The Stuff removed / changed / pulled relating to Trump

Exley97

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 11, 2020
110
108
48
Country
United States
The word "censorship" has meaning outside of the constitutional context, you know that right?
I do, and the meaning that you're applying to Twitter's ban of Trump is a reach at best and nonsense at worst.

Oracle, from what I understand, which is little because I almost never hear anything about Oracle, mainly does database stuff. They're a tech giant in a different way, like how Sony is a tech giant in a different way.
If you admit you know little about Oracle then why are you trying to argue it is a "different" kind of tech giant when they clearly have a cloud infrastructure business that could adequately support Parler?

A Facebook user openly streamed the Christchurch massacre on the platform, but, for some reason, 8chan got the blame for it. This is how they attack competitors. They take an example and exaggerate it, and make it seem like the WHOLE PLATFORM is full of unsavory types plotting violence.

With a big enough platform, and with cherry-picked examples, you can paint any narrative you want. Who's going to contradict them and risk being called a nazi as well?
Are you arguing the people that stormed the Capitol Building and killed a cop *didn't* use Parler to discuss, plan out, communicate about and celebrate their attacks? Or are you arguing that Parler itself should face no consequences for that activity?
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
762
118
Trump being banned on social media platforms isn't censorship. They're private platforms and until they're made a "public utility" they can do whatever they want, just as we can here.
When people are saying "censorship" they do not necessarily mean "doing an unconstitutional action to suppress one's right to freedom of expression".

It's more likely censorship in the sense that putting a black bar or mosaic over someone's body parts is censorship.
 

Nick Calandra

Editor-in-Chief of The Escapist
Administrator
Moderator
Escapist +
Mar 13, 2020
477
470
68
Country
USA
Gender
Male
When people are saying "censorship" they do not necessarily mean "doing an unconstitutional action to suppress one's right to freedom of expression".

It's more likely censorship in the sense that putting a black bar or mosaic over someone's body parts is censorship.
OK?

Either way, as someone that's against censorship in art completely, I'm fine with Trump not having a platform on Twitter / Facebook, whatever if all he's going to do is try to instill anger and spread conspiracy theories about our elections to the point people are willing to storm the capitol, but are so misinformed they have no idea what to do when they get in there like the buffoons that they are.

He's doing the job of China, Russia and other countries like Iran for them at this point in trying to destabilize the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Worgen

Dreiko

Elite Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
1,612
446
88
CT
Country
usa
Gender
male, pronouns: your majesty/my lord/daddy
OK?

Either way, as someone that's against censorship in art completely, I'm fine with Trump not having a platform on Twitter / Facebook, whatever if all he's going to do is try to instill anger and spread conspiracy theories about our elections to the point people are willing to storm the capitol, but are so misinformed they have no idea what to do when they get in there like the buffoons that they are.

He's doing the job of China, Russia and other countries like Iran for them at this point in trying to destabilize the country.
I'm fine with him not having the platforms, I'm not fine with the platform holders and not some democratically elected body making the determination to take them away from him, they should not have that power. Unaccountable, unelected plutocrats holding this much power is even worse than brainwashed rednecks storming the capitol in buffalo skins. Once Biden is in power the cops will be unleashed on them and quash any such further attempt. Plutocrats on the other hand will be way harder to deter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
2,924
279
88
Here's the thing. On a lot of that stuff I agree.

If you've been to Prison and done your time you should get your right to vote back (I will say I'm not on the side of having people presently incarcerated allowed to vote as some places seem to want part of loss of freedom is that loss of being able to vote)

Not being able to drive for driving offences. Well I think a ban for X amount of time then having to regain the licence should be enough. Also Taxi services and Uber can work as a replacement to an extent (though likely more costly)

Removing children is a tough one because that then becomes about the rights of the child.

The no Gun ownership thing, isn't there a kind of a loophole for self defence as you can't legally own a gun but you can own self defence equipment such as Tasers, mace and I think even bows and arrow (yes I realise bows and arrows are not greatly effective at home defence)

Hackers and computers is a difficult one too. I think there would need to be some way to monitor activity because well White Hat hackers exist too and it's possible a black hat hacker could turn their skills to white hat work too.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,062
3,161
118
We've seen this happen before. Maybe it won't be "ban the most right leaning thing". Maybe it'll be in the form of "ban 'hateful' speech". But censorship always creeps.
No, it doesn't. Otherwise we'd all be reading off a government-approved script right now. Censorship moves back and forth in response to circumstances and opinions of the time.

The biggest threat to free speech is irresponsible use of free speech, just like the biggest threat to gun ownership is massive annual civilian firearm casualties. Free speech has to be seen as a good thing to be supported, and let's face it, a lot of people do not use free speech responsibly. Whether that's trolls going round pissing off as many people as possibly, vigorous defence of said trolls, racists and fascists, or a president who lies about just about anything and everything all the time. You want to know why Twitter and FB started "censoring"? Because the tidal wave of hate and bullshit on them eroded most people's willingness to put up with it, and they badgered the companies to try to stop it (which they spent a very long time resisting as hard as they can, let's remember).

