Trump and Bannon censored on Twitter

[Electric Skeptic]

Because they are basically daring Trump to remove their section 230 protection from being held reliable for content that others post, or declaring them a communications company like the phone company, which would allow the government to make them unable to censor content. How would you like it if the phone company listened in on your calls and censored views they didn't agree with?

Ah, okay, I see what you mean.

Does Trump have that power (to remove that protection)? Or would that need congress?

I'm very much of a mixed mind when it comes to Facebook, Twitter, etc. and their content. The libertarian part of me wants to say that they're private companies, they can print/censor whatever the hell the like and if you don't like it, go find another social media outlet. On the other hand, I know that some of what they publish can be damaging (to individuals, organisations and society), and they should have some responsibility. But on the third hand, the idea of them setting themselves up as censors, deciding what I can and can't see and what they will and will not label "False" scares me, too.

Have you seen The Social Dilemma? It's a documentary about social media (free on Netflix atm) and its pretty scary, the way they knowing manipulate users. That pushed me toward my 'other hand', above. And it pushed me to move away from Chrome and gmail, too.

[EvoUK]

Ah, okay, I see what you mean.

Does Trump have that power (to remove that protection)? Or would that need congress?

I'm very much of a mixed mind when it comes to Facebook, Twitter, etc. and their content. The libertarian part of me wants to say that they're private companies, they can print/censor whatever the hell the like and if you don't like it, go find another social media outlet. On the other hand, I know that some of what they publish can be damaging (to individuals, organisations and society), and they should have some responsibility. But on the third hand, the idea of them setting themselves up as censors, deciding what I can and can't see and what they will and will not label "False" scares me, too.

Have you seen The Social Dilemma? It's a documentary about social media (free on Netflix atm) and its pretty scary, the way they knowing manipulate users. That pushed me toward my 'other hand', above. And it pushed me to move away from Chrome and gmail, too.

On the other, other, other hand, it was nice to see Twitter and mainstream news media finally start to treat Trumps lies with the (dis)respect they deserve in real time. Goodness knows what may have happened if they'd actually started doing so from the beginning.

[Sparko]

Ah, okay, I see what you mean.

Does Trump have that power (to remove that protection)? Or would that need congress?

I'm very much of a mixed mind when it comes to Facebook, Twitter, etc. and their content. The libertarian part of me wants to say that they're private companies, they can print/censor whatever the hell the like and if you don't like it, go find another social media outlet. On the other hand, I know that some of what they publish can be damaging (to individuals, organisations and society), and they should have some responsibility. But on the third hand, the idea of them setting themselves up as censors, deciding what I can and can't see and what they will and will not label "False" scares me, too.

Have you seen The Social Dilemma? It's a documentary about social media (free on Netflix atm) and its pretty scary, the way they knowing manipulate users. That pushed me toward my 'other hand', above. And it pushed me to move away from Chrome and gmail, too.

He personally doesn't have the power. But as President he has a lot of influence and I am betting the Senate would go along.

I think facebook, twitter, etc have gotten way larger than "just a privately owned company" like Tweb is. They are the default communications platforms of the internet. They have a defacto monopoly on it. They are more like a communications service provider at this point. Like an ISP, or the phone company. If they were just censoring certain policies like "no violence, no profanity" and applied it to everyone that would be one thing, but now they are judging what "facts" are real or fake. And they are doing it in a very biased way. If someone wants to spread fake news, why should they even care? There will always be conspiracy theories out there and nuts have just as much right to express their opinions as anyone else. It should be up to the reader to determine what to believe or not. Especially when it comes to "facts" that are more opinion than anything else.

But they are even being specific about what "facts" they are suppressing. You don't see them stopping flat earthers from posting their tweets do you? Why not? That is objectively false.

[Sparko]

So they are holding senate hearings on Section 230 today. And it looks like both sides are miffed with the way twitter and facebook have been moderating posts. Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey (twitter) are being grilled.

Dorsey outright lied at one point. He was asked about censoring the Hunter Biden laptop news story and his excuse was that they have a policy to suppress any posts regarding hacked material. 1. there is no evidence that the laptop was hacked, and 2. Twitter did nothing to suppress any stories about Trump's hacked tax returns or anything to do with Russiagate and the hacked information from that.

[Reepicheep]

...

On an unrelated matter, Greta Thunberg is apparently familiar with the Klingon expression "revenge is a dish best served cold". She waited almost a year to respond to Trump's tweet where he ridiculed her when she was declared Time Magazine's "Person of the Year". Her tweet:

So ridiculous. Trump must work on his Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill, Donald, Chill!

Her tweet is a word-for-word repeat of what Trump said about her back in December 2019.

During the final minutes of Trump's presidency, Greta Thunberg managed to get in one final jab at him. In September, 2019, Trump tweeted the following, in response to a speech Thunberg gave at the U.N.:

"She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future! So nice to see!"


Yesterday, as Trump left the White House for (probably) the last time, she tweeted:

"He seems like a very happy old man looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!"


Unfortunately for Trump, he has lost the ability to respond to Thunberg via twitter. I bet he's not too happy about that...