if trump does get his own platform out of this (and if he does you'd think it will become massive) is it really worth censoring/banning him for? its a bad move imo and one that people will remember for years especially if the process keeps being repeated on similar accounts

I agree that there will be unintended (and not good) consequences, I think the pandora's box is open now and all sorts of people are going to find themselves ... unhappy ... with something they're currently cheering. And it won't be partisan; I can see the potential for anger across the spectrum. People will be cheering one day because the "TERF they hate" got kicked off a platform, and then fuming the next because THEY got kicked off for supporting some other form of rights activism... and vice versa.

That said, I don't know what the answer was with Trump and Twitter, because he was continuing to (quite blatantly, no matter what people claim) use it as a rallying flag for direct action in his supporters.

I'm definitely not one for silencing people generally speaking even those I don't agree with but I think he did cross the line into incitement of violence especially as the POTUS in this instance, both by literally telling his supporters to march on Capitol Hill (where people actually died) and by claiming that a fair democratic election result was fraudulent. It's always been the case where that line is there and not classed as free speech

they had to stop trumps further incitement, We all know it was just going to get worse and worse

Personally, i think it's time for states to prosecute Trump. He incited violence within a state so he has no federal protection from that

Like Posie Parker. She's never said anything particularly objectionable or inciting , and she's banned from practically everywhere online...

It's not an issue of freedom of speech at all. Imagine that Twitter is a stage and it belongs to someone else, you can use it within reason but you're beholden to their rules and you simply aren't entitled to that stage just 'cus. It's not an infraction of freedom of speech for a platform to be taken away from you if you break the rules you agreed to follow. Donald Trump is not being silenced, he literally has a press room in the place he lives in :laugh:

I agree in principle but I think that accepting this means accepting that anyone - even people you passionately agree with - can (and most likely now will) be removed from the platform if their opinions are deemed to be "not moderate enough". That will include BLM, LGBTQ and Feminist activists of all types. I fully agree that trolls of all descriptions should be banned (Hopkins, Lozzy Fox) and people who actively incite anything (Tommy Robbo, CLEARLY Trump) should be restricted but if we make it a blanket "company's choice, not a free speech issue" then all sorts of people will be banned for the content of their opinion, and not just their means of expressing it.

Well yeah, the last thing we want is for social media to become one massive echo chamber, differing opinions and debate is healthy, if we're not allowed to hash things out anymore for fear of offending or veering away from the "correct" opinions then we're headed for 1984 territory but there is and has always been a line which Trumps incitement of violence certainly falls under and I also think, as POTUS making totally unsubstantiated claims about the election (purely because of his position as the Leader of that country) also massively crosses that line

That's not true at all... since when did your average LGBTQ+ group use the platform to incite a violent uprising?

this is why i think the action taken by these companies against trump and others is going to change the landscape permanently. They have to show that they are applying rules equally and fairly or they will be taken down

I think we'll find out very soon that that is "down to interpretation", and ALL of us will have examples of "interpretations" that we don't like.

I don't agree, here for instance we have hate laws, they are clear. If a tweet violates that law then that is also clear.

Anything else is opinion.

A social media platform doesn't have time to consult a lawyer, judge or legal process to determine that though and will have to make snap judgements. To use an old-as-time example of the debate in action;

Is JK Rowling questioning trans self-ID hate speech? (Some would argue yes)

Are trans-activists threats in response e.g. "Die TERF hag!" justified? (Some would argue yes)


In this scenario, could a Twitter employee decide that EITHER or BOTH of these count as hate speech and ban everyone involved? Very possibly - and it would leave people on both sides of the argument fuming.

No....

If that said 'kill all terf hags' then maybe. Otherwise questions, opinions and childish outbursts are not a hate crime.

The revolution is coming girls.

It doesn't really bother me, tbh. As I said, social media is just someone else's platform, their stage, their house. If they don't want you in that house then it's their choice.

I could be banned from every social media platform in the world, that doesn't mean my opinion has been silenced. If people want a platform that isn't beholden to someone else's rules, they need to go out and create their own.

It doesn't matter if I agree with someone or not, if they get banned, they get banned. My opinion wouldn't really change. I also don't think this is a slippery slope either, if you incite violence, you're probably gonna get banned. Nobody on Twitter got banned just for being right wing.

Nor is questioning self-ID but the point is, there are people who would label BOTH of those things hate speech, and you're relying on a team of moderators (not lawyers or legal experts) to get that right every time.

I don't think Trump's twitter ban is a slippery slope, it was inevitable and he should have been banned years ago and the only reason he WASN'T was because of being POTUS.

What I think has potential to be a slippery slope is things like webhosts stepping into to block/ban platforms on a whim. Don't get me wrong - Parler is a cess pit and webhosts are obviously free to have terms of service, but I think unless those terms of service already exist and can be pointed to as a reason for removal, there has to be a less arbitrary system in place. e.g. they could change their terms of service to forbid sites that allow certain types of content such as incitement. Some will already have that, but not all. But if a ToS is changed they need to give time to "clean up" before restricting.

Corporate America halts donations to Republicans who voted to overturn the election

Totally agree with this. A member of congress cannot question an election with no proof without consequences.

They had two months to come up with something. They had nothing but still registered their objections. There needs to be consequences.

...:laugh:..I love when Hugh Grant danced to Gump...

The BlueLivesMatter group is real quiet huh...

I guess just like BLm

I wonder what happened to them???

Why? What happened to them?