15 ms·

YouTube suspends Donald Trump's channel

128 points by jnord 6y ago

sergiotapia 6y ago
230 is going to get no-scoped by lawmakers. That's a wrap. https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/no-longer-acceptable-for-platforms-to-take-key-decisions-alone-eu-commission-says/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/no-longer-acce...
- Kuraj 6y ago
  What the hell does that mean?
  - underyx 6y ago
    They were trying to say that they expect congress to amend or repeal Section 230, which protects content hosts from legal liability for content created by someone else.
  - ekrebs 6y ago
    No-scope is a gaming term for sniping someone from a sniper rifle without zooming in using the scope. Very difficult to do, and this is a weird application of the phrase. 230 about to be “nuked” would probably be more applicable. It implies destroyed by pushing a button. No effort involved and immediate annihilation.
  - dwardu 6y ago
    230 is getting no scoped, meaning no one will care about reforming it or even repealing it. Section 230 is an internet legislation that gives social media companies a pass on their users actions. E.g. if CNN/Fox/BBC publishes something fake on their website, as a publisher they will be legally liable to what they publish. If a user on facebook posts something similar then facebook wont get in trouble because they are not regarded as the publishers. It was created to help boost social media site momentum during the Obama administration. Now recently since facebook/twitter have been moving into becoming the arbiters of what is true and not which makes them publishers. From a fairness point of view, why should these social media sites benefit from section 230 while traditional media doesn't? EDIT: Added legality
  - jshmrsn 6y ago
    I don’t want to add credence to such a poorly worded and misguided comment, but 230 is referring to Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. No-scoped refers to killing something so quickly with a sniper rifle so fast you don’t even take the time to look through your scope (in first person shooter video games).
    - Kuraj 6y ago
      Thanks! It was the "230" I was drawing a blank on. As a non-American it's sometimes hard to keep up.
- ekrebs 6y ago
  I don’t understand this new fascination with gutting 230. 230 protects the speech of the users, since the platform isn’t held responsible for what they say. Make YouTube liable for its users content, and now the whole system is moderated to remove any polarizing content. This means politicians like Trump will NEVER have a platform for their message. Why would they intentionally vote to de-amplify their own voices?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    That's all true. But that's not the really bad part. Section 230 means that you can't be sued for something I say. But it doesn't just apply to FB and Twitter. It applies to HN. It applies to Github repos and Discord channels and every person and device connected to the Internet in the US. Get rid of Section 230 and then you can be sued for what other people say. Which would pretty much kill all but the biggest platforms, because only they could afford the liability. Section 230 has been protecting free speech on the Internet for 25 years. We should keep doing that. See here[0] for more details. The title is snarky, but it has lots of good information. [0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
peytn 6y ago
Where’s the line? Do I need to think about unplugging my Google Home Mini? For the record, when I said I’d kill for some sushi, I didn’t mean it literally.
- smcl 6y ago
  Well there’s a difference to using a well known idiom within the privacy of your own home, and inciting a crowd of thousands of fired up supporters to storm a government building in an attempt to disrupt the democratic process. But regardless you probably should unplug your google home or whatever other smart devices that listen all the time if you are concerned about privacy
  - peytn 6y ago
    I’m aware that there is a difference. My question was at what point in between the two does it become not okay?
    - user-the-name 6y ago
      I can pick a flower, but somehow I can't take all the money out of the vault of a bank! At what point in between does it become not okay?
      - peytn 6y ago
        I decided a few years ago that my line would be banning a sitting president. I don’t consume political theater and don’t know what’s happening, but I’m going to stick to my principles. If what he’s done is so bad, there are ways to kick him out of office. I’m curious whether others have a line.
        user-the-name 6y ago
        That is an incredibly specific and quite honestly massively weird line.
    - 6y ago
user-the-name 6y ago
Finally. Can't help but not that they are the slowest of all the big social services to stop the anti-democratic propaganda.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  Nothing quite so democratic as deplatforming people. The Ancient Greeks would be proud of our new developments. I'm sure Plato's Republic simply overlooked the shortcut where the easiest way to win debates is to simply prevent your opponent from speaking.
  - touchngthevodka 6y ago
    And yet here we are, discussing the events in a forum that anyone can view and sign up to.
    - Thorentis 6y ago
      The way it should be! Not all parts of the Internet have lost their way (yet).
      - MrMan 6y ago
        I will be banned here if I say the wrong things, just like just about anywhere else
  - TheRealSteel 6y ago
    "winning debates by preventing your opponent from speaking" is an interesting way to spin "choosing not to actively host the messages of the leader of a terrorist organisation who is actively encouraging bombings and murders" Donald Trump is now one of the most dangerous terrorists on Earth. No private enterprise SHOULD have any dealings with him. They especially shouldn't be hosting his violent and dangerous messaging.
  - have_faith 6y ago
    Claiming there is unfinished debate that needs to be let to continue seems like an argument that can be made indefinitely.
silexia 6y ago
Would you want to be forced to do business with someone you didn't want to work with? Why try to force a tech company to do it then? Tech companies are private enterprises just like a bar. And just like a bar can refuse service to anyone outside of a small set of protected classes. If you get kicked out of one bar, just go to another or start your own.
- rapsey 6y ago
  Because modern social networks are a defacto way people assemble. They are not just any company.
