3 ms·

>“We live in a world where the Taliban has a huge presence on Twitter, yet your favorite American President has been silenced. This is unacceptable," Trump said

by vadfa 5y ago

>“We live in a world where the Taliban has a huge presence on Twitter, yet your favorite American President has been silenced. This is unacceptable," Trump said in a written statement included in the release. As much as I don't like the drama queenism of this guy, he's not wrong.

anoonmoose 5y ago
The TOS (edit: of the website TRUTH) explicitly allow them to remove anyone for basically any reason, and they specifically mention typing in all caps or disparaging the site, both things Trump has done on Twitter.
- vadfa 5y ago
  Okay? I don't see how that changes anything. Twitter can do whatever they want, but it's still unacceptable.
  - anoonmoose 5y ago
    Edited because I was perhaps unclear. Unless you think it's unacceptable for TRUTH as well...
  - mattbrewsbytes 5y ago
    I'd disagree and I believe courts would disagree should a banned user take their case up legally. A ToS is agreed upon and when violated the company may ban you at their discretion. Same scenario when a store has a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign. Or a high end restaurant requires people to wear a suit coat and tie. Totally and legally acceptable.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mikevm 5y ago
It was pretty clear that he was purged from all the media platforms because the people who run the platforms do not like him. The events at the Capitol were just a smoke screen. The removal of Gab from all platforms was also a major red flag, but most people here didn't seem to mind the oligarchy as long as it's their guys who are in charge.
- trumpsghost 5y ago
  > It was pretty clear that he was purged from all the media platforms because the people who run the platforms do not like him. Have you ever worked at a company where there's a strict code of behavior, but the CEO is a rich loud-mouthed douchebag and nobody can shut him up because they'd get fired? I have. Kind of unfair, isn't it? Unfair would be having a well documented code of conduct on a platform who's terms apply for everybody except the rich, and the rich are allowed to say whatever they want on this platform. Twitter, Facebook and others have neither legal nor moral obligation to host Trump, or anybody else.
  - mikevm 5y ago
    > Twitter, Facebook and others have neither legal nor moral obligation to host Trump, or anybody else. I completely agree with this. So let's strip them of their section 230 rights[0] and let them have full control of their platform, instead of their bad faith application of censorship to political ideologies they disagree with. Why, for example, did Twitter and Facebook ban The Wall Street Journal's reporting on Hunter Biden's emails? Or why do they consistently block and remove Project Veritas reporting? This is compared to the dubious Steele dossier which is freely discussed. Somehow the policies of these companies end up hurting right-wing/conservative media outlets more than left-wing media outlets. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
trumpsghost 5y ago
Maybe he shouldn't have made a deal with the Taliban then?
- colesantiago 5y ago
  Taliban was already on Twitter before that deal took place, so this is a moot point.
  - trumpsghost 5y ago
    Thanks to Drumpf's efforts, the Taliban is now accepted as a legitimate government. Why would they be de-platformed as long as they follow Twitter's rules? Hell, even Taliban recruiting online is now officially no different than the JDF or the USMC recruiting online. Just another government recruiting for their army. As long as they aren't preaching/encouraging violence (besides recruiting for their military), or preaching hatred, then they are within the terms of service.
    - colesantiago 5y ago
      I don't know, maybe ask Twitter as to why they have harboured the Taliban on their platform for so long and allowed them to grow?
    - tomas_nort 5y ago
      Now Trump is responsible for US abandoning Afghanistan?
tlackemann 5y ago
You have the right to free speech, to say what you want. You do not have the right to a platform.
- colesantiago 5y ago
  So you inevitably build your own, and they did.
  - anoonmoose 5y ago
    as far as I know it ain't up yet and the guy has a pretty public history of making loud proclamations that go nowhere, so "and they did" might be a bit premature
    - colesantiago 5y ago
      When they do go up are they any easier to shutdown? I don't see how Gab going away time soon. Mobile apps may be easier to take down, but then they make the transition the open web.
Maxburn 5y ago
True enough. I've also found the mastadon is a better experience for myself than twitter and I like the decentralized nature of that platform.
nashashmi 5y ago
Those in power hold relevance with their terrible behavior on social media. Those without power don't hold relevance. Except Taliban never had terrible behavior on social media
short_sells_poo 5y ago
100% agreed. I don't like Trump or his political platform, but the way (social) media handled the last election is just as disagreeable. There's an argument that corporations should not be forced to host content they don't agree with, but perhaps this just means that the social media landscape should be taken away from corporations and become something like a public good. The moment big tech started curating what is available, they simultaneously opened a can of worms on censorship, and they also should've lost the safe harbor allowances. We can't have unpopular opinions completely silenced if we are meant to have constructive discourse. Of course, if the objective is to build siloed echo chambers whose only interaction is borderline fanatic ripping at each other's throats, then the current trajectory is 100% on course. Understanding and constructive discussion can only arise in an environment where we try to understand the opposition, instead of trying to silence them or find reasons to vilify them.
- ColinWright 5y ago
  > Understanding and constructive discussion can only arise in an environment where we try to understand the opposition, ... But people aren't trying to understand each other, nor are they trying to have constructive discussions. The very nature of the platforms makes that really, really hard, and it just doesn't happen. Instead, the platforms are used to whip up mobs and dog-whistle followers, and that's a "Bad Thing^{(tm)}". Consider the paradox of tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Giving intolerant people a platform is a recipe for bad things to happen.

