7 ms·

Trump’s Twitter Exile Spurs Opposition from Germany, France

72 points by FDS 6y ago

trident5000 6y ago
I'm looking past Trump. The tech cartel can not only decide which party wins elections, they can decide which candidates within the winning party keep their seats. And they are getting more and more desperate to shape politics as they run from anti-trust. For me its too much power.
- GarrisonPrime 6y ago
  A fair enough opinion, and a worthy discussion. But this particular issue of Trump’s Twitter suspension is clearly about not giving delusional lunatics more fodder for their actions, rather than silencing Trump. Edit: I’m not siding with or against Twitter here. Whether their decision was wise or not certainly needs to be discussed. I’m just pointing out that “silencing the lunatic in the White House” isn’t the only potential explanation for their suspension of Trump’s account.
  - benrbray 6y ago
    I think it's dangerous to start banning politicians from using a public (even if privately owned) platform, especially when it plays into their narrative of oppression. Let him incriminate himself further until he's no longer a public official, then ban his personal account. I especially don't agree with their decision to hide all of his past posts. If they allowed it to stay up for so long, it should remain permanently as part of the political context of this time period.
  - trident5000 6y ago
    My issue here is that while I agree Trump is goofy and id like to see him go, the definitions of what is and is not dangerous ultimately is up to a handful of unelected corporate employees. Those definitions are and will more so align with corporate strategy and a bottom line. And while its not a freedom of speech issue in the strict legal sense, it is by a practical matter.
    - GarrisonPrime 6y ago
      I agree that is an issue, and should be discussed. I didn’t mean to imply Twitter’s decision was plainly correct.
  - ttt0 6y ago
    And you think that banning him didn't do that? I am supposed to believe that they were so considered that he might say something that might cause some actions, but they didn't considered at all what their action of banning him will cause?
    - GarrisonPrime 6y ago
      That’s worthy of discussion. I’m not siding with or against Twitter here. Just saying the issue isn’t as one-sided as many might like to believe it is.
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    "But this particular issue of Trump’s Twitter suspension is clearly about not giving delusional lunatics more fodder for their actions" I believe that the effects of this permaban (and the seemingly coordinated effort to purge the Internet of Parler) will be pretty much the opposite, reenforcing paranoia about unelected tyrants more powerful than any office holder in the U.S.
skrowl 6y ago
The fact that Europeans are standing up for free speech while the United States is not speaks volumes to how things have changed in the US over the last few decades. Have our politics really gone so far down the "Win at all costs! Censor all other opinions!" rabbit hole that speech here is now less free than Europe? Before you parrot the "but.. but... inciting violence" talking point in reply, try to find an actual source of President Trump calling for violence on Twitter. Don't believe everything you read.
- asutekku 6y ago
  "when the looting starts the shooting starts"
  - literallycancer 6y ago
    Sounds like an OK policy to me.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  "but.. but... inciting violence" is a very strange insult.
- smitty1e 6y ago
  One point I hope all take away from this startling turn of events is just how thin our veneer of civilization really is. There are truly dangerous voices afoot these days, but I don't think Trump among them.
- Spiwux 6y ago
  I think a private business should be able to chose their customers and decline business for any reason A much bigger issue is the fact that public opinion and discourse happens exclusively on private platforms who each have their own interests
  - commandlinefan 6y ago
    I think that they should then be held liable for any harm caused by what they choose to keep.
VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
But don't Germany and France both have actual laws against offensive speech on the internet that allows the government itself to compel social media websites to delete people's content? Their feigned concern over Twitter excercising its 1st Amendment rights seems a bit hypocritical here.
- krona 6y ago
  The thing about the law is that it is supposed to be applied universally; it's kinda like some kind of prerequisite for 'justice'.
- user-the-name 6y ago
  > German Chancellor Angela Merkel objected to the decisions, saying on Monday that lawmakers should set the rules governing free speech and not private tech companies. It's the second paragraph of the article.
  - Arnt 6y ago
    The US law laws for free speech, and it has societal norms, too. What norms people expect to apply in the fora they use, most prominently Facebook. So they haven't updated their laws to match the current society's norms, and the result is that Facebook has to write rules for something approximating all of society. That cannot be simple for Facebook, and I think it's a bit cowardly of the two big parties that neither of them have really tried to bring the law into harmony with current perception of justice and acceptability.
    - V-2 6y ago
