6 ms·

That it'd come to this is pretty obvious I think. I mean, Facebook de-platformized a politician that 70+ million people voted for. It doesn't really matter if

by bjeds 6y ago

That it'd come to this is pretty obvious I think. I mean, Facebook de-platformized a politician that 70+ million people voted for. It doesn't really matter if they had the right or wrong reasons in doing this: the pool of disillusioned people just grew tremendously and I can't see anyone claiming otherwise. Or did Facebook think that all of these 70+ million people would just sit back quietly and accept that their politician was blocked (or perceived of being censored)? EDIT: Clarified the last sentence do to using the word "censored" incorrectly: thanks for pointing it out.

jk563 6y ago
I think it's a fairly large assumption to make that they all voted for him specifically. I don't think it's too crazy (given he won <50% of the popular vote in the 2016 primaries) to assume a large number of those voters voted "Not Democrat" or voted Republican instead of voting Trump specifically.
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  This is a problem with the US system at the moment. It was the same issue with the Brexit referendum; people got two choices (remain or leave), while the process was a lot more subtle and there were plenty of 'in between' solutions available. People voted leave for single issues, while leaving actually caused multiple issues that affected them directly. Anyway tl;dr the US needs massive political reform and one should never be constrained to just two choices.
  - randomsearch 6y ago
    The inability of the American and U.K. electoral systems to reform themselves will destroy both countries.
    - neartheplain 6y ago
      What makes you say that about the UK? As an American, I’ve always been envious of what I perceive as the UK’s greater electoral flexibility, expressed through systems like snap elections and Parliament’s role in appointing the chief executive.
      - arethuza 6y ago
        Parliament doesn't have a direct role in appointing the PM - it's pretty much an internal party decision. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Conservative_Party_leadership_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Conservative_Party_leader...
        neartheplain 6y ago
        I suppose what I mean is that I like how this process produces PMs who are aligned (at least to start) with the majority will of Parliament, since the party/coalition with the most seats in Parliament gets to pick them. In contrast, US Presidents are elected with zero input from Congress and are often at odds with the House and/or Senate majority.
      - pjc50 6y ago
        The UK is likely to fragment, ironically through electoral politics rather than violence, as Brexit disadvantages hit Scotland and Northern Ireland. I'm not yet willing to predict mass violence but I will remind people that we had an opposition MP killed during the campaign for Brexit.
      - randomsearch 6y ago
        > What makes you say that about the UK? Same problems as the US. We have a two party state, which means very broad coalitions, no real choice, and a lot of unheard voices. Just like the US, we have suffered deindustrialisation as companies shipped production overseas, encouraged by our politicians, and those people who lost out have no way of fighting back. Their resentment has grown to the point where it is now finding expression through Brexit and populists like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson. Proportional representation provides a "release valve" for angry minorities, in that new parties can form. Some people think this is a danger, because they see those parties gaining some real power, but what usually happens is their supporters see the realities of political compromise, see some gains, at least feel represented, and the anger recedes. The first place we're seeing the cracks is the UK leaving the EU whilst NI has not, and support for Scottish independence on the rise. More pertinent to your reply: without a constitution the flexibility is simply exploited for party political gain, which often destabilises the country. Similarly, the trend has been in recent decades for the executive to increasingly take power away from parliament, which has proceeded unchecked. So some of us envy your constitution and the lack of gaming in e.g. the timing of elections. And let's not even get started on the "ceremonial" royal family...
  - adamcstephens 6y ago
    The two parties that hold all the power in the US make sure that it’s just the two parties. How do you reform a system when the people who benefit from the system hold ask the cards?
- bjeds 6y ago
  That's beside the point: there is _obviously_ a fraction that is much greater than 0% of the people who voted for Trump (whether they voted for him or against his opponents) who will now feel oppressed because the person they voted for - whatever reason - is now banned from the largest social media network in the world. This fraction is from the large (millions) group of people who had nothing to do with the riots. I mean, read the article: Facebook has realized the same thing and that's why they are recommending their employees to not wear Facebook branded clothing. Like it or not, the pool of disillusioned people is now much larger and I'm not particularly keen on learning what effects that will have down the road.
  - confidantlake 6y ago
    They also felt oppressed because the Trump lied to them repeatedly and told them their vote was stolen. Luckily many Republicans, including the 2 cabinet members that resigned, have decided they can no longer support Trump. Twitter banning him will lead to less division, not more.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  This is true. In a strong 2-party democracy voting against one party looks equivalent to voting for another, even though the intention is not.
whack 6y ago
Pretty obvious but really sad and scary at the same time. "You decided you no longer wanted to interact with Donald Trump. Of course you should now fear for your personal safety. What did you expect?" Yikes, what a world we live in.
- casefields 6y ago
  Reminder what powerful Democrat Maxine Waters said: >"Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere. We’ve got to get the children connected to their parents,” Waters said at the Wilshire Federal Building. https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-officials/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-...
Arkhaine_kupo 6y ago
The wording here is a bit weird. He was not censored, he broke the TOS and was therefore blocked from using a platform. Censoring would be proactive from FB, they have actually allowed him to breach TOS before without a ban, and only this time they enforced the rules we are all subject to.
- bjeds 6y ago
  Fair enough, I'm not a native English speaker and should maybe used a different word. But that's still beside the point: there is still a fraction greater than 0% of his voters, who will feel (correctly or incorrectly) that their politician was censored. And therein lies the problem with the blocking decision. It does not matter in any shape or form whether Facebook was right or wrong in their action in blocking Trump: This decision will radicalize more people, as a direct side effect or unintended consequence of their decision to block him due to the TOS violation. Trump is not just some internet lunatic, he is a political candidate and former POTUS that 70+ million people voted for.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Freedom of speech doesn't matter if people can just storm the capitol and kidnap/kill their adversaries. That needs protected first - the first amendment never protected incitement of violence. > This decision will radicalize more people, I disagree. It will remove the lightning rod and greatly remove his reach.
    - mensetmanusman 6y ago
      The media gave him his reach, so ideally FB would de-platform the media and repair their feed back to being mostly about friends and family. Introducing news was a disaster.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  Censoring would be done by a government, not a private entity.
hehehaha 6y ago
It has to start somewhere. Is it flawed? Absolutely. But I rather not find out what happens but-for these interventions.
- DoingIsLearning 6y ago
  If they were serious about starting somewhere, perhaps they could disable the engagement mechanisms that border on addictive pattern exploits. They could easily identify people who are disenfranchised and seeking a sense of belonging in their platform. They could easily go back to reverting their feed to show real and positive updates from friends and family. Many of these people would probably re-engage in a more healthy way with the platform instead of constantly seeking outrage inducing feedback loops. The main issue is that doing so would not only be ethical but it would also be less profitable and therein lies the main issue.
  - hehehaha 6y ago
    I absolutely agree with you. Facebook played a critical role in creating this monster.
DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
> That it'd come to this is pretty obvious indeed it's not shocking given that FB were happy to take money from conservative disinfo peddlers right up to Nov. 3rd. It's a shame this is happening but maybe it's time they had a taste of their own medicine in their own country? Because the last time when they caused a genocide in Myanmar by supporting the junta nobody at FB has been held responsible. There is no such thing as "dirty/unethical" money in their eyes. Sod their mgmt and PR-teams who are playing the victim card advising employees about "how to be safe in a big ugly world". Anyone wearing FB swag should be entitled to at least half a year living (as a Muslim) in Myanmar while posting their experience with dissent on the platform. The fact that FB sees itself still as a platform that can bring positive change suggests they drew the wrong conclusions from the "Arab Spring success story". FB is a "tool of terror" in countries which are considered developing. Even in places like US, Germany, UK, Brazil, India etc FB does more to divide people than to bring them together. A few FB employees now "uncomfortable" about whether their swag is still wearable in public isn't anything the majority will lose sleep over. Certainly not in Myanmar.
dTal 6y ago
Obvious perhaps, but I do not think that the leap from "disillusioned" to "violence" is one we should accept as normal, and indicates just how far down the rabbit hole we are already. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.
- tomp 6y ago
  But are these measures appropriate? Just like I criticized both the BLM movement with its violence (riots) and braindead slogans ("defund the police"), I think it's important to criticize both the right-wing rioters and the Big Tech response. None of those people, regardless of what they're fighting for (in particular if they're doing it in good faith) are using the right tactics to achieve their goals. BLM chanting "defund the police" while rioting and requiring more police? Right-wingers want their politics & cclaims of election fraud taken seriously while staging a faux-coup in clown custumes? What did they expect, the public opinion not to turn against them? These tactics are so ridiculous that I find it really hard to believe they were sincere in their intentions. Same here for Big Tech. If they wanted to prevent "inciting violence" they'd censor specific tweets, not ban Trump and Paul Ryan. But, mostly, I think the best move against further violence was increased government action, both in case of BLM (e.g. destroying CHAZ in Portland) and in case of Capitol attack (increased military presence in DC). I think (and hope) that FB&co are digging their own grave. They probably calmed Democrats for now, but they're a single scandal away from being dismanteled.
  - dTal 6y ago
    >But, mostly, I think the best move against further violence was increased government action, both in case of BLM (e.g. destroying CHAZ in Portland) and in case of Capitol attack (increased military presence in DC). I think you're underestimating the depth of the problem. The fact that the Capitol attack got as far as it did was because factions of government intentionally did not act, or even blocked action. All of society needs to fight this, at every level; it's an existential threat.
    - Der_Einzige 6y ago
charonn0 6y ago
> Or did Facebook think that all of these 70+ million people would just sit back quietly and accept that their politician was blocked (or perceived of being censored)? Evidently, they think a lot of those people are violent extremists. And they're not wrong. Hence the OP.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  46% of voting Americans are by definition, not extremists. I think it is best if we all try to avoid slippery generalizations between all Trump supporters and the furthest out. It feeds into tribalism, and can skew our own perceptions.
yeuxardents 6y ago
Whilst facebook confirms its data sharing agreements with Huawei, and a government thats quite literally got millions of people 'they disagree with' in camps, killing them, torturing them, sterilizing women. Facebooks cool tho. I get my 'news' from there, and I am sure its all on the up and up.

