Trump speaks out on social media ‘censorship’ Watch

fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#21
Report 1 week ago
#21
(Original post by SHallowvale)
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.
I think they tend to muddy the lines by grouping people together. For example Carl Benjamin and Tommy Robinson. Both have been banned from twitter, one has broken the law multiple times, been involved in a lot of violence/harassment etc. The other is an 'edgy' right-wing nerd who has become famous over saying controversial things, with a right-leaning spin. I think you could make a very strong case for banning Tommy Robinson, due to his criminal activity and proximity to very hateful groups. I thinks its very hard to make a case for banning Carl, even if you disagree with his, and UKIPs politics (as I do). But both will be spoken under the same breath by the press, and banned under the same justifications from social media.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#22
Report 1 week ago
#22
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
I think they tend to muddy the lines by grouping people together. For example Carl Benjamin and Tommy Robinson. Both have been banned from twitter, one has broken the law multiple times, been involved in a lot of violence/harassment etc. The other is an 'edgy' right-wing nerd who has become famous over saying controversial things, with a right-leaning spin. I think you could make a very strong case for banning Tommy Robinson, due to his criminal activity and proximity to very hateful groups. I thinks its very hard to make a case for banning Carl, even if you disagree with his, and UKIPs politics (as I do). But both will be spoken under the same breath by the press, and banned under the same justifications from social media.
I recall that Sargon received a temporary ban when he sent out porn to people. I had a look and wasn't able to find anything specific on why his account was later permanently banned but if I were to make any guess it would be because of something similar.
0
reply
DarthRoar
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#23
Report 1 week ago
#23
(Original post by SHallowvale)
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.
Perhaps I should have been more stringent. Regardless, those are the qualities required for banning/removal and you'll find that those 'political' figures who have been banned fit those criteria. Some well known examples would be Tommy Robinson, Carl Benjamin, Paul Joseph Watson, etc. There are those that could fit those qualities that aren't yet banned, though they are falling like flies.
0
reply
Chief Wiggum
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#24
Report 1 week ago
#24
I am pleased Trump is speaking out about this.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#25
Report 1 week ago
#25
(Original post by SHallowvale)
I recall that Sargon received a temporary ban when he sent out porn to people. I had a look and wasn't able to find anything specific on why his account was later permanently banned but if I were to make any guess it would be because of something similar.
would the context that he was tweeting inter-racial porn at alt-right racists (I think anyway, I haven't googled to check, but its what I remember), change your opinion of it being bannable?
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 week ago
#26
(Original post by DarthRoar)
Perhaps I should have been more stringent. Regardless, those are the qualities required for banning/removal and you'll find that those 'political' figures who have been banned fit those criteria. Some well known examples would be Tommy Robinson, Carl Benjamin, Paul Joseph Watson, etc. There are those that could fit those qualities that aren't yet banned, though they are falling like flies.
Just because people who have been banned share those qualities doesn't mean that they're being banned because they have those qualities. Indeed, if this were the case then we wouldn't see any alt-right, far right or even right wing people on Twitter. Since we clearly do there must be other things which these people are being banned for. PJW though is still on Twitter, I think.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 week ago
#27
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Just because people who have been banned share those qualities doesn't mean that they're being banned because they have those qualities. Indeed, if this were the case then we wouldn't see any alt-right, far right or even right wing people on Twitter. Since we clearly do there must be other things which these people are being banned for. PJW though is still on Twitter, I think.
if you have the time, because its long (personally I listen to them while cleaning my house) - the joe rogan podcast with twiters CEO, tim pool and a twitter lawyer, is a great indepth debate on whether social media platforms, twitter in this case, are actually banning right wing people, or if its just a coincidence, and there are other reasons.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#28
Report 1 week ago
#28
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
would the context that he was tweeting inter-racial porn at alt-right racists (I think anyway, I haven't googled to check, but its what I remember), change your opinion of it being bannable?
No, why?
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#29
Report 1 week ago
#29
(Original post by SHallowvale)
No, why?
for me it does somewhat. For example (to use extreme examples)

both of these are tweeting porn at someone:

