Let's talk first amendment, and social media

[ghjfdtg]

I think no one mentioned this yet but freedom of speech ends exacly where you violate someone elses rights or laws. Freedom of speech doesn't mean what most trumpers think it does.

 

[Plasmaster09]

I think no one mentioned this yet but freedom of speech ends exactly where you violate someone else's rights or laws. Freedom of speech doesn't mean what most trumpers think it does.

That and the fact that not only does it end there and no further, it also doesn't even START except for two scenarios mentioned earlier in the thread, neither of which apply to privately-owned social media platforms like Twitter.

 

[notimp]

Shortly before Amazon kicked Parler from their service, and it was removed from the Android and Apple App stores, a 70TB dataleak 'happened':

70TB of Parler users’ messages, videos, and posts leaked by security researchers
https://cybernews.com/news/70tb-of-...eos-and-posts-leaked-by-security-researchers/


edit: The Hills take:

 

[Deleted member 397813]

That and the fact that not only does it end there and no further, it also doesn't even START except for two scenarios mentioned earlier in the thread, neither of which apply to privately-owned social media platforms like Twitter.

or a certain website named after a certain nintendo console

 

[Plasmaster09]

Shortly before Amazon kicked Parler from their service, and it was removed from the Android and Apple App stores, a 70TB dataleak 'happened':

70TB of Parler users’ messages, videos, and posts leaked by security researchers
https://cybernews.com/news/70tb-of-...eos-and-posts-leaked-by-security-researchers/

...What's with the single quotes? It happened. The uploading part is still happening and probably won't be done in the next couple days, but it happened.
And honestly I'm not even slightly surprised- this is the kind of thing that happens when a bunch of delusional, tech-illiterate Boomers make a social media platform for other delusional, tech-illiterate Boomers and have absolutely no idea what they're doing!

 

[ghjfdtg]

I guess with the leak you can at least preserve all the shit that was on there and make an example of it and how education has gone wrong for so many people.

 

[linuxares]

or a certain website named after a certain nintendo console

Nah its just temporary

 

[UltraSUPRA]

Well, at least there is one upside to Trump getting banned: you can't call him a dictator anymore. Dictators can't be censored.

 

[Plasmaster09]

Well, at least there is one upside to Trump getting banned: you can't call him a dictator anymore. Dictators can't be censored.

Alright, former dictator it is. Along with pathological narcissist, wannabe oligarch, delusional egotist, bigoted prick and all sorts of other rather fitting descriptors.
Oh, and tyrant.

 

[ut2k4master]

Well, at least there is one upside to Trump getting banned: you can't call him a dictator anymore. Dictators can't be censored.

wannabe dictator*

 

[FAST6191]

I think no one mentioned this yet but freedom of speech ends exacly where you violate someone elses rights or laws. Freedom of speech doesn't mean what most trumpers think it does.

But what some might want those rights to be make this nebulous. See also the whole "right to not be offended" thing that gets bandied about.
Also what laws those might be are ill understood by many.

Equally what failings might there have been here?

That and the fact that not only does it end there and no further, it also doesn't even START except for two scenarios mentioned earlier in the thread, neither of which apply to privately-owned social media platforms like Twitter.

One can still judge said private platform by their adherence to the philosophical notions of free speech.
While the law does not require you personally to adhere to the notions of free speech (hard to mandate a philosophy in law -- freedom of religion and all that) it can still be something you aspire to and others judge you for not adhering to (even if they never claimed to be then the lack of it can be considered a failing), or being hypocritical in your adherence of ( https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/mar/22/twitter-tony-wang-free-speech , or https://archive.vn/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/mar/22/twitter-tony-wang-free-speech for those that roll that way. ).

The general manager of Twitter in the UK has said that the social network sees itself as "the free speech wing of the free speech party".
Speaking at the Guardian Changing Media Summit on Thursday, Tony Wang said that Twitter takes a "neutral" view of messages posted by its users because of the company's founding principles.
He was asked whether Twitter sidesteps legal issues, including privacy and libel, because it is not a mainstream media company.
"There are Twitter rules about what you can and can't do on the platform," Wang told the conference in London.
"Generally, we remain neutral as to the content because our general council and CEO like to say that we are the free speech wing of the free speech party."

