Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter

from the there's-a-point... dept

When I started writing this post, it was about Facebook's decision to suspend Trump's account indefinitely, and at least until Joe Biden is inaugurated in a couple weeks. I had lots to say on that... and then Friday afternoon, Twitter decided to ban Trump's Twitter account permanently. This is a bigger deal, not just because it's permanent, rather than indefinite, but because so much of Trump's identity over the last four years (and before that) is tied up in his Twitter account and followers.

Certainly, all of this has kicked off a whole new storm from across the political spectrum. You have Trump supporters who are furious and (falsely) claiming that this is "censorship" or unprecedented and heavy handed (it is none of those things). Then you have Trump haters who are screaming about how this is all way too late and is trying to close the barn door after the horses have long since bolted. I think neither argument is accurate. Will Oremus has a long (and very interesting!) look over on OneZero about how Facebook supposedly chucked out its own rulebook to come up with an excuse to suspend Trump's account:

Yet Facebook’s “indefinite” ban on Trump marks an overnight reversal of the policy on Trump and other political leaders that the social network has spent the past four years honing, justifying, and defending. The unprecedented move, which lacks a clear basis in any of Facebook’s previously stated policies, highlights for the millionth time that the dominant platforms are quite literally making up the rules of online speech as they go along. As I wrote in 2019, there’s just one golden rule of content moderation that every platform follows: If a policy becomes too controversial, change it.

Zuckerberg’s claim that Facebook has allowed Trump to use its platform in a manner “consistent with our own rules” is laughable. The only thing that has been consistent, until now, is Facebook’s determination to contort, hair-split, and reimagine its rules to make sure nothing Trump posted would fall too far outside them. The Washington Post wrote a rather definitive account of the social network’s yearslong Trump-appeasement campaign earlier this year. Among other Trump-friendly measures, the Post noted, “Facebook has constrained its efforts against false and misleading news, adopted a policy explicitly allowing politicians to lie, and even altered its news feed algorithm to neutralize claims that it was biased against conservative publishers.”

And Twitter is also justifying its decision by saying that the reason was a rules violation:

We assessed the two Tweets referenced above under our Glorification of Violence policy, which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

This determination is based on a number of factors, including:

I don't need to post the factors. You can take a look yourself if you want. So, Oremus is mostly correct that they're making the rules up as they go along, but the problem with this framing is that it assumes that there are some magical rules you can put in place and then objectively apply them always. That's never ever been the case. The problem with so much of the content moderation debate is that all sides assume these things. They assume that it's easy to set up rules and easy to enforce them. Neither is true. Radiolab did a great episode a few years ago, detailing the process by which Facebook made and changed its rules. And it highlights some really important things including that almost every case is different, that it's tough to apply rules to every case, and that context is always changing. And that also means the rules must always keep changing.

A few years back, we took a room full of content moderation experts and asked them to make content moderation decisions on eight cases -- none of which I'd argue are anywhere near as difficult as deciding what to do with the President of the United States. And we couldn't get these experts to agree on anything. On every case, we had at least one person choose each of the four options we gave them, and to defend that position. The platforms have rules because it gives them a framework to think about things, and those rules are useful in identifying both principles for moderation and some bright lines.

But every case is different.

And no matter what you think of Trump, his case was different.

The regular rules could never apply to Trump because Trump is not a regular person. And, no, not even comparisons to foreign leaders are apt, because as silly as American exceptionalism is, the United States is still different than nearly every other country in the world. And, it's not just the position he's in (for the next few days anyway), but also Trump's willingness to use his account to make pronouncements unlike pretty much any other world leader (or at least, world leader of consequence).

Trump is, perhaps, the perfect example of why demanding clear rules on social media and how they moderate is stupid.

As for the question of why now? Well, clearly, the context has changed. The context is that Trump inspired a mob of goons to invade the Capitol building this week, and there remain legitimate threats that his cultish followers will continue to do significant damage. Certainly some people have insisted that this kind of violence was always a risk -- and it was. But it had not actually erupted to this level in this fashion. Again, we're talking about context. There's always more context.

And given that the situations are always edge cases, that the context always matters, and that things are always shifting, you can totally see why it's a reasonable decision to ban Trump from their platforms right now, based on everything else going on, and the likelihood that he might inspire more violence. I think it's worth reading Ben Thompson's analysis as well. He's long explained the risks associated with banning Trump from these platforms, and suggested why they should not have in the past. But the thing that changed for him, beyond even just the threat to democracy, is the threat to the rights of both individuals and companies to make their own decisions on these things:

Remember my highest priority, even beyond respect for democracy, is the inviolability of liberalism, because it is the foundation of said democracy. That includes the right for private individuals and companies to think and act for themselves, particularly when they believe they have a moral responsibility to do so, and the belief that no one else will. Yes, respecting democracy is a reason to not act over policy disagreements, no matter how horrible those policies may be, but preserving democracy is, by definition, even higher on the priority stack.

Turn off Trump’s account.

But here's the more important point -- especially directed at the people who will falsely claim that this is somehow censorship: President Trump is not being censored. He is not being limited. At any moment of any day (certainly for the next two weeks, and likely beyond) he can walk out of his office and have every major TV news channel (and every internet streaming platform) broadcast whatever he wants to say, and people will see it.

And to those who think that Twitter should have done this earlier, or that it would have made a difference, recognize that your concern is not so much with Twitter, but with Trump himself. Remember that while Trump might not be able to send a tweet right now, he still (literally) has the power to launch nuclear missiles at Twitter's headquarters. And, really, that's the problem. Trump is obviously too toxic for Twitter. But he's also too toxic for the White House. And the real complaint shouldn't be about Twitter or Facebook acting too late, but about Congress failing to do their job and remove the mad man from power.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: adaptability, censorship, consequences, content moderation, donald trump, free speech, platforms, rules, section 230, social media
Companies: facebook, twitter


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 5:53pm

    I don’t like that it took this long to do it. But I’m glad they did it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. icon
    Bloof (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 5:58pm

    If they'd acted when he first started using the platform to peddle racist conspiracy theories we wouldn't be in this mess, but better late than never, I suppose.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 6:14pm

    Just own it...

    Better late then never I guess, however while it may be unreasonable I just wish they'd own their part in this rather than go with the bogus excuses. They didn't kick Trump off because he broke the rules, they kicked him off because it finally cost more to keep him on than they stood to gain from having him on the platforms, and it was close enough to inauguration day that it was about to be a moot point anyway. Remove those two factors and I've little doubt that he'd still be posting whatever he wanted unchecked, just like he has for years.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    some turkey, 8 Jan 2021 @ 6:32pm

    It is censorship

    Removing someone from a platform because you find their views objectionable is censorship. It is the definition of censorship. Look it up. He is being limited as well. These platforms are among the biggest media companies in the world with reach beyond anything else. This is why the left hates tech companies. They are so big and can control the message (by failing to remove opinions the left disagrees with).

    This is censorship and it does limit Trump, but it is not illegal. Private party censorship is legal because it is private. Masnick can angrily delete posts pointing out that he does not know what censorship means to sooth his ego. It would be censorship and perfectly legal. Me being able to point out how dumb Masnick is on another site does mean that him furiously deleting my posts is not a form of censorship. Under his description, there can be no censorship because anyone can fire up IIS and make their own site in like 2 minutes.

    This could be of more debatable legality if the orders are coming from politicians. We know that private individuals with ties to twitter can get users removed from the service. Maybe politicians are also doing such things. Probably not, but also probably not.

    In conclusion, Masnick still dumb.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 6:34pm

    To all conservatives whining censorship:

    To all conservatives whining about censorship right now, you always said:

    "Let the market decide."

    "It's a private company, they can do whatever they want. Don't like it, start your own business."

    Based on the reactions I've seen from the right about this, they're not living up to their own standards at all. You made your bed, now you have to sleep in it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. icon
    Paul Alan Levy (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 6:39pm

    Why bother explaining if what you say is so foolishly reasoned

    Yes, Twitter has every right to decide who will use its platform. And yes, there is every risk that, in the future, Trump will again misbehave in violation of its ever-shifting rules.

    But for this litigator who detests Trump, and took vacation time at work to spend twenty pre-election days in 2016 and 2020 opposing him in swing states, the explanation they gave is a silly one. On a law school exam, it would get an F for poor reasoning.

