Trump Also Suspended from Snapchat and Twitch, Faces Content Restrictions on Pinterest and...TikTok? (msn.com) 403
Today MSN published an article listing "Every social media platform Donald Trump is banned from using (so far)."
Some excerpts: - Trump was suspended from Snapchat amid the riots on January 6, a spokesperson confirmed to The Hill...
- On January 7, Twitch, the Amazon-owned video live-streaming platform made popular by gamers, disabled Trump's account indefinitely...
- Though Trump does not have a Pinterest account, the image-sharing app has reportedly been limiting pro-Trump related topics since around November. For example, if you search "StoptheSteal," you will see the following message: "Pins about this topic often violate our community guidelines, so we're currently unable to show search results...."
- Oh, how the tables have turned. Remember when Trump tried to ban TikTok? Well, even though Trump does not have an account of his own, the video platform still found a way to limit his reach. On January 7, TikTok confirmed it would be removing videos of Trump's speeches believed to have incited violence at the Capitol. Furthermore, it is redirecting hashtags used by rioters like #stormthecapitol and #patriotparty to its community guidelines.
However, the company has not specified that it would ban Trump should he try to join the platform.
Some excerpts: - Trump was suspended from Snapchat amid the riots on January 6, a spokesperson confirmed to The Hill...
- On January 7, Twitch, the Amazon-owned video live-streaming platform made popular by gamers, disabled Trump's account indefinitely...
- Though Trump does not have a Pinterest account, the image-sharing app has reportedly been limiting pro-Trump related topics since around November. For example, if you search "StoptheSteal," you will see the following message: "Pins about this topic often violate our community guidelines, so we're currently unable to show search results...."
- Oh, how the tables have turned. Remember when Trump tried to ban TikTok? Well, even though Trump does not have an account of his own, the video platform still found a way to limit his reach. On January 7, TikTok confirmed it would be removing videos of Trump's speeches believed to have incited violence at the Capitol. Furthermore, it is redirecting hashtags used by rioters like #stormthecapitol and #patriotparty to its community guidelines.
However, the company has not specified that it would ban Trump should he try to join the platform.
Glad to live in the USA (Score:4, Insightful)
I am glad to live in the USA where even the President can't just infringe on people's rights. A lot of people in foreign countries don't get how private companies can't be forced to do the will of the president. That's one of the great things about the USA, that no the president can't just use your company as their platform without your consent. Other nations are in awe. Other people are in envy. Can you imagine a company in any other country telling the president to fuck off? What would happen to a Russian version of twitter if they kicked Putin off? I for one are glad that we're in a nation that we can do that, and you should be too.
Re:Glad to live in the USA (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like a setup publicity stunt.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Glad to live in the USA (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Plenty happens in NZ. Sheep shearing [...]
I didn't realize they were so open about it.
Oh... you said shearing.
Re:Glad to live in the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Glad to live in the USA (Score:5, Informative)
No, just pretty normal for smaller countries.
I live in Austria. We've met both the prime minister and the president of Austria at balls (the dance party, not the round thing). No visible security, taking pictures with people, sitting at a table drinking coffee.
Many top-level politicians in the smaller European countries have been seen walking their dog or buying bread in the local bakery, and I'm quite sure they go to restaurants and movie theatres or concerts the same way everyone else does. The owners might feel flattered to have them and might find a table with a bit more zeal, but there won't be none of the secret service showing up two weeks before to secure the place stuff that you get with the US president.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. The NZ PM does not get followed around by media and secret service agents making a big scene in a fancy car. What happened was a person walked into a cafe and was turned away, someone pointed out it was the PM and it got picked up as a filler story on some newspaper.
Unlike the USA we don't worship public officials (and I say "we" here as much of the rest of the world, not NZ specifically). I'm reminded of the G20 summit in Australia, 6 city blocks under complete lockdown in the southside at the
Re:Glad to live in the USA (Score:5, Interesting)
Pretty much this. People from the US usually think the rest of the world is very backwards and very unenlightened compared to their "great" country. Here is news for you, US citizens: This is propaganda, fed to you to avoid actually introducing modern ideas in the US that quite a bit of the rest of the world has had for ages. It only works because the US is so large. But try to do a survey of what some US citizens say about other countries they went to for a while. Paints a pretty different picture.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Until now there were some platforms (Twitter, Facebook, etc) where people with different opinions could challenge each other. People could expose the blatant and absurd ideas of Trump supporters and his own, with facts and arguments.