      Is "current perception" really common, or just what the loudest voices demand? And even if it is common, in my opinion the very idea of free speech is that it may go beyond the commonly held notions of acceptability. It seems kind of pointless otherwise - what's widely accepted already shouldn't really need much protection. Eg. penalization of blasphemy in theocratic societies surely passes the test of "freedom of speech" if you define it that way.
refurb 6y ago
Hilarious that Europe, who takes a much more measured approach to free speech has concerns with big tech’s censorship. When Europe starts to worry about free speech that says something as to how far America has fallen.
- user-the-name 6y ago
  > German Chancellor Angela Merkel objected to the decisions, saying on Monday that lawmakers should set the rules governing free speech and not private tech companies. This is about who gets to make the decisions, not what the decisions are.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Right. That was her point. Free speech is at risk when it’s Zuckerberg making the call.
    - osgovernment 6y ago
      Does that mean if I call my boss names and he fires me, he is censoring my free speech? Now apply that to Facebook. Facebook isn't censoring free speech and the definition of free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want and not have any repercussions.
  - osgovernment 6y ago
    I'd be much more worried about governments telling me what I can/can't say, rather than private companies not letting me use their platforms to say it.
    - minipci1321 6y ago
      lawmakers != government
    - user-the-name 6y ago
      So you'd prefer being silenced by people who you have no control over, rather than a government you elected?
dmwallin 6y ago
Having the government govern free speech doesn't get you free speech. If the problem is social media companies that are so large they suck up all the air in the room then solve THAT problem and enforce existing anti-monopoly laws.
- shortandsweet 6y ago
  It doesn't get you free speech but what it does give is power to the people to decide. Elections of those law makers. There is no avenue for the people in the current model.
  - qzw 6y ago
    I would be very wary of giving even more power to those who already have plenty of power. Also, there's no constitutional right to an audience. Everyone that gets kicked off of Twitter can continue to say anything they like, but they don't get to access the built-in audience that Twitter provides.
    - shortandsweet 6y ago
      Says who? You? Me? Twitter? The board? The US government? The judges? The legislators? The executives? Potus?
- Frost1x 6y ago
  I tend to agree with this sentiment. Unfortunately, I think even outside the oligopolies of tech, we have another underlying issue where even in a competitive market, market consensus can arrive that runs counter to democratic ideals. I'd be surprised if all the tech providers actively coordinated on this. I'd be more willing to believe they all saw Trump as a threat to business and an overhanging risk for their business they tackled at an opportune time. One or two set the stage for the market (Twitter and Facebook) and then the rest followed through based on observed market feedback from Twitter/Facebook's actions, arriving at a concensus to censor Trump. To be very clear, I don’t like Trump whatsoever and think he has clearly manipulated masses of people for years. At the same time, I don't think Trump directly violated policies. He's largely acted in the questionable grey areas of culture and society to push his will and has been quite effective at it. This really brings into question underlying foundational principles surrounding free speech limitations and free speech protections, privatized communications' role in modern political discussions (essential to democracy), how we protect against oligopies or natural market consensus that may be harmful to underlying foundations to democracy, and so forth. In this case I think we saw the oligopies and market concensus actually help democracy by protecting against a ridiculous yet growing insurrection attempt. What happens if that control or market consensus shifts to help businesses over consumers or general citizens of the US? There's clearly a lot of unchecked power here that needs to be corralled.
btbuildem 6y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Twitter didn't shut down an elected president's account (@potus), they permanently banned this particular individual's personal account. But yeah, unchecked corporate power coming home to roost. Personally I believe Nazis should be gagged not given megaphones, but this can affect anyone. Personally, I think Twitter et al. are acting on advice of counsel, not wanting to be considered an accessory to insurrection. It's telling that despite being called out on their hypocrisy (allowing trump to incite violence for years), the bans come now, after the balance of power in the US shifted to DEM.
- Someone1234 6y ago
  > Correct me if I'm wrong, but Twitter didn't shut down an elected president's account (@potus) That's wrong. They shutdown the ability to post on @potus and deleted tweets[0]. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-twitter-removal/twitter-deletes-new-trump-tweets-on-potus-suspends-campaign-account-idUSKBN29E02H https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-twitte...
bovermyer 6y ago
What if the EU collectively built a government-run social network? EDIT: This is a hypothetical situation, meant to evoke thought.
newbie578 6y ago
> German Chancellor Angela Merkel objected to the decisions, saying on Monday that lawmakers should set the rules governing free speech and not private tech companies. Fair point, I would rather have Merkel decide what can be said than Jack Dorsey. At least Merkel was democratically elected, while Jack is... I would rather not say it, but I do recommend to people to read the book "Hatching Twitter"..
bsradcliffe 6y ago
You don't have guaranteed freedom of speech. You only have your speech protected from government infringement. Twitter is not the government, and you waived your rights in their terms of service. Giving society complete freedom is like asking for a body to exist without an immune system--cancerous ideas and movements will exist unchecked and feast on more of society. Stop. Saying. You. Need. More. Freedom.
- amadeuspagel 6y ago
  Like most defenses of tech censorship, this is really an defense of any kind of censorship, whether by private companies or the government. If there's really no way of dealing with "cancerous ideas" other then censorship, then why entrust this vital job to tech companies?
yalogin 6y ago
I don’t get the rationale used there. A president is not forced to use Twitter or any other social media. If they choose to use it then they have to abide by the rules of the platform, and the platform should impose the rules as they see fit. Forcing the platform to change the rules because of a special person is a slippery slope.
- muro 6y ago
  That worked before these platforms were defacto monopolies. Now that they are, there should be different rules. When twitter or Facebook remove someone, it has a huge impact on the individual at no cost to the tech company. With their size, there should be responsibilities to society too, not just shareholders.
- slowmovintarget 6y ago
  Right. The President of the United States has the "Bully pulpit" from which to talk. This Twitter thing was because we had a person in office who ignored the dignity of office in favor of tweeting because he didn't like his people telling him he shouldn't say certain things. He never should've been tweeting while in office in the first place.
- souprock 6y ago
  He does, uniquely, have alternatives: https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-circumvents-twitter-ban-with-emergency-alert-system/ https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-circumvents-twitter-ban-wi...
muro 6y ago
It would be nice if the outcome of this shitstorm were the introduction and enforcement of right to not be removed at will from these services. They are pretty much monopolies now and what worked when they were small is causing too much damage to others as they are big.
blunte 6y ago
Had Trump not been President, he would have been ejected long ago for violating Twitter standards and terms. One could argue that it was unreasonable for Twitter to give him special extra leeway compared to other users, up until it finally decided it did not have to continue making special concessions for him. Of course the tech companies which provide platforms must do some enforcement of the content being presented by its users. If that content is illegal in a given jurisdiction, then the tech company can face penalties or complete shutdown if it does not make an effort to police its users. The difficulty comes in deciding what speech should be allowed and which should be suppressed. Even without the governmental legal jeopardy the companies face, the US is a very litigious land. Anyone with a motivated lawyer or enough money can sue the platform for enabling speech that they find personally damaging. And of course with content "owned" by an entity, that entity can sue the platform for allowing their content to be distributed illegally. If [edit typo carification: if you] setup an account on xing.com (German LinkedIn-like service) and put as your profile description that the Holocaust never happened, you can be sure the platform will suppress your speech or kick you off completely. It is hypocritical for Merkel to point at Twitter when she surely supports similar tech powers locally.
qzw 6y ago
Checks and balances. Power must be distributed as widely as possible because concentration of power will always eventually lead to abuses. The problem in the US is that for decades, the executive branch of the government has been getting too powerful relative to the other branches, especially the legislature. At the same time, too much power has accrued to big companies and ultra-wealthy individuals. We've been seeing and will continue to see the consequences of these long term trends.
noodles_nomore 6y ago
Clearly censoring political speech is an issue that cuts right to the heart of democracy. The idea that corporations should be in control of public discourse is foreign to us. Government embodies the will of the people through democracy enabled by free and fair discourse and so it has the sole authority to set the rules of discourse in the name of the people and there is no devious feedback loop at all.
- tatersolid 6y ago
  > The idea that corporations should be in control of public discourse is foreign to us. This has been the case since the founding f the nation. Those businesses which controlled the printing presses, radio, and then television transmitters have always controlled the public discourse. Add datacenters to that list.
golondon 6y ago
I wonder if there is a decision that can make everyone happy. If social media companies didn't do anything, they would get blamed for not doing anything to prevent what's happened in the Capitol building. If they do something, then the freedom of speech argument comes in. Not an expert on freedom of online speech by any means, but how come private companies saying what the US president does is violation of their policy is a freedom of speech issue? When this happens to an ordinary user of the platform, is it freedom of speech issue as well? You accept terms and conditions when you signup, it's as simple as that. Why being the US president should give you right to be exempt from that policy? If US president wants to talk, it has its official channels, he can organize meeting every day that they can host 100s of journalists. If US president wants he can write whatever he wants at his website. I really don't understand why political leaders continuously picture things like social media websites are the only medium the president can talk at? I have criticism for the social media sites tho, if the president of where I'm from was doing what Trump has been doing I'm pretty sure they wouldn't give a damn and wouldn't take any actions. If social media companies want people to believe to their policies, they must apply them to everyone.
nikk1 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- ttt0 6y ago
  Paradox of Human Rights
- disgu 6y ago
  Popper also specifically said: "I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise."
  - nikk1 6y ago
    A large part of Trump's message is that the election results are fraudulent, despite having no evidence to support that claim. Instead, he writes on social media to incite violence at our nation's capitol building... Now we are at risk of overturning an election based on a mere accusation - aren't we past the point where our president is willing to have a rational argument?
NullInvictus 6y ago
Trump can still write whatever he wants. He can still publish through the White House press. He can contact press, or communicate as American Presidents have always done. He is not being forcibly gagged as a whole. He has freedom to speak, just not where he pleases. I feel like people are conflating "Freedom of Speech" with the "Freedom of Platform". This is an important difference. If I send a letter to Bloomberg or The New York Times, no one would find it surprising or wrong when they decided to not publish it (for ANY reason). If I violate their commenter section policies, they remove it and no one blinks. They decide what's on their platform without answer. I am not against the idea of governments guaranteeing certain freedoms and access to platforms, but they currently do not exist as far as I understand. Saying some right has been newly violated is somewhat silly, especially given that the subject in question is a member of a political party who has fought tooth-and-nail to preserve this exact right for businesses -- to arbitrarily chose who they do business with. That is what we're contending with. TL;DR: The discussion needs to be recentered.
traveler01 6y ago
I guess they're concerned on having private companies deciding what should be considered as free speech or not. Let's see what will come from this.
sa111 6y ago
Right now the discomfort, if not outright outrage over the Twitter and FB bans tells you that they have long crossed into the space where they are a utility, and that means they need to be subject to extensive regulations, not unlike airlines and telecom companies. The modern state is based on the exclusive authority of the state to be violent, and the final dispenser of rights. When a private utility takes away the right to digital expression, which is a pretty fundamental right in the 2020s, one could make a pretty solid case that Trump's free speech rights have been taken away by private individuals or corps without a court ruling on it. Digital rights are (at the moment) not covered by any of the articles in the constitution, nor is it covered by any UN or multi-lateral conventions, so this event may lead to some changes. The point here is not about whether it was right or wrong to muzzle Trump & his supporters, but whether a private corp has the same rights as a court to affect individual freedom.
sleepysysadmin 6y ago
The republicans are being banned from: Amazon, Apple store, Discord, facebook, google play, instagram, pinterest, reddit, shopify, snapchat, tiktok, twitch, twitter, and youtube. Many of these weren't places trump or republicans really were. They are just banning trump supporters. As republicans left those platforms, big tech also removed the new place Parler in a coordinated method. With shortage on servers, they aren't going to be getting back up and running anytime soon. At the end of the day this isn't about censorship. Trump for all it matters could post to his own website. He's not stopped from getting out his message. The more important reality here is that big tech clearly played their cards. What used to be a political divide that was entirely democrats is now both. If you thought the political divide in the USA was bad before the election. It's now worse than ever. This is about silencing political opposition. Oh and in the next 2 years you can expect the NRA will be disbanding. Right to bear arms will be getting shut down. What do you think the republicans are going to do? I don't know. Will it be civil war? I dont think so. How about the election in 2 years? Anyone think there will be a free and fair election?
cosmiccatnap 6y ago
xkcd.com/1357/

72 points by FDS 6y ago

I'm looking past Trump. The tech cartel can not only decide which party wins elections, they can decide which candidates within the winning party keep their seats. And they are getting more and more desperate to shape politics as they run from anti-trust. For me its too much power.

GarrisonPrime 6y ago
A fair enough opinion, and a worthy discussion. But this particular issue of Trump’s Twitter suspension is clearly about not giving delusional lunatics more fodder for their actions, rather than silencing Trump. Edit: I’m not siding with or against Twitter here. Whether their decision was wise or not certainly needs to be discussed. I’m just pointing out that “silencing the lunatic in the White House” isn’t the only potential explanation for their suspension of Trump’s account.
- benrbray 6y ago
  I think it's dangerous to start banning politicians from using a public (even if privately owned) platform, especially when it plays into their narrative of oppression. Let him incriminate himself further until he's no longer a public official, then ban his personal account. I especially don't agree with their decision to hide all of his past posts. If they allowed it to stay up for so long, it should remain permanently as part of the political context of this time period.
- trident5000 6y ago
  My issue here is that while I agree Trump is goofy and id like to see him go, the definitions of what is and is not dangerous ultimately is up to a handful of unelected corporate employees. Those definitions are and will more so align with corporate strategy and a bottom line. And while its not a freedom of speech issue in the strict legal sense, it is by a practical matter.
  - GarrisonPrime 6y ago
    I agree that is an issue, and should be discussed. I didn’t mean to imply Twitter’s decision was plainly correct.
- ttt0 6y ago
  And you think that banning him didn't do that? I am supposed to believe that they were so considered that he might say something that might cause some actions, but they didn't considered at all what their action of banning him will cause?
  - GarrisonPrime 6y ago
    That’s worthy of discussion. I’m not siding with or against Twitter here. Just saying the issue isn’t as one-sided as many might like to believe it is.
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  "But this particular issue of Trump’s Twitter suspension is clearly about not giving delusional lunatics more fodder for their actions" I believe that the effects of this permaban (and the seemingly coordinated effort to purge the Internet of Parler) will be pretty much the opposite, reenforcing paranoia about unelected tyrants more powerful than any office holder in the U.S.

skrowl 6y ago

The fact that Europeans are standing up for free speech while the United States is not speaks volumes to how things have changed in the US over the last few decades. Have our politics really gone so far down the "Win at all costs! Censor all other opinions!" rabbit hole that speech here is now less free than Europe? Before you parrot the "but.. but... inciting violence" talking point in reply, try to find an actual source of President Trump calling for violence on Twitter. Don't believe everything you read.

asutekku 6y ago
"when the looting starts the shooting starts"
- literallycancer 6y ago
  Sounds like an OK policy to me.
happytoexplain 6y ago
"but.. but... inciting violence" is a very strange insult.
smitty1e 6y ago
One point I hope all take away from this startling turn of events is just how thin our veneer of civilization really is. There are truly dangerous voices afoot these days, but I don't think Trump among them.
Spiwux 6y ago
I think a private business should be able to chose their customers and decline business for any reason A much bigger issue is the fact that public opinion and discourse happens exclusively on private platforms who each have their own interests
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  I think that they should then be held liable for any harm caused by what they choose to keep.

VWWHFSfQ 6y ago

But don't Germany and France both have actual laws against offensive speech on the internet that allows the government itself to compel social media websites to delete people's content? Their feigned concern over Twitter excercising its 1st Amendment rights seems a bit hypocritical here.

krona 6y ago
The thing about the law is that it is supposed to be applied universally; it's kinda like some kind of prerequisite for 'justice'.
user-the-name 6y ago
> German Chancellor Angela Merkel objected to the decisions, saying on Monday that lawmakers should set the rules governing free speech and not private tech companies. It's the second paragraph of the article.
- Arnt 6y ago
  The US law laws for free speech, and it has societal norms, too. What norms people expect to apply in the fora they use, most prominently Facebook. So they haven't updated their laws to match the current society's norms, and the result is that Facebook has to write rules for something approximating all of society. That cannot be simple for Facebook, and I think it's a bit cowardly of the two big parties that neither of them have really tried to bring the law into harmony with current perception of justice and acceptability.
  - V-2 6y ago
    Is "current perception" really common, or just what the loudest voices demand? And even if it is common, in my opinion the very idea of free speech is that it may go beyond the commonly held notions of acceptability. It seems kind of pointless otherwise - what's widely accepted already shouldn't really need much protection. Eg. penalization of blasphemy in theocratic societies surely passes the test of "freedom of speech" if you define it that way.