by vadfa 5y ago

anoonmoose 5y ago

The TOS (edit: of the website TRUTH) explicitly allow them to remove anyone for basically any reason, and they specifically mention typing in all caps or disparaging the site, both things Trump has done on Twitter.

vadfa 5y ago
Okay? I don't see how that changes anything. Twitter can do whatever they want, but it's still unacceptable.
- anoonmoose 5y ago
  Edited because I was perhaps unclear. Unless you think it's unacceptable for TRUTH as well...
- mattbrewsbytes 5y ago
  I'd disagree and I believe courts would disagree should a banned user take their case up legally. A ToS is agreed upon and when violated the company may ban you at their discretion. Same scenario when a store has a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign. Or a high end restaurant requires people to wear a suit coat and tie. Totally and legally acceptable.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mikevm 5y ago

It was pretty clear that he was purged from all the media platforms because the people who run the platforms do not like him. The events at the Capitol were just a smoke screen. The removal of Gab from all platforms was also a major red flag, but most people here didn't seem to mind the oligarchy as long as it's their guys who are in charge.

trumpsghost 5y ago
> It was pretty clear that he was purged from all the media platforms because the people who run the platforms do not like him. Have you ever worked at a company where there's a strict code of behavior, but the CEO is a rich loud-mouthed douchebag and nobody can shut him up because they'd get fired? I have. Kind of unfair, isn't it? Unfair would be having a well documented code of conduct on a platform who's terms apply for everybody except the rich, and the rich are allowed to say whatever they want on this platform. Twitter, Facebook and others have neither legal nor moral obligation to host Trump, or anybody else.
- mikevm 5y ago
  > Twitter, Facebook and others have neither legal nor moral obligation to host Trump, or anybody else. I completely agree with this. So let's strip them of their section 230 rights[0] and let them have full control of their platform, instead of their bad faith application of censorship to political ideologies they disagree with. Why, for example, did Twitter and Facebook ban The Wall Street Journal's reporting on Hunter Biden's emails? Or why do they consistently block and remove Project Veritas reporting? This is compared to the dubious Steele dossier which is freely discussed. Somehow the policies of these companies end up hurting right-wing/conservative media outlets more than left-wing media outlets. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

trumpsghost 5y ago

Maybe he shouldn't have made a deal with the Taliban then?

colesantiago 5y ago
Taliban was already on Twitter before that deal took place, so this is a moot point.
- trumpsghost 5y ago
  Thanks to Drumpf's efforts, the Taliban is now accepted as a legitimate government. Why would they be de-platformed as long as they follow Twitter's rules? Hell, even Taliban recruiting online is now officially no different than the JDF or the USMC recruiting online. Just another government recruiting for their army. As long as they aren't preaching/encouraging violence (besides recruiting for their military), or preaching hatred, then they are within the terms of service.
  - colesantiago 5y ago
    I don't know, maybe ask Twitter as to why they have harboured the Taliban on their platform for so long and allowed them to grow?
  - tomas_nort 5y ago
    Now Trump is responsible for US abandoning Afghanistan?

tlackemann 5y ago

You have the right to free speech, to say what you want. You do not have the right to a platform.

colesantiago 5y ago
So you inevitably build your own, and they did.
- anoonmoose 5y ago
  as far as I know it ain't up yet and the guy has a pretty public history of making loud proclamations that go nowhere, so "and they did" might be a bit premature
  - colesantiago 5y ago
    When they do go up are they any easier to shutdown? I don't see how Gab going away time soon. Mobile apps may be easier to take down, but then they make the transition the open web.

Maxburn 5y ago

True enough. I've also found the mastadon is a better experience for myself than twitter and I like the decentralized nature of that platform.

nashashmi 5y ago

Those in power hold relevance with their terrible behavior on social media. Those without power don't hold relevance. Except Taliban never had terrible behavior on social media

short_sells_poo 5y ago

100% agreed. I don't like Trump or his political platform, but the way (social) media handled the last election is just as disagreeable. There's an argument that corporations should not be forced to host content they don't agree with, but perhaps this just means that the social media landscape should be taken away from corporations and become something like a public good. The moment big tech started curating what is available, they simultaneously opened a can of worms on censorship, and they also should've lost the safe harbor allowances. We can't have unpopular opinions completely silenced if we are meant to have constructive discourse. Of course, if the objective is to build siloed echo chambers whose only interaction is borderline fanatic ripping at each other's throats, then the current trajectory is 100% on course. Understanding and constructive discussion can only arise in an environment where we try to understand the opposition, instead of trying to silence them or find reasons to vilify them.

ColinWright 5y ago
> Understanding and constructive discussion can only arise in an environment where we try to understand the opposition, ... But people aren't trying to understand each other, nor are they trying to have constructive discussions. The very nature of the platforms makes that really, really hard, and it just doesn't happen. Instead, the platforms are used to whip up mobs and dog-whistle followers, and that's a "Bad Thing^{(tm)}". Consider the paradox of tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Giving intolerant people a platform is a recipe for bad things to happen.