Now, you have a massive group of people that will create their
Re:Glad to live in the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Hahaha just like that "conservatives" are for a federal government usurping the rights of the private sector? Shows it was all a sham before.
This is like when the equal opportunities act was passed "conservatives" claimed companies have a God given freedom to hire whomever they want. But now that companies are choosing to hire minorities over whites .. "conservatives" are suddenly against companies choosing to hire who they want. Apparently discrimination is suddenly wrong and the government should force companies not to discriminate.
Re:Glad to live in the USA (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't have to go that far back. The exact same struggle played out over gay rights. Remember how strongly conservatives pushed for a federal amendment to ban gay marriage back under Bush II? They didn't quite get it. They supported the Defense of Marriage act too, passed earlier. They loved federal control then! But when the situation changed, and federal law switched to *supporting* gay marriage? Then they suddenly became all about states rights and fighting federal tyranny on the issue.
Re:Glad to live in the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey aren't you the same idiots who said that companies should not be forced to sell cakes to gay people? Now you all are saying companies should be forced to carry hateful messages they don't agree with?
I also remember you fools argued against Net Neutrality because companies should be able to choose what content their subscribers have access to.
Re: (Score:3)
People could expose the blatant and absurd ideas of Trump supporters and his own, with facts and arguments.
They did. No one stayed silent. Here's a hint - Trump supporters don't care and never will care about facts or arguments.
when he was pretty much defeated
Defeated in the eyes of whom? Seems plenty of people were willing to risk arrest and the possibility of death, not to mention that they thought they were going to get to kill some traitors.
When people are beyond listening and are willing to take any action, not just saying stupid things, then it's time to admit that it's already gone way past that.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because Trump supporters (or Trump himself) aren't buying into facts and arguments, it doesn't mean you have the right to silence them.
Doing so makes you no different than 'them' and some of their goals like the embarrassing events the world witnessed few days ago.
This is not about convincing them into 'what it is right' or 'what it is wrong'. This is about presenting the facts and reasons for anyone else to make their own opinion, including themselves if they want to.
Def
Re: (Score:2)
Until now there were some platforms (Twitter, Facebook, etc) where people with different opinions could challenge each other. People could expose the blatant and absurd ideas of Trump supporters and his own, with facts and arguments.
"I'm going on the internet to have my ideas changed", said no one, ever.
People echo-chambered the fuck out of their beliefs on social media, and now the Trump side will have to find some new real estate for their circle jerks. Nothing new under the sun, here.
Re:Glad to live in the USA (Score:4, Insightful)
Just when Trump was at the very end of everything, when he was pretty much defeated, you just created a martyr that will make his supporters angrier and claim a victimism that they obviously don't deserve but now will utilize.
It's not that simple. There was a good article that I can't find again, which dissected how Trump can claim the election was stolen and people believe him.
That's not as crazy as it seems at first. More people voted for him than in 2016. Yet this time the other guys won. Add the very, very clear bias of most of the media and online world against Trump, and if you want to believe it, it is quite easy to see something strange there. Mix in a few more ideas and a few actual mistakes and strange results that happen in every election, and you have enough there for people to doubt the whole process and feel betrayed.
And let's be honest, he was NOT as soundly and clearly defeated as would have been necessary to overcome the divide in the american people that politicians from both sides have been fostering for decades. Maybe now some of these egomaniacs will see that what goes around, comes around.
Re:Glad to live in the USA (Score:4, Insightful)
More people voted for him than in 2016.
More people voted for Joe Biden in both raw numbers and electoral votes. That these idiots can't see past this is proof enough facts don't matter to them.
Add the very, very clear bias of most of the media and online world against Trump,
Yes, repeating his very words is truly biased against him. It's a shame we have recordings of him saying words and video of his actions. Perhaps, in the future, the media in this country could be more like the media in North Korea and only show what the leader wants to be shown.
Re:Glad to live in the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
What hate? I stated an irrefutable fact. More people cast their vote for Biden, both in total raw numbers and in Electoral College votes. If you have evidence to the contrary, show it.
