5 ms·

Not sure why you are downvoted. You raised a legit point. Facebook and Twitter are important communication channels for the public. It's dangerous that they c

Not sure why you are downvoted. You raised a legit point. Facebook and Twitter are important communication channels for the public. It's dangerous that they can ban any elected official without going through any single legal process. No judge. No jury. What we are doing here is a screaming match. Who can scream at Facebook/Twitter the loudest probably wins. This is going to turn into threats on FB/Twitter execs very quickly. You'll see. Why can't we have a due process for banning elected officials?

bebopcowboy 6y ago
He’s downvoted because this website’s users and it’s mod team are employed by the companies that the ACLU is condemning.
yoav 6y ago
Because Twitter/Facebook is private property and has no obligation to provide a platform for someone to overthrow democracy and incite more violence.
- ergocoder 6y ago
  I'm not familiar with the situation. That's why I ask for a due process like what we have with our justice system. You and I are free to criticize FB and Twitter. As I mention, now it depends on who screams the loudest. Let me get this right. You are against having a due process for banning elected leaders from a popular communication channel? You prefer we scream at each other until one wins? Really?
  - yoav 6y ago
    I don’t understand what you’re saying regarding due process or screaming until someone wins? Who’s screaming? A person was using a privately owned website to encourage people to go commit acts of violence against senators and congress representatives. That website did not want to be complicit in that violence so they removed access to those people. Eg. If you go into a coffee shop and start smashing windows and beating people up and rallying for people to murder each other the coffee shop doesn’t need “due process” to kick you out and ban you. There are laws that exist and twitter has a terms of service. There’s no due process needed. If anything Twitter should be criticized for not banning Trump sooner. They let him do so much damage and allowed it to get to this point for ad revenue and engagement. I’m glad they finally did something but frustrated they allowed it to get to this.
    - ergocoder 6y ago
      > Eg. If you go into a coffee shop and start smashing windows and beating people up and rallying for people to murder each other the coffee shop doesn’t need “due process” to kick you out and ban you. Then, the leader of that riot should go to jail for 25 years for murder, not simply "banned from coffee shop". Also, in a real situation, employees would first keep themselves safe and call police to handle the matter. In your imaginary situation, would you ask your minimum-wage employees to handle violence in the store? This is my point exactly. Twitter should just follow the law. If Trump breaks the law, then get a court order to remove him or call the police. Dorsey and Zuck shouldn't play police. Also, who's screaming? Just search on twitter. Dorsey and Zuck has been called Nazis, white supremacists, racists for not banning Trump.
  - yoav 6y ago
    If a person has a blog and someone comments on a blog post the author’s address and encourages other readers to attack them, is your position that there needs to be due process for the author to remove the comment? That’s not how freedom of speech works.
    - ergocoder 6y ago
      > is your position that there needs to be due process for the author to remove the comment? > That’s not how freedom of speech works. Judge can definitely order you to remove the comment. Also, an author's blog is not a popular communication channel like Twitter. Yes, I'm asking for a proper process of removing an elected leader from an important communication channel like Twitter.
sokoloff 6y ago
It seems like “the platform can suspend anyone”, “the platform can make those suspensions indefinite (making them a ban)”, and “the platform can be sued for reinstatement” is, more or less, what we have now and doesn’t strike me as particularly unreasonable or dangerous. If the POTUS is banned from NBC, surely they can still get their TV messages out, right?
- ergocoder 6y ago
  So, your position is that a business can ban anyone. AT&T can ban you because you like candy. Yes, candy is evil and destroys millions of teeth. And if someone is not satisfied, we should just scream at Dorsey until he caves.
  - yoav 6y ago
    So your position is that you can walk into any private business that offers free cookies (eg. A car dealership or bank) and then hold a rally to incite violence in that establishment and you believe they’d have to go to court to have you removed from their private property? Your twitter account is not a product. The product is sold to advertisers. And even the ads they will or won’t show has guidelines they are not legally forced to show ads that would incite violence. The legal argument being made in multiple threads about freedom of speech like this demonstrates that you all know literally nothing about freedom of speech or what it means
    - ergocoder 6y ago
      In your imaginary scenario, the shop owner would get to safety and call police to handle the matter. The shop owner wouldn't be the one who judge and come up with punishment. The justice system would do that. That's my position. Twitter is an important communication platform. And there should be a due process for banning an elected leader.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        Should Twitter have to go to court to ban an account because it happens to belong to some [elected] school committee member in some small town somewhere? If not, where do you draw the line? State governors? Town Mayors? Town School Committee Members?
MisterBastahrd 6y ago
Because if they used due process a lot of them would have been banned a long time ago. They let Trump get away with a CONSTANT stream of bullshit and insults over the last four years. Their PR people had to constantly engage the media to tell them that he only kept his account because he was POTUS. He isn't gonna be POTUS much longer, there are about 40 other platforms he can use, and he's got an entire press apparatus. I'm tired of this revisionist nonsense. Again: Trump and others would have been banned A LONG TIME AGO if they weren't elected officials who spent money on these platforms according to their TOSes.
- claytongulick 6y ago
  Have you actually read what the average twitter user posts? Almost all of what I see on there is magnitudes worse than anything I've seen Trump post, and yet there's no action against those users... This is clearly partisan politics. The ban hammer is not applied equally. I see unbelievable insults, direct calls for violence (from both sides), acrimonious, spiteful and hateful posts - with zero consequences. But Trump posts "go home peacefully" and he's banned? I don't know about you, but I've actually spent a lot of time reading Trump's Twitter feed. While I'm personally embarrassed about his lack of executive poise, and I disagree with most of what I've read, I've never seen anything that would come close to a call for violence, or many of the other things he's been accused of. Happy to read examples if you have some and I've just missed it.
  - 29athrowaway 6y ago
    If you interpret the situation in this manner, you really need to take a break from politics and try to engage into some activity that helps you develop some basic common sense. Stop thinking about political parties, and think about individuals, their role in society, their influence and the consequences of their actions. Sending a mob of radicalized people with mental issues to kidnap senators is a bad decision and he got rightfully punished for it.
    - ergocoder 6y ago
      > Sending a mob of radicalized people with mental issues to kidnap senators is a bad decision and he got rightfully punished for it. Yes! I'm not familiar with the situation. Can we have a due process like our justice system to assign blame? Should I just take your word (and the word of trump opposition)? Also, isn't it weird that, you claim, he is the leader of the riot into Capitol, and the punishment is being banned from social media?? Should this be like jailed for life or something?

