Trump banned from Twitter!

[SmittleQuestions 10]

On 1/9/2021 at 6:58 PM, Cyberfx1024 said:

 Because have arrested a couple of BLM guys that broke into the capitol in the midst of the crowd. 

Edited January 11, 2021 by SmittleQuestions

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

3 minutes ago, SmittleQuestions said:

What's up newbie.... 

 

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/utah-activist-claims-he-was-just-documenting-us-capitol-insurgence

[SmittleQuestions 10]

3 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

What's up newbie.... 

 

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/utah-activist-claims-he-was-just-documenting-us-capitol-insurgence

First, thanks for calling me newbie, old fart.

 

Second, here is the reason why that article uses the term "Claims"

 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jan/09/facebook-posts/facebook-posts-wrongly-claim-left-wing-activist-an/

 

I'd suggest you watch his full 39 minute video.  He's a Trump supporter through and through.

 

So again, other than your poorly worded article, there is no evidence of what you claim.

[Boiler 44,874]

Looks like even Mama Merkel and the Graun are beginning to realise that perhaps this is not such a good idea.

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/angela-merkel-european-leaders-question-twitter-donald-trump-ban/

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/11/trump-twitter-ban-capitol-attack-facebook-youtube-google

 

 

[Prizm123 1,086]

personally i think it was more a business decision than anything

i think they did a cost benefit analysis and determined that the outrage would cost more money to their bottom line in the long term than taking this action has cost them in the short term as far as revenue and advertising money, and that the potential benefits outweigh the risks for long term revenue growth because there will be fewer controversies and fires to put out in the future

 

in short nothing to do with being "good corporate citizens" but good for shareholders. its just a side benefit that they get free press about it, look like they are "being responsible" and in turn will invite more diverse advertisers to pour money into their respective platforms. cold hard cash talking.

[Dashinka 24,111]

8 minutes ago, Prizm123 said:

personally i think it was more a business decision than anything

i think they did a cost benefit analysis and determined that the outrage would cost more money to their bottom line in the long term than taking this action has cost them in the short term as far as revenue and advertising money, and that the potential benefits outweigh the risks for long term revenue growth because there will be fewer controversies and fires to put out in the future

 

in short nothing to do with being "good corporate citizens" but good for shareholders. its just a side benefit that they get free press about it, look like they are "being responsible" and in turn will invite more diverse advertisers to pour money into their respective platforms. cold hard cash talking.

Does anyone actually get any real benefit from advertising on these platforms?

 

[SmittleQuestions 10]

15 minutes ago, Prizm123 said:

personally i think it was more a business decision than anything

i think they did a cost benefit analysis and determined that the outrage would cost more money to their bottom line in the long term than taking this action has cost them in the short term as far as revenue and advertising money, and that the potential benefits outweigh the risks for long term revenue growth because there will be fewer controversies and fires to put out in the future

 

in short nothing to do with being "good corporate citizens" but good for shareholders. its just a side benefit that they get free press about it, look like they are "being responsible" and in turn will invite more diverse advertisers to pour money into their respective platforms. cold hard cash talking.

Completely agree.  This is free-market capitalism at it's finest.  

It's not lost on me that the party of "It's a company's right not to make a gay-themed wedding cake" is also the party that's losing it's mind at a private company deciding their bottom line is better off without hate-speech and stochastic rhetoric.

Edited January 11, 2021 by SmittleQuestions

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

13 minutes ago, Prizm123 said:

personally i think it was more a business decision than anything

i think they did a cost benefit analysis and determined that the outrage would cost more money to their bottom line in the long term than taking this action has cost them in the short term as far as revenue and advertising money, and that the potential benefits outweigh the risks for long term revenue growth because there will be fewer controversies and fires to put out in the future

 

in short nothing to do with being "good corporate citizens" but good for shareholders. its just a side benefit that they get free press about it, look like they are "being responsible" and in turn will invite more diverse advertisers to pour money into their respective platforms. cold hard cash talking.

Obviously not because they are down 4% right now

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

16 minutes ago, Prizm123 said:

personally i think it was more a business decision than anything

i think they did a cost benefit analysis and determined that the outrage would cost more money to their bottom line in the long term than taking this action has cost them in the short term as far as revenue and advertising money, and that the potential benefits outweigh the risks for long term revenue growth because there will be fewer controversies and fires to put out in the future

 

in short nothing to do with being "good corporate citizens" but good for shareholders. its just a side benefit that they get free press about it, look like they are "being responsible" and in turn will invite more diverse advertisers to pour money into their respective platforms. cold hard cash talking.

I don't share your view, the man incited violence and will continue to do so.  

 

There is online chatter is focused on even more violent actions for January 17 directed at DC and the the state capitol. Trump  or his proxy "up voted" the posting on Parler which is being deplatformed because it fails to monitor this type of activity.