As to writing about the con artist, the media has covered everything he has done. They've replayed his words and actions for all to see. They have not altered anything he has said. When questioning his own words, his response is either, "That's not what I said" or "That's not what I meant." He then goes on to say the exact same thing or calls the journalist a name for using his own words or asking a valid question about what those words meant.
The man has been a con artist all his life. He received $400 million from daddy and managed to lose it all. He's had 16 corporate bankruptcies, 6 personal bankruptcies, and is on his third failed marriage. And this doesn't get into him cheating on all three wives, using illegal workers at his failing golf courses, or not hiring Americans at his failing golf course in Florida.
So tell me, how is any of these facts hateful? If the manchild did anything useful, it would be reported. Instead, we are treated to a barrage of unending lies, contradictions and personal attacks. That's not hate, that's the truth.
Re:Glad to live in the USA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure I can. To quote the Newsroom: "And with a straight face, youâ(TM)re gonna [say] that America is so star-spangled awesome that weâ(TM)re the only ones in the world who have freedom? Canada has freedom. Japan has freedom. The UK, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Australia, Belgium has freedom! So, 207 sovereign states in the world, like 180 of them have freedom. "
Re: Glad to live in the USA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree! I love that a handful of unelected tech-oligarch billionaires can decide who can speak in our digital world and which 74 million people must be silenced!
Did you have a look at the multiple events that justify the suspensions? Don't assimilate the few % of extremists to all Trump voters.
Re: Glad to live in the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
The Capitol was bombed in 1971 in protest of the Vietnam war, also an extremist group acting in the context of a larger (peaceful) protest.
I know, right? Goddamned Richard Nixon and his dirty tricks. Was there any depth of skulduggery he wouldn't sink to? I'll bet Dean and Liddy put him up to it. ... Wait, what?
The 1971 attack was committed by extremist antiwar protesters? It wasn't egged on by the President himself?
Well, that's a bit different, isn't it now.
Re: Glad to live in the USA (Score:4, Insightful)
Various government buildings were attacked much more heavily during the BLM protests, including being set on fire (e.g. Portland, Kenosha). Police stations even more often.
Don't forget Minneapolis where right-wing terrorists were setting fire to a police station while others were killing cops [theguardian.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I love that a handful of unelected tech-oligarch billionaires can decide who can speak in our digital world
So if you owned a restaurant, you wouldn't mind if I came in with a boombox and started blasting some Limp Bizkit? It's not as if I should be expected to follow the rules of your establishment...
Re: (Score:2)
You been skimming over the QAnon's copy of "constitooshinal law for dumies"? A lot of people on the far right have some very warped views about what is and isn't in the constitution. You may not like what it says, but that means you need to change it through legal means and not insist that private companies provide a forum with no moderation or restrictions of access for every human on the planet. The president is not so special that he or she would be above the law or private companies should be forced
Re: Glad to live in the USA (Score:2)
Limiting pro Trump topics (Score:2)
Disconcerting. (Score:5, Funny)
You may not think it's a big deal that the Trump is getting banned from all these platforms but tell me... what do you think will happen when he's banned from every platform except Slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You may not think it's a big deal that the Trump is getting banned from all these platforms but tell me... what do you think will happen when he's banned from every platform except Slashdot?
I'm guessing he won't get most of the jokes.
Re: (Score:2)
He'll take over from the "My trouble with the modern internet" guy.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump will just start shouting "you can't moderate me troll just because you disagree!", "I had first post and you all know it, the firstest of all first posts!", and "Use my HOSTS file, it's for patriots like us and won't get you redirected to liberal sites like the internet!"
Re:Disconcerting. (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly he would fit badly here:
Likely to comment without first reading the article!
Likely to complain how things aint as good as they used to be!
At times acts like he is an expert at things he knows nothing of!
Spends far too much time on here or other social media while at work!
Also, goes on long rants that ain't always closely related to the topic at hand!
What would we do if such people came here?
Set your view to -1 (Score:3)
Etsy (Score:4, Informative)
Why doesn't the US Fed gov run it's own social? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because owning a radio station and being able to say what you want from your front door are not the same thing.
