Trump permanently banned from twitter

Say what you like about RED CHINA, but they wouldn't ban their own leader from communicating with his loyal subjects.

A storm is brewing...

As we started this thread on the topic of Trump permanently banned from Twitter, we will try to keep our replies to Mr. DeMartino confined to this theme.

Even non-partisan agencies agree that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and that Russia interfered to some extent in events after the 2016 election. The extent of that interference remains a matter of debate among individuals of the right and left in the former colonies of North America, but the fact of interference remains without a doubt. Twitter exercised solid judgment in keeping Trump's Twitter account alive at this time, mainly because the falseness of Trump's statements during his impeachment trial did not immediately and intensely endanger the survival of democracy in the former colonies of North America.

We agree with your assessment regarding the erosion of seriousness received by the right in mainstream media, and we find that proclivity unfortunate. But if the right-wing media remained anchored to facts (facts usually vetted by the Associated Press, a news organization so universally well-regarded that the institution actually gets strong access to North Korea), then perhaps conservative political discourse could appropriately and justifiably become restored in the eyes of the residents of the former North American colonies. We think that conservatism should follow the example of enlightening programs such as William Buckley's Firing Line, and not the foam-at-the-mouth excuse of discourse launched by today's generation of right-wing pundits. In that way, conservative spokespersons will not find themselves smashed up in Twitter as Donald Trump has (appropriately) been.

Fine, if you're ok with the idea of unelected, tax avoiding tech billionaires deciding what should or shouldn't get said in the public square. Just hope that next time it's not someone you agree with that gets silenced.

Fine, if you're ok with the idea of unelected, tax avoiding tech billionaires deciding what should or shouldn't get said in the public square. Just hope that next time it's not someone you agree with that gets silenced.

The First amendment of the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Twitter and other tech companies are not Congress. Get over it.

They still haven't gotten the basic fact that they gave twitter the power to do this when they celebrated and supported the homophobic Baker's challenge.

That, or they just only want the free speech to be POS assholes...but don't you dare hold them accountable for their words

They still haven't gotten the basic fact

We agree with your assessment

Who's 'they', who's 'we'? Guys can we bit a bit clearer about the pronouns we'd like to use?

Fine, if you're ok with the idea of unelected, tax avoiding tech billionaires deciding what should or shouldn't get said in the public square. Just hope that next time it's not someone you agree with that gets silenced.

By the "public square" you of course mean a non-governmental micro-blogging website.

"Gets silenced".  Craven horrible person Devin Nunes was complaining only last night that now Republicans now have no way to communicate with each other.  How do I know this?  He said it on Fox News, where millions of Republicans were watching him.

I mean, there does come a point where certain tech giants have such a monopoly it may as well be the public square. Not necessarily saying we're at that point yet.  The natural solution to this of course would be to make alternatives to Twitter/Facebook/etc. The right has already done this with Parlor. I'd be interested to see a leftist version (I guess maybe Tumblr sort of covers that?)

I mean, there does come a point where certain tech giants have such a monopoly it may as well be the public square. Not necessarily saying we're at that point yet.  The natural solution to this of course would be to make alternatives to Twitter/Facebook/etc. The right has already done this with Parlor. I'd be interested to see a leftist version (I guess maybe Tumblr sort of covers that?)

It's Parler, ironically from French, to speak.  But as has been pointed out, this narrowing of options is simply the market system at work, which conservatives are always so damn fixated on.

Of course, you could argue about antitrust, monopoly, etc, but that hasn't gotten anywhere yet. 

By the "public square" you of course mean a non-governmental micro-blogging website.

"Gets silenced".  Craven horrible person Devin Nunes was complaining only last night that now Republicans now have no way to communicate with each other.  How do I know this?  He said it on Fox News, where millions of Republicans were watching him.

OK I'll try to tell myself that people are not really getting silenced next time those techies decide a a youtube video of a UK radio show needs to be taken down. 

So consequence-free speech is what you want then...which ironically is a direct violation of the free speech you're preaching to support.

It's Parler, ironically from French, to speak.  But as has been pointed out, this narrowing of options is simply the market system at work, which conservatives are always so damn fixated on.

Of course, you could argue about antitrust, monopoly, etc, but that hasn't gotten anywhere yet.

It definitely is ironic. But although it is funny to watch mainstream conservatives cry about it from Fox or whatever, tech giants don't exactly like the left either. I'm not for extending the Overton window to include Nazism or anything, but I'd hate for it to be shrunk to Tucker Carlson vs. Rachel Maddow.

OK I'll try to tell myself that people are not really getting silenced next time those techies decide a a youtube video of a UK radio show needs to be taken down. 

Well, I like to watch British stuff on YT as well, but it doesn't get taken down for a political ideology.  99% it's because of IP/copyright issues.  And the "techies" don't take stuff down, usually, its algorithms that do that.  Except in a few rare cases where violence and insurrection are being directly incited.

But perhaps a few examples would be good.

So consequence-free speech is what you want then...which ironically is a direct violation of the free speech you're preaching to support.

I want to be able to watch and listen to people who have opinions that may go against the orthodoxy and even offend people. With obvious limits such as people who incite violence. These cases would be decided by laws and regulated by accountable officials.

Well, I like to watch British stuff on YT as well, but it doesn't get taken down for a political ideology.  99% it's because of IP/copyright issues.  And the "techies" don't take stuff down, usually, its algorithms that do that.  Except in a few rare cases where violence and insurrection are being directly incited.

But perhaps a few examples would be good.

https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-talkradio-youtube/uk-broadcaster-talkradio-removed-from-youtube-idINL8N2JG34K

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55544205

Youtube admitted it was taken down for the ideas it was discussing.

https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-talkradio-youtube/uk-broadcaster-talkradio-removed-from-youtube-idINL8N2JG34K

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55544205

Youtube admitted it was taken down for the ideas it was discussing.

Hmm, best to wait to hear the reason, I suppose, before commenting. (As the Radio station said it had not been given a full explanation.

In the meantime, you can get your fix here:  https://talkradio.co.uk/podcasts

They revealed the reason in the BBC article

YouTube has reinstated TalkRadio's channel on its platform hours after saying it had been "terminated" for breaking the tech firm's rules.

It said the broadcaster had posted material that contradicted expert advice about the coronavirus pandemic.

stoat I've explained the first amendment twice to you. You still don't get it. Private websites are not "the public square" and they can do whatever they want. You clearly have a problem with private websites enforcing their terms of service which users agree to. These websites allowed right-wingers to organize acts of violence for years, but have finally had enough after it led to further violence. Even you agree that this incitement to terrorism is wrong, yet you still insist on being disingenuous and salty about Trump being punished for contractual terms of service violations on a private website. Again, Twitter is not the US Congress.

It's like when a private forum for teachers started banning users who disagreed with their policies.... right?

The move by Internet giants Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc. to suspend President Donald Trump’s access to social media accounts is a “bad omen,” according to Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.

Having private companies decide who can be silenced and censored goes against freedom of speech, Lopez Obrador said on Friday during his daily press briefing.

“It’s like a a censorship court is being created, like the Holy Inquisition, for the management of public opinion,” he said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-08/facebook-ban-on-trump-is-holy-inquisition-mexico-s-amlo-says

Trump has been kicked off Twitter,  Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Shopify, and PayPal. His recent videos have been taken down by YouTube.

Others are getting the axe too after the rioting- including Steve Bannon (just for communicating with Rudy Giuliani) and former National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn.

In our day, the actions of Big Tech can have a far more chilling effect on free speech than any government regulation.