1, an old man, tweeting porn at an 18 year female he sees each day in person
2, a gay man tweeting gay porn at an openly homophobic public figure who has been writing abusive comments on twitter towards LGBT individuals

Both are the same crime, but one for me is worse for me due to the context of both. Obviously their extreme cases, and sargons isn't either, but its just illustrative that for me context of an offense does matter.
0
reply
Trotsky's Iceaxe
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 week ago
#30
Rather than complaining about it, people need to start migrating to social media platforms with more relaxed moderation policies like 8chan.
1
reply
DarthRoar
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#31
Report 1 week ago
#31
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Just because people who have been banned share those qualities doesn't mean that they're being banned because they have those qualities. Indeed, if this were the case then we wouldn't see any alt-right, far right or even right wing people on Twitter. Since we clearly do there must be other things which these people are being banned for. PJW though is still on Twitter, I think.
Yes it does. We can see all sorts of behaviour across the spectrum of politics, from extremist nationalists on the right (EDL etc) and extremist on the left (antifa etc) and everything in-between. The controversial left is untouched, and you have countless examples of direct ToS violations being let slide whilst the controversial right is consistently removed for not even violating any ToS terms!

Oh, come now. If they banned every right wing voice en-mass there would be general outrage. Just a few years ago, there would be general outrage at the bannings happening now. We're the frog in the petri-dish, not realising how hot the water is getting.
0
reply
Trotsky's Iceaxe
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#32
Report 1 week ago
#32
(Original post by DarthRoar)
Yes it does. We can see all sorts of behaviour across the spectrum of politics, from extremist nationalists on the right (EDL etc) and extremist on the left (antifa etc) and everything in-between. The controversial left is untouched, and you have countless examples of direct ToS violations being let slide whilst the controversial right is consistently removed for not even violating any ToS terms!

Oh, come now. If they banned every right wing voice en-mass there would be general outrage. Just a few years ago, there would be general outrage at the bannings happening now. We're the frog in the petri-dish, not realising how hot the water is getting.
There’s a big difference though. The “controversial left” don’t live stream their acts of terrorism and mass murder on Facebook. That’s why social media platforms are getting jittery towards the extreme right.
0
reply
DarthRoar
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#33
Report 1 week ago
#33
(Original post by Trotsky's Iceaxe)
There’s a big difference though. The “controversial left” don’t live stream their acts of terrorism and mass murder on Facebook. That’s why social media platforms are getting jittery towards the extreme right.
Thanks, you've highlighted one big problem in society. People conflate the controversial right with literal terrorists. If people like right-wing youtubers are called 'extreme far-right' then what the hell do we call the people who actually shoot and kill? It's stupid to conflate the two things.

The 'controversial left' don't do terrorism. The 'controversial right' don't do terrorism. That's because controversial doesn't mean extreme! The extreme right is beginning to (Iceland) and the extreme left is beginning to (Greece). Neither are happening properly yet, but they probably will do with time.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#34
Report 1 week ago
#34
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
for me it does somewhat. For example (to use extreme examples)

both of these are tweeting porn at someone:

1, an old man, tweeting porn at an 18 year female he sees each day in person
2, a gay man tweeting gay porn at an openly homophobic public figure who has been writing abusive comments on twitter towards LGBT individuals

Both are the same crime, but one for me is worse for me due to the context of both. Obviously their extreme cases, and sargons isn't either, but its just illustrative that for me context of an offense does matter.
For me, I think that if it's unwarranted then it's unwarranted. If you don't want to receive something then you shouldn't have to put up with it. Other users, too, shouldn't be sending porn to people simply because they've said something stupid or hateful. Of course if someone is going out of their way to write abusive comments towards others (directly) then this itself shouldn't be allowed either.


(Original post by DarthRoar)
Yes it does. We can see all sorts of behaviour across the spectrum of politics, from extremist nationalists on the right (EDL etc) and extremist on the left (antifa etc) and everything in-between. The controversial left is untouched, and you have countless examples of direct ToS violations being let slide whilst the controversial right is consistently removed for not even violating any ToS terms!

