Trump speaks out on social media ‘censorship’ Watch

Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
Thoughts on this rather droll comment from the chimp in chief?

Name:  84A70D29-02DD-4C79-98A6-73F102B93DD6.jpg.jpeg
Views: 36
Size:  37.0 KB
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
hes right to monitor the situation, we are in a messy spot with social media at the moment, but one that I am sure will change over the next few years, facebook is already leading the way, and if you watch all of twitters CEOs interviews, they all know that change is needed, they are just trying to make sure it happens in a way that's suitable for them, the change is inevitable though.

You have to go one of two ways:

Either social media is declared a public space, in which case its entirely unregulated except for those breaking specific laws (threats/inciting violence etc)
or
Social media is regulated by the state and becomes legally responsible for the content on its site, in which case it has the freedom to only let people publish exactly what it deems is ok, it has complete control over its own content, but also takes complete responsibility for its content.

At the moment we have a mix of the two which is where the problems lie. We have sites that are starting to increasingly decide what is ok or not, but within society they act as public spaces, and are currently unregulated, and have no responsibility for the content posted on them.

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!!". yes. obviously as things currently stand that's true, but that misses what people have a problem with, which is the fact that private companies currently control the most prominent public space for communication/discourse.

I'm fine with either outcome, if they go unregulated under the guise of being a public space - great - that's just going back to how social media was 2-3 years ago before they started to get involved in politically banning people. If they want to keep up their political actions, then that's fine too but in doing so they need to shift away from acting and functioning as open public spaces, and more in line with private, responsible and regulated corporations.
6
reply
Just my opinion
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
'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. 🙄
Last edited by Just my opinion; 1 month ago
1
reply
username4499936
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
If I were him I'd be more concerned about the freedom to get an education without requiring a bulletproof backpack.But of course that would involve losing money.He needs to get his priorities right.Also I love how he's apparently going to fix censorship by state monitoring.Typically when the state monitors the internet it's called censorship.No doubt the irony was lost on Trump though.
3
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
(Original post by Just my opinion)
'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. 🙄
The left: it's a private company they can do what they want.

Also the left: Shut up and bake that cake you bigots!
3
reply
Just my opinion
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
Yep. That's the ones 🙄
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
(Original post by Just my opinion)
'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.
2
reply
DarthRoar
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
(Original post by SHallowvale)
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".
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.

(Original post by Just my opinion)
'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!!". "
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.
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
Without social media he would probably not have been elected President, or even become the Republican nominee.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
(Original post by DarthRoar)
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.
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.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by Just my opinion)
'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. 🙄
your right - if it were people on the left, I would care far less. We are all hypocritical, and biased towards what we view as our side.
1
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
(Original post by SHallowvale)
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.
"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.
Last edited by fallen_acorns; 1 month ago
1
reply
Just my opinion
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
(Original post by DarthRoar)



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.
Didn't some rightwing yt content maker have their bank account closed for similar reasons.
( Chase Manhattan iirc)
Up next ......your ISP rejects your business.
0
reply
DarthRoar
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 month ago
#14
(Original post by SHallowvale)
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.
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.
0
reply
BenK64
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
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.
0
reply
kazzykat95
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 month ago
#16
I don't give a toss what he thinks frankly.
2
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 month ago
#17
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
"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.
I understand what you are saying although still believe that there's a lot of piss taking going on when people say that. "Let the markets decide" is what a lot of right wing people have said for years now, except when it comes to social media where suddenly it's a problem that they can't have access to it.

I don't disagree with the concerns you've written about social media platforms having a very large influence over public discourse. That said it's worth remembering that Twitter, Facebook, etc, have not banned people simply for being right wing. They typically ban people who either explicitly break their rules, harass others, are engaged in real life criminal activity or promote it, etc.


(Original post by DarthRoar)
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.
Could you give examples of this? I can certainly provide examples of users who are 1) right wing, 2) in the splotlight, 3) being criticised on social media and 4) not being banned.

(Original post by BenK64)
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?
0
reply
BenK64
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 month ago
#18
(Original post by SHallowvale)
How would you feel about Facebook and Twitter banning members who harass other people and/or send them hateful/racist/sexist/etc comments/messages?
Harassment is illegal in the public square, and so it should be on the digital square.
0
reply
Zürich
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 month ago
#19
(Original post by Just my opinion)
'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. 🙄
Bingo.

you can tell much from those who advocate or accept censorship, so long as its not onto them.
0
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 month ago
#20
(Original post by kazzykat95)
I don't give a toss what he thinks frankly.
Why not?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Chemistry Paper 3 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (274)
31.53%
The paper was reasonable (423)
48.68%
Not feeling great about that exam... (105)
12.08%
It was TERRIBLE (67)
7.71%

Watched Threads

View All