Trump speaks out on social media ‘censorship’

'Its why I hate the response "they are private companies, they can do what they want!! its their platform they can do what they want!!". "

Always from those on the left as the vast majority of those being banned are on the right.
Though I'm sure they would be saying the same if it was the left mostly getting the bullet. 🙄

'Its why I hate the response "they are private companies, they can do what they want!! its their platform they can do what they want!!". "

Always from those on the left as the vast majority of those being banned are on the right.
Though I'm sure they would be saying the same if it was the left mostly getting the bullet. 🙄

For years the right, particularly in the US, have championed the free market and the rights of private companies. Yet when private companies decide to remove people on the far right they kick up a fuss about their free speech being "violated".

'Its why I hate the response "they are private companies, they can do what they want!! its their platform they can do what they want!!". "

You can support rights for private companies and support the free market without advocating for complete and rampant unregulated free market economics? Almost everyone will agree that private companies need rights, but shouldn't have the right to form cartels or form improper monopolies etc. It's not black and white.

'Its why I hate the response "they are private companies, they can do what they want!! its their platform they can do what they want!!". "

Always from those on the left as the vast majority of those being banned are on the right.
Though I'm sure they would be saying the same if it was the left mostly getting the bullet. 🙄

For years the right, particularly in the US, have championed the free market and the rights of private companies. Yet when private companies decide to remove people on the far right they kick up a fuss about their free speech being "violated".

When people say "They are private companies, they can do what they want" it's to take the piss out of the people on the right complaining about something that they have supported for decades.

@Jebedee Tagging you also, hadn't seen your earlier comment.

Yep. I'm sure they also think it's cool and good if your water/electricity supplier decides to cut you off because they dislike you lol.

Of course, although the kind of free market that the libertarian right want in the US is pretty much a rampant, unregulated free market.

It's worth pointing out that Facebook and Twitter haven't started mass banning people simply for having right wing, or even far right, political opinions. They've banned (either permanently or temporarily) individuals whom they consider to have violated their terms of service.

"When people say "They are private companies, they can do what they want" it's to take the piss out of the people on the right complaining about something that they have supported for decades."

That's because they can see a shift in the role these companies are playing in our society.

Go back to pre-internet days and:

Our largest news sources were heavily regulated and controlled by a legal framework designed specifically for them, to make them serve society. It didn't always work, but the relationship between them, the law and the people was clear. And if they were caught out, they were (usually) punished.

Our largest public for discussion were churches, town halls, pubs, town squares, universities, etc. All spaces that were largely politically neutral, and unless you were causing an offense, or trouble you were free to express your political position. The institutions were free to kick anyone out for causing an offense, but there were so many small institutions, none had a monopoly, so no one was ever barred from the majority of public discourse for their opinions, they just had to find somewhere more suitable.

Fast foward to today:

Our largest news sources have no dedicated legal framework designed to keep them in check. They have existed under the premise that they are platforms for news, rather then editors/producers of news.. but in the last few years they have taken up the mantel of editor by deciding which source of news is fit for their platform and which isn't, and by writing in codes that declare what content they will publish and what they wont. They are acting as editors of content, whilst taking no legal responsibility for the content on their news platforms.

3 companies own the vast majority of our relevant public space, which has migrated online. offline spaces have lost significance hugely in public discord, and their power to shape and change the conversation is now vastly out matched by online public spaces. Its much more easy to monopolize an online space then it is a physical geographically challenging international space, so monopolization happened quickly and to an extent that it never happened before in person. These 3 companies now hold the power to bar a person from the largest and most powerful form of public discourse.

---

That's what conservatives see, when they look at these bannings on social media. They see very large and not politically neutral companies in a position of huge power, ruling over both our largest news sources and our largest spaces for public discussion, and it terrifies them.

It would terrify the left as well, if it were being used against them. and I get that, as I said in my reply above - there is a huge bias aspect going on here.. right-wing people only care because they are being targeted, and the left doesn't care because something that's hurting their political enemies is a friend of theirs. It would 100% be the same if the roles were flipped. But us all being hypocritical doesn't make it right.

These days a private company based in another country can ban a political candidate in this country from being involved in public discourse in the largest political public space that this country has (twitter) - that should be scary to anyone, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum.

All I know is that I'm on the economic right, but still think completely unrestricted free market capitalism is a recipe for disaster (see Rockefeller's Standard Oil). That said, private companies still need significant rights.

To suggest it's due to ToS violations is just wrong, though. The bans often have nothing to do with specific violations, and are often because of violations not even covered in the ToS. Some have even been banned from services/platforms for actions they've taken elsewhere completely. It seems to be that if: (1) you're right wing (2) in the spotlight in some way (well known) (3) being criticised on social media, then you're removed/banned. That's the key recipe.

Public platform should be a civil right. Unless you abuse this platform by inciting violence or conducting criminal activity, you should not lose access to it, because we have freedom of speech as a human right. Social media are digital platforms. Facebook has no right to remove people from its platform for having political beliefs Zuckerberg doesn't like. Bear in mind Facebook could identify itself as a publisher and this would be fine, but it would mean they become personally and legally liable for everything that gets posted on their site. So they choose to remain a platform, but they cant have it both ways. You cannot silence opinions you dont like, a digital bill of rights must be created.

How would you feel about Facebook and Twitter banning members who harass other people and/or send them hateful/racist/sexist/etc comments/messages?

'Its why I hate the response "they are private companies, they can do what they want!! its their platform they can do what they want!!". "

Always from those on the left as the vast majority of those being banned are on the right.
Though I'm sure they would be saying the same if it was the left mostly getting the bullet. 🙄

I don't give a toss what he thinks frankly.