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

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,097
20,745
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.
Do you see any contradiction in citing Orwell while arguing that individuals should not have control over what they do and do not say on their own property with their own money?

Again, if you want to argue for the general breaking up of companies that’s one thing but let’s be honest if we are doing that Twitter is very, very far down that list.

Twitter should be able to ban anyone it feels like at any time, for any reason. If people don’t like it then they can make Twitter 2, electric boogaloo.
 

guidryp

Golden Member
Apr 3, 2006
1,065
1,135
136
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.
Please point me to level headed reasonable people that were kicked off Twitter. Certainly you can provide many examples to counter my "assumption".

This isn't kicking about kicking off people who disagree, they kicked off people for violence incitement.

Deplatforming extremists isn't doublethink.

https://www.wordnik.com/words/doublethink
  • Thought marked by the acceptance of gross contradictions and falsehoods, especially when used as a technique of self-indoctrination.

To see textbook definiton doublethink, you need look no further than alt-right looking at what is unquestionably their movement members attacking the Capitol, coming straight from a rally where Trump told them to, and being arrested for it and identified as such, and then believing it was Antifa Terrorists.

It doesn't get more doublethink than that.

If you are going to use a term, make sure you understand it.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
19,946
11,219
136
I just think its really concerning that people are seemingly okay with acting out 1984.
This is exactly what the GOP has actually fucking done. "Alternative facts", constant lying, etc etc etc. That is what Orwell was warning us about. Not that private companies should be forced to carry the lies of other people or the government. Sue whoever taught you the meaning of 1984 was because they sucked at teaching you. Read Orwell's other writings.

Don't believe what you hear or see because that isn't what is happening - Donald J Trump. THAT is what Orwell was trying to warn us about.
 

ewdotson

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2011
1,156
1,214
136
The thing that gets me is that I feel like there really is a case for treating social media more like public utilities (and have felt that for some time). But part of that would involve regulating the heck out of them. If people want to have that conversation and to include the idea of including protections for users that go beyond the individual platforms' ToS, I think that would be a conversation worth having.

But that doesn't seem to be the conversation the people whining now are interested in.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,097
20,745
136
This is exactly what the GOP has actually fucking done. "Alternative facts", constant lying, etc etc etc. That is what Orwell was warning us about. Not that private companies should be forced to carry the lies of other people or the government. Sue whoever taught you the meaning of 1984 was because they sucked at teaching you. Read Orwell's other writings.

Don't believe what you hear or see because that isn't what is happening - Donald J Trump. THAT is what Orwell was trying to warn us about.
I have to say I did not expect ‘the lesson of 1984 is that we must force people to broadcast the lies of the government’.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,650
13,732
136
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.
It's all formulated on a lie, that the election was stolen. It's a whopper. The bigger the lie, the better it sells.

Speaking of memories, let's go back in time. One week ago on our "Reliable Sources" telecast, "On Tyranny" author Timothy Snyder warned that "we are now moving dangerously towards the territory of a big lie." He said "the idea that Mr. Biden didn't win the election is a big lie. It's a big lie because you have to disbelieve all kinds of evidence to believe in it. It's a big lie because you have to believe in a huge conspiracy in order to believe it. And it's a big lie because, if you believe it, it demands you take radical action. So this is one way we have really moved forwards towards authoritarianism and away from democracy. It's coming to a peak right now."

I shudder to think what kind of mindfuck Trump might have achieved over the next 4 years if he had won the election.
 

guidryp

Golden Member
Apr 3, 2006
1,065
1,135
136
I have to say I did not expect ‘the lesson of 1984 is that we must force people to broadcast the lies of the government’.
I wonder if the people incorrectly bringing this up actually read it, or remember if they did. Because the Trump and Fox cults are pure 1984.

But then again it is perfect doublethink for them to claim (actually believe) their opponents are the ones, that are 1984-Orwellian.

I actually remember the book, and what is frightening to me is how easy it has been to achieve doublethink in the alt-right.

IIRC, in the book, the hero starts noticing the contradictions between the Truth as described and some actual (pesky)facts about reality. Eventually he gets found out, and is sent in for conditioning (brainwashing and torture) to fix his doublethink. Doublethink isn't lying about the contradictions, it's essentially not being able to even see them as contradictions. Subjects aren't conditioned to say the right things, they are conditioned to believe them.

So when a Trumper, sees an incontrovertible mountain of contradictory evidence, about the attack and they say it was Antifa that attacked the capital, they aren't actually lying to us. Somehow all contradictory evidence just resolves to into being evidence opposite of reality. They then truthfully tell us about he alternate reality they see.

In the book, this took extensive torture and brainwashing, and it seemed so far fetched as to be silly hyperbole.

