8 ms·

Is anyone concerned by the coordinated efforts of Facebook Google, Twitter, Discord, Reddit, and Apple today? If these groups and individuals that were banned

Is anyone concerned by the coordinated efforts of Facebook Google, Twitter, Discord, Reddit, and Apple today? If these groups and individuals that were banned were violating the TOS before, why did they leave them in place for so long? How do these companies decide when to enforce their rules, since obviously it's not immediately? And do they make deals with one another (I'll ban someone you don't like if you ban someone I don't like)?

burnthrow 6y ago
Okay, hear me out... maybe, just maybe, it's not a conspiracy, and you're the crazy one for not understanding basic common sense. Maybe.
- dang 6y ago
  Please stop posting flamewar comments to HN and taking threads further into hell. You've been doing it a lot lately, and it's exactly the opposite of what this site is supposed to be for. We ban accounts that do this, regardless of which politics they approve of or oppose. I'm not going to ban you because you've also been posting some good comments. But if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN in the intended spirit, we'd be grateful. The rules apply regardless of how wrong other people are or how badly they behave. The commons is fragile, especially right now, and we need community members to contribute to protecting it, not destroying it.
  - burnthrow 6y ago
    > taking threads further into hell Okay, you win, that's a good point. Tbh "don't take conversations further into hell" sounds like an excellent additional guideline, even if it can be read between the lines.
    - dang 6y ago
      Thanks for the suggestion. I'm using the hell metaphor increasingly—not for the happiest of reasons of course. What people need to remember is that hell has circles, and as bad as the current situation is, the inner circles are considerably worse.
another_sock 6y ago
That is a conspiracy theory. You need to be medicated and deplatformed.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sn_master 6y ago
  I am afraid to ask if your comment is serious or sarcasm
  - another_sock 6y ago
    Well it's sarcasm in this case, but it won't be when you see it elsewhere.
  - sixothree 6y ago
    I recognized it as sarcasm. But I've had people quote movies I love and I completely missed the sarcasm/citation because things are really just so crazy.
- tjr225 6y ago
  Theyre free to find another platform or make their own. Nice try though.
  - another_sock 6y ago
    Yes and when AWS shuts them down and ISPs block them, they are free to make their own servers and ISPs. And when the financial system shuts down their banking and all of their family members' and public supporters' banking, they are free to create a new banking system as well (assuming they can pay the regulatory fees and have people lobbying for them of course)
    - nr2x 6y ago
      As a brilliant billionaire businessman with three cable news networks behind him I’m sure he’ll survive.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
- another_sock 6y ago
  Do you have a link from a state-sanctioned and social media site approved source where I can read about this?
  - wtfiswiththis 6y ago
    Clutch those treasonous pearls of yours.
scrollaway 6y ago
Are you implying it's "not a coincidence"? Because of course it's not. The bigger companies (twitter, facebook) minimized risk of fallout by waiting until DT's time in power was up and there was a good opportunity to do what they wanted (Jan 6th events), and the other companies are just following in their footsteps while it makes good PR. It's kinda like when BLM was hot in the news and companies decided to paint their logo black. They didn't suddenly care about racism, they just chose an opportune time and had the excuse that other players were already doing it. It's pretty pathetic yeah. In this case, better late than never, but still really fucking late..
- baby 6y ago
  How is that pathetic?
  - scrollaway 6y ago
    It's pathetic, imo, that companies like twitter and facebook pretend to take a principled stand, when they chose not to take that same stand EARLIER when it was riskier to do so (but made a lot more sense). What happened here is opportunistic, not principled. There were plenty of other cases i can think of where companies did take riskier stands after evaluating pros and cons (cloudflare springs to mind). Those you can call principled.
  - craftinator 6y ago
    By waiting for the time when it was a "good PR move" to show support for BLM, they are signaling that they don't actually support BLM (if they did, they would've shown their support before), they actually just support having a good public image. Basically, they are just full of shit and are willing to hop on whatever bandwagon makes them look the best.
- cmroanirgo 6y ago
  >DT's time in power was up Isn't his time up on Jan 20? It really looks like collusion to this Aussie (me), who has no stake in the game. > while it makes good PR. I'm sure there's quite a few million Trump voters who would disagree it's good PR. As mercurial as he's been, he is still the sitting president of the country which lauds itself as the greatest (personally I disagree with the latter assessment). So, what does it mean when the tech companies have put a gag on their own sitting leader? From the outside it looks very humorous (probably more humorous than what Mr Trump has been in the past 4 years!)
Fordec 6y ago
Reacting to the same public news is not coordination. It's reaction by logical actors coming to the same conclusion.
tjr225 6y ago
Only concerned that they didn’t act sooner.
mmastrac 6y ago
The point at which lame duck presidents start fanning the flames of insurrection seems like a great marker for when to decide. Not hard.
ng12 6y ago
It's very concerning. This is a coordinated political action with unprecedented scale. You may agree with the action this time, next time you may not.
- bun_at_work 6y ago
  Do you have any evidence that it's coordinated? Twitter banned some stuff temporarily the other day, now they upgrade those bans and add some more. Google removes parler from the Play Store today, a different action (not banning trump). Apple didn't ban anything, but is considering it. These seem like different actions by different companies, responding to the same news. Also, pedantic as it may be, it's not political action. These companies are not political entities. Just because groups of people communicate about politics on the platform doesn't make them political. What we are seeing is major internet companies responding to and banning perpetrators of treason and sedition, of domestic terrorism.
