13 ms·
Ron Paul locked out of his Facebook page
- drak0n1c 6y agoFor context, his weekly column published today: http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2021/january/11/the-war-on-terror-comes-home/ http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2021/...
- im3w1l 6y agoWas it published before or after the ban?
- drak0n1c 6y agoBefore, it’s the “Texas Talk” mentioned in his second Tweet.
- JasonFruit 6y agoThat's highly appropriate.
- ulucs 6y ago>Yes, this is partly an attempt to erase the Trump movement from the pages of history, but it is also an attempt to silence any criticism of the emerging political consensus in the coming Biden era that may come from progressive or antiwar circles. Getting banned right after saying this just shows that he's right. Combined with how DNC blocked Sanders and Gabbard, the next four years is going to be very bad for the rest of the world.
- xster 6y ago#LetYangSpeak
- naebother 6y agoidk, I think this time round the "war on terror" will be directed more inwards.
- midasz 6y ago> the next four years is going to be very bad for the rest of the world As someone from the ROTW I can tell you we're thrilled that Trump is leaving. It's been 4 years of uncertainty, foul rhetoric, blatant lying and cronyism. Trump sought the line and the line was drawn. Would it be better if it hadn't come to it? Yeah I think so. But we're waaaaay past that.
- bzb6 6y agoExactly. As someone from Europe I shiver at the thought of trump leaving the presidency. Biden will restart the wars and flood Europe with economic migra... I mean refugees once again.
- skinkestek 6y agoI also very much loved that he got NATO countries including mkne to start paying again. After what we saw in Georgia and Crimea somebody had to raise their voice and get us all to listen.
- TwoBit 6y ago> President Trump’s permanent ban from Twitter and other outlets – was shocking and chilling, particularly to those of us who value free expression and the free exchange of ideas. The justifications given for the silencing of wide swaths of public opinion made no sense That's all I need to read in order to dismiss anything further that he says.
- Anon1096 6y agoI look forward to the EFF and the ACLU getting their pages shut down then. Even they've come out and stated that we should be chilled with Parler's shutout. Oh wait, we all know that won't happen.
- turing_complete 6y agoI am not a big fan of Ron Paul, nor do I agree with much of the column, but getting banned for this is ridiculous.
- jl2718 6y ago> Because no army – not even Big Tech partnered with Big Government - can stop an idea This is more hopeful than conclusively factual. It seems pretty clear that platform owners believe very strongly that they can and should or must. It’s the must part that concerns me. Jack’s free-speaking interviews don’t imply any personal desire for censorship. He’s even spoken to the need for a decentralized Twitter. Maybe the most important part of this quote is that Ron Paul explicitly implies a partnership where none so far is understood, and at this point such an implication is certainly on the fringe of conspiracy theories. And if you think about all of the POTUS death threats that have built massive audiences on the platform, it’s an extremely confusing and/or deeply troubling accusation. Who is this ‘Big Government’, and why would they seem to hate the one person that most Americans most closely associate with that term? I guess the big question is whether censorship exists to protect powerless people from lies, or powerful people from the truth.
- boxmonster 6y ago> Those who continue to argue that the social media companies are purely private ventures acting independent of US government interests are ignoring reality. The corporatist merger of “private” US social media companies with US government foreign policy goals has a long history Says Facebook is an arm of the government advancing shady goals and murderous drone attacks then wonders why he got blocked
- axiosgunnar 6y agoYou are kind of proving his point: you are narrowing the window of acceptable opinion not to merely exclude "kill all X" but to also forbid stances like "Big Tech helps advance US gov interests overseas“. How can one not see the Orweillian direction this all seems to be taking?
- eyelidlessness 6y agoAh yes, the classic Orwell quote: “if you want a picture of the future, imagine a foot stamping on a human face that could voluntarily go somewhere else to post their nonsense without consequence—forever.”
- Fellshard 6y agoExcept it's been made quite clear now that no other alternatives will be accepted; even the slightest misstep or lack of proper curation and/or censorship of content, and you will be stripped of your ability to run your site.
