3 ms·

Not 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 finall

by TwoBit 6y ago

Not 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 ago
A 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 ago
  It’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 ago
  This 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.
  - rapsey 6y ago
    > One side went full kinetic against the government, with the intention of preventing the democratic transition of power to the Biden administration. Please. They were a bunch of bafoons who got too far because the law enforcement was not staffed enough at the area. All I'm seeing is a bunch of private companies doing a job that should be up to law enforcement. The idiots successfully turned around a widespread condemnation and political suicide of Trump into a debate on their power.
  - aksss 6y ago
    > One side went full kinetic In 2017 a leftist gunman (2016 presidential campaign volunteer) shot up a group of federal Republican legislators, hitting one in a ten minute gun battle with Capitol police. Hitting only one wasn’t a failure of intent but of the gunman’s skills. I’m not linking the events, but considering that a literal (not hyperbolic) deliberate mass assassination attempt was carried out on Republican congressional leaders in 2017, isn’t it a bit disingenuous to say that “one side went full kinetic”.
    - boc 6y ago
      The difference is in the reaction. Bernie Sanders and other members of the progressive caucus immediately condemned the lone wolf attack in very clear terms. The reaction of the president to the Wednesday attack was far different and will likely encourage future acts of violence. Twitter didn't ban Bernie Sanders because he 1) never encouraged the attack and 2) responded appropriately. Twitter banned Trump because he played a part in encouraging the attack and then didn't genuinely condemn the attacks. That's why these two scenarios are very different.
      - aksss 6y ago
        There are many reasons the scenarios are different. I’m calling out the fallacy in saying “one side went full kinetic”. This point has nothing to do with Twitter. This is about violent rhetoric leading to violent action, and a false supposition that “one side” in this has no history of violent political action (e.g. clean hands) in comparison to the other.

by TwoBit 6y ago

rapsey 6y ago

A 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 ago
It’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 ago
This 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.
- rapsey 6y ago
  > One side went full kinetic against the government, with the intention of preventing the democratic transition of power to the Biden administration. Please. They were a bunch of bafoons who got too far because the law enforcement was not staffed enough at the area. All I'm seeing is a bunch of private companies doing a job that should be up to law enforcement. The idiots successfully turned around a widespread condemnation and political suicide of Trump into a debate on their power.
- aksss 6y ago
  > One side went full kinetic In 2017 a leftist gunman (2016 presidential campaign volunteer) shot up a group of federal Republican legislators, hitting one in a ten minute gun battle with Capitol police. Hitting only one wasn’t a failure of intent but of the gunman’s skills. I’m not linking the events, but considering that a literal (not hyperbolic) deliberate mass assassination attempt was carried out on Republican congressional leaders in 2017, isn’t it a bit disingenuous to say that “one side went full kinetic”.
  - boc 6y ago
    The difference is in the reaction. Bernie Sanders and other members of the progressive caucus immediately condemned the lone wolf attack in very clear terms. The reaction of the president to the Wednesday attack was far different and will likely encourage future acts of violence. Twitter didn't ban Bernie Sanders because he 1) never encouraged the attack and 2) responded appropriately. Twitter banned Trump because he played a part in encouraging the attack and then didn't genuinely condemn the attacks. That's why these two scenarios are very different.
    - aksss 6y ago
      There are many reasons the scenarios are different. I’m calling out the fallacy in saying “one side went full kinetic”. This point has nothing to do with Twitter. This is about violent rhetoric leading to violent action, and a false supposition that “one side” in this has no history of violent political action (e.g. clean hands) in comparison to the other.