  - Thorentis 6y ago
    The sooner people realise this the better. Social networks and Big Tech publishers have became the de facto communication standard, but still want the perks of being a private company. This is just another example of "privatise the gains, socialise the loses". And yet people are somehow blind to it because their least favorite politician is being targeted.
    - razius 6y ago
      This is how they remove the opposition, the salami tactics in full effect.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  This was essentially the same issue with the gay wedding cake. For the betterment of society, I think we might need an amendment that prevents discrimination based on political opinions. Otherwise, two parallel societies of echo chambers will form, and that is not a good thing.
  - rapsey 6y ago
    A bakery is not a social network.
ceilingcorner 6y ago
I’d say with 95% certainty that Google and Facebook will be subject to anti-trust legislation by 2025.
- mkl95 6y ago
  Not sure about FB but Google have had several antitrust suits filed against them, both in the US and Europe.
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    I’m talking serious antitrust action. Break up Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Break up YouTube, Google, Gmail, and Android.
    - eloisant 6y ago
      I wish that would happen but I'm not as optimistic as you are on that. That should have happened a long time ago for Google, and Facebook shouldn't have been allowed to buy all these companies. But here we are.
    - soco 6y ago
      I don't think here is the issue of breaking, rather what is allowed on them and what not.
      - ceilingcorner 6y ago
        Personally I have less problem with individual platforms deciding what they want to ban, if there are a variety of options available. The issue to me is the clear coordination between Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Twitter. If these four companies decide to kick you off, you’ve just lost ~75% of the Internet. Breaking them all up into smaller companies with more independent management would alleviate this issue, IMO.
        epakai 6y ago
strategyanalyst 6y ago
TV News channels kept on aggressively fact checking Trump, I just don't know if it had any impact on the real danger of people believing his lies. These moves would eventually lower trust in Big Tech among conservatives to a point that more conspiracy theories will rise. This makes methink we are about to see a Golden Age of conspiracy theories. Something that makes 'Q Annon' stuff look like peer reviewed paper in science.
- 3000000001 6y ago
  If you take conspiracy theories and remove the thin thread of logic, you’re just left with propaganda... so it seems like we’re already starting to see what you’re predicting.
- js8 6y ago
  > TV News channels kept on aggressively fact checking Trump I am not convinced that Fox News did that, aggressively.
  - strategyanalyst 6y ago
    Yes, that is a scenario I'm talking about. Splintered internet where conspiracy theories will be common.
theqult 6y ago
Du, du, du. Can fap this
godmode2019 6y ago
Maybe this is a ploy, maybe the tech companies want to be publishers and 230 to be changed. They have already invested the huge sums to set up a moderation infrastructure. Then they won't have to worry about up-starts because they will first have to deal with the huge burden of creating a expensive content moderation system. VC decks will have a section on content moderation plan. How they will solve this. To me this seems like the tech companies are lobbying for regulation.
- soco 6y ago
  IANAL but in my understanding 230 is based on providers being proactive themselves and taking reasonable steps. They have very clear ToS laid out, and they are expected by same 230 to act on them. And bear with me, if they consider somebody does call for rioting using their platform, why's so unexpected from them to enforce said ToS? You could argue if you want to whether there was a call for riots or not, but if for the sake of argument we can pretend there was, they had to react precisely like this.
  - godmode2019 6y ago
    All ToS have a power imbalance, they are updated often without the ability to decline. But let's think about governments for a bit, they are in their very nature violent forces. Not too long ago Trump was treating to bring death and destruction on north Korea and they ended up as friends and "fell in love". People need to express themselves. Let's say he was calling for violence. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-tell-supporters-storm/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-tell-supporters-stor... Is the act of calling for violence the crime or is it measured against the impact. Because calling for violence, or at least encouraging protests that often end in violence is something that the American left has been doing since June. In my country you can't discriminate based on political opinions, all ToS need to be equally enforced or you have a human rights case on your hands.
    - watwut 6y ago
      > Because calling for violence, or at least encouraging protests that often end in violence is something that the American left has been doing since June. Accounts that were calling for violence were closed regularly, especially during protests. Both twitter and on youtube. I am not aware of left wing equivalent of Parler that would emerge as results, the mainstream left seemed to be ok with those missing, through some grumbled a bit and called it unfair. Note that encouraging protests was not censored, but the fact is it is not censored for right wing either.
jasonlfunk 6y ago
Are we really okay with the big tech companies having this much power? We just saw Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon collective destroy a competitor and censor a sitting President. Perhaps in these specific cases, they are justified. But these are actions that ought to be taken by governments, not businesses.
- DanBC 6y ago
  > Are we really okay with the big tech companies having this much power? Yes, absolutely. An alternate reading is that a sitting president ignored for years the contracts he agreed to when signing up to those services, and now he's not president they're finally getting around to enforcing those contracts.
  - genidoi 6y ago
    Another alternative reading is The Gulag Archipelago, which precisely and painfully lays out the consequences of what happens when a small group of people decide which ideas are okay to discuss or believe. I don’t support trump in any shape or form, but if this mass de-platforming doesn’t make you the slightest bit uncomfortable, that in itself should make you a bit uncomfortable.
