Trump regrets not banning twitter as he hails Nigerian government for doing so

[Bitstar_coin]

Even though twitter shouldn't have taken side with whatever shit the Nigerian government where doing but I still believe banning twitter was an extreme action taken by the Nigerian government,  I mean why do the citizens have to pay for the crimes of government! Trump didn't do it because he knows what's right from wrong, between the USA wouldn't have taken it calmly either,  that would have further increase the dislike many citizens already feel about him and his government.  There is nothing commendable about what the Nigerian government did.

[1714047787]

1714047787

[Silberman]

I do not use social media but that does not mean that I do not understand its impact, as you say young people are leaving behind the old ways to get information and instead are relying on social media, this is not wrong by itself, however when the owners of this platform consciously decides to favor one ideology over the other then this is a problem, now I am not a Trump supporter and I will have the same problem with social media if for example they banned Obama so this is not an issue of political identity but one of freedom of speech.

Twitter claims to be an intermediary, and it says that the users are responsible for their tweets. That is OK. But if they show bias in flagging the tweets and banning the users, then they can no longer claim to be an intermediary. And this is what the Indian law ministry said last week when they removed the legal protection of Twitter. A handful of the billionaires and the corporations controlled by them (Twitter, Google, Facebook.etc) want to decide who should rule the world. They are actively interfering with the politics, not just in the United States, but also in the other countries.

You expressed my issue with this platform better than I could do so myself, I am not against platforms that allow you to express what you want and share it to the world, if I was against that then I will have to be against the whole Internet and technologies like the telephone, but the platform needs to be fair to anyone, and the moment the intermediary chooses a side regardless of which side that is then that is a problem as they can easily influence people that way.

[ene1980]

Twitter claims to be an intermediary, and it says that the users are responsible for their tweets. That is OK. But if they show bias in flagging the tweets and banning the users, then they can no longer claim to be an intermediary. And this is what the Indian law ministry said last week when they removed the legal protection of Twitter. A handful of the billionaires and the corporations controlled by them (Twitter, Google, Facebook.etc) want to decide who should rule the world. They are actively interfering with the politics, not just in the United States, but also in the other countries.

All the social media platforms are intermediary and the user is responsible for the contents they put out and the only times twitter flags someone if they are propagating fake news and promoting hate speech and if that is their policy then what is that a government can do about it. Twitter as a company is not interfering in politics as far as i know but it is a mass media and the users are using it as a tool to spread their political views.

[CryptocurencyKing]

<>

Oh! I get the point your trying to propagate and its so true. Shouod q social media take a side to the story, its wrong bit then, it depends highly on the story that is being promoted. Hate speech and all isn't very much a thing that should be allowed to thrive as it could lead to insecurity in the societies considering how fast these Internet mediated news do spread. Coupled with the fact that, there are always those as to which, there minds are fetile, just waiting on this sort of news to be planted in them.

Though, there is no reason for which, a nation should shot down a means to information, be it false or not. The information or profile or the user should be the one to be deleted and not the means itself. Tweeter has done more good than harm. Government should consider these things.

[Sithara007]

All the social media platforms are intermediary and the user is responsible for the contents they put out and the only times twitter flags someone if they are propagating fake news and promoting hate speech and if that is their policy then what is that a government can do about it. Twitter as a company is not interfering in politics as far as i know but it is a mass media and the users are using it as a tool to spread their political views.

It is a joke that Twitter doesn't interfere in the politics. Twitter CEO and the other important board members have clear political views, and there is sufficient evidence to prove that their actions were driven by their political ideology. Twitter, Facebook and Google all have actively interfered in politics using their monopoly in the market. Intermediaries doesn't differentiate between the users. But Twitter has selectively banned and flagged users according to their ideology and this means that they are not an intermediary.

[bryant.coleman]

Banning some company just because they don't like what kind of news are being made public is wrong. If it were criminal activities I could understand and would support it. But just to block people from speaking their mind is so wrong. It is 2021 and we should live in a free world with rights of free movement and freedom of speech. Humanity should have evolved by now to a world where people can just argue with each without going into extremes.

It was Twitter, which started the ban game first. They banned the account of the Nigerian president. So you can't claim that Twitter is really a torch bearer for freedom of speech. One reason why it attracted a disproportionate response from the Nigerian government was due to the fact that Twitter is already known to use their platform for political intervention. Obviously the Nigerian government don't want a repeat of what happened during the 2020 presidential elections in the United States. If Twitter take an unbiased stand, then they will have a high ground in this dispute. But that is not the case here.

[Silberman]

Banning some company just because they don't like what kind of news are being made public is wrong. If it were criminal activities I could understand and would support it. But just to block people from speaking their mind is so wrong. It is 2021 and we should live in a free world with rights of free movement and freedom of speech. Humanity should have evolved by now to a world where people can just argue with each without going into extremes.

It was Twitter, which started the ban game first. They banned the account of the Nigerian president. So you can't claim that Twitter is really a torch bearer for freedom of speech. One reason why it attracted a disproportionate response from the Nigerian government was due to the fact that Twitter is already known to use their platform for political intervention. Obviously the Nigerian government don't want a repeat of what happened during the 2020 presidential elections in the United States. If Twitter take an unbiased stand, then they will have a high ground in this dispute. But that is not the case here.

‘Live by the sword die by the sword’ I find it interesting those companies actually believe they are above governments, it was just a matter of time until one got upset enough to play their game, now do I like the fact the Nigerian government banned Twitter? Not really since I am in favor of freedom of speech, however as I said before I do not agree with Twitter banning the Nigerian president either and now they have to pay the consequences of what they did.

[doomloop]

Well, for your information it wasn’t only Twitter that deleted the Nigeria president’s posts, Facebook also did the same thing. And as for those that are trying to put some of the blames on Twitter, I think you all should know this; Twitter might be a social media platform, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have rules and regulations, and when you go against those rules and regulations that the platform has set, then they have the right to take action against you.

I have seen someone make abusive comments on Facebook and Facebook immediately deleted his comments and also suspended his account. So it’s not like the Nigerian president is the first that this was done. The tweet he made was totally wrong, so he deserved what he got and even more than that. So if I am going to be taking any sides here, then I’m with Twitter on this. Being privileged doesn’t mean you should oppress others. It’s as simple as that.

[Kong Hey Pakboy]

Wouldn't there be a process before something like banning a platform be done completely in a democratic country. Plus, he is just bitter that he got banned from the platform because of his obnoxious behavior and toxic following.

[worldofcoins]

Even if he did ban Twitter back then we wouldn't be certain if the present president of USA will revert those laws, as he did to some of Trump's laws.

Coming to the Nigerian government, it's natural in my eyes that when you ban the representative of some country on a big platform then you're insulting the whole nation, and most likely the platform is going to be banned.

Twitter might have learned a lesson here doesn't matter if it's a small one but they did.

[Sithara007]

Wouldn't there be a process before something like banning a platform be done completely in a democratic country. Plus, he is just bitter that he got banned from the platform because of his obnoxious behavior and toxic following.

If the government suspects that a social media platform is interfering in the politics, then it has all the right to ban the platform. Twitter yesterday picked up a fresh fight with the Indian government, by temporarily suspending the account of Ravi Shankar Prasad (Minister of Information Technology). This is very significant, because by suspending the account of the IT minister, Twitter is trying to say that they are above the Indian laws. Also it is interesting to note that Twitter went after someone in the government who is regarded as toothless and weak, rather than going after the heavyweights such as Amit Shah or Yogi Adityanath.

[Tumanggor]

Even if he did ban Twitter back then we wouldn't be certain if the present president of USA will revert those laws, as he did to some of Trump's laws.

Coming to the Nigerian government, it's natural in my eyes that when you ban the representative of some country on a big platform then you're insulting the whole nation, and most likely the platform is going to be banned.

Twitter might have learned a lesson here doesn't matter if it's a small one but they did.

The US is a different country from Nigeria, banned Twitter there is useless
but banning a site right now is really really stupid because with a VPN or create a custom DNS it will all open

It's really clear that the Nigerian government is a fool and countries like that are usually liked by stupid people like Trump

[worldofcoins]

Even if he did ban Twitter back then we wouldn't be certain if the present president of USA will revert those laws, as he did to some of Trump's laws.

Coming to the Nigerian government, it's natural in my eyes that when you ban the representative of some country on a big platform then you're insulting the whole nation, and most likely the platform is going to be banned.

Twitter might have learned a lesson here doesn't matter if it's a small one but they did.

The US is a different country from Nigeria, banned Twitter there is useless
but banning a site right now is really really stupid because with a VPN or create a custom DNS it will all open

It's really clear that the Nigerian government is a fool and countries like that are usually liked by stupid people like Trump

Or maybe it was a move by trump to get votes of black peoples in US

[imstillthebest]

Even though twitter shouldn't have taken side with whatever shit the Nigerian government where doing but I still believe banning twitter was an extreme action taken by the Nigerian government,  I mean why do the citizens have to pay for the crimes of government! Trump didn't do it because he knows what's right from wrong, between the USA wouldn't have taken it calmly either,  that would have further increase the dislike many citizens already feel about him and his government.  There is nothing commendable about what the Nigerian government did.

tweeter has its own rules and they could not make an exeption even if you are a president .
i too dont like the action made by the nigerien government because other people are going to get affected .
so many nigerian people uses twitter for thier business and also for crypto activities like doing bounties or airdrops but how can they do it now .