Sure, a micro-blog at whitehouse.gov would likely get thousands of subscribers. But that's nothing to the three-digit millions reach that you get on social media, where your stuff is shown not only to your subscribers, but also to anyone some algorithm has determined might be interested in it.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be too civil. No one would want that.
Login with your EIN/SSN to comment.
Re: (Score:2)
The incoming US CTO under Biden is an open-source guy. Suggest it, maybe we can at least get a non-twitter parallel feed going.
TikTok banning people monitoring Parler! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Next we need to round up and deprogram all the Trumptards.
Education didn't work the first time. It's not going to work a second time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Education didn't work the first time. It's not going to work a second time.
Whites without a college degree voted 60% for Trump.
Whites with a college degree voted 40% for Trump.
So education appears to help people vote "correctly".
Re: Good. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We'll just tell them it's where all the stolen ballots are hidden.
Re: (Score:2)
What? We can't do that, there's no place to put 'em. It's not like the Trump administration spent the last 4 years building cages and detention centers to put people in. .. Uhh, oh wait.
Reference: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/... [hrw.org]
Re: Good. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This is abhorrent. (Score:4, Insightful)
WTF is going on? It's like we've stepped into the Twilight Zone.
How did we get here? Let's review:
A bakery, run by so-called "conservatives", pursued a lawsuit over a gay-themed wedding cake, all the way to the Supreme Court. And they won. The U.S. Supreme Court, also controlled by so-called "conservatives", ruled that a private business can refuse service to anyone, for any reason. It's now the law of the land.
Thanks to that lawsuit, all private companies in the U.S. can kick people off their platforms, for any reason they want, and it's all perfectly legal.
So, to anyone complaining about being "de-platformed":
You won. You got what you wanted. What's the problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Goebbels: We demand you broadcast our crazy ass conspiracy theories about the lesser races on your media!
Media: Dude, you are tripping, it's 2021, just head to Parler as they'll let anyone talk as long as they're not moderate or on the left.
Goebbels: Oh, danke! by the way, you are special!
Re:This is abhorrent. (Score:4, Informative)
The U.S. Supreme Court ... ruled that a private business can refuse service to anyone, for any reason.
No, they didn't. The ruling was very narrow and focused on the particular circumstances of that one wedding cake.
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission [wikipedia.org]
From Wikipedia: In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips' rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech
Re:This is abhorrent. (Score:5, Insightful)
GP point wasn't to get hung up on legalities though. The point is that the right wing is all in favor of deplatforming people they don't like and doing so without justification. They're using free speech as a smoke screen. They don't actually believe in it or any other principles. The only thing the right wing believes in is victory. Nothing else matters.
And that kind of Ends Justifies The Means and Winning At All Costs thinking is what gets your dictatorships and genocides.
Re:This is abhorrent. (Score:4, Informative)
How is a court ruling on religious discrimination and government forcing an act of expression relevant to this story? Last I checked these tech companies were not overtly religious (unlike the bakery that had a long established religious ethos) and were not being required to perform expressive acts.
There are two main reasons cited in the court's decision:
1. The Commission had violated the religious rights of Philipps, and that's pretty plain to see. If you look at the language they cite, it's quite clear that the Commission was not being impartial to religion.
2. What was asked of the bakery required artistry (an expressive act), thus the original ruling against the bakery would be government forcing expression. This was a bone of contention for the Colorado court, with them ruling that the personalisation of the cake wouldn't constitute an expressive act. The Supreme Court disagreed. That the Colorado court cited cases of denying of a platform doesn't mean anything. The Supreme Court considered those examples to be not relevant to the case, and they're right. Being required to offer a forum is not the same as being required to perform an act of expression.
If I'm missing something then tell me which part of the verdict is relevant or could you point to subsequent legal proceedings comparable to the story that would suggest the ruling has any bearing on the topic at hand.
Here's the text: https://www.supremecourt.gov/o... [supremecourt.gov]
Re:This is abhorrent. (Score:5, Informative)
Trump was lucky insofar as he was the president that Twitter cut him some slack for tweets that would have gotten others banned, tenuously justifying that they were newsworthy. Clearly last week was simply too much and he got the boot. I'm sure of the fact that he was gone anyway in less than 2 weeks and the Democrats control all 3 branches of government also played into it.
