6 ms·

He was the most popular user on the platform, brining in millions of views and engagements to twitter. Also the president of your country. This is the equival

He was the most popular user on the platform, brining in millions of views and engagements to twitter. Also the president of your country. This is the equivalent to arguing that Michael Jackson got to tour Disney Land in off hours, when regular person would have been arrested for doing the same. And how unfair that is.

notafraudster 4y ago
It's like arguing that _in response to you_ arguing Disney Land [sic] discriminates against Michael Jackson, which would be a valid refutation of your argument.
- dukeofdoom 4y ago
  Only if you believe if Equality is some sort of natural law. Which is a laughable proposition in a world with finite resources. Otherwise, we all have right to $30k pet monkey, because Michael Jackson had one. Twitter policies are not laws. Twitter routinely bends its own rules. Twitter also prides it self for being a place where you can get news and engage with Politicians, and has actual dictators with active accounts. The special treatment that Trump received, before being kicked out, does not really prove Twitter board supporting Trump ideologically at that time. More like business decision to maintain a reputation as being neutral in a situation with large proportion of its users still questioned the election results.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    Earlier you said > tech companies went out of their way to discredit him at every turn Now you are saying > business decision to maintain a reputation as being neutral These Venn diagrams don't overlap, so which is it? Either the company stymied him at every turn or supported him at least once, which means they did not stymie him at every turn. I don't doubt their leadership were, broadly speaking, not fans personally. But evidence strongly suggests they not only put those feelings aside, they went out of their way to bend their neutral stance to be accepting of things they were not previously accepting of, not the other way around.
    - dukeofdoom 4y ago
      Why does everything need to be binary? Or even linear. To the extent it suits Twitter, Twitter can act one way at specific time, and another way at another time. Since twitter both makes up and enforces the rules. The game can be rigged. But that doesn't mean that in general they want the appearance of things being fair, so that people are willing to play and engage with their platform. A paid off ref will not make every call against the other team, less he be lynched by the crowd, and the league lose all credibility. To the extent Trump got special treatment, he was the star of twitter. Also, you had a voting situation where voting rules where changed (mass mail in voting) that disproportionally favoured one candidate. A significant portion of the country questioned the results. And by the words of J6 committee, the country was on the brink of Insurrection. If we're going to play this binary game. You can either have elections you can't question. Or an election process in which the candidate can't publicly question, or protest the results. So which one is it? And to the extent Twitter was influential on American Public, and now knowing that the FBI worked directly with them. Some of those decisions at twitter were maid to maintain public trust in the system in general, and not just Twitter.
      - shadowgovt 4y ago
        The FBI works with every major social network. It's necessary for them to do their jobs since criminal activity is online these days. I'm not sure how the January 6th insurrection mixes into this entire story; not entirely sure why you brought it up. But since you brought it up, I think former president Trump successfully tested the limits of what you can legally do in terms of protesting and election and found them. Several of the lawyers who have advocated on his behalf are facing disbarment for their gross abuse of the system and he himself is under investigation for criminal activity. You can certainly protest and you can certainly make claims about the integrity of the system, but in general his people and him failed to back those claims with evidence that passed more than a sniff test. That's never been okay, and it's not something the first amendment protects. What social networks protect is way, way back from the edge of what the first amendment protects. Facebook and Twitter went out of their way to accommodate former president Trump, and given the results of those actions I doubt they will do similar in the future for other politicians.

notafraudster 4y ago

It's like arguing that _in response to you_ arguing Disney Land [sic] discriminates against Michael Jackson, which would be a valid refutation of your argument.

dukeofdoom 4y ago
Only if you believe if Equality is some sort of natural law. Which is a laughable proposition in a world with finite resources. Otherwise, we all have right to $30k pet monkey, because Michael Jackson had one. Twitter policies are not laws. Twitter routinely bends its own rules. Twitter also prides it self for being a place where you can get news and engage with Politicians, and has actual dictators with active accounts. The special treatment that Trump received, before being kicked out, does not really prove Twitter board supporting Trump ideologically at that time. More like business decision to maintain a reputation as being neutral in a situation with large proportion of its users still questioned the election results.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Earlier you said > tech companies went out of their way to discredit him at every turn Now you are saying > business decision to maintain a reputation as being neutral These Venn diagrams don't overlap, so which is it? Either the company stymied him at every turn or supported him at least once, which means they did not stymie him at every turn. I don't doubt their leadership were, broadly speaking, not fans personally. But evidence strongly suggests they not only put those feelings aside, they went out of their way to bend their neutral stance to be accepting of things they were not previously accepting of, not the other way around.
  - dukeofdoom 4y ago
    Why does everything need to be binary? Or even linear. To the extent it suits Twitter, Twitter can act one way at specific time, and another way at another time. Since twitter both makes up and enforces the rules. The game can be rigged. But that doesn't mean that in general they want the appearance of things being fair, so that people are willing to play and engage with their platform. A paid off ref will not make every call against the other team, less he be lynched by the crowd, and the league lose all credibility. To the extent Trump got special treatment, he was the star of twitter. Also, you had a voting situation where voting rules where changed (mass mail in voting) that disproportionally favoured one candidate. A significant portion of the country questioned the results. And by the words of J6 committee, the country was on the brink of Insurrection. If we're going to play this binary game. You can either have elections you can't question. Or an election process in which the candidate can't publicly question, or protest the results. So which one is it? And to the extent Twitter was influential on American Public, and now knowing that the FBI worked directly with them. Some of those decisions at twitter were maid to maintain public trust in the system in general, and not just Twitter.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      The FBI works with every major social network. It's necessary for them to do their jobs since criminal activity is online these days. I'm not sure how the January 6th insurrection mixes into this entire story; not entirely sure why you brought it up. But since you brought it up, I think former president Trump successfully tested the limits of what you can legally do in terms of protesting and election and found them. Several of the lawyers who have advocated on his behalf are facing disbarment for their gross abuse of the system and he himself is under investigation for criminal activity. You can certainly protest and you can certainly make claims about the integrity of the system, but in general his people and him failed to back those claims with evidence that passed more than a sniff test. That's never been okay, and it's not something the first amendment protects. What social networks protect is way, way back from the edge of what the first amendment protects. Facebook and Twitter went out of their way to accommodate former president Trump, and given the results of those actions I doubt they will do similar in the future for other politicians.