Oh, come now. If they banned every right wing voice en-mass there would be general outrage. Just a few years ago, there would be general outrage at the bannings happening now. We're the frog in the petri-dish, not realising how hot the water is getting.
Can you provide examples of this? If you see ToS violations then you should report it immediately.

I remember that one of Antifa's accounts were banned for sharing personal information.
0
reply
Trotsky's Iceaxe
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#35
Report 1 week ago
#35
(Original post by DarthRoar)
Thanks, you've highlighted one big problem in society. People conflate the controversial right with literal terrorists. If people like right-wing youtubers are called 'extreme far-right' then what the hell do we call the people who actually shoot and kill? It's stupid to conflate the two things.

The 'controversial left' don't do terrorism. The 'controversial right' don't do terrorism. That's because controversial doesn't mean extreme! The extreme right is beginning to (Iceland) and the extreme left is beginning to (Greece). Neither are happening properly yet, but they probably will do with time.
The Christchurch shooter was a literal far right terrorist. The San Diego synagogue shooter last week was a literal far right terrorist. Jo Cox was murdered by a literal far right terrorist. Breivik was a literal far right terrorist.

Sadly your very poor argument is the same as those clowns that play down the link between terrorism and Islamists.
Last edited by Trotsky's Iceaxe; 1 week ago
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#36
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#36
(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.
.
Might one ask why? Give them rights sure but it is beyond any form of doubt that companies will almost always abuse these 'rights' when given too much rope to play with. Be it oil companies neglecting rigs, pharma ramming dangerous drugs down peoples throats or industry dumping heavy metals and worse into the water. By all means give private companies some leeway in what they do but to give them too much simply allows them to abuse the right.
0
reply
DarthRoar
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#37
Report 1 week ago
#37
(Original post by Napp)
Might one ask why? Give them rights sure but it is beyond any form of doubt that companies will almost always abuse these 'rights' when given too much rope to play with. Be it oil companies neglecting rigs, pharma ramming dangerous drugs down peoples throats or industry dumping heavy metals and worse into the water. By all means give private companies some leeway in what they do but to give them too much simply allows them to abuse the right.
Firms need rights for capitalism to exist. For example, they need the right of ownership, both of their property and assets and profits. They need the freedom to act to do what they think best. However, that doesn't mean I think they should be unregulated. We need anti-trust laws, and companies such as oil companies need regulation to make sure they don't neglect rigs at the cost of us all.
0
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#38
Report 1 week ago
#38
(Original post by Trotsky's Iceaxe)
The Christchurch shooter was a literal far right terrorist. The San Diego synagogue shooter last week was a literal far right terrorist. Jo Cox was murdered by a literal far right terrorist. Breivik was a literal far right terrorist.

Sadly your very poor argument is the same as those clowns that play down the link between terrorism and Islamists.
What gave it away about the Christchurch shooter? His admiration of communist China? Or perhaps his hatred for Trump? no doubt the epitome of right wing in your eyes.

The Jo Cox argument for him being right wing is quite flimsy (some people hearing "Britain first" being shouted from some unknown location). There's a lot of evidence in that arrest that just doesn't add up and honestly stinks of something rather sinister.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#39
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#39
(Original post by Jebedee)
What gave it away about the Christchurch shooter? His admiration of communist China? Or perhaps his hatred for Trump? no doubt the epitome of right wing in your eyes.

The Jo Cox argument for him being right wing is quite flimsy (some people hearing "Britain first" being shouted from some unknown location). There's a lot of evidence in that arrest that just doesn't add up and honestly stinks of something rather sinister.
Are you seriously trying to deny the chch shooter was a far right tosser?
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#40
Report 1 week ago
#40
(Original post by Napp)
Are you seriously trying to deny the chch shooter was a far right tosser?
Unless you can clearly define the boundaries of what qualifies for the arbitrary "far right" label, the question is meaningless.
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 has 2019 been so far?

Amazing!!! (41)
5.66%
Fairly positive (240)
33.15%
Just another year... (287)
39.64%
Is it 2020 yet? (156)
21.55%

Watched Threads

View All