    The mischaracterizations of the facts, and the conspiracy-mindedness that the blog post reflects, resemble, for me, the briefs that the Trump lawyers and their copycats have filed in their various frivolous lawsuits attacking the elections

    The two posts they quoted do nothing to "glorify" violence. What this comes down to is that Twitter says Trump has been banned because some of his supporters (in unspecified instances) are reading what he said in various ways. And MISreading what he said, I might add.

    Sure he praises his supporters --- the 7500000 voters who supported him. He calls them patriots. He says they should be respected. So what's wrong with that?

    He says he won't be at the inauguration. Yes, a break with tradition, but good riddance!

    Twitter says there are plans for armed protests and another attack on the Capitol. THAT is very bad. But Twitter does NOT say that Trump is involved in that planning OR that he tweeted anything about them. I did see a report that Trump had retweeted some of those statements. But the report also said that Twitter had cited those retweets in its decision and plainly it has not. And, because the Twitter account has been deleted in its entirety, I can;t verify that (does anyone have any screenshots?)

    When Twitter justifies its decisions by posting this kind of mindless blather, it just tends to suggest that what it has done is arbitrary. And THAT is not useful.

    AND its enforcement is even worse. CNN reports that @POTUS contained a statement that Twitter's ban on his account was "coordinated with the Democrats and the Radical Left in removing my account from their platform, to silence me."

    Is criticizing Twitter now banned on Twitter?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Koby (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 7:10pm

    Definitely Censorship

    But here's the more important point -- especially directed at the people who will falsely claim that this is somehow censorship: President Trump is not being censored. He is not being limited. At any moment of any day (certainly for the next two weeks, and likely beyond) he can walk out of his office and have every major TV news channel (and every internet streaming platform) broadcast whatever he wants to say, and people will see it.

    It's kind of like saying that the telephone company can ban you from using a telephone because you still can walk outside and talk to people.

    The nice thing about free speech and the Constitution is that the rules are already written. They don't change and morph depending on who did or didn't win an election. If there was a coordination between twitter and democrat officials, then clearly this was a 1st Amendment violation.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    Christenson, 8 Jan 2021 @ 7:17pm

    Encouraging violence by omission

    Trump did encourage the mob, but mostly by omission...

    Trump claimed the election was stolen, encouraged the rally, then talked about fine people (just like at Charlottesville) when they started doing bad things. He did nothing to ensure that rally stayed peaceful.

    It's very important to remember that the words of the message matter little, it's the intent and the effect on the hearer that matter.

    As to the tweet on @potus: It feels a lot like twitter felt a bit like an angry parent -- banning the real donald trump account seemed to have no effect on what was tweeted, so they escalated. The last lie (election fraud) cost two lives by violence on Wednesday, so where is this one going? Perhaps not legally, but it's not a big stretch for twitter to feel that last tweet from @potus was leading to violence against twitter itself.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 7:21pm

    >They didn't kick Trump off because he broke the rules, they kicked him off because it finally cost more to keep him on than they stood to gain from having him on the platforms....

    Now, be fair. The rules are an approximation on how much a particular tweeter or tweet stands to cost, or gain, them. Twitter is (mostly) not banning illegal speech--the bar for that is pretty high. Twitter is aiming for a mass audience, and they ban stuff that would make that audience uncomfortable.

    And that's OK.

    As for me, I do not wish to be part of that mass audience, but I bear Twitter no ill-will either. Twitter is just the medium; it's the human race which speaks from hearts filled with ... well, evil. That evil comes in all shapes, and ... I even find it in some of my posts.

    But I, as a random guy with a keyboard, am not in a position to influence most of those corrupted hearts. There is no gain in trying to out-bigot the bigots, to mass-hate the mass-haters. Online, moderation ("we don't talk like that here, please be more polite or leave") is the best we can do. Offline is where the real opportunities to influence people occur.

    So, don't expect Twitter's move to change hearts, or even to spread civility elsewhere. It just makes their customers less uncomfortable on their site.

    And that's OK, because that's all that they can do.

    Meanwhile, I visit Techdirt instead, where the level of discourse is sometimes more civil. But even at Techdirt, hatred, contempt, and bigotry are socially accepted towards some people or groups, but not towards others. And that's also evil.

    OK, pardon me while I go try to get the log out of my eye. And get that speck checked by an optometrist, would you?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    seedeevee (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 7:23pm

    Re: Just own it...

    I heard about all of those people leaving facebook and twitter because Trump was there.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    seedeevee (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 7:25pm

    Re: To all conservatives whining censorship:

    I, too, appreciate that "liberals now like to talk like Reagan-era Commerce Secretaries".

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 7:39pm

    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it .

    You think by burying your heads in the sand will make 75 million
    plus people who voted for him will just go away ?
    You are no longer a child who sticks his fingers in his ears says na na na na
    to nit hear or get what you want .
    Did it work when you were a child ?
    It ain't gonna work now .
    Banning and purging does not make them go away
    They go underground and come out bigger and badder than you ever thought possible .
    And you will be clueless because now all you hear are your own voices
    God Help us all

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 7:40pm

    But here's the more important point -- especially directed at the people who will falsely claim that this is somehow censorship: President Trump is not being censored. He is not being limited. At any moment of any day (certainly for the next two weeks, and likely beyond) he can walk out of his office and have every major TV news channel (and every internet streaming platform) broadcast whatever he wants to say, and people will see it.

    No, that's very much censorship. That they have good reason to censor him does not change the fact that it is censorship. Yes his is being limited. He cannot use services he was using before solely because of what he was saying. The alternatives that exist are not equivalent. Saying "other people will broadcast what he says is particularly ridiculously as TV news channels are likely to edit his statements in ways that suit them not provide unfiltered statements, and attempts to spread internet streaming of the event are likely to be removed by the very people that banned him to begin with.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    classical_liberal, 8 Jan 2021 @ 7:41pm

    Re: To all conservatives whining censorship:

    That it is not illegal, nor a violation of the First Amendment, does not mean that it is not censorship. It is clearly censorship. Censorship is the silencing of speech. When the government does it, it's government censorship, and the First Amendment applies. When private actors do it, it's private censorship, and there's no legal recourse because there's no right to free speech on a private forum. That you and your allies refuse to admit that it is still censorship has more to do with you desperately holding on to your self-delusions of liberalism than it does with the truth. Accept that you're authoritarian at heart and it will all make more sense.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 7:42pm

    Made new rules to ban Trump, or undid the dumb rules that were the only reason they didn't ban him since 5 years ago?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 7:44pm

    Meanwhile and relevantly,

    _Parler_has been deplatformed from Google Play, and Apple has given it twenty-four hours to manifest a sound moderation policy or get deplatformed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 7:46pm

    Re:

    Meanwhile, I visit Techdirt instead, where the level of discourse is sometimes more civil. But even at Techdirt, hatred, contempt, and bigotry are socially accepted towards some people or groups, but not towards others. And that's also evil.

    I'm curious as to which people or groups would those be, and please, be specific, because details and context matters.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 7:47pm

    Re: Re: To all conservatives whining censorship:

    I thought the word censorship implied that the person being censored was then unable to speak, be it in town square or on the net.

    Most censorship claims I see involve a situation where the person could easily find an alternative medium for their speech.

    If people wish to converse, it is beneficial if they were to speak the same language.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 7:51pm

    Re:

    I'll pose a question I recently asked in another thread, changed slightly to better reflect the circumstances: Would it be censorship if a club were to tell an unruly or obnoxious customer to leave the premises for harassing the staff and/or bothering other customers, and would or should the answer to the previous question change depending on how popular the club was in that city?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 7:53pm

    The VIP rule makes sense

    If you have rulers of state (or of large institutions) on your communication service and they are reasonable it allows the service to act as a red phone. The notion is, so long as we're still talking, no one is shooting yet.

    (Oh and do you know about the missile fleet flying your colors off the coast of my port? They're making my generals nervous.)

    The problem is when you have someone who is not reasonable, and just uses it as a platform to radicalize his base.

    Two-way mass communication on the internet scale is still rather new and we're still figuring out what works and what doesn't. Also there's money in having VIPs and celebrities with active accounts.

    So much money.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 7:54pm

    Re: Definitely Censorship

    "It's kind of like saying that the telephone company can ban you from using a telephone because you still can walk outside and talk to people."

