Don't like it? Build your own Twitter.
Don't like it? Build your own Payment Processor.
Don't like it? Build your own Aeroplane.
Don't like it? Build your own uh.........government?
Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
471–480 of 1001 posts
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#47274 million voters. This is not going to play out well. There's really no coming back from this moment, the technocratic elite have changed American democracy forever. Edit: I mean this in the way Snowden tweeted yesterday, it will be interesting how this plays out for better or worse, but it is a monumental policy shift that will be a date marked in history books.
It appears to me that there is a huge electorate that is disgruntled and has felt that the people in power have ignored it for too long. If such a large number of people have actually vandalized Congress (didn't they do something like this to the Michigan Statehouse) to make their displeasure known, then they must genuinely feel that the normal method of registering protest, i.e., voting, has ceased to function for them. The overall smug and condescending tone of the mainstream and social media barons and the professional class only exacerbates this feeling.
How many of us here has had to face years of despair because of job loss, and loss of social standing due to globalization and corporate greed? Do we have any genuine hope (and more importantly, need) of understanding this 74 million?
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#473Does anybody have a solution to the bigger underlying question of de-platforming and censorship on online platforms? As far as I can tell, there are two general viewpoints: a) Censorship is bad, free speech is good. You should counter bad arguments with better arguments. b) There are types of speech, which are proven to lead to violence in the long-run. Also, some things can be proven as untrue. Lies are bad. I have…
I'm squarely in group b, however, I don't think it's an actual dichotomy in the way you present it. I think American's fetishize "free speech" which leads to a "hyper group a" that argues since censorship is scary (which it is) we'd rather face any other conceivable consequence rather than wrestle with the hard questions of what is appropriate vs. inappropriate public speech. I believe we're seeing examples of where…
> We're concerned about speech that is being amplified in a way where there's a civic responsibility to ensure that the harmful messages are not being amplified.
Who gets to pick what is harmful, though? Why can we not choose our own gatekeepers, rather than having them foisted upon us by corporate oligarchs?
The big problem here is that it is completely unreasonable and unprecedented to assume that this will be done in a transparent, consistent, open way. There will be no clear appeals process, and there's no reason to believe that the censorship won't be ideologically biased in favour of whatever is marketing best at the moment.
> it's controls on what can be said to large amounts of people
It's controls on what the working class can say to large amounts of people. The elite can still just go buy a newspaper or a broadcast media network, or start their own website, etc. and issue forth opinions on a grand scale. Regular folks will have to go through censors, which will end up being some combination of AI and outsourced farms of moderators in other countries or some other such Kafkaesque nightmare of business process.
> there's a civic responsibility to ensure that the harmful messages are not being amplified.
"harmful" is a social construct, and what is "harmful" to one group might not be to another. Which groups will be prioritized for this? How will you pick sides fairly without imposing a new dimension on whatever underlying group conflicts already exist?
The problem is that what you want to do cannot be done fairly. It can only be done in a draconian way, and the result will be an even wider fracturing of dialogue in a way that doesn't result in what you want, at all.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#474Good riddance.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#475This ban seems to heavily take advantage of the current moment, as it's obvious that he has tweeted worse things in the past. It's strange that they picked such a poor way to justify the ban when they could have made a significantly stronger case, and in doing so could have convinced millions more people that they are trying their best to apply policies evenly. For example, I have a hard time imagining why they chose…
[flagged]
[flagged]
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#47674 million voters. This is not going to play out well. There's really no coming back from this moment, the technocratic elite have changed American democracy forever. Edit: I mean this in the way Snowden tweeted yesterday, it will be interesting how this plays out for better or worse, but it is a monumental policy shift that will be a date marked in history books.
You say this like its the first time Americans have had to learn to live with having lost a federal election. Half the country is disappointed every four years. Starting to make concessions to terrorists because they got really upset after being lied to repeatedly makes no sense.
All the rally goers are not terrorists anymore than everyone who was at a BLM protest is Antifa.
We’ve got to be very careful here not to paint all of MAGA with that brush because that ends in a dark, dark place.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#477This ban seems to heavily take advantage of the current moment, as it's obvious that he has tweeted worse things in the past. It's strange that they picked such a poor way to justify the ban when they could have made a significantly stronger case, and in doing so could have convinced millions more people that they are trying their best to apply policies evenly. For example, I have a hard time imagining why they chose…
[flagged]
They were literally just given the right to exercise their voices in a democratic election. That’s the opposite of silence.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#478Comparing today's media, to the media of old - where they colluded to hide FDR couldn't walk because of the shame/and attacks it'd lead to now, where Tech companies overtook print media and now themselves control the pitchforks and direct anger at the masses. 1984 Two minutes of hate is real, so very real, and it's quite sad how most people welcomed this into the world. I've deleted my social media, twitters years be…
>I hold no opinion on Trump
Utterly baffling and genuinely inconceivable. My imagination is running wild trying to imagine what sort of person you might be, assuming you are being honest here.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#479Does anybody have a solution to the bigger underlying question of de-platforming and censorship on online platforms? As far as I can tell, there are two general viewpoints: a) Censorship is bad, free speech is good. You should counter bad arguments with better arguments. b) There are types of speech, which are proven to lead to violence in the long-run. Also, some things can be proven as untrue. Lies are bad. I have…
> You should counter bad arguments with better arguments We've witnessed the fallacy of this argument. It assumes a level of rationality that has been proven to be unreasonable to assume. The problem isn't that "better" arguments aren't reaching people. Rather, we have watched people exercise an incredible ability to discard overwhelming evidence and embrace narratives that have literally zero evidence to support the…
Doing the right thing is one thing. At times, doing the right thing and expecting it to work out well is where it becomes naïveté.
But that still doesn't make it a fallacious argument.
Sometimes doing the right thing is ineffective. And the aftermath of that crossroads has generally been a place that has not gone well in history.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#480Yes, I think this is actually it. After he basically commanded them to "Stop the Steal", I said that Facebook and Twitter would ban him. I also said that nuclear war was also on the table. If he is so unAmerican that he would actually tell his mob to attack the Capitol buildings, he really doesn't care about America at all. Being as petulant as he is, nuclear war is very much on the table. That's how crazy this situa…
Same line of thinking among officials and POTUS's entourage is being reported (I don't know if the source is reliable) : > High-ranking national-security officials have spent the last 24 hours scrambling to figure out how to keep their commander-in-chief, Donald Trump, from inciting further violence at home, spilling national secrets, or sparking last-minute confrontations with international foes. > The concerns in t…
If they were really that concerned V.P. Pence would have support of the Cabinet and could invoke the 25 Amendment.
It’s quite possible what you relayed is true. However, coming from The Daily Beast you need to take things reported with a grain of salt.