 

I am not naive about their desire to make a buck a feign that they cannot control their platform, but this is the next level and people are going to get hurt. 

 

 

 

 

[SmittleQuestions 10]

Yes, but down 4% is kind of a disingenuous statement when looking at their market position compared to a year ago... if it continues it might be an issue.

The bigger problem for Twitter is that their valuation is based on user number and the more bots/bad actors that leave or get banned because the "Big names" they follow aren't there anymore, the more it deflates their net worth

Honestly, it's a re-valuation that should have happened a long time ago because their value is completely nonsensical.

That said,  saying -4% though seemingly causation isn't necessarily the dramatic shift it sounds like.  (Below is the last year of stock fluctuations)

 

 

Anyway,  interesting thread, I leave you all to the debate.

 

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, SmittleQuestions said:

Yes, but down 4% is kind of a disingenuous statement when looking at their market position compared to a year ago... if it continues it might be an issue.

The bigger problem for Twitter is that their valuation is based on user number and the more bots/bad actors that leave or get banned because the "Big names" they follow aren't there anymore, the more it deflates their net worth

Honestly, it's a re-valuation that should have happened a long time ago because their value is completely nonsensical.

That said,  saying -4% though seemingly causation isn't necessarily the dramatic shift it sounds like.  (Below is the last year of stock fluctuations)

 

 

Anyway,  interesting thread, I leave you all to the debate.

 

 

 

When the consumer is the product, then valuation has to be user centered, which is why it wouldn't surprise me if social media companies specifically use values like CLV to determine the overall marketable value of each customer. Trump likely had one of the highest CLVs there. If I was a shareholder I'd not be liking this decision, but because I'm all for pixel authoritarians self immolating, I hope they take this Trump ban much further. The faster their platform gets flushed the better.

Edited January 11, 2021 by Burnt Reynolds

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

Based on this conversation, I am buying Twitter on the 10%dip

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

This guy was given advice by the owner of Gab who survived weeks to months of downtime as a result of these deplatforming attempts, about the registrar, host, avoiding AWS, etc. If he doesn't even want to consider it, then it's hard to feel bad for him. A competitor threw him a bone, which is a rarity. He doesn't seem very bright.

 

Parler Will Be Shut Down for 'Longer Than Expected,' Says CEO John Matze

https://www.newsweek.com/parler-website-app-down-offline-longer-expected-ceo-john-matze-1560384

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Quote

Greenwald slams liberals for being 'overwhelmingly supportive' of Big Tech 'brute force' against conservatives
Reporter warns of coordinated suppression by tech monopolies and Biden administration

Quote

Greenwald pointed to censorship of the New York Post's reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop in October, Twitter's permament ban of President Trump and the suspension of right-leaning social media site Parler from Apple, Amazon, and Google. These companies, he said last week, have more power than any companies in world history due to their ability to control speech and information.

Quote

"Tech monopolies -- FB, Google, Apple, Amazon -- have more concentrated wealth & power than any in history. They have used brute force 3 times in 3 months to manipulate US politics: censoring NY Post, banning Trump, destroying Parler. And liberals are overwhelmingly supportive," Greenwald tweeted.

Quote

"That these Silicon Valley monoplies are grace menaces to political freedom & economic well-being is *not* a right-wing view," Greenwald wrote, paralleling Democrats supporting Big Tech with their alliance with the War on Terror, of which he has been deeply critical. "Authoritarians never believe they're authoritarians, no matter how much censorship, surveillance, jingoism, & imprisonment they demand."

 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/greenwald-liberals-overwhelmingly-big-tech-brute-force-conservatives

 

Forum's auto embed and link features seem somewhat busted again. 

 

Got one of them to work! 

Edited January 11, 2021 by Burnt Reynolds

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Anyone been paying attention to Bitcoin lately? 

 

Meanwhile, the courts have a case to dismiss without consideration:

Quote

 

Parler hits Amazon with antitrust suit over shutdown

 

Quote

Parler asked for an emergency order to reject Amazon's shutdown of its account, saying it was the equivalent of “pulling the plug on a hospital patient on life support."

 

 

Quote

 

Parler hit back at Amazon on Monday, filing a lawsuit accusing the tech giant of violating antitrust law by cutting off the conservative-friendly social media site's presence on the web.

In a complaint filed in federal court in Washington state, Parler said Amazon’s decision was “motivated by political animus” and designed to reduce competition to the benefit of Twitter, which is also a customer of the online retailer's Amazon Web Services division.

 

Quote

 

 

Quote

 

 

www.politico.com/amp/news/2021/01/11/parler-amazon-antitrust-suit-457579

Edited January 11, 2021 by Burnt Reynolds