    Actually, it is nothing like that at all.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 7:58pm

    You do realize Historically speaking you are abdicating from the history a sitting President ?
    So Basically if you removed Hilter from history
    Do you think that it would never happen again
    OR would it happen all over worse than before
    because in your ignorance you failed to learn from your past
    because it hurt you feelings ............

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:00pm

    Re:

    I do not hear anyone claiming trump voters will go away.
    Hopefully some, or even most,of them will realize that Donald has tossed them under the bus just like he did to his VP and his brown shirts.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:02pm

    Re: Meanwhile and relevantly,

    yea go to their main web pages and get the direct apk
    Its still out there you just gotta click a few more times

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:03pm

    Re:

    lol - wut

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:05pm

    Re:

    ... what? Giving him the boot from social media is not in any way removing him from history, it's simply telling him 'you can still speak, but you're not going to be doing it from our property anymore'.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27. icon
    crade (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:07pm

    Re: Just own it...

    They didn't kick Trump off because he broke the rules, they kicked him off because it finally cost more to keep him on than they stood to gain from having him on the platforms

    It's kinda tomaeto tomahto when it comes to capitalist companies.. "unless we feel it's worth more to us to otherwise" is implied in every rule

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:13pm

    Mike I have followed you for years but you are a <i>fool</i> if you do not see how this has kicked off a discussion on every major tech site on which sites should and shouldn't be blacklisted. From Parler to 4chan to even 9gag. All of these sites are on the chopping block now, and it started because of the idea that they were simply denying services to places where Trump and his fans congregate. That's not what they're doing, Mike. They're denying competition and using this as a convenient excuse to do what they have wanted to do for years: Lock everyone into this tiny box on the internet.

    I would hope someone who watched the internet emerge would know that companies, especially billion dollar tech ones, are opportunists. They don't care about right or wrong, they care about forcing you to use their product by hook or crook. How can someone who has spent the better part of his life writing about how litigious these companies can become when given even an inch suddenly decide that he needs to throw his head on the chopping block to rid the internet of someone who will be gone in two weeks?

    But I digress, Apple is now trying to lobby Congress against the bill that defines Chinese Slavery. I'm sure you'll be on the ground shining their shoes with your tongue as long as you're reminded that they're a free company and can "do what they want".

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:17pm

    Re: The VIP rule makes sense

    This paints you as a closet fascist, you know that right? You just said the problem is two-way communication on the internet (by the way, that's probably older of a concept than you are. We were 'two way communicating' with people halfway across the world in the bulletin board days) like you want to see the internet become glorified cable TV.

    You're throwing away the greatest communication tool ever devised by mankind over a kneejerk, reactionary emotion over some people using it the wrong way. As far as I'm concerned, you're not the reasonable one in this equation. No sane person would ask for punishment for themselves to right the wrongs of someone completely unrelated to you. Which is what you're doing, you're demanding punishment to the very foundation that is required for you to even post this comment. I hope someday the irony of what you're doing rings in your ears, and it does it before we're required to get a 'drivers license for the internet' (remember when Mike used to rally against having that? I miss those days).

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30. icon
    crade (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:19pm

    The took parler off the Google play store too, but thats ok because they can still use successful trumpist platforms on awesome trumpist phones bought from great trumpist markets from their alternate reality where trumpists somehow made all that stuff without science, then they can use those to discuss how reality is for wimpy losers

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:19pm

    Re: Meanwhile and relevantly,

    "Sound moderation policy", yeah I want the company that has to put suicide prevention nets around its chinese factories to tell me what sound moderation policies are.
    I want the company that is lobbying congress right at this moment to re-define the definition of 'slavery' so it doesn't have to face regulation for its inhumane conditions of its workers to tell me how to be a decent person.

    What a great age we live in, where all the least moral people have become our moral guardians.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:22pm

    Re:

    They should do what we do and proclaim to the world how they want Google and Twitter to control most discussion on the internet because someone did the bad thing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:24pm

    Re: Re: To all conservatives whining censorship:

    I was just pointing out the inconsistency -- conservatives have historically been rabidly pro-corporate, but aren't now that the tables have turned.

    A perfect example that would be familiar to many Techdirt readers would be the Pruneyard standard. For those unfamiliar, due to a unanimous Supreme Court decision in the early 1980s, the common areas of shopping malls (which are of course privately owned by large corporations) are open to free speech, and so long as the speakers are behaving in an orderly manner, the corporate mall operators legally cannot eject them. Republicans and the political right railed against it for decades. "Build your own shopping mall," they'd say. But now that's it's conservatives on the recieving end of corporate power, only now is it a problem. Conservatives wanted to give corporations carte blanche -- and to paraphrase the Epistle to the Galatians, "you reap what you sow."

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:24pm

    Re:

    It's funny how so many folks have started appearing who claim not to agree with Trump but have promptly started to bend over backwards to suck his orange phallus now that he got punished once after inciting his supporters and getting his bigly feefees hurt.

    It's almost like rats abandoning a sinking ship but nah, couldn't be. After all these very fine people said they don't support Trump, right? The fighting to death on his behalf is pure coincidence...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35. icon
    TKnarr (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:25pm

    Re:

    If they'd acted then, he'd still have been pedding racist conspiracy theories to his base and they'd be believing them and acting on them. Plus he'd've had more reasons they'd believe to claim he was on to something because look how the Deep State's trying to shut him up. We'd've still ended up here, just that we really wouldn't've seen it coming because we wouldn't've seen it until it erupted.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36. icon
    Koby (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:29pm

    Re: Encouraging violence by omission

    Trump did encourage the mob, but mostly by omission... Trump claimed the election was stolen, encouraged the rally, then talked about fine people (just like at Charlottesville) when they started doing bad things. He did nothing to ensure that rally stayed peaceful.

    Those were the original concepts of America, that when some people explained what was going on, others became outraged and demanded action. And that's a good thing, and why the First Amendment exists. It appears that you are unable to tolerate dissent when the outrage is directed against your opinion.

    There is no such thing as collective punishment here in America. We are individuals, and noone is responsible for the actions of other adults. Noone is under any obligation to modify their political opinion based on how others might or might not react. (And before anyone thinks of going there, fires in movie theaters are not a political opinion.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: To all conservatives whining censorship:

    Editorial note: only in California.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:34pm

    Re: Re:

    More than that "hatred contempt and bigotry" are not socially acceptable on Techdirt. From what I have seen when people drink that cool-aid too deeply before posting they tended to get called out and/or flag (which I think are clear signs that it is not socially acceptable).

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39. icon
    Thad (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:38pm

    Re: Re:

    If they'd acted then, he'd still have been pedding racist conspiracy theories to his base

    So's Alex Jones, but not nearly as many people can hear what he has to say now that he's been kicked off social media.

    Deplatforming works.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:45pm

    Re: Re: Just own it...

    This, they don't care about morality or being decent. They're just doing it now because the heat is on them, and that's why they need to be reigned in; NOT given endless amounts of power to do what they want.
    What they need is the stick, and we're giving them the carrot by saying that they know what is best on their platforms. That's clearly not the case, so why let them decide anymore? This has just opened the path to them removing more and more of their competition under the guise of 'cleaning their service'.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:46pm

    Re: To all conservatives whining censorship:

    I'm not conservative, and I've never said that, but you're an idiot if you ever once believed that line of thinking, and you're a damned fool if you suddenly believe it now because they're doing something you like.
    Agreeing with the multi-billion dollar tech company is all the more reason to suspect their motivations. Sure, they got rid of Trump now, but what about tomorrow? Or the day after? Would it hurt to think more than one step ahead of your current situation?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:47pm

    Re: Why bother explaining if what you say is so foolishly reason

    Criticizing any major platform is always banned on that major platform if it gains traction. That's why people should be extremely suspicious of the fervor in which they declare that sites very similar to its own are extremist and need to be removed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:50pm

    Re:

    Pretty much this. The idea that censorship is purely a government activity is created by the people who want to censor everyone the most. It's a transparent shell game involving word lawyering (censorship in every version of the English Language doesn't mention government, but instead the motives behind the people who are doing it) and people fall for it every time.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:53pm

    Re: Re:

    A club removing someone isn't censorship, every club in town collectively deciding that a certain type of person could not visit or use it would be.