bebopcowboy 6y ago

He’s downvoted because this website’s users and it’s mod team are employed by the companies that the ACLU is condemning.

yoav 6y ago

Because Twitter/Facebook is private property and has no obligation to provide a platform for someone to overthrow democracy and incite more violence.

ergocoder 6y ago
I'm not familiar with the situation. That's why I ask for a due process like what we have with our justice system. You and I are free to criticize FB and Twitter. As I mention, now it depends on who screams the loudest. Let me get this right. You are against having a due process for banning elected leaders from a popular communication channel? You prefer we scream at each other until one wins? Really?
- yoav 6y ago
  I don’t understand what you’re saying regarding due process or screaming until someone wins? Who’s screaming? A person was using a privately owned website to encourage people to go commit acts of violence against senators and congress representatives. That website did not want to be complicit in that violence so they removed access to those people. Eg. If you go into a coffee shop and start smashing windows and beating people up and rallying for people to murder each other the coffee shop doesn’t need “due process” to kick you out and ban you. There are laws that exist and twitter has a terms of service. There’s no due process needed. If anything Twitter should be criticized for not banning Trump sooner. They let him do so much damage and allowed it to get to this point for ad revenue and engagement. I’m glad they finally did something but frustrated they allowed it to get to this.
  - ergocoder 6y ago
    > Eg. If you go into a coffee shop and start smashing windows and beating people up and rallying for people to murder each other the coffee shop doesn’t need “due process” to kick you out and ban you. Then, the leader of that riot should go to jail for 25 years for murder, not simply "banned from coffee shop". Also, in a real situation, employees would first keep themselves safe and call police to handle the matter. In your imaginary situation, would you ask your minimum-wage employees to handle violence in the store? This is my point exactly. Twitter should just follow the law. If Trump breaks the law, then get a court order to remove him or call the police. Dorsey and Zuck shouldn't play police. Also, who's screaming? Just search on twitter. Dorsey and Zuck has been called Nazis, white supremacists, racists for not banning Trump.
- yoav 6y ago
  If a person has a blog and someone comments on a blog post the author’s address and encourages other readers to attack them, is your position that there needs to be due process for the author to remove the comment? That’s not how freedom of speech works.
  - ergocoder 6y ago
    > is your position that there needs to be due process for the author to remove the comment? > That’s not how freedom of speech works. Judge can definitely order you to remove the comment. Also, an author's blog is not a popular communication channel like Twitter. Yes, I'm asking for a proper process of removing an elected leader from an important communication channel like Twitter.