[Lorence.xD]

If the government suspects that a social media platform is interfering in the politics, then it has all the right to ban the platform. Twitter yesterday picked up a fresh fight with the Indian government, by temporarily suspending the account of Ravi Shankar Prasad (Minister of Information Technology). This is very significant, because by suspending the account of the IT minister, Twitter is trying to say that they are above the Indian laws. Also it is interesting to note that Twitter went after someone in the government who is regarded as toothless and weak, rather than going after the heavyweights such as Amit Shah or Yogi Adityanath.

Isn't banning the platform a form of trying to remove the freedom of speech of the people, of course the platform will allow everyone to post about political stuff because they are trying to be inclusive, the real problem is on the individual level, don't participate if you feel like you are offended. Also, that's only your claim that they are above the law, remember that even though their platform is public, Twitter is still a private company and they have control over you in their platform, they agreed to terms and conditions right?

[ILuckyGuyI]

Hahaa. This is so funny. After Donald Trump's account has been banned, it's not surprising to see him thinking like this. By the way, China also is one of the countries that banned Twitter. But it did it for a different purpose. China made their own version of Twitter to feel safer. It didn't only ban Twitter. It banned some other well-known social media platforms also.

[ven7net]

It is not surprising that Trump welcomes Nigeria for blocking Twitter, since Twitter at one time locked Trump's account, thereby limiting his right to express his opinion. In simple words, there was an encroachment on freedom of speech. Well, since Twitter allows itself this, then probably this is the right reaction of countries like Nigeria to block Twitter. In general, it is very bad that social networks, taking advantage of their advantage, are breaking the law. It also shows that there is a struggle in the world between digital platforms and the old system.

[Fortify]

“Congratulations to the country of Nigeria, who just banned Twitter because they banned their President,”

“More COUNTRIES should ban Twitter and Facebook for not allowing free and open speech — all voices should be heard. In the meantime, competitors will emerge and take hold. Who are they to dictate good and evil if they themselves are evil? Perhaps
I should have done it while I was President.

For all the flag waving and claims about America being the land of the free, it sure seems like the vast majority of Republicans were down for supporting the most self interested ex-president of America that the world has ever seen. It is comical how many people thought a "businessman" would be able to shake up the politics in the USA. They were right to a degree, he was far worse than any previous politician at showing how weak the American version of democracy can actually be. His finale in a four year reign of disgrace was allowing one of the most prestigious and supposedly sacred buildings in America, meant to be the bedrock of everything it stands for - be overrun by a bunch of hopped up, backwards and brainless terrorists.

[beerlover]

Twitter claims to be an intermediary, and it says that the users are responsible for their tweets. That is OK. But if they show bias in flagging the tweets and banning the users, then they can no longer claim to be an intermediary. And this is what the Indian law ministry said last week when they removed the legal protection of Twitter. A handful of the billionaires and the corporations controlled by them (Twitter, Google, Facebook.etc) want to decide who should rule the world. They are actively interfering with the politics, not just in the United States, but also in the other countries.

Why exactly? Why can't they "decide" who should win? First of all they do not decide, they just let people write and do not let some of them write, that is all they do and nothing more which is totally under their own rules because it is a company and they can allow one person to write and the other not to write just with the basis of "I do not want to" and they can do it, they do not need any more reason than that, just if they dislike a guy just ban him that's it. Why? Because they are a company and they can just decline to offer someone their services, just like how you can decline to work with someone, simple as that, any shop owner in all of USA could decline to give you a product, it is allowed.

About the political stuff, we have fox news constantly pumping lies about politics EVERY HOUR, literally saying batshit crazy lies and when they were sued they literally defended themselves with "we are not news channel, we are entertainment, nobody sane would believe we are a news channel", so they literally act as news channels but claim they are not in order to be able to tell lies, according to Fox News, their "news" is literally like SNL news, a stand up to make people laugh, that's their defense.

If republicans can use fox news that way without any crimes broken, I am sorry but I hope twitter bans EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN, that's how this game should be played, either make it all fair, or screw them all.

[Silberman]

Twitter is still a private company and they have control over you in their platform, they agreed to terms and conditions right?

If we are going to follow that logic then twitter also has to follow the laws and regulations of each country and if they do not then be subject to a ban, which is by the way exactly what happened, twitter and other social media platforms are playing a dangerous game, yes they are powerful but they are centralized entities, the only way to survive if you are going against the most powerful centralized entities of the world is to be decentralized, and they are not so I will not be surprised if in the future social media platforms receive incredibly heavy regulations or are outright banned and replaced by other social media platforms.