    - secfirstmd 6y ago
      He's the President of the United States. He's free to speak to every media outlet in the world every day in the Press Room if he wants. He just chooses not to as that would make him accountable and it's easier to rant on Twitter instead of doing his job. The Gulag Archipelago is as much about the unchallenged silencing of free media outlets, opposition parties and growth of tyranny ("Yes communists have some fringe ideas but they won't really be that bad when they come to power"). FB, Twitter, YT have been banning all sorts of groups over the years, in Palestine for example - it's just more people are noticing it now.
    - ceilingcorner 6y ago
      People seem intent on reliving the mistakes of the twentieth century. At this point, it’s become so blatant, I’m starting to doubt that it’s just out of ignorance.
marksbrown 6y ago
It does seem like supporting the actions of a man deliberately provoking violence to overthrow a democratic result in a extra legal fashion should face consequences. If Twitter and Google are now governments in their own right though I must have missed it. Just because the US is a dysfunctional plutocracy doesn't mean a few billionaires should have such control over what are modern day phone networks. Everything old is new again! Big tech would be wise to bring down the walled gardens and implement federated protocols where possible not just where is necessary. Otherwise the world has new governments to interact with. I wonder how long that state I'd affairs can stand.
- atc 6y ago
  > deliberately provoking violence ????
- ReptileMan 6y ago
  >It does seem like supporting the actions of a man deliberately provoking violence to overthrow a democratic result in a extra legal fashion should face consequences. And when we have banned the accounts of all people that have supported the riots and the violence in the summer I could probably agree. But in my opinion there were minor to none punishments for condoning the violent, not only the non violent protests.
  - marksbrown 6y ago
    I'm not from the US and I don't care about your tit for tat childish partisan politics. Your leader held a rally in your capital and encouraged his followers to literally attack your democratic institutions and therefore democracy itself. His failure to support democratic norms have led, and potentially will lead, to further deaths in your country. This is the discussion that you need to face. I don't care about point scoring between two teams that obviously only support the extremely wealthy in your country. Good luck fixing it.
    - ReptileMan 6y ago
      I am not from US, Trump is not my leader and I have no dog in this fight. Trump has not attacked my democratic institutions and has not caused any deaths in my country. So this is totally not the discussion I need to face. And neither of the two teams support the extremely wealthy in my country - putin does it. But if we talk about stuff requiring fixing - your attitude towards strangers on the internet could probably use some. The overzealousness spills in the real world. Keep it in check.
Traster 6y ago
Seems less than coincidental they banned him until the inauguration. I would really like to hear what specifically in the videos he posted caused them to ban him - or whether they just viewed it as an obvious route for him to repeat what he had done on twitter, and chose not to let it get to that level.
- cheph 6y ago
  Well twitter banned him, among other reasons, because his tweet “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” "may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending." [1] Which seems to be somewhat scraping the bottom of the barrel of credibility, as is some of the other reasoning. Some other gems: - "The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol." - "The mention of his supporters having a “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition” and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election." I think they kinda fucked up letting him back on in the first place and are now left nit picking two mostly benign tweets because they don't know what else to do. The most egregious tweets were not the two they cite. [1]: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
tomaszs 6y ago
It is sad to say, especially since BBC is mostly an accurate source of information, but this time title is a fake news. As well as the title here. Because the account was not suspended. Uploading videos and comments is suspended, to be precise and actually the article contains information about it. Just a note for hot heads: it is only an editorial comment with no strings attached.
mkl95 6y ago
Trump is still the president of the US. I'm pretty sure plenty of companies will shut him down on January 20.
- tempodox 6y ago
  Seeing how the guy's prime motivator is flattering his own ego, no matter the cost to others, or the country as a whole, being cut off from all those multipliers must be painful for him. I can't shed a tear for that, but what I'm really uneasy with is that the decisions to ban him are not controlled by a democratic process. Where will that modus operandi lead us?
  - mkl95 6y ago
    In my opinion tech companies are not just shutting Trump down because he inspired his followers to enter the Capitol, they are shutting him down because he has become an actual threat to their operation. It's easy to see the consequences of a coup for social media companies like Twitter that had been partially shutting down Trump for months, not to mention how devastating it would be for the country's economy. So in a way social media companies are setting a precedent to ban politicians and organization leaders that they deem a threat to them or to "democracy". Hopefully it won't become a trump card to ban innocent users.
gadders 6y ago
I just read that Curt Schilling got his AIG insurance removed because of his "Social Media Profile".
Joeri 6y ago
I feel like Donald Trump is not the good example to argue against the power to deplatform. He is an internet troll who calls for violent action to overthrow the elected government. You can't be tolerant of that kind of intolerance, or your democracy will not survive it. In general though, I feel like deplatforming someone is something you should be able to challenge in front of a judge, just like being refused entry to a public business is something you can challenge in front of a judge. For healthy online debate, you need to have the ability to remove trolls from a platform, but the standard of who is or is not a troll cannot be set by the platform itself.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dkobia 6y ago
