Trump Twitter Ban

[Stuart Keasley]

I'm a tad confused by Merkell's and some others position on the Trump Twitter ban.

Yep, I get (and share) the concern about the power and control a few companies have over both our data and our communications.

However what they seem to be saying is that Tech's should not have the ability to limit free speech [edit/addition for clarity : when it morphs into hate speech, incitement to violence etc] this should be done through legislation.

But legislation wouldn't actually control free speech, it would merely define the parameters for which free speech would need to be limited. It would still be down to the tech companies to define and implement the mechanisms.

How are they supposed to deal with repeat offenders? Algorithms will only go so far, so will not always catch content, so surely the net result would be the same, the only sure way would be to ban people who showed blatant disregard for the Ts and Cs, legislation etc?

Am I missing something?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...409.html%3famp

[Tim Digger]

I guess it's all part of the struggle between big corporations (not just in tech areas) and state governments for control over the lives of large numbers of people. Tech companies are only the most currently obvious examples. I agree that there is a need for some control over the internet though the covert uses that the dark web (all non searchable sites and fora) is put to are perhaps of more concern than even the incitement to violence that we saw recently. How this control should be exercised while retaining the best elements of free speech is something that will or should exercise many in democratic governments all over the world. The situation in China with it's great ability to dictate to tech companies the terms on which they operate is in many ways the exact opposite of that in the US where minimal control of online content in the name of free speech enabled a would be dictator to incite violence against a democratic process.

[AndrewR]

I think the core problem is being missed. A big factor has to be trump totally ignoring the Emoluments (spelling?) requirements of the presidency. Totally accepting i'm coming from a very superficial and potentially incorrect understanding. What probably should have happened is that trump's personal twitter account should have been locked the moment he became president. If comms by twitter were required then the POTUS account should be used. At least in theory a few more people may be involved in anything that goes out in the names of POTUS.

[MarkP]

...Am I missing something?

Only one of my favourite quotes that's been on my mind for the last six years or so: "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

HL Mencken, one of the last century's finest essayists, was describing populism that brought us a bit of trouble in the thirties (that lasted into the mid forties). Trump, Johnson and, I think, Brexit. It's certainly the point re. this issue, which I've often banged on about here, that internet forums have the right to limit speech, for legal and profit reasons. Governments must / should not limit free speech (within limits).

This comic sums up that view better than I can:

However, and there's always a however because Mencken was right, when private platforms become so large and powerful that they become the de facto communication channels for the population and its leaders, then the waters become muddied.

Has that answered your question? I doubt it, but it might explain why it's impossible for my little mind to do so.

[Stuart Keasley]

Only one of my favourite quotes that's been on my mind for the last six years or so: "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

HL Mencken, one of the last century's finest essayists, was describing populism that brought us a bit of trouble in the thirties (that lasted into the mid forties). Trump, Johnson and, I think, Brexit. It's certainly the point re. this issue, which I've often banged on about here, that internet forums have the right to limit speech, for legal and profit reasons. Governments must / should not limit free speech (within limits).

This comic sums up that view better than I can:

However, and there's always a however because Mencken was right, when private platforms become so large and powerful that they become the de facto communication channels for the population and its leaders, then the waters become muddied.

Has that answered your question? I doubt it, but it might explain why it's impossible for my little mind to do so.

I really don't have a problem with what Twitter, Facebook etc have (finally) done; there is a very big difference between free speech, expression of opinion etc, and hate speech, inciting violence etc. Trump wasn't just dipping his toe in the latter, his was splashing around in it like a happy hippo in a mud bath.

And yes, agreed, they're dominance in communication mean that their actions have global consequences, so they need to walk a fine and consistent line when censoring content and authors.

Just strikes me that Merkell's statement seems counter productive; Big Tech needs to put the mechanisms in place, whether it's on the basis of legislation or their own internal decisions, so surely a better response would be an expression of desire to create some legislation that would help Big Tech walk that fine line with a bit of confidence and governmental backup.

[Jay_Benson]

Why should Twitter be expected to have to carry hate speech? If it was my company he would have been kicked off ages ago as he promotes racism, sexism, Islamophobia and generally stirs up shit between people and peoples. He adds nothing positive - if anyone fits the description of hate monger it is him - and his lackies and apologists. I would criticise Twitter for not doing it earlier. I also have no problem with Amazon, Google, Apple etc dropping Parler from there services.

Personally my gut reacton is that as Facebook, Twitter etc benefit financially from traffic generated from posts using their services then they are essentially the publisher of the content and so have a responsibility to ensure that the content is not illegal. To date Facebook et al have all denied being the publisher of content. They need to take some responsibility for their website's content.

[Stuart Keasley]

Why should Twitter be expected to have to carry hate speech? If it was my company he would have been kicked off ages ago as he promotes racism, sexism, Islamophobia and generally stirs up shit between people and peoples. He adds nothing positive - if anyone fits the description of hate monger it is him - and his lackies and apologists. I would criticise Twitter for not doing it earlier. I also have no problem with Amazon, Google, Apple etc dropping Parler from there services.

