And so, with Facebook, Twitter deleting Trump... What are your thoughts about the media censoring those who can contribute?

I never voted for Trump in either election; I am decidedly not a fan. That said, I am worried about media censorship; now it looks as though Google and Apple are following suit in barring some sites from using their platform. Anyone else concerned about this?

It started in spring, when Yahoo stopped the possibility to make comments..


Those comments were great but they did not want people to tell the truth, otherwise it would be still allowed.

YouTube as well which is why Joe Rogan switched to Spotify (okay ...to be fair, Joe received an amazing contract from Spotify but he also said he was concerned about censorship re: YouTube).

Inciting a crime, is a crime. And not protected by the first amendment.

Another day, another: "I don't understand what is actually happening so I am going to resort to childish conspiracy theories" thread. Donald Trump isn't being censored for fun, he is being censored because he is a man in the most powerful position in the world who is actively and knowingly spreading lies, misinformation, hate speech, subversion of democracy and incitement for people to do violence that are negatively influencing millions of ignorant and impressionable people.

It never ceases to amaze me how people can't figure out such basic and downright obvious things for themselves.

The whole Trump thing, I mean, whether or not it is a crime is decided in the future.

The US indepence war started out as a crime (in British eyes), but because of the outcome it is now judged to be a war of independence. At the time the signers of the declaration of independence were criminals, but because of history's outcome are the founding fathers.

If invading Peloci's office had brought voter fraud to light with Trump being the rightfull election winner, who would be the criminal then ?

I think that before anyone can come to an educated opinion in that regard, they need to first educate themselves about the ways the Internet and social media are used to indoctrinate and recruit terrorists and Jihadists and white supremacists, etc., including the fact that these groups often use social media to prey upon and radicalize teenagers.

To simply say that "censorship is bad" is failing to recognize the problem in the first place.

Exactly - and many governments around the world have threatened online service providers with severe penalties if they allow their platforms to be used in criminal acts.
So it's self-preservation, as well as seeking to prevent crimes being committed on their platform - not censorship.

This.
If you can prevent a crime by blocking an online social media account, it's a no-brainer: you block the account.

The internet is great for this sort of recruitment, as you can just leave bait dangling virtually forever, and the recruits will come to you ... then you hit them with the hard lies once you have them hooked.

But that didn't happen. So stop trying to sugar-coat it and instead, please start trying to see it for what it is.

There is no excuse for what those rioters did, and what they did is called "terrorism" by definition -- "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" -- regardless of whether or not you or anyone else is willing to admit it.

Would be interesting to know how much social media has made from trump and his 100m online followers over the last 4 years.

Social media is about discussion and the more divisive that it, the more people it attracts .. The platforms would have loved it and raked in millions in both money and new subscribers. But when it no longer fits, just pull the plug.

I saw this explanation on Twitter, and it makes sense to me....

Imagine Twitter (etc) is a baker and Trump is a gay themed wedding cake. The baker can refuse to make the cake. Likewise, social media can expel a disruptive presence if that presence goes against their rules for behavior. Social media has behavior standards set by the platform. Like banning here.

Another thought - it’s illegal to scream “fire” in a crowded movie theatre when there is none.

Trump bears some responsibility for incitement. He encouraged it. He’s been encouraging these behaviors over time, whipping up the audience at his rallies. I think the group dynamic was such that there were certain bad actors who wanted to rage and a lot of people were caught up in the mob thing.


Having said all this, I do have a vague discomfort at cutting off Trump -or anyone- forever. But for sure, he needs to be quiet for a while, imho.

One motivation for this action right now is that with the change in administration and control of the congress, social media platforms are probably reassessing their positions.

Rats leaving the sinking ship. They gave him a platform all these years, probably earned good money and now turning their back. I'd say that it's a little late.

MusicChick - it's noteworthy that you thanked all those posts that appeared to be against any form of social media censorship - so basically you feel there should be no moderation by moderators.