Free speech is an incredibly difficult ideal to uphold and I think it is unfair for governments to delegate that responsibility to tech companies.
- eppp 6y ago
  Free speech in the constitution applies to the government, it has absolutely nothing to do with tech companies managing their own products. No one is delegating anything.
  - lordloki 6y ago
    Free speech is a natural born right of all people. This is recognized in the first amendment to the US constitution, where it specifies that as a human right the government cannot regulate it. As the "public square" moves from physical locations to virtual ones, the responsibility to defend those natural rights moves from one host(US Government) to another(large online media companies). While the US government is not officially delegating the defense of these rights, defense of these rights must be maintained and it is the responsibility of the host platform to do so.
nooneknowswhy 6y ago
First amendmendment is a joke now.
Tycho 6y ago
Biden does appear to be the rightful victor, but it was a highly unusual and uniquely sketchy election, and, given the recent pattern of protests and riots cheered on by politicians (blm/antifa trashing cities, mobs outside the White House and in the Capitol buildings for Supreme Court hearings), I’m only surprised that we’re not seeing worse. As the media hyperventilates to an ever greater pitch (“it was a coup!”), allowing all sorts of political opportunism, I’m starting to notice a chilling effect even in HN comments, with dissenters quieter than usual, opinion more lopsided. Some might think that we will now revert to a saner political climate, but I fear that they are mistaken. The logic of leftism (constant redistribution of power in the name of addressing ‘unfairness’) may yet see us spiral into the abyss.
- croon 6y ago
  > but it was a highly unusual and uniquely sketchy election No, it really wasn't. > with dissenters quieter than usual, opinion more lopsided. BS vs Non-BS should be lopsided. The problem with media the last decade hasn't been lies or omissions, but the fixation that truth somehow also needed a rebuttal, as if there's legitimacy in calling a duck a dog
  - Tycho 6y ago
    Your attitude is a deep part of the problem. Reporting should be objective and even handed. The media immolated their credibility by constant editorialising and selective reporting, and now (absurdly) try to blame the resulting crisis of confidence on peripheral nonsense like QAnon .
    - croon 6y ago
      > Your attitude is a deep part of the problem. Reporting should be objective... My attitude is exactly that. > ... and even handed. That is explicitly not objective if the opposing sides are truth vs non-truth.
      - Tycho 6y ago
nbzso 6y ago
The problem for me is ignoring the idea of debating with the intent to find the middle ground for common good. Populism is not invented by Trump or the radical right. Populism is an instrument for ignoring the debate by giving an "accessible storyline" to the people. You can exercise your critical thinking by listening to these two gentlemen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWndfzuOc4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWndfzuOc4
jinpa_zangpo 6y ago
I still believe the solution is to handle social media like email. Have a common protocol that all providers use, have multiple providers, allow providers to remove abusers, and give users the ability to block.
Miner49er 6y ago
Anyone know what video(s) was removed? That's my problem with this type of censorship - now I want to know what was so bad YouTube felt the need to remove it. If it's that bad and was said by the President, it seems like it may be something I should know, but now I can't easily know. Why do tech companies get to decide what information the average person can or can't easily see? Part of the blame is on Trump for posting all this stuff on these websites instead of somewhere like whitehouse.gov. Let's say he hypothetically called on his supporters to commit a terrorist attack at the inauguration. Now Youtube is putting anyone who attends the inauguration in danger, because they are withholding information from them.
cosmiccatnap 6y ago
xkcd.com/1357/
alephnan 6y ago
Commenting on previous videos that were not in violation of terms of service have been disabled “indefinitely”. Same situation with Facebook/Instagram, but I’m not aware if there was a term of service violation there. Is this censoring Donald Trump, his supporters, bots, or his opposers? Consider that Jake and Logan Paul’s channels are still up despite repeat offenses including the Japan suicide forest video.
fsociety 6y ago
Many of these companies have held terms of conduct which condone enabling violence on their platforms. While they have failed to moderate the entirety of their platform, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t de-platform the cause of the coup attempt. Trump has many avenues to address the nation, of which he had no hesitation to use when he made claims that the election was stolen - how many of you stayed up election night to watch this? Not to mention as I write this Republicans are saying we shouldn’t impeach Trump because of “peace and unity” after a Munich Putsch-like attempt. Just now I read an article that panic buttons were disabled during the coup attempt, and some of the participators were given a full tour on Jan 5th to prepare. Reach on these platforms indoctrinates people into an extremist movement. These companies do not need to serve individuals if it violates their terms of conduct. It is not unconstitutional for them to do so. This is the responsibility they hold given the impact of their platforms.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
RickJWagner 6y ago
Here's a tweet where Nancy Pelosi questions the integrity of the 2016 election. Riots followed. How is this different? https://twitter.com/speakerpelosi/status/864522009048494080?lang=en https://twitter.com/speakerpelosi/status/864522009048494080?...
838812052807016 6y ago
I was able to find the video which triggered the suspension. Google didn't help me find it, by the way. Strictly speaking, he doesn't call for violence but instead tells people to go home in peace. What he does say is that the election was fraudulent. This seems to be the illegal utterance. And by "legal", I mean a rule laid down by the relevant authority.