  - artificialLimbs 6y ago
    "These companies are not political entities" Every time I get on Twitter or Facebook, or my friends or family get on Twitter or Facebook, the sites are filled to overflowing with HEAVY liberal bias. They may not 'be' political entities, but they certainly swing hard in one direction.
    - sn_master 6y ago
      I agree. Same goes for Reddit too, or the big subreddits atleast.
    - afuchs 6y ago
      > ... the sites are filled to overflowing with HEAVY liberal bias ... This very subjective and probably different person to person especially given AI driven filters and the ability to choose who to follow or friend on these sites. When I check one of the sites you mentioned, I see almost exclusively voices from the American right-wing. On the other one, it's significantly more moderate but with some opposing viewpoints from either extreme thrown in. It all depends on who someone friends or follows and what the filter chooses to show. Of course, this ignores what "liberal bias" is, which is a subjective determination that varies according to the bias of whomever makes such a determination. Although, this is a distraction from the question raised early in this thread. of whether some coordination happened behind the scenes or if these bans are a result of distinct actions in response to the same circumstances.
gamblor956 6y ago
The tipping point was probably the revelation earlier today that multiple right-wing seditionist groups are planning to go back to DC on the 17th, but with weapons. (https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Live-updates-U-S-Capitol-on-lockdown-as-Trump-15850771.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Live-updates-U-...) If Wednesday wasn't enough to make it clear that Trump's rhetoric was inciteful, that news was.
lsiebert 6y ago
Well, probably because the rhetoric was presumed entirely rhetorical, and then Trump supporters including white supremacists invaded the Capital building talking about hunting down members of congress to ensure Trump's victory and 5 people died. And I don't think they had deals, it's more like nobody wants to be the last place where Trump is posting.
wtfiswiththis 6y ago
No. They led a coup. There should be hangings. End of discussion.
- 4234 6y ago
  There's a bizarre paradox where progressives, who normally favor decrminalization and rehabilitation over punishment, to the point that some of them endorse not just police abolition, but prison abolition as well, instead demand only the harshest punishments available when the criminals happen to be white rightwingers--and especially when their victims, if any, are black.
happytoexplain 6y ago
A historic event occurred - how could you take that to mean it was coordinated?
- shripadk 6y ago
  A historic event for whom? The United States right? Social Media operates in 100+ countries. What happened in USA is historic for you maybe. Not for us. USA is not the World. Regimes fall every now and then. Coup attempts happen all the time. I have never seen media or social media ban any Government account over it. I guess Social Media has a different conscience for when regime change/coup-d'etat happens in say Iraq vs when it happens in USA. What this has done is set a very bad precedent. The Big Tech is acting like Supranational Powers overriding what Elected Governments can and cannot do. Remember that the transfer of power hasn't completed yet. Trump is still the elected President of USA until 20th of January. If Big Tech can do this to a sitting elected President, it can do it to anyone else. No Government in the World is safe from Big Tech censorship.
  - getlawgdon 6y ago
    stop. so naive. trump has all kinds of media to use. in this case he was an irresponsible user and he was cut off, as happens all day long. just stop with the bloviation.
    - shripadk 6y ago
      > stop. so naive. trump has all kinds of media to use. in this case he was an irresponsible user and he was cut off, as happens all day long. just stop with the bloviation. I can't argue with dumbness. Big Tech literally has unlimited powers. What kind of media does Trump have? Nothing. You haven't thought it through. Every platform will keep banning Trump because of popular opinion. This is a very fucked up precedent. Today it is Trump, tomorrow it can be Biden. It can be Clinton. It can be any President/Prime Minister in the World. It can be any Government. It can be any Dictator. Unlimited power doesn't discriminate. It is not bloviation but just your inability to think it through as you want your short term issue to be resolved. This is how we enabled surveillance and become accustomed to it. We will become accustomed to censorship as well. Like a frog in slow boiling water.
sixothree 6y ago
I think we're all learning new facts about the events this week. It's not entirely surprising to me other than one company doing it gives the rest "permission" to follow suit.
nr2x 6y ago
It’s a proactive measure. There is likely more to come.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wokwokwok 6y ago
Sure, but if you want these companies to not just do whatever the hell they want, then make a law about it. Ultimately, if a company is answerable to no one except themselves, then what do you expect is going to happen? They're just protecting their own interests. You use the platform; you accept the TOS. You accept the arbitrary enforcement of the TOS. That's how it works on every platform right now. Right? Wrong? I don't know... but I'll tell you what I do know: a) I'm not surprised, and b) there is zero chance this will change without legal compulsion. So right now, concerned or not, it is what it is. Suck it up, or accept legislative change; you can't have it both ways.
threatofrain 6y ago
Even the heads of state for Canada, the UK, and Germany all attributed blame for Trump, which is diplomatically very unusual for allied nations.
coordN8 6y ago
They decide based upon the same criteria everyone uses; how close a threat is to their power, self agency... Trump attempting to overthrow the election is much more of a threat to Twitter than Trump being an otherwise typical GOP rage monger until now
maxerickson 6y ago
The slope doesn't get slipperier just because you find out you are standing on it. There probably is a reckoning to be had about how access to social media is mediated, that social media companies have demonstrated the technical ability and willingness to do it doesn't limit future options to regulate how they do it.
Triv888 6y ago
Companies in the US are an arm of the machine and Trump is unfortunately (for him) an outsider and not a career politician.