    Definition 1 from Merriam Webster's dictionary of 'Censorship'
    "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

    Nothing about that involves the government. Censorship only happens when the weilders of power come together to agree on something. News outlets can and have censored, book publishers can and have censored, trying to compare things that people are required to go through in order to speak truth to power to a nightclub that's optional to visit is disingenuous at best.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Just own it...

    What endless amounts of power is this?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: To all conservatives whining censorship:

    It also not only implies, but completely specifies that a government is causing it to occur.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:59pm

    Re: Re: To all conservatives whining censorship:

    Well, the majority of Obama-era Democrats are just like Reagan-era Republicans, so yeah.

    But the point here is rather "eat your own dogfood" rather more than anyine necessarily believing lies about "free markets" which are anything but, and have never existed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 9:01pm

    Re: Why bother explaining if what you say is so foolishly reason

    Uh, no, he's totally been inciting people to riot for ages.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 9:03pm

    Re:

    I'm going to guess that a removal earlier in his presidency would have lead to court cases eventually declaring that large platforms have a duty to be open as a political forum, especially for political speech from politicians, with the argument that they are the modern day public square and that companies that are vital to the internet can't be playing favorites (as argued by pockets on the right for years). I honestly still wouldn't be surprised to see that ruling at least entertained in the future (as well as such laws trying to force such an effect to eventually be debated in some of the larger red states), however the fact that they only removed these accounts for reasons much less purely political (linking it to actual violence), and at a time when Trump will be out of office before any dispute would be settle would make Trump a much worse plaintiff to lead such a charge to pursue such a result.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    timyhandsplaytinyviolins, 8 Jan 2021 @ 9:03pm

    Re: this long to do it (things yo momma says)

    Activating behavior response drives of social groups has always been at the heart of big tech’s growth plan in the usa. It’s social engineering with bipartisan support.

    Likewise, this activation strategy has historically been used in all corners of the globe by various counter-intelligence agencies employed to neutralize the possibility of any unified public opposition against private interests going against the public interests. So what does that tell you?

    The events of jan.6 shows the effectiveness of how this strategy is going in usa today.

    Facebook, Twitter & co. managed to cancel Trump after the events of jan.6, so what does that tell you? A: mission accomplished.

    For the last 4 years these data mining companies have all shared the privilege of using perhaps the greatest spokesmodel in the world, usa’s president elect, to advertise their private media platforms as being a suitable “commons” for public discourse.

    Will Biden continue in Trump’s footsteps? Time to ante up, because his endgame has no foreseeable terminus so long as the a divided public base can be kept occupied solving that flowery bouquet of issues which do not upset that privilege

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 9:04pm

    Re:

    No kidding they aren't going away. They've always been here, in various numbers and flavors.

    Thanks for the insightful newsflash.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 9:06pm

    Re: Re: The VIP rule makes sense

    Er, what?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 9:08pm

    Re: Re: Meanwhile and relevantly,

    No kidding. funny how that absolute power of censorship controlling our society works, innit?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 9:09pm

    Re: Re:

    seconded

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 9:12pm

    Re:

    No corporation cares about right or wrong, that's mandated by law. Why is it always only about "tech" companies with you types?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 9:12pm

    Re: Re:

    Says you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 9:41pm

    They are probably afraid of the left, now that they will control the government, passing laws saying the social media has to silence conservative views

    Of course, social media outside the United States would not be subject to such a law. DailyMotion is an example of that.

    Because DailyMotion, and its servers are all in France, they only have to follow French and EU laws. American laws do not apply in France.

    And Gab, based in Anguilla, would also not be subject to such a law, as American laws do not apply in Anguilla, as long as none of their servers are here in the US, American laws would never apply to Gab

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 9:46pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    A does not become B just because it happens multiple times. If a private company telling someone to leave wouldn't constitute censorship then multiple private companies wouldn't either, it would just be the same action occurring multiple times.

    Running with that idea though leads to some unpleasant consequences you might not have considered though, for example if a group of racists became known in a town and several businesses decided that they'd rather not have that sort of scum booking events in their stores then refusing to host events by that group would under your definition qualify as censorship, since that would be multiple businesses refusing to let them speak on their property, which is just a titch absurd.

    "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

    If I decided to set up shop in your front-yard and wax poetic to people passing by about the glory of the FSM and how those that refuse to follow his holy word will be damned to lousy beer and STD riddled strippers in the afterlife, and you decide for some strange reason that you'd rather not have me doing that, are you suppressing my speech? What if all of your neighbors do the same, such that I cannot speak the good word on any of your lawns, have you suppressed and censored me then?

    If you want to claim that a privately owned platform telling people 'not on our property' counts as censorship rather than moderation and discretion then you've watered the term down such that it's effectively meaningless, and you're welcome to do so I suppose just don't be surprised when people don't take any future claims of censorship seriously.

    News outlets can and have censored, book publishers can and have censored, trying to compare things that people are required to go through in order to speak truth to power to a nightclub that's optional to visit is disingenuous at best.

    No one is owed a platform to speak from. If a news station doesn't let you speak on their show you have not been censored, nor is it censorship if a book publisher decides that they're not interested in what you want them to print, even if you think, or are even right, that what you've got to say is important. If the government or possibly a similarly powerful entity steps in and tells them that they aren't allowed to let you speak that's another matter entirely, but so long as they're the ones choosing then no, it's moderation or discretion, not censorship.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59. identicon
    Christenson, 8 Jan 2021 @ 9:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: You missed the invisible /sarcasm tag!

    n/t

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 10:06pm

    Re:

    shut up, Meg

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 10:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: To all conservatives whining censorship:

    There is, of course, the fact that pruneyard has nothing to do with private online platforms though some disingenuously try to claim otherwise

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 10:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: To all conservatives whining censorship:

    I thought the word censorship implied that the person being censored was then unable to speak, be it in town square or on the net.

    Some people on Techdirt like to say that, but it's common usage to refer to non-governmental actions as censorship. For example, The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror VIII (5F02): "Oh, hi! As the Fox Censor, it's my job to protect you from reality." The term is used even for edits not required by governments, like censorship on MTV).

    The creators of TV shows were always free to go elsewhere, perhaps to cable or direct-to-video. And the music censored on MTV could be heard on the albums.

    The ACLU gives this definition:

    Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63. icon
    techflaws (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 10:43pm

    Re:

    You mean, back in his birther days?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64. icon
    techflaws (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 10:49pm

    Re:

    Let's see how this plays out then.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 11:04pm

    Re:

    Definitely. If he got banned back when he was peddling the birther garbage way back in the day, so much of this garbage would have never happened

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66. icon
    PaulT (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 11:08pm

    Re:

    I'd always predicted that they would leave the account completely untouched until the day he left office. It was a mutually beneficial relationship - Trump got to say whatever he wanted, even stuff that would get most people banned a long time ago, while Twitter got the benefit of the increased traffic his ravings brought to the platform.

    But, the orange maniac couldn't be happy with that. He first used it to try and spread so much false information about the election he lost that Twitter felt compelled to place warnings on every virtually Tweet about how he was lying. Then, he went too far and inspired actual insurrection.

    I'm not surprised they took this long, as they were clearly putting up with him until January 20th. But, they essentially had to do this now, else face some major pushback later on if further deaths occurred over something they could have prevented - not direct liability, but you can bet that they will be the number one target if they kept hosting calls to violence against both houses.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67. icon
    PaulT (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 11:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Just own it...

    "that's why they need to be reigned in; NOT given endless amounts of power to do what they want"

    I'm interested to hear why you think they have this magical power, especially if you think it extends beyond their own property.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68. icon
    PaulT (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 11:12pm

    Re: Why bother explaining if what you say is so foolishly reason

    "On a law school exam, it would get an F for poor reasoning."

    Is "we need to get this asshole off our property because he's starting to cause us more trouble than he's worth" a legal argument?

    "Is criticizing Twitter now banned on Twitter?"

    No, but if you feel so strongly about how bad a platform is, why are you still using it instead of their competitors?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 11:26pm

    I'm honestly mixed about this.
    If Trump didn't directly entice violent (and I don't know if this is the case), and that they banned him because his wording could cause other people to act violent, then this thing sounds scary and dangerous. Am I missing something here? I am hoping that this isn't a "butterfly effect" reason of a ban.