That is a fairly strong series of statements and intentions there from movers and shakers within the company.

 

[notimp]

Well, at least there is one upside to Trump getting banned: you can't call him a dictator anymore. Dictators can't be censored.

Well, Napoleon had to move to Elba.. (Its a joke... C'mon..)

 

[notimp]

Angela Merkel calls Trump Twitter ban 'problematic'

The German chancellor said although Twitter was right to add warnings to Trump's posts, the move to permanently suspend his account raises concerns about free speech.

https://www.dw.com/en/angela-merkel-calls-trump-twitter-ban-problematic/a-56197684


edit: Guess I have to group this in the same posting, but I dont want to..

US Capitol riot: Donald Trump defends remarks as 'totally appropriate'

US President Donald Trump said there is "tremendous anger" over the latest bid to impeach him, but added he doesn't want any more violence. He also defended his remarks ahead of the attack as "totally appropriate."

https://www.dw.com/en/us-capitol-riot-donald-trump-defends-remarks-as-totally-appropriate/a-56205366

 

[D34DL1N3R]

Well, at least there is one upside to Trump getting banned: you can't call him a dictator anymore. Dictators can't be censored.

He wasn't censored. He freely said what he wanted, which was in violation of the ToS. He had consequences for what he actually was 100% free to say, and did say. He was never censored. Liar.

 

[notimp]

He wasn't censored. He freely said what he wanted, which was in violation of the ToS. He had consequences for what he actually was 100% free to say, and did say. He was never censored. Liar.

TOS didnt apply to him for his entire presidency, until it did.

 

[Deleted User]

TOS didnt apply to him for his entire presidency, until it did.

twitter has a policy for leaders.
Tl;Dr
They try to refrain from outright removing them if they do violate TOS.
It's just that what happened on the 6th was so bad of a violation that it seems to me they were forced to do so.

 

[Plasmaster09]

TOS didnt apply to him for his entire presidency, until it did.

It really should've from the start, to be honest. A set of terms of service that, for the purpose of politics, amount to "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" should be such a comically low bar that a President should be able to abide by it without question. Trump can't seem to open his mouth without inciting hatred in some way (before backpedaling and throwing around shoddy, retroactive excuses for how he "didn't do it"), so he should've been forced to NOT open his mouth online from the beginning unless he could behave better than a petulant child mid-tantrum.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

TOS didnt apply to him for his entire presidency, until it did.

That's not accurate. His posts have been flagged in the past.

 

[Deleted User]

It really should've from the start, to be honest. A set of terms of service that, for the purpose of politics, amount to "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" should be such a comically low bar that a President should be able to abide by it without question. Trump can't seem to open his mouth without inciting hatred in some way (before backpedaling and throwing around shoddy, retroactive excuses for how he "didn't do it"), so he should've been forced to NOT open his mouth online from the beginning unless he could behave better than a petulant child mid-tantrum.

That's not accurate. His posts have been flagged in the past.

TOS didnt apply to him for his entire presidency, until it did.

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/public-interest
"
As a result, in rare instances, we may choose to leave up a Tweet from an elected or government official that would otherwise be taken down. Instead we will place it behind a notice providing context about the rule violation that allows people to click through to see the Tweet. Placing a Tweet behind this notice also limits the ability to engage with the Tweet through likes, Retweets, or sharing on Twitter, and makes sure the Tweet isn't algorithmically recommended by Twitter. These actions are meant to limit the Tweet’s reach while maintaining the public’s ability to view and discuss it. Learn more about this notice and other enforcement actions.
"
Sorry for quoting all of you at once but I felt it's needed to note this

 

[Pedro250]

I agree that their hate and violence speches needs to be moderated but where is the line between that and pure censorship of and opposing group?

As of now it seem that Republicans dont have any place online in social media, and i doubt that every single republican is like trump so baning trump and his minios is more than fare, it was a must be done thing, but baning anyone that just mentions Republicans or their politics seems a strech (i seen that happen in reddit, no hate or violence, just some guy asking the same i ask here in r/politics and bam, post deleted).

And no, i am not republican, nor democrat, i am not even american but this things tend to expand to other countries, as america most times leads the way in this cases.