burnthrow 6y ago

Okay, hear me out... maybe, just maybe, it's not a conspiracy, and you're the crazy one for not understanding basic common sense. Maybe.

dang 6y ago
Please stop posting flamewar comments to HN and taking threads further into hell. You've been doing it a lot lately, and it's exactly the opposite of what this site is supposed to be for. We ban accounts that do this, regardless of which politics they approve of or oppose. I'm not going to ban you because you've also been posting some good comments. But if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN in the intended spirit, we'd be grateful. The rules apply regardless of how wrong other people are or how badly they behave. The commons is fragile, especially right now, and we need community members to contribute to protecting it, not destroying it.
- burnthrow 6y ago
  > taking threads further into hell Okay, you win, that's a good point. Tbh "don't take conversations further into hell" sounds like an excellent additional guideline, even if it can be read between the lines.
  - dang 6y ago
    Thanks for the suggestion. I'm using the hell metaphor increasingly—not for the happiest of reasons of course. What people need to remember is that hell has circles, and as bad as the current situation is, the inner circles are considerably worse.

another_sock 6y ago

That is a conspiracy theory. You need to be medicated and deplatformed.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sn_master 6y ago
I am afraid to ask if your comment is serious or sarcasm
- another_sock 6y ago
  Well it's sarcasm in this case, but it won't be when you see it elsewhere.
- sixothree 6y ago
  I recognized it as sarcasm. But I've had people quote movies I love and I completely missed the sarcasm/citation because things are really just so crazy.
tjr225 6y ago
Theyre free to find another platform or make their own. Nice try though.
- another_sock 6y ago
  Yes and when AWS shuts them down and ISPs block them, they are free to make their own servers and ISPs. And when the financial system shuts down their banking and all of their family members' and public supporters' banking, they are free to create a new banking system as well (assuming they can pay the regulatory fees and have people lobbying for them of course)
  - nr2x 6y ago
    As a brilliant billionaire businessman with three cable news networks behind him I’m sure he’ll survive.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

another_sock 6y ago
Do you have a link from a state-sanctioned and social media site approved source where I can read about this?
- wtfiswiththis 6y ago
  Clutch those treasonous pearls of yours.