To see that something like that is achievable from just lengthy exposure to Fox news and toxic right wing social media, is frankly terrifying.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
16,368
4,322
136
I wonder if the people incorrectly bringing this up actually read it, or remember if they did. Because the Trump and Fox cults are pure 1984.

But then again it is perfect doublethink for them to claim (actually believe) their opponents are the ones, that are 1984-Orwellian.

I actually remember the book, and what is frightening to me is how easy it has been to achieve doublethink in the alt-right.

IIRC, in the book, the hero starts noticing the contradictions between the Truth as described and some actual (pesky)facts about reality. Eventually he gets found out, and is sent in for conditioning (brainwashing and torture) to fix his doublethink. Doublethink isn't lying about the contradictions, it's essentially not being able to even see them as contradictions. Subjects aren't conditioned to say the right things, they are conditioned to believe them.

So when a Trumper, sees an incontrovertible mountain of contradictory evidence, about the attack and they say it was Antifa that attacked the capital, they aren't actually lying to us. Somehow all contradictory evidence just resolves to into being evidence opposite of reality. They then truthfully tell us about he alternate reality they see.

In the book, this took extensive torture and brainwashing, and it seemed so far fetched as to be silly hyperbole.

To see that something like that is achievable from just lengthy exposure to Fox news and toxic right wing social media, is frankly terrifying.
Think of doublethink as just another form of gaslighting.
 

Grey_Beard

Golden Member
Sep 23, 2014
1,584
1,636
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.
These corporations are not a publishing platform. If they were, all of these posts or users would have been banned from their platform years ago. Just because someone starts a product and users use it in large numbers does not make them government. Maybe think twice when you sign up for a service, click I agree on the terms of service and then start to think you can do whatever you want. Everyone banned from this form can go onto their porch and tell everyone that walks by the same things they posted. Does not change a single thing that they can do.

Edit: word changes to make the message more coherent.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

ewdotson

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2011
1,156
1,214
136
IIRC, in the book, the hero starts noticing the contradictions between the Truth as described and some actual (pesky)facts about reality. Eventually he gets found out, and is sent in for conditioning (brainwashing and torture) to fix his doublethink. Doublethink isn't lying about the contradictions, it's essentially not being able to even see them as contradictions. Subjects aren't conditioned to say the right things, they are conditioned to believe them.
It's both being able to see them as contradictions AND not see them as contradictions - whichever the Party requires at any given moment.
To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,097
20,745
136
I wonder if the people incorrectly bringing this up actually read it, or remember if they did. Because the Trump and Fox cults are pure 1984.

But then again it is perfect doublethink for them to claim (actually believe) their opponents are the ones, that are 1984-Orwellian.

I actually remember the book, and what is frightening to me is how easy it has been to achieve doublethink in the alt-right.

IIRC, in the book, the hero starts noticing the contradictions between the Truth as described and some actual (pesky)facts about reality. Eventually he gets found out, and is sent in for conditioning (brainwashing and torture) to fix his doublethink. Doublethink isn't lying about the contradictions, it's essentially not being able to even see them as contradictions. Subjects aren't conditioned to say the right things, they are conditioned to believe them.

So when a Trumper, sees an incontrovertible mountain of contradictory evidence, about the attack and they say it was Antifa that attacked the capital, they aren't actually lying to us. Somehow all contradictory evidence just resolves to into being evidence opposite of reality. They then truthfully tell us about he alternate reality they see.

In the book, this took extensive torture and brainwashing, and it seemed so far fetched as to be silly hyperbole.

To see that something like that is achievable from just lengthy exposure to Fox news and toxic right wing social media, is frankly terrifying.
Yes, O’Brien is very clear that the party does not crush its enemies, it converts them. If I remember right though the book starts with Winston hating the party and knowing it’s full of shit.

I’m also surprised at the ability of self delusion in the American right though. As far as this assault on the capital goes despite the facts that:

1) Trump organized the group
2) Trump told them to go to the capitol,
3) Trump telling them he loved them as the riot was ongoing.
4) The participants clearly being outed as Trump supporters in their own social media.

Somehow ANTIFA was behind it all. Even with both Trump and his supporters admitting it was them!
 
Mar 11, 2004
20,846
3,009
126
Please point me to level headed reasonable people that were kicked off Twitter. Certainly you can provide many examples to counter my "assumption".

This isn't kicking about kicking off people who disagree, they kicked off people for violence incitement.

Deplatforming extremists isn't doublethink.

https://www.wordnik.com/words/doublethink
  • Thought marked by the acceptance of gross contradictions and falsehoods, especially when used as a technique of self-indoctrination.