    Also this is a very dangerous argument:

    "President Trump is not being censored. He is not being limited. At any moment of any day (certainly for the next two weeks, and likely beyond) he can walk out of his office and have every major TV news channel (and every internet streaming platform) broadcast whatever he wants to say, and people will see it."

    Why I find this dangerous is because nearly everyone can find a different way of promoting free speech. If Sony banned cracks of bottoms in DMC5, players could go to Xbox One's version of the game. If someone says "I don't agree with Trump and Biden." on Twitter, then had their comment removed by Twitter, the person could just go to YouTube and say it on there instead. Being able to have these possibilities does not change the fact that it's still restricting free speech (i.e. restricting the freedom of any legally protected speech being spread). Almost any lawful speech will have an alternative way likely.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 11:27pm

    That it is not illegal, nor a violation of the First Amendment, does not mean that it is not censorship.

    If you can go to another platform and say what got you booted from the first one, it ain’t censorship. Trump can go to Parler and say whatever the fuck he wants. Twitter can’t stop him. Neither can anyone else.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 11:28pm

    Forgot to attached email...

    I added an email to this comment, hopefully my IP address can be scanned with the email and with the comment that didn't have the email. But if that won't work out, then oh well I guess. Haha

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 11:31pm

    Agreeing with the multi-billion dollar tech company is all the more reason to suspect their motivations.

    But it isn’t a reason to say what Twitter did is illegal or censorship.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 11:32pm

    Re:

    By free speech, I meant "legal speech".

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 11:35pm

    Inciting violence

    He did tell those at his morning rally to go to the US Capitol building and stop the electoral college count.

    And considering they attacked press corps along the way, the crowd seemed prepped to fight.

    Also there's the whole bombs thing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 11:35pm

    Is criticizing Twitter now banned on Twitter?

    Criticism of Twitter wasn’t banned when I was still on that platform. I’ve no reason to think it’s banned six months later.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 11:41pm

    Twitter can’t ban you from using Parler or Gab. Twitter can’t stop you from joining a Mastodon instance. In what way is being banned from Twitter like losing access to your phone line?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 11:46pm

    Conservative Views

    I doubt they're going to decide that a given ideology is bad. We already moderate for a number of very specific kinds of speech:

    Obscenity and vulgarity (in family friendly forums)
    Hate speech
    Incitement to violence
    Copyrighted material (e.g. Beatles tunes)
    Dangerous recipes (e.g. bomb-making)
    State secrets (actionable operational intelligence)

    Conservative speech that doesn't fit into these categories (e.g. military adventurism, arguments for small government) generally doesn't get moderated out.

    Conservative speech that does (e.g. religious homophobia, white man's burden) will be more susceptible to moderation.

    However large speech platforms like Facebook and Twitter rely on a large amount of automation and triage, which doesn't treat all cases equally (and often not very well.) But this effect doesn't have a conservative bias, and screws everyone with the same level of consistency.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 11:53pm

    Twitter can’t censor you. Censorship involves someone violating your right to speak freely. Getting banned from Twitter doesn’t do that.

    Censorship is none of these things:

    • the loss of an audience you were never owed

    • the loss of your spot on a platform you were never entitled to use

    • criticism (or the social consequences) of your speech

    Censorship is someone violating your right to speak freely. That usually involves threats of lawsuits, jail time, or even violence. Twitter does none of those things when it bans someone. Twitter can’t do them.

    You’re not owed a spot on Twitter. You’re not owed access to its userbase. You’re not entitled to make Twitter give you an audience. Feel free to argue otherwise, but you’ll need one hell of an argument to avoid looking like an entitled ass.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 12:04am

    it's still restricting free speech on Twitter

    FTFY

    Twitter can’t stop Trump from using Parler to spread his bile. If it could, that would be “restricting free speech”. But Twitter admins have every right to decide who is welcome and what speech is acceptable on Twitter. The law doesn’t (and shouldn’t) force any platform to host all legally protected speech. For what reason should Twitter be an exception?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 12:06am

    Or, to put it another way...

    Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
    Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
    Con: LOL no…no not those views
    Me: So…deregulation?
    Con: Haha no not those views either
    Me: Which views, exactly?
    Con: Oh, you know the ones

    (All credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 12:10am

    Someone can (try to) censor without being a government official. Threats of violence or personal ruin if certain speech is expressed counts as an attempt to censor.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82. icon
    Bloof (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 12:23am

    Re:

    Being denied the largest available audience is not being censored, Trump has no more of a right to a twitter account than he does to hold a rally at any venue he chooses. Denying him the ability to walk out onto the middle of the field during the superbowl halftime show to start giving political speeches is not the start of some slippery slope toward robbing anyone of their rights, it's just applying the same rules to a powerful person that we're all subject to, rules we agreed to when we entered someone else's property.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Gabriel, 9 Jan 2021 @ 12:32am

    Ridiculous that anyone defends this extreme censorship. Trump literally told his followers to be peaceful and disavowed the storming of the capitol building before being perma banned. Now twitter is targeting every conservative like Rush Limbaugh. Big tech companies need to be heavily regulated, they should not be the ones who decide who gets to speak and not.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84. icon
    Space5000 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 12:34am

    Re:

    =Disclaimer, same person, just recently made an account.=
    I'm not accusing Twitter as violating the first amendment as I think the meaning of censorship is a bit more broad. Though I was using "free speech" a lot if I'm remembering correctly but I don't think I was saying that Twitter banning any lawful speech is a violation of the first amendment.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 12:34am

    Tech circle

    Well written way to circle logic then justify banning someone you just don't agree with on a political level.

    Trump did not cause that riot, some people out of many made a poor decision that he never experienced in his rallys. He most likely did not expect what happened.

    Obviously security at the capital did't even expect it though as I watched the news I did see one officer wave people past the barriers towards the whitehouse. Was that wise? Why did that officer do that?

    Why did they stop the count on election night? Many states at the same time too. I never seen that in my life time. Very suspecious.

    People went to that rally to show support for Our President. Also they wanted congress to look into the election irregularites. A serious look at election reform so future elections could be trusted. Did they forget that. Did you not realize that is what people were hoping for congress would not forget.

    Yeah a few people went over the top. No excuse. But most people did not do that and that was a so called insurrection as some over the top propaganda media people push now. It would have been organized and you know it and it would have actually been one.

    The sad thing in all this has shown that You people have no publishing right to censor articles from major newspapers. Have no sense to sensor what many think was a stolen election by your own actions to delete stories and concerns you actually perpetuated it. Instead of people to discuss how could this happen. What laws where changed that many question the outcome? All the evidence you refuse to even look at. It was not debunked it was not taken in court to review. Would you not want to know the truth? Obviously not, because the real threat is the truth.

    So people cry for justice. They can accept if perhaps Biden won, but what they cannot except is a fraudulent placed occupant in the white house as Biden most likely is. But the constitution be damned or constituional laws broken during this election.

    What happened was caused by bad actors in the Democratic party that cause misturst.

    Your behaviour adds nothing but more concern of actions of a new administration that might be happy to silence, itimitate oppossing views in our new communist or Dictatorship way of censorship under false flags.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 12:35am

    I'm no fan of Trump and, as much as I support freedom of speech, I believe banning Trump from Twitter was the right thing to do.

    That said, Mike - have the courage to defend your convictions and stop saying obvious censorship is not censorship but rather moderation. This is a clear case of "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter".

    I have had to reevaluate many values I've treasured throughout my life over the past five years. I no longer believe a free press is an overwhelming good for society but rather a necessary evil (not referencing techdirt but most other outlets). I no longer believe little-to-no moderation online is ideal though I set my aperture for permissible speech higher than most.

    I am sad to see persons and institutions that have traditionally lionized free speech contort themselves into knots to say banning people from one of the few online places where they can be heard isn't censorship. It quintessentially is. In this case it's a good use of censorship. But make no mistake that there will be many, many bad cases in the future as those who have ended up our gatekeepers for speech respond to special interest groups demanding censorship of content or people they don't like. The only question is which special interest groups will be making those calls.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87. icon
    Space5000 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 12:38am

    Re: Re:

    When I was stating what censorship was, I was mainly referring to the mere definition of it. A company can legally stop a lot of lawful speech, despite that, it's still censorship if it fits the definition of censorship.

    Perhaps the reason why I was concerned was because of the main debate of banning people for having a political opinion.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88. icon
    Space5000 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 12:39am

    Re: Re: Re:

    lawful political opinion I mean.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 12:39am

    Re: Re:

    Right! It's not like he's had his throat ripped out and his fingers broken! That would be censorship as he'd be unable to communicate! Everything else is fair game and not censorship whatsoever as long as the person can hear the sound of their own voice!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 12:42am

    Re: Why bother explaining if what you say is so foolishly reason

    But for this litigator who detests Trump, and took vacation time at work to spend twenty pre-election days in 2016 and 2020 opposing him in swing states, the explanation they gave is a silly one. On a law school exam, it would get an F for poor reasoning.

    I don't disagree that Twitter's stated reasoning directly is unconvincing on its own, but this isn't a legal brief, and we are not limited to the evidence presented in their reasoning. What we do have is the wider context of what happened in the world this week, and the way the President has acted to egg on his supporters -- who have already indicated they are planning to do more damage and more violence leading up to the inauguration.

    Given that context, their reasoning now makes more sense.

    The two posts they quoted do nothing to "glorify" violence.

    Again, that removes the unique context of the circumstances, which is the main point I tried to highlight in this post.

    AND its enforcement is even worse. CNN reports that @POTUS contained a statement that Twitter's ban on his account was "coordinated with the Democrats and the Radical Left in removing my account from their platform, to silence me."

    Is criticizing Twitter now banned on Twitter?

    Not at all, and frankly, that's silly. Twitter has had going way back, fairly strict rules against anyone who seeks to get around one of their permanent bans by using another account. And that's exactly what was done with the @POTUS account. That's what got it banned -- not the speech. The fact that it was obviously Trump himself tweeting and trying to get around the ban.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 12:51am

    Re: Re:

    [Projects facts not in evidence]

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 12:52am

    Dorsey is traitor scum

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 12:52am

    Re:

    [Asserts facts not in reality]

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 12:54am

    Re: Tech circle

    Godsdamn, you kool-aid-guzzling sheep are dumb.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 12:58am

    Re:

    banning people from one of the few online places where they can be heard

    That's an extremely dishonest way to (mis) characterize things.

    Perhaps stop you should stop tying yourself in knots so hard to pretend that there's anthing close to censorship.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:09am

    Re: Re:

    I am mischaracterizing nothing and you refuted nothing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97. icon
    PaulT (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:15am

    Re:

    "Am I missing something here? "

    Apparently. Trump has spent years getting special treatment from Twitter that would get (and has got) pretty much anyone else banned from their platform years ago. He's moved further and further into spreading disinformation and outright lies since he lost the election, leading to Twitter having to put a disclaimer on virtually every single one of his posts about that election. On Wednesday, he addressed a crowd that had been whipped into a frenzy with repeated lies about how the election had been "stolen", calling on Mike Pence to override the public vote, and when he didn't do that, Trump inspired the crowd to march on the Capitol building and attempt insurrection.

    The tweets he just got banned for weren't isolated incidents. They're straw that broke the camel's back, with Twitter not really wanting to be associated with the cult's next planned attempt to violently overthrow the will of the people.

    "Being able to have these possibilities does not change the fact that it's still restricting free speech"

    Free speech does not give you the right to use someone else's private property to express it, and that's not a problem if the government aren't enacting the restriction. This has always been true, it's just recently that a small group of loud whiners have decided that Twitter should lose their private property rights.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98. icon
    PaulT (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:18am

    Re: Re:

    The point is - Twitter aren't restricting any free speech. They're just saying that if you violate their terms of service you can't use their property to express it. This is not a problem.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:18am

    Re: Re: Tech circle

    Of course to questioning something is dumb right? Pointing out facts that need to be looked into is now a bad thing.

    So continue to wear that blinder that keeps you warm and cozy and look in the mirror when you speak.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100. icon
    PaulT (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:21am

    Re: Re: Re:

    " A company can legally stop a lot of lawful speech"

    No they can't. They can stop you using their property to express it, they can't stop you expressing speech elsewhere. What's the problem with a business being able to refuse access to disruptive customers?

    "the main debate of banning people for having a political opinion"

    That debate is, frankly, bull and is normally used by people who can't defend their actual speech. Scratch any right-winger's argument about how they were banned for having a political opinion, and you'll usually find some other reason they were actually banned. Usually it's abusive behaviour, spreading dangerous misinformation or outright white nationalist propaganda, but there's usually a reason that's not merely because they had a political opinion.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:31am

    Sincere question for Parler users, this is different from you fine people kicking off people you don't like from your platform how, exactly?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  102. icon
    Space5000 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:35am

    Re: Re:

    For the first paragraph under quote, that's interesting. It's still a bit hazy for me to tell if this is obviously violating the Twitter's rules but I'm not frustrated if the reasoning was against something very likely to be creating a high risk similar to open crowds during a pandemic.

    For the reaction under the second quote, you're right for the most part (hate speech and maybe a couple of other topics are a bit hazy) on the property thing, other than that, I was mainly trying to say that even if a company can censor a legally protected speech, it would still fit the definition of censorship, which isn't even the same as saying "My rights are violated.". I think there are some video game censorship that are silly and somewhat debatable, but I'm not saying my rights are violated.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  103. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:36am

    Questioning something is fine. Buying into outright lies and treating them as truth is not. Neither is storming a government building with the intent to subvert democracy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  104. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:37am

    Re:

    I think what he did was totally uncalled for; very disrespectful and not understanding of what actually took place.

    I think propaganda and pressure from the venemous radicals and to curry favor in the new Administration was how he decided to go. Like the rest of social plateforms as if they all talked on the phone at the same time. All came to the same conculsion at the exact same time. Wow! like they had ESP

    A spontaneous cancel the president he is no longer in power now lets all do it now as Micheal Obama screams in the background. " Close his account" our friends will be in power now.

    So out of currying favor to those in power ( always a smart move ) they did this. It was not out of noble intentions or real fears of this man......

    they censored the president out of appeasemnt. Disgusting.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  105. icon
    Space5000 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I think I was mainly trying to point out that the argument the person made is a bit dangerous, which can be so dangerously broad.

    I'm not trying to say that "censorship" is always bad. Just that to say that "it's not censorship" because "it's possible to say it elsewhere" is a bit ridiculous and basically suggests that censorship probably doesn't even exist.

    Regardless if constitutional rights are violated or not, if I was banned from protesting "Trump is a loser." on the street outside, but not from swinging it around inside my house, then by the one 'logic', I am not being censored just because I can still say it in my house. Yet, I'm restricted from stating it outside and can barely spread the message to other people.

    Going back to the political opinion debate, I do think it can sometimes be morally debatable outside of current law when it comes to censorship in general regarding one-sided political sides in lawful popular media websites.

    Hope I'm being more clear here.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  106. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:43am

    Twitter is not “one of the few online places where [people] can be heard”. A person can be heard from anywhere. Twitter only offers a large potential audience for that speech. And nobody — not even Donald Trump — is entitled to make anyone listen.

    If you lose a wide audience, that isn’t censorship. If you lose a spot on property you don’t own, that isn’t censorship. What makes you believe otherwise, other than your feelings?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  107. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:45am

    Do you think you’re owed this spot on Techdirt?

    If the answer is “no”, what makes you think anyone is owed a spot on Twitter?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  108. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:46am

    The government doesn’t have the right to make Twitter host any kind of legal speech. What makes you think it should?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  109. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:50am

    Re:

    Umm, yeah remember stating that was bad and not accepted. But alas out of thousand of people there you get those unfortunately.

    Don't condone it; but I don't broad paint a brush on a large group of people either when most did not participate.

    And if you actually think that was an attempt to subvert democracy guess you never seen an actually coup. Idiots stealing trinkets like some papers or even a paper weight and strolling around taking selfies is really not a serious attempt.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  110. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:50am

    Nintendo telling a publisher to remove troublesome content from a game prior to release on the Switch isn’t censorship. That publisher can publish their uncensored game on Steam. Censorship literally requires that your rights be violated — that you be prevented from speaking your mind. So Twitter can’t censor anyone.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  111. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:52am

    Donald Trump can literally call a press conference tomorrow and say anything he would’ve said on Twitter. He can go to Parler and do the same. He can make his own Mastodon instance and say whatever the fuck he wants.