scrollaway 6y ago

Are you implying it's "not a coincidence"? Because of course it's not. The bigger companies (twitter, facebook) minimized risk of fallout by waiting until DT's time in power was up and there was a good opportunity to do what they wanted (Jan 6th events), and the other companies are just following in their footsteps while it makes good PR. It's kinda like when BLM was hot in the news and companies decided to paint their logo black. They didn't suddenly care about racism, they just chose an opportune time and had the excuse that other players were already doing it. It's pretty pathetic yeah. In this case, better late than never, but still really fucking late..

baby 6y ago
How is that pathetic?
- scrollaway 6y ago
  It's pathetic, imo, that companies like twitter and facebook pretend to take a principled stand, when they chose not to take that same stand EARLIER when it was riskier to do so (but made a lot more sense). What happened here is opportunistic, not principled. There were plenty of other cases i can think of where companies did take riskier stands after evaluating pros and cons (cloudflare springs to mind). Those you can call principled.
- craftinator 6y ago
  By waiting for the time when it was a "good PR move" to show support for BLM, they are signaling that they don't actually support BLM (if they did, they would've shown their support before), they actually just support having a good public image. Basically, they are just full of shit and are willing to hop on whatever bandwagon makes them look the best.
cmroanirgo 6y ago
>DT's time in power was up Isn't his time up on Jan 20? It really looks like collusion to this Aussie (me), who has no stake in the game. > while it makes good PR. I'm sure there's quite a few million Trump voters who would disagree it's good PR. As mercurial as he's been, he is still the sitting president of the country which lauds itself as the greatest (personally I disagree with the latter assessment). So, what does it mean when the tech companies have put a gag on their own sitting leader? From the outside it looks very humorous (probably more humorous than what Mr Trump has been in the past 4 years!)

Fordec 6y ago

Reacting to the same public news is not coordination. It's reaction by logical actors coming to the same conclusion.

tjr225 6y ago

Only concerned that they didn’t act sooner.

mmastrac 6y ago

The point at which lame duck presidents start fanning the flames of insurrection seems like a great marker for when to decide. Not hard.

ng12 6y ago

It's very concerning. This is a coordinated political action with unprecedented scale. You may agree with the action this time, next time you may not.

bun_at_work 6y ago
Do you have any evidence that it's coordinated? Twitter banned some stuff temporarily the other day, now they upgrade those bans and add some more. Google removes parler from the Play Store today, a different action (not banning trump). Apple didn't ban anything, but is considering it. These seem like different actions by different companies, responding to the same news. Also, pedantic as it may be, it's not political action. These companies are not political entities. Just because groups of people communicate about politics on the platform doesn't make them political. What we are seeing is major internet companies responding to and banning perpetrators of treason and sedition, of domestic terrorism.
- artificialLimbs 6y ago
  "These companies are not political entities" Every time I get on Twitter or Facebook, or my friends or family get on Twitter or Facebook, the sites are filled to overflowing with HEAVY liberal bias. They may not 'be' political entities, but they certainly swing hard in one direction.
  - sn_master 6y ago
    I agree. Same goes for Reddit too, or the big subreddits atleast.
  - afuchs 6y ago
    > ... the sites are filled to overflowing with HEAVY liberal bias ... This very subjective and probably different person to person especially given AI driven filters and the ability to choose who to follow or friend on these sites. When I check one of the sites you mentioned, I see almost exclusively voices from the American right-wing. On the other one, it's significantly more moderate but with some opposing viewpoints from either extreme thrown in. It all depends on who someone friends or follows and what the filter chooses to show. Of course, this ignores what "liberal bias" is, which is a subjective determination that varies according to the bias of whomever makes such a determination. Although, this is a distraction from the question raised early in this thread. of whether some coordination happened behind the scenes or if these bans are a result of distinct actions in response to the same circumstances.

gamblor956 6y ago

The tipping point was probably the revelation earlier today that multiple right-wing seditionist groups are planning to go back to DC on the 17th, but with weapons. (https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Live-updates-U-S-Capitol-on-lockdown-as-Trump-15850771.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Live-updates-U-...) If Wednesday wasn't enough to make it clear that Trump's rhetoric was inciteful, that news was.

lsiebert 6y ago

Well, probably because the rhetoric was presumed entirely rhetorical, and then Trump supporters including white supremacists invaded the Capital building talking about hunting down members of congress to ensure Trump's victory and 5 people died. And I don't think they had deals, it's more like nobody wants to be the last place where Trump is posting.

wtfiswiththis 6y ago

No. They led a coup. There should be hangings. End of discussion.

4234 6y ago
There's a bizarre paradox where progressives, who normally favor decrminalization and rehabilitation over punishment, to the point that some of them endorse not just police abolition, but prison abolition as well, instead demand only the harshest punishments available when the criminals happen to be white rightwingers--and especially when their victims, if any, are black.

happytoexplain 6y ago

A historic event occurred - how could you take that to mean it was coordinated?

shripadk 6y ago
A historic event for whom? The United States right? Social Media operates in 100+ countries. What happened in USA is historic for you maybe. Not for us. USA is not the World. Regimes fall every now and then. Coup attempts happen all the time. I have never seen media or social media ban any Government account over it. I guess Social Media has a different conscience for when regime change/coup-d'etat happens in say Iraq vs when it happens in USA. What this has done is set a very bad precedent. The Big Tech is acting like Supranational Powers overriding what Elected Governments can and cannot do. Remember that the transfer of power hasn't completed yet. Trump is still the elected President of USA until 20th of January. If Big Tech can do this to a sitting elected President, it can do it to anyone else. No Government in the World is safe from Big Tech censorship.
- getlawgdon 6y ago
  stop. so naive. trump has all kinds of media to use. in this case he was an irresponsible user and he was cut off, as happens all day long. just stop with the bloviation.
  - shripadk 6y ago
    > stop. so naive. trump has all kinds of media to use. in this case he was an irresponsible user and he was cut off, as happens all day long. just stop with the bloviation. I can't argue with dumbness. Big Tech literally has unlimited powers. What kind of media does Trump have? Nothing. You haven't thought it through. Every platform will keep banning Trump because of popular opinion. This is a very fucked up precedent. Today it is Trump, tomorrow it can be Biden. It can be Clinton. It can be any President/Prime Minister in the World. It can be any Government. It can be any Dictator. Unlimited power doesn't discriminate. It is not bloviation but just your inability to think it through as you want your short term issue to be resolved. This is how we enabled surveillance and become accustomed to it. We will become accustomed to censorship as well. Like a frog in slow boiling water.

sixothree 6y ago

I think we're all learning new facts about the events this week. It's not entirely surprising to me other than one company doing it gives the rest "permission" to follow suit.

nr2x 6y ago

It’s a proactive measure. There is likely more to come.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

wokwokwok 6y ago

Sure, but if you want these companies to not just do whatever the hell they want, then make a law about it. Ultimately, if a company is answerable to no one except themselves, then what do you expect is going to happen? They're just protecting their own interests. You use the platform; you accept the TOS. You accept the arbitrary enforcement of the TOS. That's how it works on every platform right now. Right? Wrong? I don't know... but I'll tell you what I do know: a) I'm not surprised, and b) there is zero chance this will change without legal compulsion. So right now, concerned or not, it is what it is. Suck it up, or accept legislative change; you can't have it both ways.

threatofrain 6y ago

Even the heads of state for Canada, the UK, and Germany all attributed blame for Trump, which is diplomatically very unusual for allied nations.

coordN8 6y ago

They decide based upon the same criteria everyone uses; how close a threat is to their power, self agency... Trump attempting to overthrow the election is much more of a threat to Twitter than Trump being an otherwise typical GOP rage monger until now

maxerickson 6y ago

The slope doesn't get slipperier just because you find out you are standing on it. There probably is a reckoning to be had about how access to social media is mediated, that social media companies have demonstrated the technical ability and willingness to do it doesn't limit future options to regulate how they do it.

Triv888 6y ago

Companies in the US are an arm of the machine and Trump is unfortunately (for him) an outsider and not a career politician.