• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Trump banned from Twitter permanantly

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Spicedaddy

Platinum Member
Apr 18, 2002
2,273
24
81
Everyone here is celebrating the ability of corporate power to ban the president of the united states from having a voice or raising money. Even if you hate Trump surely this must give you a little pause for thought? I mean what's to stop them banning people you love tomorrow, what's to stop them dictating what we get to hear about?

There was a time when the liberals actually fought for Nazi's right to protest because they believed freedom of speech was that important. What happened?
Twitter tolerated his BS for years, giving him special privileges because he's the President. Also, why does he need Twitter? Can't he post on the White House web site or something? Surely his retarded supporters know how to type in a web site address.

Good example with the Nazis... Shows what happens when you let hate speech spread without doing anything.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
17,234
7,374
136
Trump just lost another crutch - Sheldon Adelson has reportedly died.


Man things sure are getting shitty for traitors, and their bank accounts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zinfamous

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
19,972
11,252
136
Trump just lost another crutch - Sheldon Adelson has reportedly died.


Man things sure are getting shitty for traitors, and their bank accounts.
Sheldon Adelson, the man who single handedly ensured Israel faces decades of future conflict with the Palestinians.
 

dr1337

Member
May 25, 2020
113
167
76
Freedom of speech means the government can’t censor your speech. It does not mean that a private company must carry and amplify your speech at its own expense. That’s not freedom, that’s entitlement.
Perhaps, but isn't there still an issue with massive corporations now deciding morality? Nobody voted for jack dorsey, why does he deserve to be the arbiter of right and wrong? Twitter is a private company but its also a publishing platform that reaches millions of people, its not insignificant and I think the fact that pretty much every American politician uses twitter is a testament to that. Just because corporations can legally do things, doesn't mean the actions they perform are in any way right, correct, or even healthy for our society.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
29,130
3,100
126
Perhaps, but isn't there still an issue with massive corporations now deciding morality? Nobody voted for jack dorsey, why does he deserve to be the arbiter of right and wrong? Twitter is a private company but its also a publishing platform that reaches millions of people, its not insignificant and I think the fact that pretty much every American politician uses twitter is a testament to that. Just because corporations can legally do things, doesn't mean the actions they perform are in any way right, correct, or even healthy for our society.
Well, if they decide to not be platforms for speech/actions that are decidedly unhealthy for our society, who can blame them? :rolleyes:

I am 100% behind the social media platforms having blackballed DJT and the nutjobs that are planning insurrection because he legitimately lost the election. Take a look at your hands... they may have blood all over them by Jan. 20.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
19,972
11,252
136
Perhaps, but isn't there still an issue with massive corporations now deciding morality? Nobody voted for jack dorsey, why does he deserve to be the arbiter of right and wrong? Twitter is a private company but its also a publishing platform that reaches millions of people, its not insignificant and I think the fact that pretty much every American politician uses twitter is a testament to that. Just because corporations can legally do things, doesn't mean the actions they perform are in any way right, correct, or even healthy for our society.
Then advocate for the creation of a new public space that is owned by the government and the protections afforded by the first amendment would apply to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

VashHT

Platinum Member
Feb 1, 2007
2,537
137
106
Perhaps, but isn't there still an issue with massive corporations now deciding morality? Nobody voted for jack dorsey, why does he deserve to be the arbiter of right and wrong? Twitter is a private company but its also a publishing platform that reaches millions of people, its not insignificant and I think the fact that pretty much every American politician uses twitter is a testament to that. Just because corporations can legally do things, doesn't mean the actions they perform are in any way right, correct, or even healthy for our society.
Calling for the violent overthrow of our government isn't really a moral grey area.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
19,972
11,252
136
Well, if they decide to not be platforms for speech/actions that are decidedly unhealthy for our society, who can blame them? :rolleyes:
There is a fair point in his post. But the answer is not to destroy first amendment rights to save the first amendment.
 

guidryp

Golden Member
Apr 3, 2006
1,076
1,139
136
Perhaps, but isn't there still an issue with massive corporations now deciding morality? Nobody voted for jack dorsey, why does he deserve to be the arbiter of right and wrong? Twitter is a private company but its also a publishing platform that reaches millions of people, its not insignificant and I think the fact that pretty much every American politician uses twitter is a testament to that. Just because corporations can legally do things, doesn't mean the actions they perform are in any way right, correct, or even healthy for our society.
For the most part, the big public corporations are extremely hands off on this, and are largely just maintaining widely agreed to community and legal standards. Community standards because they want the bulk of mainstream business, legal ones because they don't want trouble with law enforcement.

I think any reasonable debate on this would conclude they are too hands off, and should have stronger moderation, and usually it's only extremists complaining about "censorship".
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
29,130
3,100
126
Yeah pretty disgusting how people are presenting this like trump said something mildly controversial instead of promoting violence and sedition that lead to deaths at the capitol, and was continuing to support those actions until he was banned.
Pelosi knows. She's not going to back off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grey_Beard

akenbennu

Senior member
Jul 24, 2005
557
106
106
Trump can walk a few yards to the briefing room and assure himself of an audience. He doesn't need Twitter to get a message out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gardener

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,118
20,789
136
Perhaps, but isn't there still an issue with massive corporations now deciding morality? Nobody voted for jack dorsey, why does he deserve to be the arbiter of right and wrong? Twitter is a private company but its also a publishing platform that reaches millions of people, its not insignificant and I think the fact that pretty much every American politician uses twitter is a testament to that. Just because corporations can legally do things, doesn't mean the actions they perform are in any way right, correct, or even healthy for our society.
Well that’s an antitrust issue, not a free speech one. Twitter has and should have the absolute right to determine what speech is right and wrong when it’s the one being asked to publish it on their own dime. If people don’t like it they can start their own Twitter.