I bet the tech giants are quite nervous of the legislation the Dems could pass to control their behavior if they so wanted to and this was a signal they could police themselves. The counter argument is the fact that it got this far demonstrates they really can't.
Re:This is abhorrent. (Score:5, Insightful)
No different than being "deplatformed" by lenders because your credit sucks. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Trump can run his own server if he is so inclined to. The Pirate Bay manages to stay online, and it exists primarily to facilitate copyright infringement.
Re:This is abhorrent. (Score:5, Informative)
Why should Trump have a platform? We've never had a rule in this country at any time in the past that required a media presence for a mere politician, never mind a lame duck politician who's broken the rules of service. I know Huey Long and Joseph McCarthy were also pissed when they went from being media darlings to pariahs, but it happens.
Being denied service is not illegal, not unethical and not immoral. Especially when it's restricting speech that is immoral, unethical, and encouraging illegal activity.
Re:This is abhorrent. (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you want to make them all pariahs?
Let's be clear: they're making themselves pariahs by their behavior.
So cry me a river for them getting slammed by the consequences of their own actions.
Re: (Score:3)
Many people are determined to point out that 70 million people voted for a racist and a misogynist and all the rest of it.
Which they did, but keep in mind that democracy is a blunt instrument, and never blunter than a US presidential election. It is a burger bar with two items on the menu.
Re:This is abhorrent. (Score:4, Insightful)
He's lucky he's not being "deplatformed" on a gallows. That's the customary penalty for insurrection.
Re:This is abhorrent. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is abhorrent. (Score:5, Funny)
both technically correct. the platform is gone, and suspended above an empty space.
Re:This is abhorrent. (Score:5, Insightful)
"The president is the government" is only applicable in dictatorships. Supporting violence against another branch of government is not how the US Constitution envisages checks and balances working.
Re: (Score:3)
from https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com]
What's True
U.S. President Donald Trump did tell supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, to gather at the U.S. Capitol and try to convince members of Congress to delay the constitutional process that would affirm Biden's presidency.
What's False
Trump did not explicitly tell people to "storm" or "breach" or "break into" the Capitol.
What's Undetermined
It was a subjective call on whether Trump's use of phrases "you have to show strength" and "demand that Congress do the right thing" were meant to condone violence and crimes among right-wing extremists without explicitly encouraging it.
Seem reasonable, fair and balanced statement but I have never heard of that website before so from Wikipedia:
Jan Harold Brunvand, a folklorist who has written a number of books on urban legends and modern folklore, considered the site so comprehensive that in 2004 he decided not to launch one of his own to similarly discuss the accuracy of various legends and rumors.[11]
In 2009, FactCheck.org reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases.[30][31] In 2012, The Florida Times-Union reported that About.com's urban legends researcher found a "consistent effort to provide even-handed analyses" and that Snopes' cited sources and numerous reputable analyses of its content confirm its accuracy.[32] Mikkelson has said that the site receives more complaints of liberal bias than conservative bias, but added that the same debunking standards are applied to all political urban legends.[30]
I almost wanted to contribute to them for sane, seemingly unbiased statements of facts. It's a long time since I have seen any news on ever side without some kind of spin.
Its seems to me we (or at least the internet) seems get outraged at almost everything, seriously I think we need to calm down.
Re: (Score:3)
For the record, if the grandparent post had said something like "What insurrection? Trump didn't tell people to storm the Capitol" then I wouldn't have posted. I was responding to the implication that a President can't, by definition, be an insurrectionist.
Re:This is abhorrent. (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump is being systematically DDOS'd off every single platform in existence
So what? There is no right to make any service host Trump's content (or yours). This is not what free speech is. As he as veered into arguably illegal activities, it actually makes it a potential liability for platforms to host his content (platforms have a legal obligation to take down illegal posts when they become aware of them). Which makes it near-mandatory from a legal point of view to at least limit what Trump posts.
I do agree that platforms have become too powerful (but that is the collective fault of the users of those services!). But there will always be alternatives to the mainstream platforms (offline still works too). Unpopular voices have always had to use non-mainstream ways of communication.