    Twitter didn’t censor Donald Trump. It doesn’t have the power to censor him.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  112. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:54am

    Censorship exists. People get censored all the time. But being told “we don’t do that here” — and getting kicked out if you keep doing “that” — isn’t censorship.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  113. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:54am

    Re:

    I'm pointing out the absurdity of saying this isn't censorship. It is. This is a stupid game of semantics where you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  114. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:57am

    if you actually think that was an attempt to subvert democracy guess you never seen an actually coup.

    One rioter took twist ties with him onto the Senate floor. Pipe bombs were found near the Capitol. Several of the rioters had guns of their own.

    If you think that wasn’t an attempt to subvert democracy, you don’t give a fuck about facts.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  115. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:59am

    Trump getting banned from Twitter isn’t censorship. I’d call it censorship if it were. But it isn’t — so I’m not. You haven’t convinced me that a man who can call a press conference to say “fuck you, Twitter” has been censored. I doubt you ever will.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  116. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    na maika ti v guza prosta kurwa, 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:09am

    " You have Trump supporters who are furious and (falsely) claiming that this is "censorship" or unprecedented and heavy handed (it is none of those things)."

    Who the hell are you to put such inadequate evaluations of obvious facts?
    I hope your mother dies from cancer!!!!!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  117. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:15am

    Re:

    Yes that man needs jail time forgot about that ....yeah pipe bombs are dangerous but seroulsly everyone made them in high school. Not like the death trap bomb but they can kill if your walking over it. So-- off to jail with that one.

    The person that smashed in that poor captial man's head that he died just doing his job needs a life sentenced or death sentence. No excuse for that violence.

    I was referring to most of them taking selfies sitting in chairs the real thugs need major punishment. The idiots that smashed the windows etc. But to think this a real attempt of a government over throw when it was
    obviously not organized. Is really over the top.

    Except in the minds of those few lone people that did the bad things the rest just strolled around and took pictures aimlessly taking trinkits. Remember that woman was also a person who wandered into the ground and she paid a price shot dead and unarmed.. Like to know how that happened.

    Yes she should not have been there and in fear bad things happen.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  118. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:16am

    Re: Tech circle

    It sounds to me you are very much determined to believe a very narrow, specific (and from here, absurd) narrative.

    There are many conclusions here and I really cannot imagine how you came to them, like you live in a box and only get news as interpreted by your five-year-old as he watches UAN.

    Feel free to explain yourself, but I doubt you are capable of doing so.

    PS: In 2000 the Democratic candidate (and his voters) totally got cheated out of the presidency, which is now history laid plain. And we just sucked it up.

    At this point, considering what happened the last two times, a GOP candidate is voted in by Electoral College (and not by popular vote) I hope Americans take to the next one the way they respond to post-9/11 would-be airplane hijackers.

    Because for two out of two (in a row!) they have caused immeasurable and irrecoverable damage to the United States.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  119. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:24am

    Re:

    If you are cut off from Facebook, Google, and. YouTube then you are cut off from socializing with almost the entirety of the English speaking internet. It is a bad faith argument (to put it mildly) to claim being banned from those platforms isn't censorship.

    It is blatent censorship. In this case blatent censorship of Trump. I am not saying it's bad to censor Trump - he's made it crystal clear he is a threat to Democracy.

    Again, I am not defending Trump here but I've seen you post here long enough to know you don't actually read the entirety of the posts you respond to. Mine included considering you insinuated I'm one of those "facts not feels" conservative types.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  120. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:27am

    Re: Re:

    *Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  121. icon
    PaulT (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    “ Just that to say that "it's not censorship" because "it's possible to say it elsewhere" is a bit ridiculous”

    The point is that Twitter have the right to moderate their own platform, and you have the right to go elsewhere if you’re not happy with their rules. If your local bar kicks you out for being disruptive, your right to drink has not been curtailed. But the preferable solution for everyone is for you to find a different bar to drink in, not for the bar to be forced to let you in against their wishes. That’s a violation of their rights...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  122. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:30am

    pipe bombs are dangerous but seroulsly everyone made them in high school

    Where the hell did you go to high school?

    I was referring to most of them taking selfies sitting in chairs

    They chose to break into the Capitol building and go where they weren’t allowed. They deserve to face the consequences of that decision.

    to think this a real attempt of a government over throw when it was obviously not organized. Is really over the top.

    Yeah, about that…

    And the riot was an attempt to overthrow democracy. The rioters wanted to stop the certification of Joe Biden as the next president. He won a free and fair election. They wanted Trump to stay despite his loss. What would you call a politically motivated riot meant to subvert the will of the people and install the actual loser of an election as the president?

    that woman was also a person who wandered into the ground and she paid a price shot dead and unarmed.. Like to know how that happened.

    “ ‘Go! Go!’ she shouts, and then two men hoist her up to the rim of a broken window. As she sticks her head through the frame, a Capitol Police officer in plain clothes fires a shot, and she falls back into the crowd. Blood starts pouring from her mouth. … ‘Nothing will stop us,’ she wrote on Twitter the day before her death. ‘They can try and try and try but the storm is here and it is descending upon DC in less than 24 hours …. dark to light!’ ” (Source)

    she should not have been there

    And that’s why she’s dead.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  123. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:32am

    Re:

    He's been censored from Twitter and Facebook. And in two weeks he won't be able to have those press conferences.

    You're insinuating censorship is all-or-nothing as opposed to degrees of censorship. That's ridiculous and you know better.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  124. icon
    PaulT (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:32am

    Re: Re:

    You appear to believe that the woman was some innocent who happened to wander on to the property, and not a dyed in the wool cultist who was actively participating in the attempted sedition?

    I’m not sure what news you’re reading but I suggest you expand your sources...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  125. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:32am

    Cursing mothers

    Wow, I'd like to assume that Trump supporters aren't all so eager to wish ill will on others when they dare challenge the dogma of Trump, but so far, all the examples I've encountered don't bear that out.

    Your facts aren't obvious to us. Feel free to cite sources, though.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  126. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:35am

    Facebook; Twitter; YouTube

    And yet you are here using none of those, and still being heard.

    And I am here and I don't use any of them, and you and I are having a conversation.

    No, I don't think your assertion is adequately demonstrated.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  127. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:36am

    If you are cut off from Facebook, [Twitter], and[ ]YouTube then you are cut off from socializing with almost the entirety of the English speaking internet.

    So what? You’re not owed the use of those platforms and you’re not entitled to make them give you an audience.

    It is a bad faith argument (to put it mildly) to claim being banned from those platforms isn't censorship.

    Except it isn’t.

    It is blat[a]nt censorship. In this case blat[a]nt censorship of Trump.

    He can literally call a press conference tomorrow and say “fuck Twitter” on an open mic. How has he been censored by Twitter, again?

    you don't actually read the entirety of the posts you respond to

    I do, though. I often quote longer comments to a degree that likely borders on absurd. But reading full comments doesn’t mean I have to take them all seriously.

    you insinuated I'm one of those "facts not feels" conservative types

    You’ve been arguing that your feelings about censorship are the facts. How could I avoid confusing you for one of those chuds?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  128. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:37am

    Re: Facebook; Twitter; YouTube

    Censorship isn't all or nothing. If an Iranian political dissident was banned from communicating on all platforms except the comment section of a semi-obscure news site, that's still censorship. Because they're censored from communicating over the most heavily populated platforms.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  129. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:37am

    He's been [banned] from Twitter and Facebook. And in two weeks he won't be able to have those press conferences.

    So what? He can still start his own social media network or join Parler or whatever. Loss of an audience is not a violation of civil rights, no matter how much you feel like it is.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  130. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:40am

    If an Iranian political dissident was banned from communicating on all platforms except the comment section of a semi-obscure news site, that's still censorship.

    Only if the government was involved with those bans. Otherwise, it’s damn close to the line without stepping over it. And the dissident could still make his own website, which is another way of communicating with people. (So is email. And Discord. And Signal, and Telegram, and Skype, and…)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  131. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:45am

    Re:

    > So what? You’re not owed the use of those platforms and you’re not entitled to make them give you an audience.

    You keep making this argument as if it's relevant to the discussion on if being banned from a communications platform is censorship. Why don't you come out and say you believe that only governments can censor people like other critical theorists say?

    > He can literally call a press conference tomorrow and say “fuck Twitter” on an open mic. How has he been censored by Twitter, again?