To see textbook definiton doublethink, you need look no further than alt-right looking at what is unquestionably their movement members attacking the Capitol, coming straight from a rally where Trump told them to, and being arrested for it and identified as such, and then believing it was Antifa Terrorists.

It doesn't get more doublethink than that.

If you are going to use a term, make sure you understand it.
A bunch of them were removed because they were simply mult accounts controlled by individual people being used just to spout the same garbage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

Pohemi420

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2004
3,471
1,040
136
A bunch of them were removed because they were simply mult accounts controlled by individual people being used just to spout the same garbage.
Have to multiply the message. The more times it gets said/posted, the truthier it becomes. The more shit you fling at the wall, the more likely some of it will begin to stick.
 

Grey_Beard

Golden Member
Sep 23, 2014
1,584
1,636
136
I wonder if the people incorrectly bringing this up actually read it, or remember if they did. Because the Trump and Fox cults are pure 1984.

But then again it is perfect doublethink for them to claim (actually believe) their opponents are the ones, that are 1984-Orwellian.

I actually remember the book, and what is frightening to me is how easy it has been to achieve doublethink in the alt-right.

IIRC, in the book, the hero starts noticing the contradictions between the Truth as described and some actual (pesky)facts about reality. Eventually he gets found out, and is sent in for conditioning (brainwashing and torture) to fix his doublethink. Doublethink isn't lying about the contradictions, it's essentially not being able to even see them as contradictions. Subjects aren't conditioned to say the right things, they are conditioned to believe them.

So when a Trumper, sees an incontrovertible mountain of contradictory evidence, about the attack and they say it was Antifa that attacked the capital, they aren't actually lying to us. Somehow all contradictory evidence just resolves to into being evidence opposite of reality. They then truthfully tell us about he alternate reality they see.

In the book, this took extensive torture and brainwashing, and it seemed so far fetched as to be silly hyperbole.

To see that something like that is achievable from just lengthy exposure to Fox news and toxic right wing social media, is frankly terrifying.
Conditioning and brainwashing is possible through many techniques. Just because they were not tortured or forcibly made to become conditioned does not mean it cannot happen. If Pavlov’s experiments teach us anything, it’s that the mind can be trained in ways that are not very noticeable to those being trained. The agitprop that was piled onto these minds is a travesty. To reprogram them will be a harder task than coming out of the 1929 stock market crash and the rebuilding of the economy in the aftermath. The use of hate and the boogieman “socialism” is deeply ingrained after the three generations of programming.
 

guidryp

Golden Member
Apr 3, 2006
1,065
1,135
136
Yes, O’Brien is very clear that the party does not crush its enemies, it converts them. If I remember right though the book starts with Winston hating the party and knowing it’s full of shit.

I’m also surprised at the ability of self delusion in the American right though. As far as this assault on the capital goes despite the facts that:

1) Trump organized the group
2) Trump told them to go to the capitol,
3) Trump telling them he loved them as the riot was ongoing.
4) The participants clearly being outed as Trump supporters in their own social media.

Somehow ANTIFA was behind it all. Even with both Trump and his supporters admitting it was them!
This is my point exactly. The doublethink I thought was such a ridiculous notion in the book, even when backed by extensive torture and brainwashing has been achieved in reality, out in the open, with apparent ease. Terrifying.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,097
20,745
136
Who else in this country has violated Twitter's TOS similarly to Trump but not sanctioned?
Yes it’s odd that he appears to understand that Twitter is selectively enforcing its policies but does not appear to understand that it did so to Trump’s enormous benefit! Anyone else would have been banned a long, long time ago.

Conservatives have played this working the refs game for decades now, first with the traditional media, now with social media. It’s an easy game to play - declare bias against yourself and endlessly repeat this accusation even when they are biased in your favor. I remember this with Facebook recently where conservatives accused Facebook of secretly hiding their posts to reduce engagement, while at the same time like 9 of the 10 most widely shared items were right wing media!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

ewdotson

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2011
1,156
1,214
136
Yes, O’Brien is very clear that the party does not crush its enemies, it converts them.
To be clear, it converts them *and* it crushes them.
Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave_5k

Gardener

Senior member
Nov 22, 1999
465
94
101
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.
A free and fair social and political discussion requires a degree of moderation, both internally from the participants and occasionally from an external moderator. Take this website as an example.

When self-moderation fails, as it has with Trump and many of his cult of followers, someone needs to step in to press the reset button. I'm not a fan of placing private corporations in that role, but since no one else could stop Trump, I think it was the lesser of two evils.

Almost certainly there is a better way to structure a moderation framework for social media. Without that structure, we will have another Trumpian demagogue disputing elections and sieging the capitol. That army is just waiting to be called up.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY