so as to prevent systemic failure cascades in case where cultish behavior is endemic. If this is anything more than repetition of dogma then please explain how exactly this should be applied to the current situation. What should be done?
Mountain_Skies 6y ago
They assume they will control the monster they're creating forever, believing it could never be subverted by their ideological enemies or even end up creating an ideology of its own that oppresses every other ideology. They're playing with fire that has to potential to hurt far more than themselves or their perceived enemies.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  By "they" do you mean the companies that own those platforms? Or somebody else? Do you mean that someone else could take their platforms away from them?
  - sieabahlpark 6y ago
    They is almost irrelevant if you continue reading past that word. It's very apparent it doesn't matter who the "they" is because the "they" can and >will< change over time.
x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
I assure you that in the US, the threat posed during a resurgent white supremacy similar to Wilmington 1898 is NOT someone being banned from a social media platform
Fezzik 6y ago
Can you elaborate? I don’t view Trump as being that far in likeness from David Duke, other than that Trump masks his hateful rhetoric every-so-slightly. Are you also all for having Davie Duke back on Twitter? And what in history enforces the idea that banning Trump is bad? I can’t think of a single incident that would indicate it will be anything but a boon for society. This reminds me of when a teacher finally blows-up at the idiot student that has been incessantly disrupting class and has him suspended and all the non-crazies can get back to being productively educated. This is a good thing. Edit, to add: not every shushing is the same. The context and circumstances can drastically change the nature of the shush.
rasz 6y ago
Remember that time Hitler was deplatformed and nobody published Mein Kampf?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
_jfoi 6y ago
So you want this idiot to continue to have a platform to incite violence? You may be a student of history but your understanding of it is poor and honestly you sound like someone who supports this traitor.
cecja 6y ago
As a german I look at 1923 and the moderate response to hitlers coup and the only thing I can do is shake my head at people like you.
xg15 6y ago
Twitter is a private company. It's their decision who they do business with, or is it not?
- sieabahlpark 6y ago
  It's their decision of whether to be regulated as a publisher in which they specifically choose what is published or exist as a platform. The issue is when you treat a small amount of very significant content as a publisher and the majority as a platform. Twitter has the power in the public forum to literally start wars between countries. This isn't something to take lightly. Since they claim to be the authority on information they are responsible for what they post. Except they're currently not and this is a problem.

throwawaysea 6y ago

What I have observed today on social media is that censorship has been ramped up dramatically all in one day. And I don't mean Trump. I'm seeing even posts from conservative accounts that unequivocally condemned the capitol raid getting deleted, and entire accounts being deleted with no notice. This to me feels a lot like a digital political genocide, the culmination of an ascendant group with significant power (progressive left allied with tech giants) suddenly unleashing it upon their political enemies. I dislike Trump, but the claim that he has incited violence is without evidence, and we see that in Twitter's blog post announcing his ban (https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...), since it offers no hard evidence and only subjective leaps of the imagination. The call to delete his account because of the current political context is unacceptable, and it is also total hypocrisy given that this logic was not applied when BLM riots caused billions of Dollars in damage in the last year. It's also hypocritical given that nearly identical incidents (riots at the capitol) have taken place several times before and not resulted in this type of coverage or censorship. Several of these incidents are in the past few years, such as the climate riot which AOC participated in (https://theintercept.com/2018/11/13/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-sunrise-activists-nancy-pelosi https://theintercept.com/2018/11/13/alexandria-ocasio-cortez...) or the riots concerning Brett Kavanaugh's appointment (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/04/kavanaugh-supreme-court-protests-washington https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/04/kavanaugh-su...) or the 600-person riot protesting immigration law (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/womens-march-protesters-call-end-family-separation-capitol/story?id=56240419 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/womens-march-protesters-call...). This isn't about riots. It isn't about violence. It isn't about a coup. It isn't about Trump even. It is only about big tech bowing down to the new incoming leaders who control their fates, and with the changing of the guard, they have become comfortable showing who they are - powerful partisans who will put the power of their monopolies to work if left unimpeded. That should scare anyone who knows where this path leads based on history. I'm genuinely worried, because as always, these changes come in response to an event that scared people and now they are naively welcoming authoritarian changes.