Personally my gut reacton is that as Facebook, Twitter etc benefit financially from traffic generated from posts using their services then they are essentially the publisher of the content and so have a responsibility to ensure that the content is not illegal. To date Facebook et al have all denied being the publisher of content. They need to take some responsibility for their website's content.

As above (and OP edited for clarity, it wasn't entirely clear, sorry), I've no issue with controls being in place, I'm just not sure why Merkell has, how she sees her preferred approach, ie. legislation having any change on the outcome, it would be the tech that would need to take the action, the action would very likely end up being exactly the same.

However I do think we need to be careful how far legislation and responsibility goes. If content hosting companies become legally responsible/liable etc for all content on their site, then they wouldn't be able to operate, the task of moderation would become be impossible? That wouldn't just affect social media platforms, forums etc, it'd block on anything that has open, public input : review sites, help desk forums and how-to's, open source code shares, git-hub and the like. Most of the information I get on how to complete technical tasks (coding, low level camera stuff etc) comes from searching answers posted by other people who have faced similar problems, I post info up when I can as well.

So yep, for sure, a framework in line with restriction based on hate speed and incitement to violence would be great, but don't take it too far.

[Mark Chase]

Just to buck the trend a bit

I do not believe in any form of Deplatforming.

Trump should have the right to make himself look a complete idiot on Twitter and the Police have the right to arrest him for any digression from the law. Thats how it should work

I don't agree with deplatforming religious nutters, LGBTSDMAYRLSUNBOWMSDT supporters, far-right morons far left idiots etc etc.

If they want to incriminate them selves and provide the Police with enough hard evidence to have them arrested. Great

On a small privately-owned forum the owner of said forum can chose not to allow someone on there. Thats fair

Twitter Face Book etc have gone way beyond that and such is their power and influence, they have a duty to be completely neutral. They should not hold them selves up as defacto police court and judge. That's not their job

I run a deer management company and am involved with culling of deer so have a interest in regular social media events related to deer management hunting and vermin control.

Very specific threats to life and threats to the lives of family members have been posted about hunters. Very specific threats of harm and threats of harm to family members have been posted.

No one deplatforms those posters?

This is no doubt because the anti-hunting brigade are "politicly correct" so in the minds of Twitter and Face book, this somehow gives them license to break the free speech laws and insight violence and make threats of death and harm?

Who made Twitter god?

Who Put Mark Zuckerberg at the tip of our morel compass.

I hate Trump with a passion. I don't hate his policies, not all of them. Under Trump the black prison rate is at its lowest for 31 years? 91% of prisoners released under the "First Step Act" were black.

Under Obama we had the Highest number of black men incarcerated in the history of the USA?

Go figure.

No I hate Trump the man and everything he stands for as a large scale tax dodging, small business screwing misogynist, narcissist.

But Id not deplatform him any more than id deplatform radical Muslim clerics despite the fact I totally disagree with them

Just give them the rope and let them hang themselves.

[Paulo]

How is deplatforming from Twitter any different to being banned from TDF for posting wholely innapropriate material?

[graham_hk]

Just to buck the trend a bit

I do not believe in any form of Deplatforming.

Trump should have the right to make himself look a complete idiot on Twitter and the Police have the right to arrest him for any digression from the law. Thats how it should work

I don't agree with deplatforming religious nutters, LGBTSDMAYRLSUNBOWMSDT supporters, far-right morons far left idiots etc etc.

If they want to incriminate them selves and provide the Police with enough hard evidence to have them arrested. Great

On a small privately-owned forum the owner of said forum can chose not to allow someone on there. Thats fair

Twitter Face Book etc have gone way beyond that and such is their power and influence, they have a duty to be completely neutral. They should not hold them selves up as defacto police court and judge. That's not their job

I run a deer management company and am involved with culling of deer so have a interest in regular social media events related to deer management hunting and vermin control.

Very specific threats to life and threats to the lives of family members have been posted about hunters. Very specific threats of harm and threats of harm to family members have been posted.

No one deplatforms those posters?

This is no doubt because the anti-hunting brigade are "politicly correct" so in the minds of Twitter and Face book, this somehow gives them license to break the free speech laws and insight violence and make threats of death and harm?

Who made Twitter god?

Who Put Mark Zuckerberg at the tip of our morel compass.

I hate Trump with a passion. I don't hate his policies, not all of them. Under Trump the black prison rate is at its lowest for 31 years? 91% of prisoners released under the "First Step Act" were black.

Under Obama we had the Highest number of black men incarcerated in the history of the USA?

Go figure.

No I hate Trump the man and everything he stands for as a large scale tax dodging, small business screwing misogynist, narcissist.

But Id not deplatform him any more than id deplatform radical Muslim clerics despite the fact I totally disagree with them

Just give them the rope and let them hang themselves.

Whilst I agree with much of what you said it is pretty simple if you don't like twitter, Facebook or even TDF ... you do have a choice not to partake. Enrolment is not mandatory and they are therefore entitled to set their own policies?