If the argument is that Twitter is too big and powerful for any competitor to succeed then it should be broken up by the government. The solution would never be to violate its first amendment rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vic and Pohemi420

conehead433

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2002
5,197
249
106
Trump can walk a few yards to the briefing room and assure himself of an audience. He doesn't need Twitter to get a message out.
He can't get his hate filled message out on TV anymore either. Even Faux News cuts away when he starts lying about how the election was stolen from him and his followers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muse

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,631
8,758
136
Perhaps, but isn't there still an issue with massive corporations now deciding morality? Nobody voted for jack dorsey, why does he deserve to be the arbiter of right and wrong? Twitter is a private company but its also a publishing platform that reaches millions of people, its not insignificant and I think the fact that pretty much every American politician uses twitter is a testament to that. Just because corporations can legally do things, doesn't mean the actions they perform are in any way right, correct, or even healthy for our society.
Then perhaps traitors and those that support traitors should do what they’ve always advocated, let the free market decide these companies fate. They can start by all of them boycotting these companies, I’m totally down with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,118
20,789
136
Merely being a big company that enforces community and legal standards is not an antitrust issue either.

It's just another lie told by extremists, who want things their way.
Oh to be clear I don’t think antitrust action is warranted against Twitter, I’m just saying that if it were true that Twitter was so dominant that it could exert the sort of control described the appropriate remedy would be through antitrust enforcement, not destroying the first amendment.
 

guidryp

Golden Member
Apr 3, 2006
1,076
1,139
136
Oh to be clear I don’t think antitrust action is warranted against Twitter, I’m just saying that if it were true that Twitter was so dominant that it could exert the sort of control described the appropriate remedy would be through antitrust enforcement, not destroying the first amendment.
They would have to be that large to exert that kind of control, and have demonstrated record of abusing it...

Not just upset extremist snowflakes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

dr1337

Member
May 25, 2020
113
167
76
Calling for the violent overthrow of our government isn't really a moral grey area.
How many people actually did this though? Did trump even support violence or just protestors? (no way to tell now all of the tweets are gone... convenient) Is supporting a protest that eventually turns into a riot the same thing as calling for a violent insurrection? I'd argue putting words into peoples mouth definitely is a moral grey area, while no supporting violence isn't.
let the free market decide these companies fate
Id rather not, the free market is often pretty useless. At least it has been for my health insurance rates and my choice of ISP. Corporations have long had too much power in America and now its bleeding into politics and is dividing this nation but for seemingly no reason
It's just another lie told by extremists, who want things their way.
Making assumptions like this isn't wise, everyone who disagrees with you isn't necessarily an extremist. Ironically making an assumption like this is actually extreme in of itself. George Orwell has a nice word for this, Doublethink.

I don't use twitter, I don't really use social media, and I'm happy to say I voted for biden. I just think its really concerning that people are seemingly okay with acting out 1984. Stifling discussion does no good for this world in my opinion and being a reactionary isn't healthy. The reactionaries at the capitol weren't a good thing and now the reactionaries in the media are also not a good thing.

People trying to take an objective view of the situation aren't extremists. I shouldn't have to preface this much.
 

VashHT

Platinum Member
Feb 1, 2007
2,537
137
106
How many people actually did this though? Did trump even support violence or just protestors? (no way to tell now all of the tweets are gone... convenient) Is supporting a protest that eventually turns into a riot the same thing as calling for a violent insurrection? I'd argue putting words into peoples mouth definitely is a moral grey area, while no supporting violence isn't.
What do you mean how many people? This thread is about trump. Trump did support it and was happy it was happening. Plus I'm sure those tweets are all archived, stop acting like it's being conveniently hidden to hide the truth or some shit. I didn't put words in anyone's mouth, trump has been calling for his supporters to keep fighting to overthrow the election and repeating the lie that it was stolen or fraudulent in order to whip up his base.
 

Pohemi420

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2004
3,485
1,052
136
How many people actually did this though? Did trump even support violence or just protestors? (no way to tell now all of the tweets are gone... convenient) Is supporting a protest that eventually turns into a riot the same thing as calling for a violent insurrection? I'd argue putting words into peoples mouth definitely is a moral grey area, while no supporting violence isn't.

Id rather not, the free market is often pretty useless. At least it has been for my health insurance rates and my choice of ISP. Corporations have long had too much power in America and now its bleeding into politics and is dividing this nation but for seemingly no reason

Making assumptions like this isn't wise, everyone who disagrees with you isn't necessarily an extremist. Ironically making an assumption like this is actually extreme in of itself. George Orwell has a nice word for this, Doublethink.

I don't use twitter, I don't really use social media, and I'm happy to say I voted for biden. I just think its really concerning that people are seemingly okay with acting out 1984. Stifling discussion does no good for this world in my opinion and being a reactionary isn't healthy. The reactionaries at the capitol weren't a good thing and now the reactionaries in the media are also not a good thing.

People trying to take an objective view of the situation aren't extremists. I shouldn't have to preface this much.
Oh. Another, "I voted for Biden!" but still being an apologist for rethuglican criminals. Nobody called YOU an exteremist. You're just an imbecile.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY