kowloonkev wrote: » Yes one is a PR exercise written to make an old guy with dementia look good and the other is a fight for free speech.
peddlelies wrote: » Can of worms will be opened with that twitter situation, they should have left it alone. Don't like Trump then vote him out in November, selectively policing speech or statements on social media platforms will have much broader implications in the long run. You can see the confirmation bias already in some of the replies here defending the guy who implemented it and his tweets. His twitter is full of hostility towards Republicans, it's not exactly a good look for a supposed neutral platform. I was reading earlier there's some statute that protects social media companies from being sued for censorship or libel and that Republicans are planning to repeal it. Like feck sake, how many false statements were made about Russia from Blue check marks on twitter, probably millions. You cannot enforce something like that equally across the board.
Overheal wrote: » WH says Trump plans to sign an executive order tomorrow “pertaining to social media”https://www.mediaite.com/news/white-house-says-trump-plans-to-sign-executive-order-pertaining-to-social-media/ I’m not sure what he could do. Nothing comes to mind.
StringerBell wrote: » Twitter shall not ever interfere with or edit a presidential tweet due to matters of national security. That's about it. It's almost funny, but it's mostly just a really sad part of our current reality.
peddlelies wrote: » Can of worms will be opened with that twitter situation, they should have left it alone. Don't like Trump then vote him out in November, selectively policing speech or statements on social media platforms will have much broader implications in the long run.
Nody wrote: » Since we're all love to hump the constitution and deplore anything beyond exact wording being taken as judicial activism please highlight what part of the below quote from the constitution you think twitter falls foul on in terms of freedom of speech.
Leroy42 wrote: » If it's free speech he is worried about, then why is he trying to shut down Twitters right to comment on his tweets? Also, do you have proof that he has dementia, I mean like medical reports and the like. Since, as we all know, it is not right that medical professionals should comment on a persons mental health without personally examining them, so I assume you have examined him yourself or tht you have access to his medical records?
kowloonkev wrote: » Obviously the constitution needs updating to specify the use of social media and companies as influential as twitter ought to be almost like an essential service or right. Personally I don't use twitter and avoid the main social media platforms but unfortunately they are hugely prevalent in today's society and therefore I think they shouldn't have the right to de-platform anybody regardless of their political or social views. That is going against free speech or the spirit of the constitution in my opinion for reasons explained above. Now I don't agree with a lot of the people who are banned and such but I believe they have the right to say what they want, and even though Trump's reasons are selfish it is dangerous to have these huge media companies choosing which opinions to censor.
kowloonkev wrote: » I have common sense and it's quite clear Biden is not mentally capable of being President. He is being used.
FIRST AMENDMENT wrote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
salmocab wrote: » It’s close enough They are early 300s we’re mid 300s per million but we’ve slowed deaths right down I’d say they’ll be higher by the end our farcical handling of old people in care really made a mess of our numbers.
pixelburp wrote: » Screaming "censorship" over what amounts to a little virtual post-it note linking to some clarifications is ludicrous, and really demonstrates have low political discourse in America & online has fallen - the fault lying with Twitter itself mind you. Newspapers and biographies have been adding editorial clarifications for decades, yet the current President & his acolytes are so thin-skinned - snowflakes, if you will - seem to lack the intellectual curiosity or intelligence to see this. That the merest hint of similar behaviour on a service used for official national declaration being "censorship!". Yet again, those who'd most cry to be kicking against the PC Police are themselves the most brittle.
aloyisious wrote: » Would you have your opinion also apply to boards.ie if some-one came on here and made a totally false statement about a person or a section of society when the statement transgresses against the terms and conditions set by the Co's who have in mind what are seen as acceptable norms of behaviour and what are seen as unacceptable norms of behaviour within the society they are part of or would you say Boards did the right thing if it carded or banned the transgressor?
Retr0gamer wrote: » Freedom of speech also means that platforms have the right to moderate their platforms as they see fit. If you break the charter and they ban you they are well within their rights and did the right thing. Freedom of speech means you can say what you want but doesn't protect you from the repercussions of what you say. So Trump telling lies and saying something stupid and then getting shown to be stupid is just another expression of freedom of speech.
FrostyJack wrote: » Half way through David Frums new book Trumpocalypse: Restoring American Democracy, his last book was great and so far this is too. He was just on Sam Harris podcast talking about it if you don't want to buy it. The book goes through in good detail the events under Trump and explains how they are so dangerous. Any sane Republican, Libertarian or someone on the fence would be instantly be jumping ship from Trump if they believed the content. He pointed out the danger we talked about last week, that when Trump is removed he will be worse than ever, riling up conspiracies and hurling from the ditches undermining whoever takes over next, leading to another disaster. Possibly in-sighting violence and polarising the country even more. He will also in the future be held up by some like Mao, revisionists will hark back to the golden age of Trump, so even after his death he will still be a cancer on American society/politics.
