Tech Giants are setting dangerous precedents, and society is at risk.

[Juggy777]

First it was Jack who decided to ban Trump and while I understand why he had to do it, but yet it’s scary because if the President of USA account is not safe then what chance do we have to keep our accounts safe.

Furthermore now Google has decided that Australians should not get access to news sites, and basically they’re at their mercy what they show they have to see, and this is super scary because there is no free internet anymore.

Sources:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9144641/Google-blocks-Australian-media-outlets-unprecedented-experiment-hide-news.html

https://nypost.com/2021/01/15/jack-dorsey-twitter-crackdown-will-be-much-bigger-than-trump/

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/14/tech/twitter-jack-dorsey-trump/index.html

[1714983916]

1714983916

[1714983916]

1714983916

[1714983916]

1714983916

[1714983916]

1714983916

[franky1]

first of all aeroplanes and twitter are not a public right. they are a private business service
just like this forum

its up to the service/owner to choose who they allow in. they set a policy for their service.
same with grocery stores. the store manager has the right to ban anyone. no one has the right to just walk in and do as they please. but as long as they are good and do things right they get to use the grocery store

if twitter wants to close down tomorrow and block all accounts.. they can. its their business

the lesson to learn is to not become reliant on such a private business

people have the ability to wiggle their tongue and pout their lips to speak. thats the law of nature to be able to use your mouth.
but it does not mean they have the freedom/right to use and abuse a businesses/social platform/stage for any reason.

you can speak but that does not entitle you to free access to a megafone, microphone, stage or platform

heck even ISP's have terms and conditions. you cant claim some written government right gives you free and full access to anything

you dont even have rights to money. they can debase money, they demonitize money. they can freeze accounts if you abuse money. they allow you certain utility of money. but that does not mean anything to do with 'freedoms'.

[TwitchySeal]

First it was Jack who decided to ban Trump and while I understand why he had to do it, but yet it’s scary because if the President of USA account is not safe then what chance do we have to keep our accounts safe.

Furthermore now Google has decided that Australians should not get access to news sites, and basically they’re at their mercy what they show they have to see, and this is super scary because there is no free internet anymore.

Sources:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9144641/Google-blocks-Australian-media-outlets-unprecedented-experiment-hide-news.html

https://nypost.com/2021/01/15/jack-dorsey-twitter-crackdown-will-be-much-bigger-than-trump/

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/14/tech/twitter-jack-dorsey-trump/index.html

These are private companies, founded and run by Americans..  We need to let them live the American dream and allow the market sort itself out?  It's called Capitalism.

We're already seeing the Free Market work it's magic: Trump's already hinted there's going to be something better than Twitter for them soon and new competitors are making a run for their user base all the time.  That's what's supposed to happen unless you're in Russia or China, where banning the President from your app would cost you the rest of your life in prison.

[Kittygalore]

Your worries are in the wrong place, the problem is not account banning by these private companies, the problem is when they try to meddle with politics by intentionally removing articles or in these case tweets that are against their candidate's principle. In fact we have to celebrate that these private companies are removing people that are insinuating violence that could affect innocent people, although they are not perfect because there are still some racist/bigot/extremist/irrational sjws that are still on their platform but this is a good step.

[Viper1]

The night Tulsi Gabbard crushed Kamila in the debate, google magically disabled their adwords account and so none of the ads they had prepared were seen by the people that would have been searching for her after that showing. Hours later google renabled the account and to this day have still not given an explanation.

And if you would like to see an example of how they will shut down left wing political movements.

https://articlesofunity.org/2020/09/press-release-for-our-twitter-ban/
https://youtu.be/QxAt8WxkPrE

So yes, everyone should be concerned at how they will use their power to impact the political process.

[coolcoinz]

It was always a debate about public vs private. If you had a small forum, would you block people for comments that you don't support, or would you allow all of them to say whatever they like as long as it's not spam? I'm asking because all of the social media like Twitter are private and they allow people to post to some extent. There are things they block, like racism, but if you start banning people for their comments you will naturally have to draw a line somewhere and this line is going to move back and forth depending on whether a certain group can persuade you.
For example, you decide to ban nonsense, so naturally if someone comes to the forum and says people can breathe in space, you'll delete it. Then, a group of people will argue the Earth is flat, you'll ban them. Then some bigger group will come to argue there's more than 2 genders...

[franky1]

It was always a debate about public vs private. If you had a small forum, would you block people for comments that you don't support,

nonsense idiot spam not an issue. if an idiot wants to prove he is even more of an idiot. go ahead
but malicious messages that can cause harm to others. BAN
EG idiots that spam messages advertising people should drink bleach to cure things. ban them

[Gyfts]

Trump is the first public figure they outright banned who was in a position of high political power, but I'd assume this won't be the last. If you look at their pattern, they banned people like Alex Jones in the past while giving a free pass to those that support/engage in left wing violence.

Seems people were fine when Kathy Griffin posed with a severed head of Trump. No ban there.

[TwitchySeal]

Trump is the first public figure they outright banned who was in a position of high political power, but I'd assume this won't be the last. If you look at their pattern, they banned people like Alex Jones in the past while giving a free pass to those that support/engage in left wing violence.

Seems people were fine when Kathy Griffin posed with a severed head of Trump. No ban there.

griffens career took a major hit, overall people were not fine with the photo shoot.
Trump used twitter to assemble an angry mob that stormed the capital. People died.