upbeat_general 6y ago
The other “riots” you refer to are not riots. They appear to all be sit-ins. No windows were broken or police overpowered/attacked. These types of protests are common in the Capitol (and I’m pretty sure in most other US legislatures buildings). People often enter legally, protest, refuse to leave, and then are arrested. This is not what happened on January 6th.

mimikatz 6y ago

https://twitter.com/DaveLeeFT/status/1347724201331814401 https://twitter.com/DaveLeeFT/status/1347724201331814401 They banned him from his email lists. Strange Trump tries a sudo(overtish?) coup on the US and the Tech industry sudo coups a sitting president. With only the shrinking broadcast network will soon be his only outlet.

armchairhacker 6y ago

Here is my opinion on this, in case you're interested for some reason. I consider myself centrist but usually agree with liberal policies, however I also believe in free speech. I honestly don't have a problem with mainstream platforms banning the radical right, because I don't really care about their speech. In case it isn't clear I think Donald Trump and his policies are awful. The problem, and the reason I argue we need free speech: I believe any attempt that would actually censor them would also have to censor innocent people caught in the crossfire. - Suppose these people start using code-words. Now, in an effort to ban these covert discussions, you risk misidentifying and banning random people. - Suppose these people brigade more moderate groups and subreddits. Now you may ban moderate Conservatives and libertarians who don't deserve to be banned. Believe it or not, there are Conservatives who hate Donald Trump, who are reasonable people, and who occasionally discover flaws in the left party, because even though I mostly side with the left party they aren't perfect. - Suppose these people move to decentralized platforms like Signal. In order to break or monitor their communication, you must enable Signal to break or monitor anyone's communication, including activists who need it for good purposes. - Similarly, if governments or ISPs can block these people from hosting their own website, that means governments or ISPs can block anyone from hosting their own website, so in the future they could block the good guys. Another thing you have to note is that this is a decent amount of the population. Even though they're idiots, you can't ignore them and you can't suppress them. A lot of these people are your average people, they just grew up in a biased society so bias is all they know. When you aggressively threaten and censor them, you're only scaring them, so they become more irrational and dangerous. Unfortunately I don't know how else you're going to restrict or convince right extremists. I'm sure it's possible, if you offer them something. Or more likely, if they get bored and distracted by something else, which would require the news to stop covering Donald Trump and start covering another, more interesting drama.

Mountain_Skies 6y ago
Step one would be to stop being so sanctimonious and believing that you are their better. You cannot convince someone of something or find common ground if you start off the conversation spitting in their face and telling them how much smarter you are than them.
6y ago

copperwater69 6y ago

Thats spooky. I didn't realise so many of them did it. >Reddit >Twitch >Shopify >Twitter >Google >Youtube >Facebook >Instagram >Snapchat >Tiktok >Apple >Discord >Pinterest And then the article ends with "Trump is quickly losing access to all the platforms where he once was able to spread his message freely, but groups of his supporters will still be able to gather online."

ZeroClickOk 6y ago

Witch hunt. All conservative voices will be silent now. Really a sad day for the humam history.

subjectsigma 6y ago
I have been thinking about this a lot lately. I personally know many conservatives who do not support Trump, have never supported him, and are now scared. I wonder - will any sane person vote R for the next decade? What would that do to your image? Best case scenario the Reps clean up their act. Worse case scenario the US becomes a one-party system when our corporate overlords realize they can just get rid of any politicians they don't like.
- mech422 6y ago
  >>I wonder - will any sane person vote R for the next decade? I actually wonder what Rs are doing...chasing the 'base' has literally destroyed their brand. And the 'base' isn't big enough to win national elections... So what is their logic ??
  - edbob 6y ago
    The "base" is basically "people who don't consume as much Democrat-aligned media". It doesn't matter if Republicans try to appeal people outside the "base", because those people won't get the message. They will only get the message they get from the media, which in almost 100% of cases that I've looked into is completely different from what the Republicans actually said. They have no real choice.
    - xg15 6y ago
      If you're on the highway and you find that everyone else seems to drive on the wrong lane, it may be worth considering if it isn't you who is driving on the wrong lane.
      - edbob 6y ago