- cecja 6y agoSlightest misstep LMAO look at the parler dump and search for hitler, kill, hang Pence/Romney/AOC/Pelosi and you find over THREE million hits. The hyperbole is on you or you are complicit in inciting violent action vs the president elect, the vice president, the senate and the house.
- 8note 6y ago
- youeseh 6y agoThe current administration: - rescinded net neutrality, which helped FAANG companies. - threatened to break up Big Tech. - has anti-China policies, which reduces Big Tech's customer base. The new administration may be reversing all of the above.
- offby37years 6y agoAnd worryingly, former Democratic Party staffers fill FAANG ranks, e.g. Andy Stone who is now Facebook’s policy communications manager: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-10-18/facebook-twitter-google-can-t-be-good-censors-of-politics https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-10-18/facebo...
- drak0n1c 6y agoBig Tech was already largely banned from market entry in China before the current administration.
- mschuster91 6y ago> has anti-China policies, which reduces Big Tech's customer base. Biden has already said he will not reverse the China policy - quite the contrary, unlike Trump who only resorted to bullying tactics (aka trade/tariff war), Biden intends to work out a China policy with allied countries (i.e. NATO / European Union) that will aim at changing the abusive practices China is doing, per https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/02/opinion/biden-interview-mcconnell-china-iran.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/02/opinion/biden-interview-m... .
- razius 6y agoWhat he says and does are two different things.
- yed 6y agoNet neutrality prevents ISPs from performing exactly this kind of censorship.
- 6y ago
- tptacek 6y agoThey really need to be explicit about why they did this. Twitter and Facebook have been right about banning DJT and the "Stop The Steal" conspiracists, but they've also spent social capital by doing it, and their reserves are very, very low. (I think Ron Paul is a problematic character and not at all the idealist he's portrayed as by his fervid followers, but that doesn't matter here in the least).
- Erlich_Bachman 6y ago> have been right about banning DJT In what way have they been right? What has he written that is against their policies, or against a sane policy? Like I legitimately want to hear, what adequate reasons to you think they had to ban him? I haven't been able to find any, at all. Or is your definition of "right" just referring to the fact that it's their private platform and they can ban whoever they want based on their own political views?
- jayd16 6y agoTwitter themselves go into it in detail. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... Essentially, supporting a violent insurrection into the capital building was the line.
- razius 6y agoKinda like BLM attacking federal buildings, occupying land and declaring it independent?
- Erlich_Bachman 6y agoWhat they quote is the tweet “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” That's what he got banned for? I don't have all the details, but it sure looks similar to the autoritarian governments and police forces locking people up because "they know they meant it". There is no appeal to violence in that tweet. Just because some nutjob can interpret anything like an appeal, doesn't mean it's an appeal. That was literally 1 of two tweets that god him banned, the first just describing a generic Trump tirade about his supporters. How can anyone honestly think this is democratic behavior to ban someone over two tweets that have no appeal to violence? I don't care about pro-trump or anti-trump, but this is political censorship.
- Andys 6y agoSo we've already moved on to just closing off voices we don't like the sound of? Or did he actually do something Trump-like?
- donny2018 6y agoThe definition of what is “Trump-like” is now going to become more and more deliberate, I’m afraid.
- redisman 6y agoIs there a Facebook press release or something? Seems baffling
- rapsey 6y agoIt seems the platforms have become an extension of the democratic party. Seems very short sighted to me. Maybe they are being strong armed by their overwhelmingly democratic employees.
- TwoBit 6y agoNot nearly as much as Fox and OAN are extensions of the Republican party. These platforms have allowed Trump and QAnon etc. go on for years and when they finally put their foot down they are unreasonable? It's Fox's corporate policy to be an extension of the GOP.
- rapsey 6y agoA TV channel is not the same as a social network. One broadcasts their ideology, the other is a platform for discussion. Like it or not social networks are the modern day way of people to assemble. They are flirting with some very real consequences down the line. Maybe they are bold due to democrats winning both houses and presidency. But that will not last forever. The CEOs of these companies are not stupid, so my theory is they are being strong armed. Either by their employees or directly by the democratic party.
