Trump banned from Twitter!

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

23 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Play store

Oh right, yeah, I thought that was something else.

 

Shouldn't be shocked. I hope Parler has a secured host, payment processor, et al, because you know the obsessive authoritarian nutcases are going to be going for those too.

 

I just like how alternatives are really popping up now to big tech controlled platforms. We'll see how those work out. I suspect decentralization will be the future norm, where attempts to deplatform will wind up rather useless. I take a more optimistic approach because censorship in the long run never wins, and technology will ensure that despite the pathetic attempts to stifle. This entire conflict though is rather pointless. I'm all for teaching these people as hard a lesson as they need to learn.

Edited January 9, 2021 by Burnt Reynolds

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

2 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Oh right, yeah, I thought that was something else.

 

Shouldn't be shocked. I hope Parler has a secured host, payment processor, et al, because you know the obsessive authoritarian nutcases are going to be going for those too.

 

I just like how alternatives are really popping up now to big tech controlled platforms. We'll see how those work out. I suspect decentralization will be the future norm, where attempts to deplatform will wind up rather useless.

You should be watching TimCast IRL right now because he is talking about this and he has on a social media app creator

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 minute ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

You should be watching TimCast IRL right now because he is talking about this and he has on a social media app creator

Fam playing Mario Party games atm. You should post highlights here!

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

4 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Fam playing Mario Party games atm. You should post highlights here!

This will only increase radicalization and this is social take over. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

9 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

This will only increase radicalization and this is social take over. 

That's what they want, and they think it gets them their way, but it won't work out the way they hope it does.

[Orangesapples 1,954]

8 hours ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Yep they are banning a host of people now. Apple is threatening Parker now. 

 

 

But I though Trump is fascist and not the cool tech companies

Permanently banning someone for inciting violence on the platform is not fascism. 

[nykolos 711]

8 hours ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Google already pulled Parler from the AP store. 

 

 

Never heard of it until the media mentioned it, now I want to download it

 

As for my Twitter account, I think I looked at Trump account once, I figured why login into Twitter when I get Trump tweets on national tv everyday, it would be like reading them twice.

 

 

.

 

 

 

[nykolos 711]

1 hour ago, Orangesapples said:

Permanently banning someone for inciting violence on the platform is not fascism. 

Where is the tweet that shows Trump inciting violence? PLEASE post it.

 

[nykolos 711]

From a business perspective I'm not understanding the move, you're banning a guy, a very popular guy who had 81 Million followers on his account, that's 81 Million less people viewing ad content.. Not to mention the 71 Million Trump voters who will close their accounts, many resulting in millions of less people viewing ad content across the entire platform.. Trump's not dangerous and they know it, this was done purely for political reasons, perhaps to win Democrats over so they don't strip them of section 230

 

I see these account suspensions as a violation of Free Speech, not just with Trump but other conservatives who had their social media accounts terminated.. I predict the U.S. Supreme Court is going to have big First Amendment case before them this year,  the only remaining branch of Government that can save us.

 

[spookyturtle 9,465]

2 hours ago, nykolos said:

From a business perspective I'm not understanding the move, you're banning a guy, a very popular guy who had 81 Million followers on his account, that's 81 Million less people viewing ad content.. Not to mention the 71 Million Trump voters who will close their accounts, many resulting in millions of less people viewing ad content across the entire platform.. Trump's not dangerous and they know it, this was done purely for political reasons, perhaps to win Democrats over so they don't strip them of section 230

 

I see these account suspensions as a violation of Free Speech, not just with Trump but other conservatives who had their social media accounts terminated.. I predict the U.S. Supreme Court is going to have big First Amendment case before them this year,  the only remaining branch of Government that can save us.

 

You don’t have free speech here either. You agree to terms of service and the owner/administrator can suspend your account at any time or for any reason they so chose. You have no First Amendment rights on most  internet platforms suck as VJ, Facebook, Twitter, etc. They can censor as they please. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Indeed some confuse concepts of free speech on private platforms but they are also missing the authoritarianism here particularly wielding the monopolistic power of social media. For example not only was Trump banned from multiple platforms at once but Parler was deplatformed by both Google and Apple simultaneously among other things. These companies enjoy monopolistic power to alter entire industries and directly affect elections while benefiting from public laws that absolve their overtly malicious actions through section 230 protections that clearly need to be removed. 

[spookyturtle 9,465]

4 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Indeed some confuse concepts of free speech on private platforms but they are also missing the authoritarianism here particularly wielding the monopolistic power of social media. For example not only was Trump banned from multiple platforms at once but Parler was deplatformed by both Google and Apple simultaneously among other things. These companies enjoy monopolistic power to alter entire industries and directly affect elections while benefiting from public laws that absolve their overtly malicious actions through section 230 protections that clearly need to be removed. 

So they’re just like mainstream media, ie, TV, newspapers, magazines etc. They let be said what they chose to let be said. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

10 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

So they’re just like mainstream media, ie, TV, newspapers, magazines etc. They let be said what they chose to let be said. 

The media however doesn't enjoy section 230 benefits. The premise behind such benefits is because open discourse was never intended to function as the mouthpiece of the entity hosting it which is why liability is deferred to users. It's weird how much people are missing this. The issue isn't what the platform has the right to do as a private entity even though plenty of Trump supporters clearly miss it too. It's more about the exemptions to liability they benefit from while maliciously acting in publishing and monopolistic fashion. 

Edited January 9, 2021 by Burnt Reynolds

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I readily admit I know next to nothing about section 230. 

[Boiler 45,486]

Difficult to see how 230 is justified in the like of Facebook and Twitter, they limit what can be posted on their sites so the logic is that they should then be held responsible for what they choose to appear.

 

Currently they get a pass. Unlike say a newspaper.