128 points by jnord 6y ago

230 is going to get no-scoped by lawmakers. That's a wrap. https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/no-longer-acceptable-for-platforms-to-take-key-decisions-alone-eu-commission-says/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/no-longer-acce...

Kuraj 6y ago
What the hell does that mean?
- underyx 6y ago
  They were trying to say that they expect congress to amend or repeal Section 230, which protects content hosts from legal liability for content created by someone else.
- ekrebs 6y ago
  No-scope is a gaming term for sniping someone from a sniper rifle without zooming in using the scope. Very difficult to do, and this is a weird application of the phrase. 230 about to be “nuked” would probably be more applicable. It implies destroyed by pushing a button. No effort involved and immediate annihilation.
- dwardu 6y ago
  230 is getting no scoped, meaning no one will care about reforming it or even repealing it. Section 230 is an internet legislation that gives social media companies a pass on their users actions. E.g. if CNN/Fox/BBC publishes something fake on their website, as a publisher they will be legally liable to what they publish. If a user on facebook posts something similar then facebook wont get in trouble because they are not regarded as the publishers. It was created to help boost social media site momentum during the Obama administration. Now recently since facebook/twitter have been moving into becoming the arbiters of what is true and not which makes them publishers. From a fairness point of view, why should these social media sites benefit from section 230 while traditional media doesn't? EDIT: Added legality
- jshmrsn 6y ago
  I don’t want to add credence to such a poorly worded and misguided comment, but 230 is referring to Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. No-scoped refers to killing something so quickly with a sniper rifle so fast you don’t even take the time to look through your scope (in first person shooter video games).
  - Kuraj 6y ago
    Thanks! It was the "230" I was drawing a blank on. As a non-American it's sometimes hard to keep up.
ekrebs 6y ago
I don’t understand this new fascination with gutting 230. 230 protects the speech of the users, since the platform isn’t held responsible for what they say. Make YouTube liable for its users content, and now the whole system is moderated to remove any polarizing content. This means politicians like Trump will NEVER have a platform for their message. Why would they intentionally vote to de-amplify their own voices?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- nobody9999 6y ago
  That's all true. But that's not the really bad part. Section 230 means that you can't be sued for something I say. But it doesn't just apply to FB and Twitter. It applies to HN. It applies to Github repos and Discord channels and every person and device connected to the Internet in the US. Get rid of Section 230 and then you can be sued for what other people say. Which would pretty much kill all but the biggest platforms, because only they could afford the liability. Section 230 has been protecting free speech on the Internet for 25 years. We should keep doing that. See here[0] for more details. The title is snarky, but it has lots of good information. [0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...

peytn 6y ago

Where’s the line? Do I need to think about unplugging my Google Home Mini? For the record, when I said I’d kill for some sushi, I didn’t mean it literally.

smcl 6y ago
Well there’s a difference to using a well known idiom within the privacy of your own home, and inciting a crowd of thousands of fired up supporters to storm a government building in an attempt to disrupt the democratic process. But regardless you probably should unplug your google home or whatever other smart devices that listen all the time if you are concerned about privacy
- peytn 6y ago
  I’m aware that there is a difference. My question was at what point in between the two does it become not okay?
  - user-the-name 6y ago
    I can pick a flower, but somehow I can't take all the money out of the vault of a bank! At what point in between does it become not okay?
    - peytn 6y ago
      I decided a few years ago that my line would be banning a sitting president. I don’t consume political theater and don’t know what’s happening, but I’m going to stick to my principles. If what he’s done is so bad, there are ways to kick him out of office. I’m curious whether others have a line.
      - user-the-name 6y ago
        That is an incredibly specific and quite honestly massively weird line.
  - 6y ago

user-the-name 6y ago

Finally. Can't help but not that they are the slowest of all the big social services to stop the anti-democratic propaganda.

Thorentis 6y ago
Nothing quite so democratic as deplatforming people. The Ancient Greeks would be proud of our new developments. I'm sure Plato's Republic simply overlooked the shortcut where the easiest way to win debates is to simply prevent your opponent from speaking.
- touchngthevodka 6y ago
  And yet here we are, discussing the events in a forum that anyone can view and sign up to.
  - Thorentis 6y ago
    The way it should be! Not all parts of the Internet have lost their way (yet).
    - MrMan 6y ago
      I will be banned here if I say the wrong things, just like just about anywhere else
- TheRealSteel 6y ago
  "winning debates by preventing your opponent from speaking" is an interesting way to spin "choosing not to actively host the messages of the leader of a terrorist organisation who is actively encouraging bombings and murders" Donald Trump is now one of the most dangerous terrorists on Earth. No private enterprise SHOULD have any dealings with him. They especially shouldn't be hosting his violent and dangerous messaging.
- have_faith 6y ago
  Claiming there is unfinished debate that needs to be let to continue seems like an argument that can be made indefinitely.

silexia 6y ago

Would you want to be forced to do business with someone you didn't want to work with? Why try to force a tech company to do it then? Tech companies are private enterprises just like a bar. And just like a bar can refuse service to anyone outside of a small set of protected classes. If you get kicked out of one bar, just go to another or start your own.