- jeofken 6y agoIt’s time to leave behind the idea of non partial social network. Just like CNN and NYT are left-wing media, so is Facebook and Twitter
- boc 6y agoThis isn't a debate of ideas or words anymore. One side went full kinetic against the government, with the intention of preventing the democratic transition of power to the Biden administration. Enabling sedition has real consequences now, and it is in the best interest of the shareholders of any corporation to defend the government which provides legal and institutional legitimacy to your enterprise. That's why CEOs are making this calculation, not because they are being influenced by liberal employees. There is zero guarantee that the "MAGA Republic" would continue to let Facebook or Twitter continue to operate.
- cush 6y agoThese kinds of actions only fan the big tech conspiracy flames, but surely if it's true that he never actually received a violation, then his account got 1000s of reports and was auto-locked. Everyone needs to chill out.
- akvadrako 6y agoThis doesn't have anything to do with a traditional conspiracy, in the sense that it doesn't require secret coordination between actors. It's just about how all these left-wing platforms are acting at the same time to silence those they disagree with.
- smsm42 6y agoI'm sure he was inciting violent extreme domestic terrorist treason by criticizing the previous bans. Nod and move along, comrade, or you'll be next.
- liquidify 6y agoThis is looking more and more like a coordinated censorship attack against people who have power and who don't think the same way as the "left".
- ceilingcorner 6y agoFrom Paul’s weekly post: Many Americans viewed this assault on social media accounts as a liberal or Democrat attack on conservatives and Republicans, but they are missing the point. The narrowing of allowable opinion in the virtual public square is no conspiracy against conservatives. As progressives like Glenn Greenwald have pointed out, this is a wider assault on any opinion that veers from the acceptable parameters of the mainstream elite, which is made up of both Democrats and Republicans. This is what Americans need to understand. Democrat vs. Republican, right vs. left are smokescreens designed to distract you from actual issues. The real divide is more like legacy institutional technocracy vs. local-focused democracy. In real terms: Trump and Sanders are mirror images of each other, not opposites. Both basically have/had the same populist platform with different implementations.
- agumonkey 6y agoOne is untelligible and the other is at least. But maybe in action they end up creating the same politics and systems.
- ceilingcorner 6y agoI think if you look at pre-2016 Trump and Sanders, before both got eaten up by their respective political machines, their larger platforms are actually quite similar.
- agumonkey 6y agoI can accept that fact but still.. one is making actual sentences.
- ceilingcorner 6y agoI don’t disagree, but my comment was more about policies. Presidents as people are much less influential than the policies they enact.
- 6y ago
- rvn1045 6y agoI am still stunned that tech company ceos have not given interviews to the media explaining their decision. Their actions have huge consequences and we're not even pressuring them to explain why they're doing what they're doing.
- RachelF 6y agoA cynic would say that tech companies are ingratiating themselves with the new power, the Democrats, in order to get clemency on the anti-trust probes everyone was expecting for 2021.
- xtracto 6y agoOh yeah, but when the pendulum swings the other way in a couple of years (and it will) they will be screwed. For Republicans, corps have clear that they have a side and its against Republicans. It's the disadvantage of corporations getting into politics.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ianai 6y agoMore cynical: no one cares what those ceos have to say, yet
- maxehmookau 6y agoA hardcore libertarian is complaining that a private company booted him off their service and didn't give an explanation? Give me a break.