refurb 6y ago

Hilarious that Europe, who takes a much more measured approach to free speech has concerns with big tech’s censorship. When Europe starts to worry about free speech that says something as to how far America has fallen.

user-the-name 6y ago
> German Chancellor Angela Merkel objected to the decisions, saying on Monday that lawmakers should set the rules governing free speech and not private tech companies. This is about who gets to make the decisions, not what the decisions are.
- refurb 6y ago
  Right. That was her point. Free speech is at risk when it’s Zuckerberg making the call.
  - osgovernment 6y ago
    Does that mean if I call my boss names and he fires me, he is censoring my free speech? Now apply that to Facebook. Facebook isn't censoring free speech and the definition of free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want and not have any repercussions.
- osgovernment 6y ago
  I'd be much more worried about governments telling me what I can/can't say, rather than private companies not letting me use their platforms to say it.
  - minipci1321 6y ago
    lawmakers != government
  - user-the-name 6y ago
    So you'd prefer being silenced by people who you have no control over, rather than a government you elected?

dmwallin 6y ago

Having the government govern free speech doesn't get you free speech. If the problem is social media companies that are so large they suck up all the air in the room then solve THAT problem and enforce existing anti-monopoly laws.

shortandsweet 6y ago
It doesn't get you free speech but what it does give is power to the people to decide. Elections of those law makers. There is no avenue for the people in the current model.
- qzw 6y ago
  I would be very wary of giving even more power to those who already have plenty of power. Also, there's no constitutional right to an audience. Everyone that gets kicked off of Twitter can continue to say anything they like, but they don't get to access the built-in audience that Twitter provides.
  - shortandsweet 6y ago
    Says who? You? Me? Twitter? The board? The US government? The judges? The legislators? The executives? Potus?
Frost1x 6y ago
I tend to agree with this sentiment. Unfortunately, I think even outside the oligopolies of tech, we have another underlying issue where even in a competitive market, market consensus can arrive that runs counter to democratic ideals. I'd be surprised if all the tech providers actively coordinated on this. I'd be more willing to believe they all saw Trump as a threat to business and an overhanging risk for their business they tackled at an opportune time. One or two set the stage for the market (Twitter and Facebook) and then the rest followed through based on observed market feedback from Twitter/Facebook's actions, arriving at a concensus to censor Trump. To be very clear, I don’t like Trump whatsoever and think he has clearly manipulated masses of people for years. At the same time, I don't think Trump directly violated policies. He's largely acted in the questionable grey areas of culture and society to push his will and has been quite effective at it. This really brings into question underlying foundational principles surrounding free speech limitations and free speech protections, privatized communications' role in modern political discussions (essential to democracy), how we protect against oligopies or natural market consensus that may be harmful to underlying foundations to democracy, and so forth. In this case I think we saw the oligopies and market concensus actually help democracy by protecting against a ridiculous yet growing insurrection attempt. What happens if that control or market consensus shifts to help businesses over consumers or general citizens of the US? There's clearly a lot of unchecked power here that needs to be corralled.

btbuildem 6y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Twitter didn't shut down an elected president's account (@potus), they permanently banned this particular individual's personal account. But yeah, unchecked corporate power coming home to roost. Personally I believe Nazis should be gagged not given megaphones, but this can affect anyone. Personally, I think Twitter et al. are acting on advice of counsel, not wanting to be considered an accessory to insurrection. It's telling that despite being called out on their hypocrisy (allowing trump to incite violence for years), the bans come now, after the balance of power in the US shifted to DEM.

