4 ms·

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

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!)
- scrollaway 6y ago
  His time is up on Jan 20th but since early November and with each passing day, his influence has grown weaker and his power has been waning. It's not a 100-to-0 thing. Two weeks before the end of the term is just about as late as you can take such an action, short of taking it after the 21st (which twitter was rumored to be waiting for). > what does it mean when the tech companies have put a gag on their own sitting leader? I can ban my country's president from my own software platform if the mood strikes me. The reason twitter is different is because of the massive audience. What does it mean, indeed. I'm kinda looking forward to the republican reaction to this, maybe suddenly they'll care about the fact that media companies have insane amounts of power in the US.
- danaris 6y ago
  The man incited a coup attempt two days ago. This isn't collusion, it's responding to current events.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  > Isn't his time up on Jan 20? It really looks like collusion to this Aussie (me), who has no stake in the game. Jumping on a bandwagon isn’t collusion. Twitter started by fact checking him back in November. Other sites followed. Over time, Twitter got more aggressive about it before banning him. Now everyone else isn’t the first to ban, so it’s not as “scary” to do so. It took as long as it did because no one wanted to take that “first step”.
  - collyw 6y ago
    >Twitter started by fact checking him back in November. "This claim is disputed", yet the Flat Earth Societies page remained unchallenged. It's clearly political bias more than a search for the truth.

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!)

scrollaway 6y ago
His time is up on Jan 20th but since early November and with each passing day, his influence has grown weaker and his power has been waning. It's not a 100-to-0 thing. Two weeks before the end of the term is just about as late as you can take such an action, short of taking it after the 21st (which twitter was rumored to be waiting for). > what does it mean when the tech companies have put a gag on their own sitting leader? I can ban my country's president from my own software platform if the mood strikes me. The reason twitter is different is because of the massive audience. What does it mean, indeed. I'm kinda looking forward to the republican reaction to this, maybe suddenly they'll care about the fact that media companies have insane amounts of power in the US.
danaris 6y ago
The man incited a coup attempt two days ago. This isn't collusion, it's responding to current events.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
colejohnson66 6y ago
> Isn't his time up on Jan 20? It really looks like collusion to this Aussie (me), who has no stake in the game. Jumping on a bandwagon isn’t collusion. Twitter started by fact checking him back in November. Other sites followed. Over time, Twitter got more aggressive about it before banning him. Now everyone else isn’t the first to ban, so it’s not as “scary” to do so. It took as long as it did because no one wanted to take that “first step”.
- collyw 6y ago
  >Twitter started by fact checking him back in November. "This claim is disputed", yet the Flat Earth Societies page remained unchallenged. It's clearly political bias more than a search for the truth.