And let's look straight at Donald fucking Trump. Because with his bogus election fraud conspiracy and his constant outpouring of lies, anger and hatred, that he has carried a huge proportion of the US population along with his crap, he is exactly the sort of reason that people's trust in free speech falters.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
2,924
279
88
I'm fine with him not having the platforms, I'm not fine with the platform holders and not some democratically elected body making the determination to take them away from him, they should not have that power. Unaccountable, unelected plutocrats holding this much power is even worse than brainwashed rednecks storming the capitol in buffalo skins. Once Biden is in power the cops will be unleashed on them and quash any such further attempt. Plutocrats on the other hand will be way harder to deter.
Yeh it kind of remind me of the talk and stuff in the Sci-Fi show Continuum where the corporate congress slowly takes power before literally replacing the government by bailing them out of the debt crisis for large amounts of control.

Honestly really good show if people haven't seen it.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
2,924
279
88
No, it doesn't. Otherwise we'd all be reading off a government-approved script right now. Censorship moves back and forth in response to circumstances and opinions of the time.

The biggest threat to free speech is irresponsible use of free speech, just like the biggest threat to gun ownership is massive annual civilian firearm casualties. Free speech has to be seen as a good thing to be supported, and let's face it, a lot of people do not use free speech responsibly. Whether that's trolls going round pissing off as many people as possibly, vigorous defence of said trolls, racists and fascists, or a president who lies about just about anything and everything all the time. You want to know why Twitter and FB started "censoring"? Because the tidal wave of hate and bullshit on them eroded most people's willingness to put up with it, and they badgered the companies to try to stop it (which they spent a very long time resisting as hard as they can, let's remember).

And let's look straight at Donald fucking Trump. Because with his bogus election fraud conspiracy and his constant outpouring of lies, anger and hatred, that he has carried a huge proportion of the US population along with his crap, he is exactly the sort of reason that people's trust in free speech falters.
A question.

As Trump is banned for lies and conspiracy theories should people be banned who spread them about Trump? Or maybe forced to issue corrections?

Because as much as I hate to say it there were plenty of them spread

A few I can thinks of




I mean the hate one was reported by the Washington Post

 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,645
1,110
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Trump being banned on social media platforms isn't censorship. They're private platforms and until they're made a "public utility" they can do whatever they want, just as we can here. For all intents and purposes, if I don't like what someone is saying on these forums, I can ban them and there's literally nothing you can do about it besides appeal it or complain about it.

He's the President of the United States. If he has something actually important to say, like oh, I don't know, an update on vaccines and when people are going to get it, nobody's going to censor that.

Trump's "communication" was 100% spent on just spreading conspiracy theories, and empty rhetoric to get his base riled up. I think it's completely fine if people want more transparency in the election process, but none of these people seem to have a "plan" or any sort of list of wants when it comes down to it besides screaming Trump's talking points about it being "stolen" or "rigged" or whatever, even though those very same people didn't believe the Russians messed with our elections in 2016.

I live in Missouri and I can't even track if my vote got to where it was supposed to be to be counted...and Missouri is a Republican state so...what states don't have voter transparency again? Oh right, Red states.

The thing is, everyone is focused on banning Parler, when it was Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc that allowed these groups to proliferate and they only started going to Parler when social media companies started slapping wrists.

I have ZERO interest in Parler, but everyone championing its takedown VERY quickly forgot that the platforms we are on at this very moment is what helped these conspiracy theories spread, and none of them are going to take accountability for it. It's beyond annoying to watch.
When you say track your vote, what does that mean? Is that for postal?

As to other Social Media platforms.... its probably why they've been at least pretending to ban poor behaviour over the last year at least to pretend they are doing the right thing.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,645
1,110
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
I'm fine with him not having the platforms, I'm not fine with the platform holders and not some democratically elected body making the determination to take them away from him, they should not have that power. Unaccountable, unelected plutocrats holding this much power is even worse than brainwashed rednecks storming the capitol in buffalo skins. Once Biden is in power the cops will be unleashed on them and quash any such further attempt. Plutocrats on the other hand will be way harder to deter.
The alternative to the Plutocrats having this power is giving it to the government... which has the potential to be way worse. Imagine Trump or Biden being allowed to determine what is bannable. I'd prefer breaking up some of these monopolies
 

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
1,491
609
118
Country
United States
A question.

As Trump is banned for lies and conspiracy theories should people be banned who spread them about Trump? Or maybe forced to issue corrections?

Because as much as I hate to say it there were plenty of them spread

A few I can thinks of




I mean the hate one was reported by the Washington Post

Your failure to understand the difference between "the foundations of our democracy are being polluted by traitors in Congress WHO MUST BE STOPPED" and "Trump watches the Gorilla channel lol" is depressing yet not surprising.
 

Nick Calandra

Editor-in-Chief of The Escapist
Administrator
Moderator
Escapist +
Mar 13, 2020
477
470
68
Country
USA
Gender
Male
When you say track your vote, what does that mean? Is that for postal?