Someone1234 6y ago
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but Twitter didn't shut down an elected president's account (@potus) That's wrong. They shutdown the ability to post on @potus and deleted tweets[0]. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-twitter-removal/twitter-deletes-new-trump-tweets-on-potus-suspends-campaign-account-idUSKBN29E02H https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-twitte...

bovermyer 6y ago

What if the EU collectively built a government-run social network? EDIT: This is a hypothetical situation, meant to evoke thought.

newbie578 6y ago

> German Chancellor Angela Merkel objected to the decisions, saying on Monday that lawmakers should set the rules governing free speech and not private tech companies. Fair point, I would rather have Merkel decide what can be said than Jack Dorsey. At least Merkel was democratically elected, while Jack is... I would rather not say it, but I do recommend to people to read the book "Hatching Twitter"..

bsradcliffe 6y ago

You don't have guaranteed freedom of speech. You only have your speech protected from government infringement. Twitter is not the government, and you waived your rights in their terms of service. Giving society complete freedom is like asking for a body to exist without an immune system--cancerous ideas and movements will exist unchecked and feast on more of society. Stop. Saying. You. Need. More. Freedom.

amadeuspagel 6y ago
Like most defenses of tech censorship, this is really an defense of any kind of censorship, whether by private companies or the government. If there's really no way of dealing with "cancerous ideas" other then censorship, then why entrust this vital job to tech companies?

yalogin 6y ago

I don’t get the rationale used there. A president is not forced to use Twitter or any other social media. If they choose to use it then they have to abide by the rules of the platform, and the platform should impose the rules as they see fit. Forcing the platform to change the rules because of a special person is a slippery slope.

muro 6y ago
That worked before these platforms were defacto monopolies. Now that they are, there should be different rules. When twitter or Facebook remove someone, it has a huge impact on the individual at no cost to the tech company. With their size, there should be responsibilities to society too, not just shareholders.
slowmovintarget 6y ago
Right. The President of the United States has the "Bully pulpit" from which to talk. This Twitter thing was because we had a person in office who ignored the dignity of office in favor of tweeting because he didn't like his people telling him he shouldn't say certain things. He never should've been tweeting while in office in the first place.
souprock 6y ago
He does, uniquely, have alternatives: https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-circumvents-twitter-ban-with-emergency-alert-system/ https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-circumvents-twitter-ban-wi...

muro 6y ago

It would be nice if the outcome of this shitstorm were the introduction and enforcement of right to not be removed at will from these services. They are pretty much monopolies now and what worked when they were small is causing too much damage to others as they are big.

blunte 6y ago

Had Trump not been President, he would have been ejected long ago for violating Twitter standards and terms. One could argue that it was unreasonable for Twitter to give him special extra leeway compared to other users, up until it finally decided it did not have to continue making special concessions for him. Of course the tech companies which provide platforms must do some enforcement of the content being presented by its users. If that content is illegal in a given jurisdiction, then the tech company can face penalties or complete shutdown if it does not make an effort to police its users. The difficulty comes in deciding what speech should be allowed and which should be suppressed. Even without the governmental legal jeopardy the companies face, the US is a very litigious land. Anyone with a motivated lawyer or enough money can sue the platform for enabling speech that they find personally damaging. And of course with content "owned" by an entity, that entity can sue the platform for allowing their content to be distributed illegally. If [edit typo carification: if you] setup an account on xing.com (German LinkedIn-like service) and put as your profile description that the Holocaust never happened, you can be sure the platform will suppress your speech or kick you off completely. It is hypocritical for Merkel to point at Twitter when she surely supports similar tech powers locally.

qzw 6y ago

Checks and balances. Power must be distributed as widely as possible because concentration of power will always eventually lead to abuses. The problem in the US is that for decades, the executive branch of the government has been getting too powerful relative to the other branches, especially the legislature. At the same time, too much power has accrued to big companies and ultra-wealthy individuals. We've been seeing and will continue to see the consequences of these long term trends.

noodles_nomore 6y ago

Clearly censoring political speech is an issue that cuts right to the heart of democracy. The idea that corporations should be in control of public discourse is foreign to us. Government embodies the will of the people through democracy enabled by free and fair discourse and so it has the sole authority to set the rules of discourse in the name of the people and there is no devious feedback loop at all.

tatersolid 6y ago
> The idea that corporations should be in control of public discourse is foreign to us. This has been the case since the founding f the nation. Those businesses which controlled the printing presses, radio, and then television transmitters have always controlled the public discourse. Add datacenters to that list.