by bjeds 6y ago

jk563 6y ago

I think it's a fairly large assumption to make that they all voted for him specifically. I don't think it's too crazy (given he won <50% of the popular vote in the 2016 primaries) to assume a large number of those voters voted "Not Democrat" or voted Republican instead of voting Trump specifically.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago
This is a problem with the US system at the moment. It was the same issue with the Brexit referendum; people got two choices (remain or leave), while the process was a lot more subtle and there were plenty of 'in between' solutions available. People voted leave for single issues, while leaving actually caused multiple issues that affected them directly. Anyway tl;dr the US needs massive political reform and one should never be constrained to just two choices.
- randomsearch 6y ago
  The inability of the American and U.K. electoral systems to reform themselves will destroy both countries.
  - neartheplain 6y ago
    What makes you say that about the UK? As an American, I’ve always been envious of what I perceive as the UK’s greater electoral flexibility, expressed through systems like snap elections and Parliament’s role in appointing the chief executive.
    - arethuza 6y ago
      Parliament doesn't have a direct role in appointing the PM - it's pretty much an internal party decision. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Conservative_Party_leadership_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Conservative_Party_leader...
      - neartheplain 6y ago
        I suppose what I mean is that I like how this process produces PMs who are aligned (at least to start) with the majority will of Parliament, since the party/coalition with the most seats in Parliament gets to pick them. In contrast, US Presidents are elected with zero input from Congress and are often at odds with the House and/or Senate majority.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      The UK is likely to fragment, ironically through electoral politics rather than violence, as Brexit disadvantages hit Scotland and Northern Ireland. I'm not yet willing to predict mass violence but I will remind people that we had an opposition MP killed during the campaign for Brexit.
    - randomsearch 6y ago
      > What makes you say that about the UK? Same problems as the US. We have a two party state, which means very broad coalitions, no real choice, and a lot of unheard voices. Just like the US, we have suffered deindustrialisation as companies shipped production overseas, encouraged by our politicians, and those people who lost out have no way of fighting back. Their resentment has grown to the point where it is now finding expression through Brexit and populists like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson. Proportional representation provides a "release valve" for angry minorities, in that new parties can form. Some people think this is a danger, because they see those parties gaining some real power, but what usually happens is their supporters see the realities of political compromise, see some gains, at least feel represented, and the anger recedes. The first place we're seeing the cracks is the UK leaving the EU whilst NI has not, and support for Scottish independence on the rise. More pertinent to your reply: without a constitution the flexibility is simply exploited for party political gain, which often destabilises the country. Similarly, the trend has been in recent decades for the executive to increasingly take power away from parliament, which has proceeded unchecked. So some of us envy your constitution and the lack of gaming in e.g. the timing of elections. And let's not even get started on the "ceremonial" royal family...
- adamcstephens 6y ago
  The two parties that hold all the power in the US make sure that it’s just the two parties. How do you reform a system when the people who benefit from the system hold ask the cards?
bjeds 6y ago
That's beside the point: there is _obviously_ a fraction that is much greater than 0% of the people who voted for Trump (whether they voted for him or against his opponents) who will now feel oppressed because the person they voted for - whatever reason - is now banned from the largest social media network in the world. This fraction is from the large (millions) group of people who had nothing to do with the riots. I mean, read the article: Facebook has realized the same thing and that's why they are recommending their employees to not wear Facebook branded clothing. Like it or not, the pool of disillusioned people is now much larger and I'm not particularly keen on learning what effects that will have down the road.
- confidantlake 6y ago
  They also felt oppressed because the Trump lied to them repeatedly and told them their vote was stolen. Luckily many Republicans, including the 2 cabinet members that resigned, have decided they can no longer support Trump. Twitter banning him will lead to less division, not more.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
This is true. In a strong 2-party democracy voting against one party looks equivalent to voting for another, even though the intention is not.

whack 6y ago

Pretty obvious but really sad and scary at the same time. "You decided you no longer wanted to interact with Donald Trump. Of course you should now fear for your personal safety. What did you expect?" Yikes, what a world we live in.

casefields 6y ago
Reminder what powerful Democrat Maxine Waters said: >"Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere. We’ve got to get the children connected to their parents,” Waters said at the Wilshire Federal Building. https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-officials/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-...

Arkhaine_kupo 6y ago

The wording here is a bit weird. He was not censored, he broke the TOS and was therefore blocked from using a platform. Censoring would be proactive from FB, they have actually allowed him to breach TOS before without a ban, and only this time they enforced the rules we are all subject to.

bjeds 6y ago
Fair enough, I'm not a native English speaker and should maybe used a different word. But that's still beside the point: there is still a fraction greater than 0% of his voters, who will feel (correctly or incorrectly) that their politician was censored. And therein lies the problem with the blocking decision. It does not matter in any shape or form whether Facebook was right or wrong in their action in blocking Trump: This decision will radicalize more people, as a direct side effect or unintended consequence of their decision to block him due to the TOS violation. Trump is not just some internet lunatic, he is a political candidate and former POTUS that 70+ million people voted for.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Freedom of speech doesn't matter if people can just storm the capitol and kidnap/kill their adversaries. That needs protected first - the first amendment never protected incitement of violence. > This decision will radicalize more people, I disagree. It will remove the lightning rod and greatly remove his reach.
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    The media gave him his reach, so ideally FB would de-platform the media and repair their feed back to being mostly about friends and family. Introducing news was a disaster.
IgorPartola 6y ago
Censoring would be done by a government, not a private entity.

hehehaha 6y ago

It has to start somewhere. Is it flawed? Absolutely. But I rather not find out what happens but-for these interventions.

