4 ms·

> 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 lik

> 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.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    The reason I believe Trump is dangerous is that, after he lost an election, he started making constant public demands for the results to be nullified, interspersed with occasional declarations that he had definitively won the election and intended to remain in power. I agree that many prior criticisms of him were speculative or untrue, but it seems clear that he was prepared to install himself for a second term by any means available.
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

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.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  The reason I believe Trump is dangerous is that, after he lost an election, he started making constant public demands for the results to be nullified, interspersed with occasional declarations that he had definitively won the election and intended to remain in power. I agree that many prior criticisms of him were speculative or untrue, but it seems clear that he was prepared to install himself for a second term by any means available.

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