rapsey 6y ago
Because modern social networks are a defacto way people assemble. They are not just any company.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  The sooner people realise this the better. Social networks and Big Tech publishers have became the de facto communication standard, but still want the perks of being a private company. This is just another example of "privatise the gains, socialise the loses". And yet people are somehow blind to it because their least favorite politician is being targeted.
  - razius 6y ago
    This is how they remove the opposition, the salami tactics in full effect.
ceilingcorner 6y ago
This was essentially the same issue with the gay wedding cake. For the betterment of society, I think we might need an amendment that prevents discrimination based on political opinions. Otherwise, two parallel societies of echo chambers will form, and that is not a good thing.
- rapsey 6y ago
  A bakery is not a social network.

ceilingcorner 6y ago

I’d say with 95% certainty that Google and Facebook will be subject to anti-trust legislation by 2025.

mkl95 6y ago
Not sure about FB but Google have had several antitrust suits filed against them, both in the US and Europe.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  I’m talking serious antitrust action. Break up Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Break up YouTube, Google, Gmail, and Android.
  - eloisant 6y ago
    I wish that would happen but I'm not as optimistic as you are on that. That should have happened a long time ago for Google, and Facebook shouldn't have been allowed to buy all these companies. But here we are.
  - soco 6y ago
    I don't think here is the issue of breaking, rather what is allowed on them and what not.
    - ceilingcorner 6y ago
      Personally I have less problem with individual platforms deciding what they want to ban, if there are a variety of options available. The issue to me is the clear coordination between Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Twitter. If these four companies decide to kick you off, you’ve just lost ~75% of the Internet. Breaking them all up into smaller companies with more independent management would alleviate this issue, IMO.
      - epakai 6y ago

strategyanalyst 6y ago

TV News channels kept on aggressively fact checking Trump, I just don't know if it had any impact on the real danger of people believing his lies. These moves would eventually lower trust in Big Tech among conservatives to a point that more conspiracy theories will rise. This makes methink we are about to see a Golden Age of conspiracy theories. Something that makes 'Q Annon' stuff look like peer reviewed paper in science.

3000000001 6y ago
If you take conspiracy theories and remove the thin thread of logic, you’re just left with propaganda... so it seems like we’re already starting to see what you’re predicting.
js8 6y ago
> TV News channels kept on aggressively fact checking Trump I am not convinced that Fox News did that, aggressively.
- strategyanalyst 6y ago
  Yes, that is a scenario I'm talking about. Splintered internet where conspiracy theories will be common.

theqult 6y ago

Du, du, du. Can fap this

godmode2019 6y ago

Maybe this is a ploy, maybe the tech companies want to be publishers and 230 to be changed. They have already invested the huge sums to set up a moderation infrastructure. Then they won't have to worry about up-starts because they will first have to deal with the huge burden of creating a expensive content moderation system. VC decks will have a section on content moderation plan. How they will solve this. To me this seems like the tech companies are lobbying for regulation.

soco 6y ago
IANAL but in my understanding 230 is based on providers being proactive themselves and taking reasonable steps. They have very clear ToS laid out, and they are expected by same 230 to act on them. And bear with me, if they consider somebody does call for rioting using their platform, why's so unexpected from them to enforce said ToS? You could argue if you want to whether there was a call for riots or not, but if for the sake of argument we can pretend there was, they had to react precisely like this.
- godmode2019 6y ago
  All ToS have a power imbalance, they are updated often without the ability to decline. But let's think about governments for a bit, they are in their very nature violent forces. Not too long ago Trump was treating to bring death and destruction on north Korea and they ended up as friends and "fell in love". People need to express themselves. Let's say he was calling for violence. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-tell-supporters-storm/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-tell-supporters-stor... Is the act of calling for violence the crime or is it measured against the impact. Because calling for violence, or at least encouraging protests that often end in violence is something that the American left has been doing since June. In my country you can't discriminate based on political opinions, all ToS need to be equally enforced or you have a human rights case on your hands.
  - watwut 6y ago
    > Because calling for violence, or at least encouraging protests that often end in violence is something that the American left has been doing since June. Accounts that were calling for violence were closed regularly, especially during protests. Both twitter and on youtube. I am not aware of left wing equivalent of Parler that would emerge as results, the mainstream left seemed to be ok with those missing, through some grumbled a bit and called it unfair. Note that encouraging protests was not censored, but the fact is it is not censored for right wing either.

jasonlfunk 6y ago

Are we really okay with the big tech companies having this much power? We just saw Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon collective destroy a competitor and censor a sitting President. Perhaps in these specific cases, they are justified. But these are actions that ought to be taken by governments, not businesses.

