I ended up posting a Fox news link because it is the only source I could find that also mentions Twitter, Facebook and the simulataneous ban of Parler from the App Stores.
The president and the opposing party's presidential nominee should have the ability to communicate with the American people on social media platforms. Removing this access is dangerous. Trump is horrible and the correct remedy is removing him from office (then banning his accounts). But while he is the president (or the nominee from the other party) needs the ability to communicate with unhindered. I realize this isn't the law and tech companies are currently within their right to remove Trump. I think this needs to change.
He's (unfortunately & arguably) the most powerful person in the world, not some Joe off the street. Censoring any elected officials sets a dangerous precedent.
Your emotions are controlling you. Vengeance & revenge is how we ended up with the Patriot Act.
While I agree that there are real dangers in censoring public officials by private corporations, there are still a myriad of ways for the president to communicate with people outside of the social networks.
No President before Trump used Twitter. If he’s the most powerful person in the world, surely that comes with communication channels.
In the end, most of our society seems to be done with this guy so the social media networks are really just following that. They’re advertising companies after all.
Obama isn’t the president and hasn’t been for a while. (And yes he wouldn’t conduct diplomacy and announce policies through text messages from the toilet even if he were.)
The President is in charge of the military part of his job is managing hostile acts. Trump attempted or at the least encourage a coup against the US. He should be removed from office, until then the president needs to be assured he can reach and communicate with the American public. It is dangerous for America if this is infringed upon. Sure there are currently other avenues, but those avenues are shrinking (network TV) and the we need to protect the function of the Presidency.
Freedom of speech is under attack again, or still. A trend that has been going on for at least 2000 years since the Greks, but not being able to say things might be in the near future no longer be as common as it was in recent times. No matter whether you agree with Trump or not, silencing an oponent in a debate will only reduce the quality of decisions made by a lack of critical oponent views. The more censorship, the less efficient the outcomes of decision making will be as the quality of arguments can no longer be weighted due to the absence of dissent. Also the more censorship, the less engagement in public debate there will be.
Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom of consequences. Obvious example being standing in a cinema and yelling fire. Trump isn’t being banned because of his views, but because he has continued to violate Twitter’s T&C.
He even calls out why your example of yelling fire in a theater is a poor one. Disregard the intro which was recorded prior to changing the discussion to the twitter ban.
> For example incitement to genocide must be a red line.
I don't think this has to do with why Twitter banned Trump.
> Iran’s leader has repeatedly shared tweets calling Israel a “deadly, cancerous growth” to be “uprooted and destroyed” — all going unchecked by Twitter.
> “The long-lasting virus of Zionism will be uprooted thanks to the determination and faith of the youth,” Khamenei wrote as recently as May.
> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
This post has an editorialized title. The original title is “Trump a Twitter rival? After ban, president says he's in talks with other platforms -- or may launch his own”.
21 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 57.6 ms ] threadHe's done. Cut him off.
Your emotions are controlling you. Vengeance & revenge is how we ended up with the Patriot Act.
No President before Trump used Twitter. If he’s the most powerful person in the world, surely that comes with communication channels.
In the end, most of our society seems to be done with this guy so the social media networks are really just following that. They’re advertising companies after all.
He even calls out why your example of yelling fire in a theater is a poor one. Disregard the intro which was recorded prior to changing the discussion to the twitter ban.
For example incitement to genocide must be red line.
Unless you think that for example radio station RTLM was in their right to incite Rwanda genocide.
I don't think this has to do with why Twitter banned Trump.
> Iran’s leader has repeatedly shared tweets calling Israel a “deadly, cancerous growth” to be “uprooted and destroyed” — all going unchecked by Twitter.
> “The long-lasting virus of Zionism will be uprooted thanks to the determination and faith of the youth,” Khamenei wrote as recently as May.
That's from an article talking about how Twitter defends allowing Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei a platform https://nypost.com/2020/07/29/twitter-defends-blocking-trump...
Clearly Twitter is ok with this kind of political speech, and even defends it.
I'm replaying to the gay from the video who seems to have a view that all political speech should be protected, no exceptions.
That's clearly wrong, because incitement to genocide must be not be protected.
> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
This post has an editorialized title. The original title is “Trump a Twitter rival? After ban, president says he's in talks with other platforms -- or may launch his own”.