3 ms·

> If you can memory-hole a president of the United States So whilst I understand your point of view, I think there is wider context that needs to be factored i

> If you can memory-hole a president of the United States So whilst I understand your point of view, I think there is wider context that needs to be factored in here. That aside, A network provider needs to enforce its own terms of services equally. In practice nobody does this, but Twitter and facebooks inaction for clear violations of their terms of service undermines their points operating fairly. Facebook failed to act when Trump and others (of all political styles) decided to lie about voting, the mechanics of voting, and validity of voting. That is a clear violation of its community guidelines. It turns out that there are secret rules for politicians (basically they can do what they like.) This is wrong Twitter failed to uphold it's ToS when allowing trump to issue threats to use nuclear weapons on north korea. Had the ToS been applied equally, lots of politicians and pundits would have been kicked off years ago. The issue is fairness. We accept the law, because on the face of it, its applied equally. As soon as that facade drops, people begin to reject it. > It turns out that the people who moderate the network wield unimaginable power. Yes, and this is nothing new. Just look at the power that news barons had. before that pamphleteers. In reality freedom of speech in the broadcast sense only applies to the rich, or the friends of the rich.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
> Facebook failed to act when Trump and others (of all political styles) decided to lie about voting, the mechanics of voting, and validity of voting. Just like members of another political party did 4 years earlier, but they weren't given any warnings or badges or anything. I wonder if it has something to do with that company management is more closely aligned with that party. /s I don't have a horse in this race, but the lack of objectivity in Trump haters is striking even from the other side of the ocean. Hatred can cloud reasoning, I guess.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  You're adopting a very dismissive tone for what seems like a reasonable position. If you believe Trump is uniquely dangerous (disclosure: I do), why couldn't you have a reasoned, objective belief that social media companies need the tools to keep him off their platform? If someone comes to me with an undisputable argument that suchandsuch principle means he has to be allowed on Facebook again, I consider that to be an argument against the principle, in much the same way as I'd reject a principle that proves we can't enforce laws or can't block spam.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    Social media companies have every right to ban Trump just because they can. But they should be honest about it: he is their political enemy and they don't want him to spread his message. Instead, they engage in an elaborate hypocrisy, inventing rules and procedures that are only applied to him and are only used to silence him. It is clear as a day that they don't apply the same standards to other politicians, especially their allies. And to me, few things are as disgusting as such hypocrisy. Shameless bias in reporting (to either side, while pretending to be 'objective') comes close, but not quite.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      But I don't think that actually is an honest statement of their motives. Many of Facebook's political enemies have active Facebook accounts, and use them to spread messages Facebook doesn't agree with.
      - throwawaysea 6y ago
        But those other political enemies aren't in the same position of power as Trump. It could be argued that Facebook's motivations are to ensure the presidency and congress are under their political tribe's control while giving the maximal voice to the other side so that they do not lose all those customers who disagree with their political views. It gives them all the benefits of aggregating power for their political tribe while minimizing loss in income and corporate value.
        SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        I don't really know how to engage with a claim like this. You could argue a lot of things - but are they true? It seems extraordinarily unlikely to me that Facebook would have banned a President Marco Rubio or President Ted Cruz.
  - Covzire 6y ago
    Why do you believe Trump is dangerous? CNN did nothing but lie about him and give endless coverage to rampant speculation. Literally everywhere there was any doubt, they brought on "experts" to exploit doubt and never gave Trump the benefit of any of it. The "emporer has no clothes" moment for me was when after a dozen or so appearances by Adam Schiff on CNN, MSNBC etc that he had seen proof that Trump was a russian asset, he presented zero evidence during the early 2020 impeachment trial. There are a lot of liars in politics and I wish more people would admit their side has their fair share of them.
- KaiserPro 6y ago
  thats my point. Facebook allows politicians to opt out of the "community guidelines" which I dislike intensely. Even if I agree with a particular politician.
- epakai 6y ago
  > Just like members of another political party did 4 years earlier What were those lies? There was a foreign influence campaign. There was a bipartisan confirmation of that fact in the Senate. There were suggestions of vote manipulation (based on foreign actors accessing voter roles), but I don't recall any accusations being leveled. Many people thought Trump was an illegitimate president. There was a peaceful change of power. Obama showed up and handed over the reins. The recent elections went much further. "Stop the steal" is pretty strong language. Trump called out particular state elections as having short-counted votes for him. There was wild speculation about counting efforts and voting machine manipulation. People stormed a congressional meeting confirming the outcome. Trump continued to attack our election processes and refused to participate in the inauguration.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    > There was a foreign influence campaign. Rofl. A few thousands dollars bought ads that influenced the election, oh wow! If it was the US citizens who voted, they are free to listen anyone they want. Or you think that US citizens are too stupid to be allowed to judge for themselves, and should be guarded from 'wrong' information? (Of course, we can trust Facebook to decide which info is right, and which not)
    - epakai 6y ago
      People are not so immune to propaganda campaigns. Yes, I believe many are stupid. I also believe they should be allowed to judge for themselves. Not everything is worth considering or even being exposed to though. Part of knowing is being aware of who the messenger is. In any case I'll ask again. What were these lies from Democrats? I'm aware of very few lies about voting, voting mechanics, and the validity of the 2016 vote. Looking back in fact I see Trump at that time too claiming voter fraud before the election. He claimed to have won the popular vote after due to illegal voters. Yet he did very little in power to affect these issues then claimed so again.
      - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
redis_mlc 6y ago
> Facebook failed to act when Trump and others (of all political styles) decided to lie about voting, the mechanics of voting, and validity of voting. To address each of your incorrect points: The FEC considers voting from one state to another state after moving to be election fraud. That happened thousands of times. It appears that Dominion Voting Systems, used in 29 states, is owned by the CCP. (They were banned in Texas because they didn't clarify ownership, which they consider to be a FEC violation.) Poll station staff have admitted to using voting machine admin screens to "correct" voting selections, with no oversight. > Twitter failed to uphold it's ToS when allowing trump to issue threats to use nuclear weapons on north korea. It's the President's decision as CIC when to use nukes. N. Korea flies ballistic missiles over Japan, one of our closest allies. Xi has threatened the US twice with nukes in 2020, and N. Korea is their vassal state. Not sure what your point is, or where you get your nonsense from.
throwawaysea 6y ago
Democrats challenged presidential election results in 2000, 2004, and 2016: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/opinion/democrat-republican-electoral-votes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/opinion/democrat-republic... They also challenged a House seat in this 2020 cycle: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrat-rita-hart-ends-election-challenge-close-iowa/story?id=76796759 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrat-rita-hart-ends-elec... Trump has also won two-thirds of the election cases that were actually heard, rather than dismissed on some technicality: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/exclusive-breakdown-80-cases-related-2020-presidential-election/ https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/exclusive-breakdown... My point being that I don't think it is invalid to discuss election results or not believe in them. We have a legal process to hear these complaints for a reason.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago

> Facebook failed to act when Trump and others (of all political styles) decided to lie about voting, the mechanics of voting, and validity of voting. Just like members of another political party did 4 years earlier, but they weren't given any warnings or badges or anything. I wonder if it has something to do with that company management is more closely aligned with that party. /s I don't have a horse in this race, but the lack of objectivity in Trump haters is striking even from the other side of the ocean. Hatred can cloud reasoning, I guess.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
You're adopting a very dismissive tone for what seems like a reasonable position. If you believe Trump is uniquely dangerous (disclosure: I do), why couldn't you have a reasoned, objective belief that social media companies need the tools to keep him off their platform? If someone comes to me with an undisputable argument that suchandsuch principle means he has to be allowed on Facebook again, I consider that to be an argument against the principle, in much the same way as I'd reject a principle that proves we can't enforce laws or can't block spam.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  Social media companies have every right to ban Trump just because they can. But they should be honest about it: he is their political enemy and they don't want him to spread his message. Instead, they engage in an elaborate hypocrisy, inventing rules and procedures that are only applied to him and are only used to silence him. It is clear as a day that they don't apply the same standards to other politicians, especially their allies. And to me, few things are as disgusting as such hypocrisy. Shameless bias in reporting (to either side, while pretending to be 'objective') comes close, but not quite.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    But I don't think that actually is an honest statement of their motives. Many of Facebook's political enemies have active Facebook accounts, and use them to spread messages Facebook doesn't agree with.
    - throwawaysea 6y ago
      But those other political enemies aren't in the same position of power as Trump. It could be argued that Facebook's motivations are to ensure the presidency and congress are under their political tribe's control while giving the maximal voice to the other side so that they do not lose all those customers who disagree with their political views. It gives them all the benefits of aggregating power for their political tribe while minimizing loss in income and corporate value.
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        I don't really know how to engage with a claim like this. You could argue a lot of things - but are they true? It seems extraordinarily unlikely to me that Facebook would have banned a President Marco Rubio or President Ted Cruz.
- Covzire 6y ago
  Why do you believe Trump is dangerous? CNN did nothing but lie about him and give endless coverage to rampant speculation. Literally everywhere there was any doubt, they brought on "experts" to exploit doubt and never gave Trump the benefit of any of it. The "emporer has no clothes" moment for me was when after a dozen or so appearances by Adam Schiff on CNN, MSNBC etc that he had seen proof that Trump was a russian asset, he presented zero evidence during the early 2020 impeachment trial. There are a lot of liars in politics and I wish more people would admit their side has their fair share of them.
KaiserPro 6y ago
thats my point. Facebook allows politicians to opt out of the "community guidelines" which I dislike intensely. Even if I agree with a particular politician.
epakai 6y ago
> Just like members of another political party did 4 years earlier What were those lies? There was a foreign influence campaign. There was a bipartisan confirmation of that fact in the Senate. There were suggestions of vote manipulation (based on foreign actors accessing voter roles), but I don't recall any accusations being leveled. Many people thought Trump was an illegitimate president. There was a peaceful change of power. Obama showed up and handed over the reins. The recent elections went much further. "Stop the steal" is pretty strong language. Trump called out particular state elections as having short-counted votes for him. There was wild speculation about counting efforts and voting machine manipulation. People stormed a congressional meeting confirming the outcome. Trump continued to attack our election processes and refused to participate in the inauguration.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  > There was a foreign influence campaign. Rofl. A few thousands dollars bought ads that influenced the election, oh wow! If it was the US citizens who voted, they are free to listen anyone they want. Or you think that US citizens are too stupid to be allowed to judge for themselves, and should be guarded from 'wrong' information? (Of course, we can trust Facebook to decide which info is right, and which not)
  - epakai 6y ago
    People are not so immune to propaganda campaigns. Yes, I believe many are stupid. I also believe they should be allowed to judge for themselves. Not everything is worth considering or even being exposed to though. Part of knowing is being aware of who the messenger is. In any case I'll ask again. What were these lies from Democrats? I'm aware of very few lies about voting, voting mechanics, and the validity of the 2016 vote. Looking back in fact I see Trump at that time too claiming voter fraud before the election. He claimed to have won the popular vote after due to illegal voters. Yet he did very little in power to affect these issues then claimed so again.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago

redis_mlc 6y ago

> Facebook failed to act when Trump and others (of all political styles) decided to lie about voting, the mechanics of voting, and validity of voting. To address each of your incorrect points: The FEC considers voting from one state to another state after moving to be election fraud. That happened thousands of times. It appears that Dominion Voting Systems, used in 29 states, is owned by the CCP. (They were banned in Texas because they didn't clarify ownership, which they consider to be a FEC violation.) Poll station staff have admitted to using voting machine admin screens to "correct" voting selections, with no oversight. > Twitter failed to uphold it's ToS when allowing trump to issue threats to use nuclear weapons on north korea. It's the President's decision as CIC when to use nukes. N. Korea flies ballistic missiles over Japan, one of our closest allies. Xi has threatened the US twice with nukes in 2020, and N. Korea is their vassal state. Not sure what your point is, or where you get your nonsense from.

throwawaysea 6y ago

Democrats challenged presidential election results in 2000, 2004, and 2016: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/opinion/democrat-republican-electoral-votes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/opinion/democrat-republic... They also challenged a House seat in this 2020 cycle: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrat-rita-hart-ends-election-challenge-close-iowa/story?id=76796759 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrat-rita-hart-ends-elec... Trump has also won two-thirds of the election cases that were actually heard, rather than dismissed on some technicality: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/exclusive-breakdown-80-cases-related-2020-presidential-election/ https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/exclusive-breakdown... My point being that I don't think it is invalid to discuss election results or not believe in them. We have a legal process to hear these complaints for a reason.