sokoloff 6y ago

It seems like “the platform can suspend anyone”, “the platform can make those suspensions indefinite (making them a ban)”, and “the platform can be sued for reinstatement” is, more or less, what we have now and doesn’t strike me as particularly unreasonable or dangerous. If the POTUS is banned from NBC, surely they can still get their TV messages out, right?

ergocoder 6y ago
So, your position is that a business can ban anyone. AT&T can ban you because you like candy. Yes, candy is evil and destroys millions of teeth. And if someone is not satisfied, we should just scream at Dorsey until he caves.
- yoav 6y ago
  So your position is that you can walk into any private business that offers free cookies (eg. A car dealership or bank) and then hold a rally to incite violence in that establishment and you believe they’d have to go to court to have you removed from their private property? Your twitter account is not a product. The product is sold to advertisers. And even the ads they will or won’t show has guidelines they are not legally forced to show ads that would incite violence. The legal argument being made in multiple threads about freedom of speech like this demonstrates that you all know literally nothing about freedom of speech or what it means
  - ergocoder 6y ago
    In your imaginary scenario, the shop owner would get to safety and call police to handle the matter. The shop owner wouldn't be the one who judge and come up with punishment. The justice system would do that. That's my position. Twitter is an important communication platform. And there should be a due process for banning an elected leader.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      Should Twitter have to go to court to ban an account because it happens to belong to some [elected] school committee member in some small town somewhere? If not, where do you draw the line? State governors? Town Mayors? Town School Committee Members?

MisterBastahrd 6y ago

Because if they used due process a lot of them would have been banned a long time ago. They let Trump get away with a CONSTANT stream of bullshit and insults over the last four years. Their PR people had to constantly engage the media to tell them that he only kept his account because he was POTUS. He isn't gonna be POTUS much longer, there are about 40 other platforms he can use, and he's got an entire press apparatus. I'm tired of this revisionist nonsense. Again: Trump and others would have been banned A LONG TIME AGO if they weren't elected officials who spent money on these platforms according to their TOSes.

claytongulick 6y ago
Have you actually read what the average twitter user posts? Almost all of what I see on there is magnitudes worse than anything I've seen Trump post, and yet there's no action against those users... This is clearly partisan politics. The ban hammer is not applied equally. I see unbelievable insults, direct calls for violence (from both sides), acrimonious, spiteful and hateful posts - with zero consequences. But Trump posts "go home peacefully" and he's banned? I don't know about you, but I've actually spent a lot of time reading Trump's Twitter feed. While I'm personally embarrassed about his lack of executive poise, and I disagree with most of what I've read, I've never seen anything that would come close to a call for violence, or many of the other things he's been accused of. Happy to read examples if you have some and I've just missed it.
- 29athrowaway 6y ago
  If you interpret the situation in this manner, you really need to take a break from politics and try to engage into some activity that helps you develop some basic common sense. Stop thinking about political parties, and think about individuals, their role in society, their influence and the consequences of their actions. Sending a mob of radicalized people with mental issues to kidnap senators is a bad decision and he got rightfully punished for it.
  - ergocoder 6y ago
    > Sending a mob of radicalized people with mental issues to kidnap senators is a bad decision and he got rightfully punished for it. Yes! I'm not familiar with the situation. Can we have a due process like our justice system to assign blame? Should I just take your word (and the word of trump opposition)? Also, isn't it weird that, you claim, he is the leader of the riot into Capitol, and the punishment is being banned from social media?? Should this be like jailed for life or something?