[Gyfts]

Trump is the first public figure they outright banned who was in a position of high political power, but I'd assume this won't be the last. If you look at their pattern, they banned people like Alex Jones in the past while giving a free pass to those that support/engage in left wing violence.

Seems people were fine when Kathy Griffin posed with a severed head of Trump. No ban there.

griffens career took a major hit, overall people were not fine with the photo shoot.
Trump used twitter to assemble an angry mob that stormed the capital. People died.

Who the fuck cares about her career hit. If some actor did that with Obama their career would be over and they would be barred from the public. Holding the severed head of the President is insane and warrants a ban, IF the rules of Twitter were every applied evenly. I really am not sure how you could justify her not being banned.

[Viper1]

I really am not sure how you could justify her not being banned.

It was art. Tada. See what I did there. Technically it was actually her yearly artsy photo thing. I don't think she should have been banned, and neither should Trump have been... Some sort of "time out" then sure.

As for the whole narrative that Trump incited the riots. Given the actual law when it comes to free speech, the precedent, what he actually said in the entire speech like 1/3 of the way through saying they were going to walk over there and peacefully protest (which the left media does not play in their outrage clips), and his tweets during it, I'm pretty confident the courts would ultimately find him not guilty. Watched a video from a left wing lawyer who really has nothing good to say about Trump, but he tends to agree as well so take it for what it is.

[Maasdamer]

Trump is the first public figure they outright banned who was in a position of high political power, but I'd assume this won't be the last. If you look at their pattern, they banned people like Alex Jones in the past while giving a free pass to those that support/engage in left wing violence.

Seems people were fine when Kathy Griffin posed with a severed head of Trump. No ban there.

griffens career took a major hit, overall people were not fine with the photo shoot.
Trump used twitter to assemble an angry mob that stormed the capital. People died.

Why u have to post 20 posts or more every day. Preparing your next scam? Great Trust site with countless negative feedback.

Bitch.

[franky1]

As for the whole narrative that Trump incited the riots. Given the actual law when it comes to free speech, the precedent, what he actually said in the entire speech like 1/3 of the way through saying they were going to walk over there and peacefully protest (which the left media does not play in their outrage clips), and his tweets during it, I'm pretty confident the courts would ultimately find him not guilty. Watched a video from a left wing lawyer who really has nothing good to say about Trump, but he tends to agree as well so take it for what it is.

if i waffle for 15minutes and then say lets go to a bar for a casual beer and just be calm. .. and then spend the next 45 minutes raising the tension that i have a point which i will not back down from. a point i 'will not concede' and i will 'fight' for my point. saying 'we are strong and they are weak' and that i will be so addiment about my point that i will will 'stop the steal' of my beer in any way i can.

oh and also if i hired a guy to also tell people to fight multiple times.. and as part of the 1 hour waffle im saying im proud of my speaker for being brave to have spoke about fighting..

suddenly its no longer a peaceful meetup. its sounding more like a threat that theres going to be a fight at the bar

[coolcoinz]

It was always a debate about public vs private. If you had a small forum, would you block people for comments that you don't support,

nonsense idiot spam not an issue. if an idiot wants to prove he is even more of an idiot. go ahead
but malicious messages that can cause harm to others. BAN
EG idiots that spam messages advertising people should drink bleach to cure things. ban them

But who is going to decide if the poster is an idiot? Is every social media platform going to employ a psychiatrist? There are obvious cases like your bleach guys or those who used to do tide pot challenge, but sometimes there are opinions supported by large groups of people like this so called "fluid gender", scientology, flat earth, and many other things. We all know that some ideas are laughed at and called stupid until too many people support them and you begin to find yourself in the minority. A nice example of this were countries that underwent radicalization like Iran.

[franky1]

its simple. if their message can cause other people harm, breaks of the law

EG. 1. badecker: 'dont try this yourself, but i just drank bleach'
EG. 2: badecker: 'i just drank bleach, you should try it too'

number 1 is just proving he is an idiot
number 2 is the obvious comment that can lead to harming others... thus ban

for me it doesnt need a psychiartists evaluation.. i dont deem everyone that says silly things as an idiot. but you can easily spot the real idiots that say really harmful idiotic things just by reading their comment and using common sense. so i declare the real obvious idiots as idiots.

the other posts that just say silly non harmful things. i have other names for them

[Viper1]

its sounding more like

Not enough for the court to convict. The laws, precedents and the like are pretty specific and in fact when it comes to political speech it's very forgiving. You can be all emotional about it, view it based on the outcome as opposed to what it was, a political speech full of rhetoric etc. You can wish it were so because you hate the guy, but it's not.

[Mauser]

These are very worrying news and should be a wake up call to all of us. The tech giants have too much power. They can manipulate the news and filter for everybody what to read and what not to read. I wish the politicians would step up and push back. We need more controls of what is going on in these huge companies. Where us our personal information going and who is profiting of it

[franky1]

its sounding more like

Not enough for the court to convict. The laws, precedents and the like are pretty specific and in fact when it comes to political speech it's very forgiving. You can be all emotional about it, view it based on the outcome as opposed to what it was, a political speech full of rhetoric etc. You can wish it were so because you hate the guy, but it's not.

but again. social media is not a public service owned by government. its a private business
a business can set its own policies as their private service is not a fundemental right.

in short it does not need a court case to judge the validity of a ban. if they want to ban. they can