DanBC 6y ago
> Are we really okay with the big tech companies having this much power? Yes, absolutely. An alternate reading is that a sitting president ignored for years the contracts he agreed to when signing up to those services, and now he's not president they're finally getting around to enforcing those contracts.
- genidoi 6y ago
  Another alternative reading is The Gulag Archipelago, which precisely and painfully lays out the consequences of what happens when a small group of people decide which ideas are okay to discuss or believe. I don’t support trump in any shape or form, but if this mass de-platforming doesn’t make you the slightest bit uncomfortable, that in itself should make you a bit uncomfortable.
  - secfirstmd 6y ago
    He's the President of the United States. He's free to speak to every media outlet in the world every day in the Press Room if he wants. He just chooses not to as that would make him accountable and it's easier to rant on Twitter instead of doing his job. The Gulag Archipelago is as much about the unchallenged silencing of free media outlets, opposition parties and growth of tyranny ("Yes communists have some fringe ideas but they won't really be that bad when they come to power"). FB, Twitter, YT have been banning all sorts of groups over the years, in Palestine for example - it's just more people are noticing it now.
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    People seem intent on reliving the mistakes of the twentieth century. At this point, it’s become so blatant, I’m starting to doubt that it’s just out of ignorance.

marksbrown 6y ago

It does seem like supporting the actions of a man deliberately provoking violence to overthrow a democratic result in a extra legal fashion should face consequences. If Twitter and Google are now governments in their own right though I must have missed it. Just because the US is a dysfunctional plutocracy doesn't mean a few billionaires should have such control over what are modern day phone networks. Everything old is new again! Big tech would be wise to bring down the walled gardens and implement federated protocols where possible not just where is necessary. Otherwise the world has new governments to interact with. I wonder how long that state I'd affairs can stand.

atc 6y ago
> deliberately provoking violence ????
ReptileMan 6y ago
>It does seem like supporting the actions of a man deliberately provoking violence to overthrow a democratic result in a extra legal fashion should face consequences. And when we have banned the accounts of all people that have supported the riots and the violence in the summer I could probably agree. But in my opinion there were minor to none punishments for condoning the violent, not only the non violent protests.
- marksbrown 6y ago
  I'm not from the US and I don't care about your tit for tat childish partisan politics. Your leader held a rally in your capital and encouraged his followers to literally attack your democratic institutions and therefore democracy itself. His failure to support democratic norms have led, and potentially will lead, to further deaths in your country. This is the discussion that you need to face. I don't care about point scoring between two teams that obviously only support the extremely wealthy in your country. Good luck fixing it.
  - ReptileMan 6y ago
    I am not from US, Trump is not my leader and I have no dog in this fight. Trump has not attacked my democratic institutions and has not caused any deaths in my country. So this is totally not the discussion I need to face. And neither of the two teams support the extremely wealthy in my country - putin does it. But if we talk about stuff requiring fixing - your attitude towards strangers on the internet could probably use some. The overzealousness spills in the real world. Keep it in check.

Traster 6y ago

Seems less than coincidental they banned him until the inauguration. I would really like to hear what specifically in the videos he posted caused them to ban him - or whether they just viewed it as an obvious route for him to repeat what he had done on twitter, and chose not to let it get to that level.

cheph 6y ago
Well twitter banned him, among other reasons, because his tweet “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” "may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending." [1] Which seems to be somewhat scraping the bottom of the barrel of credibility, as is some of the other reasoning. Some other gems: - "The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol." - "The mention of his supporters having a “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition” and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election." I think they kinda fucked up letting him back on in the first place and are now left nit picking two mostly benign tweets because they don't know what else to do. The most egregious tweets were not the two they cite. [1]: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...

tomaszs 6y ago

It is sad to say, especially since BBC is mostly an accurate source of information, but this time title is a fake news. As well as the title here. Because the account was not suspended. Uploading videos and comments is suspended, to be precise and actually the article contains information about it. Just a note for hot heads: it is only an editorial comment with no strings attached.

mkl95 6y ago

Trump is still the president of the US. I'm pretty sure plenty of companies will shut him down on January 20.

tempodox 6y ago
Seeing how the guy's prime motivator is flattering his own ego, no matter the cost to others, or the country as a whole, being cut off from all those multipliers must be painful for him. I can't shed a tear for that, but what I'm really uneasy with is that the decisions to ban him are not controlled by a democratic process. Where will that modus operandi lead us?
- mkl95 6y ago
  In my opinion tech companies are not just shutting Trump down because he inspired his followers to enter the Capitol, they are shutting him down because he has become an actual threat to their operation. It's easy to see the consequences of a coup for social media companies like Twitter that had been partially shutting down Trump for months, not to mention how devastating it would be for the country's economy. So in a way social media companies are setting a precedent to ban politicians and organization leaders that they deem a threat to them or to "democracy". Hopefully it won't become a trump card to ban innocent users.

gadders 6y ago

I just read that Curt Schilling got his AIG insurance removed because of his "Social Media Profile".