golondon 6y ago

I wonder if there is a decision that can make everyone happy. If social media companies didn't do anything, they would get blamed for not doing anything to prevent what's happened in the Capitol building. If they do something, then the freedom of speech argument comes in. Not an expert on freedom of online speech by any means, but how come private companies saying what the US president does is violation of their policy is a freedom of speech issue? When this happens to an ordinary user of the platform, is it freedom of speech issue as well? You accept terms and conditions when you signup, it's as simple as that. Why being the US president should give you right to be exempt from that policy? If US president wants to talk, it has its official channels, he can organize meeting every day that they can host 100s of journalists. If US president wants he can write whatever he wants at his website. I really don't understand why political leaders continuously picture things like social media websites are the only medium the president can talk at? I have criticism for the social media sites tho, if the president of where I'm from was doing what Trump has been doing I'm pretty sure they wouldn't give a damn and wouldn't take any actions. If social media companies want people to believe to their policies, they must apply them to everyone.

nikk1 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

ttt0 6y ago
Paradox of Human Rights
disgu 6y ago
Popper also specifically said: "I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise."
- nikk1 6y ago
  A large part of Trump's message is that the election results are fraudulent, despite having no evidence to support that claim. Instead, he writes on social media to incite violence at our nation's capitol building... Now we are at risk of overturning an election based on a mere accusation - aren't we past the point where our president is willing to have a rational argument?

NullInvictus 6y ago

Trump can still write whatever he wants. He can still publish through the White House press. He can contact press, or communicate as American Presidents have always done. He is not being forcibly gagged as a whole. He has freedom to speak, just not where he pleases. I feel like people are conflating "Freedom of Speech" with the "Freedom of Platform". This is an important difference. If I send a letter to Bloomberg or The New York Times, no one would find it surprising or wrong when they decided to not publish it (for ANY reason). If I violate their commenter section policies, they remove it and no one blinks. They decide what's on their platform without answer. I am not against the idea of governments guaranteeing certain freedoms and access to platforms, but they currently do not exist as far as I understand. Saying some right has been newly violated is somewhat silly, especially given that the subject in question is a member of a political party who has fought tooth-and-nail to preserve this exact right for businesses -- to arbitrarily chose who they do business with. That is what we're contending with. TL;DR: The discussion needs to be recentered.

traveler01 6y ago

I guess they're concerned on having private companies deciding what should be considered as free speech or not. Let's see what will come from this.

sa111 6y ago

Right now the discomfort, if not outright outrage over the Twitter and FB bans tells you that they have long crossed into the space where they are a utility, and that means they need to be subject to extensive regulations, not unlike airlines and telecom companies. The modern state is based on the exclusive authority of the state to be violent, and the final dispenser of rights. When a private utility takes away the right to digital expression, which is a pretty fundamental right in the 2020s, one could make a pretty solid case that Trump's free speech rights have been taken away by private individuals or corps without a court ruling on it. Digital rights are (at the moment) not covered by any of the articles in the constitution, nor is it covered by any UN or multi-lateral conventions, so this event may lead to some changes. The point here is not about whether it was right or wrong to muzzle Trump & his supporters, but whether a private corp has the same rights as a court to affect individual freedom.

sleepysysadmin 6y ago

The republicans are being banned from: Amazon, Apple store, Discord, facebook, google play, instagram, pinterest, reddit, shopify, snapchat, tiktok, twitch, twitter, and youtube. Many of these weren't places trump or republicans really were. They are just banning trump supporters. As republicans left those platforms, big tech also removed the new place Parler in a coordinated method. With shortage on servers, they aren't going to be getting back up and running anytime soon. At the end of the day this isn't about censorship. Trump for all it matters could post to his own website. He's not stopped from getting out his message. The more important reality here is that big tech clearly played their cards. What used to be a political divide that was entirely democrats is now both. If you thought the political divide in the USA was bad before the election. It's now worse than ever. This is about silencing political opposition. Oh and in the next 2 years you can expect the NRA will be disbanding. Right to bear arms will be getting shut down. What do you think the republicans are going to do? I don't know. Will it be civil war? I dont think so. How about the election in 2 years? Anyone think there will be a free and fair election?

cosmiccatnap 6y ago

xkcd.com/1357/