When the first amendment was created (1788), if you wanted your speech widely disseminated you had to own a printing press or at least have a friendly publisher with a press willing to print what you write. There was (as today) no right to go any owner of a printing press and demand that they publish something you wrote. Today, just about anybody can set up their own web site and publish their views - and with some effort reach a fair number of people. While perhaps some limitations exist (e.g. the host provider might not like hosting illegal content), the restrictions and cost of such publishing are really pretty low compared to historical standards.
Paper flyers will also always be available. Just fire up your copy of your favorite text editor and start printing with a laser printer. You personally can probably have a larger audience with just those two tools (plus perhaps a car to drive to the places where you want to distribute them) than the vast majority of the population did in 1788. So there is more free speech available now than before.
In Trump's particular case, he will always have a conduit to get his voice out. All he needs to do is call up Fox News or even CNN or (gasp) call a press conference. Every newspaper in the country will repeat what he says. So he still has plenty of freedom of speech. Just not on certain (private) platforms. Trump brought these bans on himself by his actions - Twitter and Facebook bent over backwards to allow Trump to post despite repeatedly violating their TOS. They only acted when he went way over the top by inciting an insurrection (or at least that is how they interpret it). How do you expect them to behave? Isn't this free speech on their part?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are making the assumption that free speech must be easy. It isn't and has never been, especially if the ideas are unpopular with the ruling (i.e. rich) class. So you print flyers or something similar - free speech isn't necessarily online speech. Even on the web, an App isn't essential (indeed, far from it) - a web browser works quite well - I am not using a slashdot app at the moment and I never have. So what Apple and Google are doing doesn't prevent the speech in any significant way.
I agree that the
Re:This is abhorrent. (Score:4, Funny)
Trump is being systematically DDOS'd off every single platform in existence.
See? I knew 2021 was going to be better than 2020.
Re:This is abhorrent. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is how we've felt since the day Trump got elected.
Signed,
the rest of the World.
Re: (Score:2)
It was more like a Twilight Zone and Howdy Doody crossover special.
Re: This is abhorrent. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile Burgess Meredith stumbles into the post apocalypse DC ruins, finds in the rubble of the National Archives the copy of the US Constitution. He tries to read it but his glasses break. Stumbling over the blurry words, he drops it in horror and shouts "It's a cookbook!" Fade to black...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is abhorrent. (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, my history books describe what happens when we don't stop people like Trump and his supporters in time.
Re: (Score:3)
The rats are leaving the sinking ship. That's what this is.
I'm no fan of Trump, but I'm even less of a fan of those fucking "social media" company. They made tons of money broadcasting His Orangeness' antics for 4 years. Now that times are a-changing, they're all making a U-turn, acting all holier-than-though about content moderation, and offboarding their previous cash-cow as fast as possible to land on the good side of the next administration.
This is indeed quite abhorrent.
Re:This is abhorrent. (Score:4, Insightful)
They made tons of money broadcasting His Orangeness' antics for 4 years. Now that times are a-changing, they're all making a U-turn, acting all holier-than-though about content moderation, and offboarding their previous cash-cow as fast as possible to land on the good side of the next administration.
So it's like Betsy DeVos who has been enabling the con artist's violations of the Constitution by providing taxpayer money to religious institutions for the past four years, who have made millions on insider trading, but who now resign by claiming they can no longer support the con artist?
You mean like that?
Re:Turn your autoupdates off NOW! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahh yes, I too remember when a German technology company pushed automatic updates to everyone's phones and ... oh wait.
Hey, Republicans; aren't you usually the ones going on about how private companies can do whatever they want and it's only censorship when it's the government doing it?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, funny how even here on /. the arguments people bring for or against the same thing appear to depend on who's on the receiving end of it - you and your friends, or not.
Because when the talk is about Parler, the same people that post here that FB did a good thing are asking for more government oversight and that Parler shouldn't be allowed to do what it wants.
Re:Turn your autoupdates off NOW! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm interested to know why you'd decry what the tech companies are doing. Are you arguing they shouldn't have terms of service that restrict how users behave? Or that the terms of service should only be in line with the criminal law? Or something else? Why -- in terms of morality -- shouldn't companies be allowed to institute terms of service that enable them to act in the way that they believe protects their business reputation? I just don't see what's happening as at all problematic. If a company were to
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, funny how even here on /. the arguments people bring for or against the same thing appear to depend on who's on the receiving end of it - you and your friends, or not.