Joeri 6y ago

I feel like Donald Trump is not the good example to argue against the power to deplatform. He is an internet troll who calls for violent action to overthrow the elected government. You can't be tolerant of that kind of intolerance, or your democracy will not survive it. In general though, I feel like deplatforming someone is something you should be able to challenge in front of a judge, just like being refused entry to a public business is something you can challenge in front of a judge. For healthy online debate, you need to have the ability to remove trolls from a platform, but the standard of who is or is not a troll cannot be set by the platform itself.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dkobia 6y ago

Free speech is an incredibly difficult ideal to uphold and I think it is unfair for governments to delegate that responsibility to tech companies.

eppp 6y ago
Free speech in the constitution applies to the government, it has absolutely nothing to do with tech companies managing their own products. No one is delegating anything.
- lordloki 6y ago
  Free speech is a natural born right of all people. This is recognized in the first amendment to the US constitution, where it specifies that as a human right the government cannot regulate it. As the "public square" moves from physical locations to virtual ones, the responsibility to defend those natural rights moves from one host(US Government) to another(large online media companies). While the US government is not officially delegating the defense of these rights, defense of these rights must be maintained and it is the responsibility of the host platform to do so.

nooneknowswhy 6y ago

First amendmendment is a joke now.

Tycho 6y ago

Biden does appear to be the rightful victor, but it was a highly unusual and uniquely sketchy election, and, given the recent pattern of protests and riots cheered on by politicians (blm/antifa trashing cities, mobs outside the White House and in the Capitol buildings for Supreme Court hearings), I’m only surprised that we’re not seeing worse. As the media hyperventilates to an ever greater pitch (“it was a coup!”), allowing all sorts of political opportunism, I’m starting to notice a chilling effect even in HN comments, with dissenters quieter than usual, opinion more lopsided. Some might think that we will now revert to a saner political climate, but I fear that they are mistaken. The logic of leftism (constant redistribution of power in the name of addressing ‘unfairness’) may yet see us spiral into the abyss.

croon 6y ago
> but it was a highly unusual and uniquely sketchy election No, it really wasn't. > with dissenters quieter than usual, opinion more lopsided. BS vs Non-BS should be lopsided. The problem with media the last decade hasn't been lies or omissions, but the fixation that truth somehow also needed a rebuttal, as if there's legitimacy in calling a duck a dog
- Tycho 6y ago
  Your attitude is a deep part of the problem. Reporting should be objective and even handed. The media immolated their credibility by constant editorialising and selective reporting, and now (absurdly) try to blame the resulting crisis of confidence on peripheral nonsense like QAnon .
  - croon 6y ago
    > Your attitude is a deep part of the problem. Reporting should be objective... My attitude is exactly that. > ... and even handed. That is explicitly not objective if the opposing sides are truth vs non-truth.
    - Tycho 6y ago

nbzso 6y ago

The problem for me is ignoring the idea of debating with the intent to find the middle ground for common good. Populism is not invented by Trump or the radical right. Populism is an instrument for ignoring the debate by giving an "accessible storyline" to the people. You can exercise your critical thinking by listening to these two gentlemen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWndfzuOc4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWndfzuOc4

jinpa_zangpo 6y ago

I still believe the solution is to handle social media like email. Have a common protocol that all providers use, have multiple providers, allow providers to remove abusers, and give users the ability to block.

Miner49er 6y ago

Anyone know what video(s) was removed? That's my problem with this type of censorship - now I want to know what was so bad YouTube felt the need to remove it. If it's that bad and was said by the President, it seems like it may be something I should know, but now I can't easily know. Why do tech companies get to decide what information the average person can or can't easily see? Part of the blame is on Trump for posting all this stuff on these websites instead of somewhere like whitehouse.gov. Let's say he hypothetically called on his supporters to commit a terrorist attack at the inauguration. Now Youtube is putting anyone who attends the inauguration in danger, because they are withholding information from them.

cosmiccatnap 6y ago

xkcd.com/1357/

alephnan 6y ago

Commenting on previous videos that were not in violation of terms of service have been disabled “indefinitely”. Same situation with Facebook/Instagram, but I’m not aware if there was a term of service violation there. Is this censoring Donald Trump, his supporters, bots, or his opposers? Consider that Jake and Logan Paul’s channels are still up despite repeat offenses including the Japan suicide forest video.

fsociety 6y ago

Many of these companies have held terms of conduct which condone enabling violence on their platforms. While they have failed to moderate the entirety of their platform, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t de-platform the cause of the coup attempt. Trump has many avenues to address the nation, of which he had no hesitation to use when he made claims that the election was stolen - how many of you stayed up election night to watch this? Not to mention as I write this Republicans are saying we shouldn’t impeach Trump because of “peace and unity” after a Munich Putsch-like attempt. Just now I read an article that panic buttons were disabled during the coup attempt, and some of the participators were given a full tour on Jan 5th to prepare. Reach on these platforms indoctrinates people into an extremist movement. These companies do not need to serve individuals if it violates their terms of conduct. It is not unconstitutional for them to do so. This is the responsibility they hold given the impact of their platforms.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

RickJWagner 6y ago

Here's a tweet where Nancy Pelosi questions the integrity of the 2016 election. Riots followed. How is this different? https://twitter.com/speakerpelosi/status/864522009048494080?lang=en https://twitter.com/speakerpelosi/status/864522009048494080?...

838812052807016 6y ago

I was able to find the video which triggered the suspension. Google didn't help me find it, by the way. Strictly speaking, he doesn't call for violence but instead tells people to go home in peace. What he does say is that the election was fraudulent. This seems to be the illegal utterance. And by "legal", I mean a rule laid down by the relevant authority.