As to other Social Media platforms.... its probably why they've been at least pretending to ban poor behaviour over the last year at least to pretend they are doing the right thing.
Yea, I have a heart condition so I did a mail-in vote in KC, Missouri. No way for me track it at all.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
2,924
279
88
Your failure to understand the difference between "the foundations of our democracy are being polluted by traitors in Congress WHO MUST BE STOPPED" and "Trump watches the Gorilla channel lol" is depressing yet not surprising.
Except as pointed out by Snopes they shape perception of him


and there were more serious claims than just the more silly claims I pointed out.

Should the press not be more trustworthy too or even willing to offer corrections. If you want to argue the Press are the Watchmen of Democracy then should some-one be watching the Watchmen?
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
11,806
1,144
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Which is odd, because I always thought Conservatives believed in Laissez Faire and the Invisible Hand of the Market... The Government telling private companies how to run their business really sounds like the Closed Fist of the State and sounds a lot like those pesky Regulations that Trump hates.
Actually a lot of the new breed of conservatives are anti-corporates. But I think it mainly stems from them not being able to say the "n" word 100 times or blame the jews for immigration.
 

Nick Calandra

Editor-in-Chief of The Escapist
Administrator
Moderator
Escapist +
Mar 13, 2020
477
470
68
Country
USA
Gender
Male
I'm fine with him not having the platforms, I'm not fine with the platform holders and not some democratically elected body making the determination to take them away from him, they should not have that power. Unaccountable, unelected plutocrats holding this much power is even worse than brainwashed rednecks storming the capitol in buffalo skins. Once Biden is in power the cops will be unleashed on them and quash any such further attempt. Plutocrats on the other hand will be way harder to deter.
Right, I can agree that social media platforms have too much power, mostly why I brought up that a decision needs to be made if these are public utilities for information or not. We're trying to have it both ways, and the answer to either kinda scares me, if I'm honest.

They apparently have enough power to at least in part influence elections, or so we like to think even though a very small % of people use them regularly. To me it leads to a slippery slope of regulating the news media too, and that's what concerns me, even though we all know it's an absolute shit show right now no matter how you look at it.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
762
118
If you admit you know little about Oracle then why are you trying to argue it is a "different" kind of tech giant when they clearly have a cloud infrastructure business that could adequately support Parler?
Did Parler try to get on Oracle, and were they turned down? Did Oracle drop them from being hosted at some point in the past? Do Parler and Oracle have any connection?
If the answers to these questions are "no", then I don't see how Oracle is relevant.

Are you arguing the people that stormed the Capitol Building and killed a cop *didn't* use Parler to discuss, plan out, communicate about and celebrate their attacks? Or are you arguing that Parler itself should face no consequences for that activity?
First of all: "family members were told that the officer had a blood clot and suffered a stroke and was on a ventilator."-

Secondly: No, I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that, if you're writing the story, you can exaggerate or belittle problems at will. I'm sure one could cherry-pick one or two messages from here and then write an article about how this site is a bastion of hate, if they were so inclined.


No, it doesn't. Otherwise we'd all be reading off a government-approved script right now. Censorship moves back and forth in response to circumstances and opinions of the time.
That's kind of like saying "If heroin were so addictive, it'd would have destroyed the country by now!"

Heroin is really that addictive and dangerous, but people go to great lengths to deter the manufacture, sale, and use of it, so it hasn't. You can't say that, just because the worst case scenario hasn't happened, that there's no danger.

Likewise, people recognize the dangers of creeping censorship and attempt to stop it as much as possible. It also moves slowly and takes generations, such that unless you're looking for it, you're not going to be able to see it happen.

The biggest threat to free speech is irresponsible use of free speech,
And who defines what "irresponsible" is? I'm sure the Britons didn't much like the kind of speech that the would-be Americans were spreading before and during their revolution. I'm sure they called them violent terrorists, seditionists, and whatever else, and would have liked to censor their speech if they could.

If two countries are at war, each should predictably view the speech of the other as "irresponsible".
It was thought of as "irresponsible" to express anti-war sentiments, hence the Sedition Act of 1918, then that was repealed two years later.
My religion, in America in the past, and in other countries today, is viewed as an "irresponsible use of free speech".

I'd say that the biggest threat to free speech is people who take it upon themselves to decide what is and isn't a "responsible use of free speech".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
11,806
1,144
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
I'm fine with him not having the platforms, I'm not fine with the platform holders and not some democratically elected body making the determination to take them away from him, they should not have that power. Unaccountable, unelected plutocrats holding this much power is even worse than brainwashed rednecks storming the capitol in buffalo skins. Once Biden is in power the cops will be unleashed on them and quash any such further attempt. Plutocrats on the other hand will be way harder to deter.
Why should they be forced to host him? These are private platforms that make themselves open to the pubic, do they suddenly lose the right to decide what can be hosted on their own platform?
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
2,924
279
88
In news more directly related to the topic.

An Internet provider in Idaho is now blocking Twitter and Facebook access for all users due to the claims of Censorship by said platforms.



Archive for those not able to access it due to GDPR blocking in EU.