And yet you willingly volunteer to be, and act as a moderator on this forum.

Doesn't that strike you as a bit hypocritical?

Or, is it one rule for some and another for the select few? comrade?

^^^ Yeah, I wonder if someone suddenly came on this forum and started constantly posting violent, racist or Jihadist stuff over and over or how they wanted to kill another member of the EF if they would be banned.

This is a bit of an oversimplification (I am being generous with my wording here), John. The main things that have changed in the last 4 years are:

• Trump stepped up his rhetoric and became more dangerous and unpredictable as time progressed.
• Scrutiny over social media use and the effects of its abuse has very rightly been increased during this time.
• The political landscape is not the same as it was 4 years ago and understanding of the dangers of unfettered use of social media are now better understood.

Things have to, and are, changing. I say again that anyone who can't understand why people in positions of such political power and political, with access to hundreds of millions of impressionable people on social media platforms, cannot be allowed to pathologically lie and engage in hate speech without any restrictions, must have some cognitive issues. it just doesn't get any more obvious.

Right. I don't think that all the uncomfortable truth potentially "recruits jihadists".

This idea of grown ups who need to be shielded from data that somebody elses controls...because there are "impressionable, feeble minds out there"? How have we survived the last 20 years of such dangerous internet world? Looks like people need to be more exposed to reality, not less, if their 1st reflex is to get their opponent cancelled. Will it take another 10 years before people mature out of groupthink? Can they get together without being policed?

You push people to dissent and undeground, you know nothing anymore about their priorities, you lose traceability, you create sanitized world where people are no longer trusted and they are reported and cancelled. Apple, Google, You tube, FB, reddit, Twitter are losing big time on this - in the long run. It might be a fake wonderful world with zero credibility. PC policies that everybody likes because they make everyone feel moral, are totally abused, but being even more PC isn't gong to fix this abuse. China is one big PC group think, are people happy and free? People not needing to be validated in the make believe PC world will fix the abuse that PC thinking creates. Make space for others, tolerate other opinions.

Absolutely.

If DT is pushed out by extreme measures of biased media and people who cannot stand opposing views, it stinks. It will create far bigger conflict and a long one.

Let's tread carefully when people label their opponents trolls and liars instead of focusing on the issues in debates. These opponents do not deserve to be (perma)banned just because people get irritated that there is somebody with consistent view that differs.

Thanks, terri - this is a good thread.

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein

Yeah ok, but you’re conflating “opposing views” with encouraging violence. It goes beyond irritation. If it leads to death, injury, and commission of illegal acts it is beyond a difference of opinion. I feel you’re making DT into a victim of bias. He is not.

We've seen quite a purge here in social media land over the past week..

At best we can hope it's for good and ethical reasons, to try to assist with some calm while due process takes place in crazy USA.. To help prevent people stirring up trouble etc.. Maybe it's that simple.

However it's gone very far, from London LBC radio being taken off youtube, to the parler app being dropped from the play store to literally thousands of people having twitter suspended or tweets deleted for agreeing with or supporting trump.

All the while there are other terrorist organisations on there, supporters of them, leaders of countries like Iran tweeting and laughing at the situation. a vast ocean of highly questionable material which goes unchecked.

Stirring up hate or violence on any platform isn't good.. but is it better that big tech get to decide what's good and what's not, they decide to allow Red but censor Blue, they allow the Right to tweet but suspend the accounts of the Left.

Big tech created this monster and made a fortune from it, big tech knows what's best for you and me and they are close to controlling how people vote, at least in terms of controlling the narrative that you are allowed to see.

It's interesting when you talk about people needing to be more tolerant of opposing views when you yourself treat people who do not support Trump here differently from those who do. You have also very clearly demonstrated in the past that you moderate with your personal biases.

If there was a group on Facebook that consisted of thousands or millions of people discussing their plot to assassinate Trump, would you feel that that group should not be removed from social media?

Probably?

I wonder what server will be made for him..