- stareatgoats 6y agoFirst of all we don't know the details here: quite possibly this could be one of the following (non-exhaustive): either a overzealous and politically motivated MAGA moderator who thought that barring Ron Paul could be a great way to make a point and cause a backlash that swings the pendulum back to giving conspiracy nuts a free rein again. Or, a politically ignorant moderator that wanted to score some points for achieving a perceived but misunderstood, objective. Or, an automated response to a coordinated flood of reports by an anti-libertarian brigade. Or, an automated response to a flood of comments calling for the execution of the VP, a flood of pornographic pictures by a community brigade or the like. Or, it could be a conscious effort by top brass on FB to punish Ron Paul on their platform for criticizing tech censorship. Out of which the last one seems the least probable, but in lieu of an official and forthright response from FB everyone is free to speculate wildly. But agree, it is ironic that Ron Paul complains about it. It is almost as if he really wants FB to behave like a public utility type service. Maybe it's time they did.
- aksss 6y agoI think the hardcore libertarian is complaining that oligopolies embedded with the inbound political administration are collaborating to shut out oppositional voices. Not seeing any contradiction with first principles of free markets and liberty there.
- rorykoehler 6y agoWhat will happen in a libertarian system where everyone can do whatever they please?
- aksss 6y agoPardon me, but this is a non-sequitur. Even in a politically anarchic system not everyone does as they please.
- npunt 6y agoLack of clarity on these actions doesn't do anyone any good. On issues of moderation judgment calls are almost always necessary, but in return they should be coupled with some transparency and clear rationale, else it looks arbitrary or even retributive. Whether or not people agree with the decision, we know exactly why Trump and several others got blocked this past week. This on the other hand is a case where rationale is currently unclear, and in that information vacuum people will fill in the gaps with their own ideas which are almost always going to cause them to trust the brand less.
- tjansen 6y agoI am just watching this unfold from a few thousand miles away, but if you ask me, big tech is helping the democrats block all opposition. Even before Trump was blocked, what I found really scary was blocking Unity 2020 (https://articlesofunity.org/ https://articlesofunity.org/). That movement was as far away from radicalism as any movement can be. Yet they got blocked because it could have hurt the Democrat victory. Now, by blocking Trump and other republicans, they are just sealing the deal and make clear that nothing goes without big tech approval.
- underyx 6y agoUnity 2020 was blocked for creating a follow & retweet ring as per a /r/unity2020 post's instructions. Then they tried to act like social media was silencing them, which I really didn't like and will remember if these people start a similar project in 2024. I found a post that's still up with similar instructions[0]. "Follow everyone @Tweet4Unity follows" is not allowed and as someone who worked on Twitter disinformation analysis, I can say would immediately show up as a botnet. [0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/BretWeinstein/comments/igst14/looking_for_recruits_to_join_the_unity_2020/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BretWeinstein/comments/igst14/looki...
- tjansen 6y agoThanks, didn't know that.
- Taurenking 6y agoThe USA is going on a path that is quite similar to CCP's "one party one rule" system and they're not even aware of it
- jmcguckin 6y agoFb, Amazon, Apple and Google ought to keep in mind that the Dems won’t be in control forever. Past history shows that one party controls the presidency for only 1 or 2 terms, the it flips. When the Republicans are back in control, I doubt they will have forgotten the attempted suppression by these tech companies and will be looking for some payback.
- cosmiccatnap 6y agoxkcd.com/1357/
- jokethrowaway 6y agoThis doesn't affect only major politicians. Random anecdote: A libertarian friend got his facebook page banned because they wrote a book about covid (which criticised governments handling of the situation in their country).
- JohnCohorn 6y agoI listen to him occasionally. He is a natural contrarian and has said things at various time that would likely be against social media policies. For example he had segments on his “Liberty Report” that encouraged mask skepticism and other such misguided things about dealing with Covid that he should know better about, being a former medical doctor. I very much doubt he’s said anything in support of the recent insurrections though, he’s incredibly anti-war and generally promoting peace. IMO he has deteriorated mentally in recent years and has become significantly more kooky, which is a shame because IMO there are some things he’s been very right about and he’s almost the only one advocating for certain things.
- mchusma 6y agoThey banned Ron Paul? This is getting insane. He is so far outside the Trump camp. He was the only person to vote against the Iraq war. His voice is a voice of peace and classical liberal values. You might disagree with him, but to ban him is just insane.