Because when the talk is about Parler, the same people that post here that FB did a good thing are asking for more government oversight and that Parler shouldn't be allowed to do what it wants.
Cool strawman dude! Facebook, Twitter, and parler were just doing their respective things. And thinking parler is some sort of bastion of free speech is laughable. They turn out to be really really active in banning anyone that doesn't adhere to their party line.
Problem is that there are people who are documenting the more egregious parler postings for use as evidence, and other than that it is a great texting honeypot. But no one is required to host it. Which is why Amazon is purging it now. Maybe th Ru
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's only like that for a week and a half, then our wannabe dictator will be gone.
Re:This is abhorrent. (Score:5, Insightful)
These platforms received tax breaks from ALL taxpayers, not just democrats. Had they been honest upfront that they were developing a service for only one side of the political spectrum, they would have never got this far.
Funny, there are hundreds of millions of other people of all political stripes using these platforms without issue. What is their secret?
While you're pondering that question, go whine to Parler about removing a post from an attorney [cnn.com]. Cause, you know, free speech and all that.
Re:This is abhorrent. (Score:5, Insightful)
These platforms received tax breaks from ALL taxpayers, not just democrats. Had they been honest upfront that they were developing a service for only one side of the political spectrum, they would have never got this far.
Funny, there are hundreds of millions of other people of all political stripes using these platforms without issue. What is their secret?
While you're pondering that question, go whine to Parler about removing a post from an attorney [cnn.com]. Cause, you know, free speech and all that.
I guess OP is admitting that he endorses violent overthrow and considers it something the Republican Party endorses. The problem is that there is a reason that Trump is being isolated. Aside from the division and hatred he has sown in recent years, the events of 1-6 where he and his lawyer and his son actively encouraged violent revolt.
He might have gotten away with it, but his minions went out and assaulted the capital building. Evidence shows they were planning on executing Pence, and taking hostages.
At some point, we take these things rather seriously.
Regardless, while allowing people their say is a great thing, these platforms are owned by entities other than the government, and are not required to post text calling for violent revolt.
Somewhere along the line far right wingers have come to the erroneous conclusion that free speech means that they are allowed to post anything they want - threats, calls to revolt, anything at all, and not only must whatever private platforms they are on are legally required to post it, everyone must listen or read it, then no one is allowed to react to it.
And of course parler is only allowing what they want. I understand that Amazon is purging parler as we write. parler is threatening legal action.
Not likely to work of course. I would suggest that these poor people who want to promote violent overthrow might contact the Russian Federation. Their aims appear to be converging.
Re:This is abhorrent. (Score:5, Informative)
These platforms received tax breaks from ALL taxpayers, not just democrats.
These sites DO allow messages from all political sides. They've banned Trump for criminal behavior/furthering illegal conduct through their platforms - inciting violence; that does not fly anywhere, Not even traditional media, newspapers, etc, are allowed to do that.
There's no "neutral platforms" tax break. Anyways.. Twitter has not been granted a "tax break", LOL.
Re: This is abhorrent. (Score:5, Informative)
I find that the censoring of President Trump isnâ(TM)t right The reason is so silly. I think they could do it to us. Right now itâ(TM)s him but ins day it could be true
It should and does apply to anyone promoting violent overthrow. In the Crescent pre rally just before the Save America riot, Trump told his people to use strength not weakness, Giuliani told them to use "trial by Combat, and Trump Junior told them to send a message.
And they went out and did it.
At some point, this shit is taken seriously. Welcome to seriously land.
Pretending that the president is completely above the law, and that the laws of the land must be suspended to keep him in office ends.
Freedom of speech does not include calls for violent overthrow. You might not like that, but it's just how it is.
Re: This is abhorrent. (Score:4, Informative)
here are the delete tweets
Oh - the ones after trump said in the crescent event? Best non-sequitur all day.
Allow me to refresh your memory on the relevant statements that occured before your people rioted.
On December 19th at 1:42 AM At 1.42am, Trump tweeted the lie that it was “statistically impossible” for him to have lost the presidential election. He gave his first notice of a “big protest in DC” on 6 January. “Be there, will be wild!” he said.
