Big Tech Authoritarianism

[Raikiri]

It’s the ultimate flex really to show who’s really in charge.

So if Bojo came on here, a privately owned forum with which he would have to agree to the rules before joining. Then started calling you all ****ers, posting gore/porn and posting links to competitors and it would be A-OK?

You wouldn't ban him or delete/edit the offending posts?

 

[Theophany]

Think of Twitter as a Christian bakery and Trump as a gay wedding cake.

 

[Puzzled]

Free speech doesn't mean you are free from the consequences of what you say.

Tbh I wouldn't be surprised if one of his nutty followers tries to take him out after he turned on them the other day. Though I now see he is claiming that he was forced to say it

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

He has been in power for 4 years. They have done nothing until they were safe from repercussions. How is that not cowardly? As far as I know, 4 people died in the recent invasion of the capitol. How many died during the violence at the peak of BLM? What about the witch hunts that twitter allows that ruin peoples lives who fall foul of the twitter mob? Is that OK? Its only careers and lives and families that are being ruined there? Maybe they deserve it?.

Bingo, especially the bolded part. Anyone who thinks that Trumps ban from Twitter has anything to do with twitter enforcing their TOS is deluded or willfully ignorant.
Twitter stood back while people organised the "mostly peaceful protest" were black business and communities were burned to the ground. They let that and other things run rampant on their site, without even a whiff of the ban hammer.

 

[Concrete]

Can someone saying Trump instigated violence quote the exact Twitter message they are refering to please.

 

[Mekrel]

All opinions should be allowed, no one should be "banned", it's the whole de-platforming culture, it's toxic... it clearly doesn't work, if anything it allows further entrenchment of views.

I should be allowed to view/read your crap and then say it is crap. Simple as, it's really not difficult and not worthy of such lengthy debates. Let's just debate the views not whether we can have the views or not.

But it really isn't simple as that, because some people are so misinformed, naive and or gullible to believe what they're reading regardless if it's true or not. The issue is that believing misinformation can have dire consequences.

The Islamic State were able to recruit enough people to occupy large swathes of two countries by posting propaganda. There's people dumb enough to be anti-vaccination, resulting in over 600 cases of measles in the USA in 2019, despite eradicating the disease in 2000.

Nobody is debating if he should have the views or not, people are debating if he should be given a platform to influence the number of followers he has. If Twitter is a tool that plays a part in stoking his followers to do such terrible things as storming a government building to disrupt a democratic process, then Twitter has a responsibility to ensure its platform cannot be used to do that.

 

[lemonkettaz]

but you ticked the box to agree the terms and rules at sign up, right?

Yes I did. What do you think?

So to nullify my point you got me on the OCUK terms and conditions.

 

[lemonkettaz]

But it really isn't simple as that, because some people are so misinformed, naive and or gullible to believe what they're reading regardless if it's true or not. The issue is that believing misinformation can have dire consequences.

The Islamic State were able to recruit enough people to occupy large swathes of two countries by posting propaganda. There's people dumb enough to be anti-vaccination, resulting in over 600 cases of measles in the USA in 2019, despite eradicating the disease in 2000.

Nobody is debating if he should have the views or not, people are debating if he should be given a platform to influence the number of followers he has. If Twitter is a tool that plays a part in stoking his followers to do such terrible things as storming a government building to disrupt a democratic process, then Twitter has a responsibility to ensure its platform cannot be used to do that.

I understand that point. That is the danger of free speech yes. I can't disagree with that... but I still believe in freedom of speech, for the many that can be easily influenced there are many that are able to call it out and question it.

 

[Destination]

Great, so you agree with removing Owen Jones and Diane Abbott?

Diane Abbott can type? I knew she couldn't count. Hypocritical woman.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

A government forcing privately run entities to publish material, especially lies coming from the leader of that very government is far more authoritarian than allowing them to enforce their agreed upon terms.

Exactly.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Depends if you think the state is in charge.

In charge of Twitter/Facebook? No, I don't think that.

 

[Theophany]

I understand that point. That is the danger of free speech yes. I can't disagree with that... but I still believe in freedom of speech, for the many that can be easily influenced there are many that are able to call it out and question it.

That isn't what happens though, as reality so plainly demonstrates. People are unwilling to budge on their opinions regardless of any evidence or facts that challenge them. Instead, they become more and more polarised and radical in their beliefs and scream at anybody who dares voice a contrary opinion. Freedom of speech is one thing, but what we've ended up with is a toddler-like entitlement to freedom to say whatever you please without consequence and without the constraints of rational thought or civilised debate and it's your fault if you're offended by what I say, regardless of how offensive/stupid/hurtful/uneccessary it is.

e: To be clear this is on both sides. I think it's equally pathetic that hard leftists throw the words 'nazi' and 'racist' around and the hard right earnestly believe that the Democratic party is an international paedophile ring run by the Clintons and George Soros and that anybody who disagrees with Trump is a traitor.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

I think when a privately owned company of a communications platform becomes one of, if not the largest platform on the planet, then what ever information it passes should be unfiltered, good or bad yet within the law. If they start to censor part of it in a biased fashion it will cause problems.

I agree, but I don't think encouraging armed insurrection can be considered within the law....................

 

[lemonkettaz]

Consequence of speech is only possible when speech is heard by varying view points.

Denying any speech just creates an echo chamber that isn't seen or heard for anyone else to challenge it.

If you do ban speech it doesn't vanish it just goes somewhere you don't see

 

[Theophany]

Consequence of speech is only possible when speech is heard by varying view points.

Denying any speech just creates an echo chamber that isn't seen or heard for anyone else to challenge it.

If you do ban speech it doesn't vanish it just goes somewhere you don't see

But that's exactly my point - nothing is heard by anybody any more because nobody is interested in hearing something that doesn't confirm their view. We already have endless echo chambers in the form of Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc etc.

Ardently defending freedom of speech seems like a wasteful exercise if all it does is further enable people to be the worst version of themselves and then claim it's an inexorable right to be a div.

 

[lemonkettaz]

But that's exactly my point - nothing is heard by anybody any more because nobody is interested in hearing something that doesn't confirm their view. We already have endless echo chambers in the form of Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc etc.

Spot on. I'm just adding that delete a voice from any of these places doesn't work. That's just my added view, after agreeing with your comment

 

[stuman]

Ferrari were also trying to sue somebody who modded their car. As it was disruptive to the brand.

we are getting to a level where companies are bigger and more powerful than our spineless governments.

 

[Nasher]

I think it's a joke that the president of the US has to be banned from a chat site like an annoying 12 year old.

But twitter is a company and the site is privately owned, they can do what they like on it. They don't have to offer someone a service.

 

[Nerusy]

I think it's a joke that the president of the US has to be banned from a chat site like an annoying 12 year old.

But twitter is a company and the site is privately owned, they can do what they like on it. They don't have to offer someone a service.

Discriminaton laws would disagree with you here.

The government regulates companise, they are not completely free to do what they want.

The government (which means technicallg mean we the people) can tell private companise what they can or cannot do.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Until one day the shoe is on the other foot, then you'll be whining like the best of them "OMG this is so ******* wrong whaaaaaaa!!"

Well I don't support any extremists and certainly not someone who tried to overthrow free and fair elections of the Government. So I just can't see anyone I like being banned, if however they broke the rules then that's their fault.

This is actually a very interesting development.

Twitter has become a vital part of communication for for both private and public sector.

Yes president's formal means of communication with the masses is through a press conference but de facto twitter is used as a more quick form of communication.

This vital form of communication is in complete control of a private entity.

This entity has effective control on who to silence. Now we can argue that this is a private company and can refuse their service to anybody, it is their right but reality is not that simple, twitter has become a vital part of communication infrastructure, which is used by the public sector as well.

So although yes, Trump lies, he manipulates the crowds and he may have instigated the attack on US Capitol I am not sure it is right for a private company to block communication infrastructure.

We can all agree that it is great that twitter suspended his account specifically because he is Trump but then this becomes a precedent does it not? Twitter now has the power to limit official's forms of communications effectively reducing their ability to communicate with the electorate (compared to other politicians that are allowed to continue using this platform and hence have an advantages since election is essentially a popularity show/ PR project).

I do not think private companies should be able to silence elected officials. This seems wrong.

With this precedent set, Twitter can continue silencing those who they view as undesirable and in this day and age being able to communicate on twitter is vital to gather public support. So Twitter will essentially have the power to influence elections.

This is not a simple thing, this is a dangerous precedent. On the hand one could argue that the media always had that power and that nothing really changed, daily fail and the sun influenced the electorate before and will continue to do so, so why does it matter that twitter has joined the big boys club.

Its Twitter ffs. He has the biggest podium in the world. He can step into the press briefing room or open his mouth anywhere and cameras from every TV network will beam him across the world. You make it sound like twitter was his only way to speak to the public which is nonsense. Twitter has rules which we all have to follow, so does he. He didn't, he's gone. Boo hoo.

The word fascist has lost all meaning in the media and politics now. It's a disgrace to constantly to use one of the most dangerous and disgusting movements in modern history as a name calling device for your political opponents. Donald Trump is an awful President and he has behaved abominably since the election lacking any qualities of leadership but he is not a fascist. Were he such he would have warmly embraced the widespread authoritarianism that has flowed from the response to Covid. Instead he has largely eschewed the dictatorial demands that are so common in the reponses to that crisis.

Donald Trump has 11 days left on his dismal term but the tryanny of the social media is only just starting and there will be no election to defenstrate them. Yet so called liberals happily cheer on a chilling attack on freedom of expression that has thus far reached a high water of silencing a sitting President on extremely questionable grounds. A distinct lack of perspective abounds and I am saddened.

Hmm who was it who said "When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total. And that's the way it's got to be. It's total." again?? Oh yeah it was Trump when that isn't remotely true. Who went out of his way to cancel anyone who spoke out against him, oh yeah Trump again. Who has at 2 presidential elections done everything he could to undermine the publics belief in their elections being fair and free? Yeah that's Trump. Who said that the only source of news that was true is him and all other sources are fake news? Yeah that is Trump. He has played all the cards of an authoritarian over the last 5 years. You'd have to be blind not to see it.