DoingIsLearning 6y ago
If they were serious about starting somewhere, perhaps they could disable the engagement mechanisms that border on addictive pattern exploits. They could easily identify people who are disenfranchised and seeking a sense of belonging in their platform. They could easily go back to reverting their feed to show real and positive updates from friends and family. Many of these people would probably re-engage in a more healthy way with the platform instead of constantly seeking outrage inducing feedback loops. The main issue is that doing so would not only be ethical but it would also be less profitable and therein lies the main issue.
- hehehaha 6y ago
  I absolutely agree with you. Facebook played a critical role in creating this monster.

DyslexicAtheist 6y ago

> That it'd come to this is pretty obvious indeed it's not shocking given that FB were happy to take money from conservative disinfo peddlers right up to Nov. 3rd. It's a shame this is happening but maybe it's time they had a taste of their own medicine in their own country? Because the last time when they caused a genocide in Myanmar by supporting the junta nobody at FB has been held responsible. There is no such thing as "dirty/unethical" money in their eyes. Sod their mgmt and PR-teams who are playing the victim card advising employees about "how to be safe in a big ugly world". Anyone wearing FB swag should be entitled to at least half a year living (as a Muslim) in Myanmar while posting their experience with dissent on the platform. The fact that FB sees itself still as a platform that can bring positive change suggests they drew the wrong conclusions from the "Arab Spring success story". FB is a "tool of terror" in countries which are considered developing. Even in places like US, Germany, UK, Brazil, India etc FB does more to divide people than to bring them together. A few FB employees now "uncomfortable" about whether their swag is still wearable in public isn't anything the majority will lose sleep over. Certainly not in Myanmar.

dTal 6y ago

Obvious perhaps, but I do not think that the leap from "disillusioned" to "violence" is one we should accept as normal, and indicates just how far down the rabbit hole we are already. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.

tomp 6y ago
But are these measures appropriate? Just like I criticized both the BLM movement with its violence (riots) and braindead slogans ("defund the police"), I think it's important to criticize both the right-wing rioters and the Big Tech response. None of those people, regardless of what they're fighting for (in particular if they're doing it in good faith) are using the right tactics to achieve their goals. BLM chanting "defund the police" while rioting and requiring more police? Right-wingers want their politics & cclaims of election fraud taken seriously while staging a faux-coup in clown custumes? What did they expect, the public opinion not to turn against them? These tactics are so ridiculous that I find it really hard to believe they were sincere in their intentions. Same here for Big Tech. If they wanted to prevent "inciting violence" they'd censor specific tweets, not ban Trump and Paul Ryan. But, mostly, I think the best move against further violence was increased government action, both in case of BLM (e.g. destroying CHAZ in Portland) and in case of Capitol attack (increased military presence in DC). I think (and hope) that FB&co are digging their own grave. They probably calmed Democrats for now, but they're a single scandal away from being dismanteled.
- dTal 6y ago
  >But, mostly, I think the best move against further violence was increased government action, both in case of BLM (e.g. destroying CHAZ in Portland) and in case of Capitol attack (increased military presence in DC). I think you're underestimating the depth of the problem. The fact that the Capitol attack got as far as it did was because factions of government intentionally did not act, or even blocked action. All of society needs to fight this, at every level; it's an existential threat.
  - Der_Einzige 6y ago

charonn0 6y ago

> Or did Facebook think that all of these 70+ million people would just sit back quietly and accept that their politician was blocked (or perceived of being censored)? Evidently, they think a lot of those people are violent extremists. And they're not wrong. Hence the OP.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
46% of voting Americans are by definition, not extremists. I think it is best if we all try to avoid slippery generalizations between all Trump supporters and the furthest out. It feeds into tribalism, and can skew our own perceptions.

yeuxardents 6y ago

Whilst facebook confirms its data sharing agreements with Huawei, and a government thats quite literally got millions of people 'they disagree with' in camps, killing them, torturing them, sterilizing women. Facebooks cool tho. I get my 'news' from there, and I am sure its all on the up and up.