He had help from his inner circle on 6 January
Donald Trump Junior Jr, appeared as an opening act for the “Save America Rally” at the crescent a walk away from the US Capitol. He turned on the Republicans who were preparing to vote on certifying the election result.
“The people who did nothing to stop the steal. This gathering should send a message to them: This isn’t their Republican party any more. This is Donald Trump’s.”
Then “If you’re gonna be the zero and not the hero, we’re coming for you and we’re going to have a good time doing it!”
At the same place on January 6, Rudy Giuliani addressed the rally.
“If we’re wrong, we will be made fools of,” he said. “But if we’re right, a lot of them will go to jail. So let’s have trial by combat.”
Trump then addressed the crescent crowd, urging them to march on the Capitol building. “We will not take it any more,” and “You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong I know everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol
Care to deny this? Perhaps a deepfake, and the Trump inner circle actually were praising puppydogs? You figure that Trump and his people are peaceful when they declare the Republican party as dissolved, and how is under Trump's rule, then an demand to have of "Trial by Combat", and that if you are not on board, "We're coming for you, and we're going to have a good time doing it"?
And just coincidentally, Trump's supporters turned violent and attempted a coup. Set up a gallows apparently to hang Pence, and attacked an American institution. It failed, but the evidence shows that they planned on taking hostages, given their ziptie restraints.
If you think that isn't incitement, well, you support the violence, and violent overthrow.
Re: (Score:3)
A valid point, but the thing is, this is something that's been done to many other people with a lot less reason. The point of this case is to highlight the centralization of authority and try to figure out how to handle it.
This is something that needed to be done, and as the current system is set up, the folks who banned Trump were the ones who could do it. But that kind of centralized power is dangerous. The system needs to be redesigned...but HOW???
In point of fact, anything that allows gossip to spre
Re: (Score:3)
Glad to see that the corporate world has some sense of decency left to them
So where was it for the last 6 years? Same as all his other enablers.
Glenn Greenwald's Intercept wrote it better than me: https://theintercept.com/2021/... [theintercept.com]
They are simply using the moment to perform an action which will improve their standing with the next administration. It gives you a very good idea just how free really is the land of the free, if everyone is running ahead of the game to be voluntarily compliant.
Trump is not on any of them anyway. He is on Telegram. He added 100K+ followers in the l
Re: (Score:2)
Glad to see that the corporate world has some sense of decency left to them
So where was it for the last 6 years? Same as all his other enablers.
Indeed. These are just the rats leaving the sinking ship. And they do so somewhat late. But it is nice to see the Dumb is actually sinking fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Glad to see that the corporate world has some sense of decency left to them.
This is less a sign of how much decency there is in the corporate world than a sign of how badly Teh Don screwed the pooch on Wednesday.
Re: (Score:3)
N A Z Is were the result of nationalistic fools (basically Germany's version of trumpturds) taking over the government.
Re: Look on the bright side. (Score:2)
^-- this +1 I left Twitter last year and Facebook a few years before. Online forums on making music, running Linux and, well, Slashdot are where I get my kicks. I no longer spend significant portions of my free time with a phone in my hand. It sucked and it sucked me in. I'm not the only one.
Re:Piling on - dangerous precedent (Score:4, Informative)
Wait, aren't you guys always yelling about the "Free Market" and "private companies can do what they want" etc etc etc?
Well it looks like the Invisible Hand of the Free Market has finally moved, and it's sweeping toxic scumbags off the table. What's the problem?
I'm tolerant, but not of a cancerous growth. I won't argue with my oncologist about whether the tumor has a right to live or not. It might, but not in my body.
Re:Piling on - dangerous precedent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
where it today's market square? If you have a first amendment right to be heard, exactly where is it that you can have your say? Build your own platforms? That's great, right up until the infrastructure is pulled out from under you (AWS and Parler). The entire internet is run by private companies.
So you're saying the private sector isn't suitable to manage every part of society? What are you communist?
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with the sentiment, I suspect you're somewhat disingenuous. Did you speak out when Trump and Congress threatened to label Antifa and BLM as a terrorist organization ? That has serious implications because it impacts how private organizations can interact with them, that *is* the federal government finding a legal path to limit their free speech rights.
No I suspect most folks trot out that quote when it suits their purposes.
I find it kind of astounding that people are more concerned that Twitter,