6 comments

[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 23.6 ms ] thread
What a bunch of BS. Don't get me wrong, I'd be just as happy if he was deplatformed everywhere but these social media companies coming out now and acting like this just started or is new is just annoying (insert surprised Pikachu). No one was willing to take any real steps until after Twitter's fact-check/hidden tweet. What took so long?
> No one was willing to take any real steps until after Twitter's fact-check/hidden tweet. What took so long?

I'm not sure what caused Twitter to change after so many years of taking heat for ignoring their own rules. But once Twitter has shown he's not untouchable, other platforms now have a proof that it can be done, and a precedent to point to.

Similar thing happened with Alex Jones. He seemed unstoppable until YouTube kicked him, and soon all other platforms followed. Interesting twist that previously no platform wanted PR shitstorm for being the last one keeping the persona non grata. This time Facebook is clearly betting on being Trump's platform after everyone else shows him the door.

It's called virtue signaling. Also, it's ironic that on the internet, a place conceived to be free from censorship, you're advocating censorship. Ideas should always live and die on their own merit, not because someone else has deemed them seditious.
*without being amplified by bots and trolls

I think we're a little passed the merit-based free frontier..

I understand that Trump is a bit of a special case, but I find it kind of worrying that getting in trouble on one platform can consequences on a platform owned by a different company entirely. Especially when you consider some companies don't put much work into preventing accidental bans.[0]

  [0] https://9to5google.com/2019/11/09/google-account-bans-youtube-emote-spam-markiplier/
For the person of that calibre, he might tweet directly on his .gov website.

Try to get that domain, Twitter ;-)