    Censorship isn't all-or-nothing and I'm puzzled by you bringing up an example that has an expiration date of two weeks.

    > I do, though. I often quote longer comments to a degree that likely borders on absurd. But reading full comments doesn’t mean I have to take them all seriously.

    I've had you admonish me for not calling a cop racist when I had called the cop racist in the second sentence of a two sentence reply a few months back.

    > You’ve been arguing that your feelings about censorship are the facts. How could I avoid confusing you for one of those chuds?

    Gee, I dunno, maybe it's because I said multiple times it was a good thing Trump was banned from Twitter? Good lord.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  132. icon
    PaulT (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:47am

    Re: Re:

    “ He's been censored from Twitter and Facebook. And in two weeks he won't be able to have those press conferences”

    Yet, he still has thousands of other ways to be heard, including ones you will never have.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  133. icon
    PaulT (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:48am

    Re: Re:

    “ If you are cut off from Facebook, Google, and. YouTube then you are cut off from socializing with almost the entirety of the English speaking interneY”

    What a giant pile of bullshit, but if that’s the lie you have to tell yourself to pretend you have a point here so be it

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  134. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:53am

    You keep making this argument as if it's relevant to the discussion on if being banned from a communications platform is censorship.

    The argument is relevant. You seem to believe the First Amendment guarantees someone a spot on Twitter. My argument attempts (fruitlessly, it seems) to tell you that your belief is wrong.

    Why don't you come out and say you believe that only governments can censor people

    I would if I did. But I don’t. A rando with a shotgun who says “I’ll kill you if you say [x]” is a censor. Someone who files lawsuits to keep speech from being heard is a censor (albeit one who makes use of government power). That the government is most often associated with censorship doesn’t make it the only censor. But censorship requires a violation of civil rights. A ban from Twitter doesn’t violate any such rights.

    I'm puzzled by you bringing up an example that has an expiration date of two weeks

    Trump will likely be politically relevant for the foreseeable future. That any post-term press conferences won’t be covered widely isn’t relevant to whether he can hold them.

    I've had you admonish me for not calling a cop racist when I had called the cop racist in the second sentence of a two sentence reply a few months back.

    …Jesus, dude. I likely spend more time on this site than you and even I don’t hold a grudge like that.

    maybe it's because I said multiple times it was a good thing Trump was banned from Twitter?

    That doesn’t preclude you from being a conservative.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  135. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:53am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I corrected by saying Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. I may as well add Reddit on there for good measure since they're included in this ban wave.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  136. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:56am

    Re:

    Maybe those bad actors had that idea in their head to try to stop the certification of Biden.

    The thousands of others that did not set foot into the captial were there to protest for election integrity and the elimination of election fraud and laws that were changed leading up to the election that were unconstitutional and jeopardized its integrity. And to tell Congress address this issue look to look into it. Have an actual trial that takes a look at the evidence instead of the constant dismisals of you filed late or you have no standing.

    Had the supreme court done their job and addressed the constitutional issue that was needed to settle this. We as people of this nation could have seen a trail. Seen what proof there was and then if there was none or lacking fine people can accept that.

    But the supreme court skirted their duty, broke the constitutional responsibility. Though Justice Alito and Thomas said the case had merit to be heard ...... John Roberts dismissed it not for merit but for no standing when 33 states sued and they had standing. It was a lame way to not do what they should have.

    That was why they marched after the rally to the capital ... that was why the rally was started. It was support for the president and to say hey you congress do something about this election fraud and last minute changes to laws that compromised and broke constitutional law and probably most likely handed the presidency to the wrong person.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  137. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:57am

    Re: Re: Facebook; Twitter; YouTube

    Something tells me this Iranian political dissident is banned from communicating on all platforms not because there's some massive deep-state conspiracy to silence him but because all he says is bigoted vitriol and no one can stand to be with him for five minutes.

    You haven't demonstrated either a) that you or Trump or whoever is banned from all platforms except obscure ones, just your favorite three which are far, far removed from monopolies (there are plenty of others, and you embarrass yourself not knowing how to find them) or that b) you or Trump have anything worthwhile to say and can do so without being an antisocial git.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  138. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:06am

    They marched to the Capitol because Donald Trump had told them for months that the election would be/was rigged. He offered no proof of this rigging. His own flunkies said there was no rigging. His lawyers gave no proof of this rigging to the courts. But Trump persisted in his delusion. It soon became a collective delusion among his supporters.

    They marched to the Capitol because Donald Trump (among others) egged them on. He didn’t tell them to “protest peacefully” or “write letters”. He, his idiot son, and his even bigger idiot of a lawyer all but told the crowd to stop Pence and Congress by any means necessary.

    They marched to the Capitol because they wanted to “stop the steal”. They broke down doors and windows, assaulted cops, and threatened the safety of Congress and the Vice President. Some of them had pipebombs and guns and twist ties. A makeshift gallows was seen near the Capitol grounds.

    The rioters who attempted to subvert democracy on the 6th of January 2021 didn’t “protest” at the Capitol for the sake of “election integrity”. They descended upon, and forcefully infiltrated, the Capitol for one purpose: Keep Donald Trump in the White House, no matter the cost.

    Four dead rioters. One dead cop. And Biden will still be president come the 20th. That their coup attempt failed doesn’t make it any less of one.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  139. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:09am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Not sure If you were talking to me, but I stated didn't know how she died was curious, but did say "Yes she should not have been there and in fear bad things happen."

    If the police or security felt threatened or where in fear welp there you go she was shot and really not going to dispute it as in fear a cop shots. Also she should not have been there.

    If like you said she had said or stated those things fine she had an agenda then. But you don't paint thousands and thousands of others there witha a broad brush.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  140. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:11am

    Re:

    The argument is relevant. You seem to believe the First Amendment guarantees someone a spot on Twitter. My argument attempts (fruitlessly, it seems) to tell you that your belief is wrong.

    That's a beaten up old strawman you're attacking there. Let me know when you want to talk about something I actually said.

    I would if I did. But I don’t. A rando with a shotgun who says “I’ll kill you if you say [x]” is a censor. Someone who files lawsuits to keep speech from being heard is a censor (albeit one who makes use of government power). That the government is most often associated with censorship doesn’t make it the only censor. But censorship requires a violation of civil rights. A ban from Twitter doesn’t violate any such rights.

    So short of someone pointing a gun at you, government-backed coercion is still the only means censorship can be enacted against someone as those are violations of civil rights.

    Shame the ACLU doesn't agree with you.

    https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship first two paragraphs.

    Trump will likely be politically relevant for the foreseeable future. That any post-term press conferences won’t be covered widely isn’t relevant to whether he can hold them.

    If tree falls in the woods but no one is there to hear it, did it make a sound?

    …Jesus, dude. I likely spend more time on this site than you and even I don’t hold a grudge like that.

    You've been the wet towel of Techdirt for as long as I've seen you in the comment section.

    That doesn’t preclude you from being a conservative.

    I'm a liberal in the "Nadine Strossen" sense. It wasn't that many years ago that evangelizing free speech was the domain of liberals and progressives. While my views haven't changed, those of Progressives sure as hell have.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  141. icon
    PaulT (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You’re still lying if you say they’re the majority of the English speaking internet though... maybe you need to look around more rather than making up lies on one of the sites you don’t think is significant enough to include in your list?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  142. icon
    PaulT (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yes, cops tend to shoot at the mob trying to illegally gain entry to the property they’re protecting.. that’s no fear, though

    “ But you don't paint thousands and thousands of others there witha a broad brush.”

    What’s this thousands thing? I was only referencing the woman you referenced, and maybe the other people with her actively trying to invade government property in order to subvert democracy. What’s the problem including everyone illegally at the capitol building with each other?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  143. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Facebook; Twitter; YouTube

    I don't care one wit about Trump. I mentioned Iranian political dissident to distance from Trump specifically but it seems you're more interested in reading hidden meaning that didn't exist into what I said.

    And you have a lack of imagination if you think only hate filled monsters would be censored without government intervention. What of private pressure groups? Or what of someone advocating domestically unpopular ideas? I bet you promoting LGBT ideas in Iran won't afford you with many Iranian private-sector businesses willing to host your speech.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  144. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:26am

    So

    I try to avoid responding to otherwording. But…

    short of someone pointing a gun at you, government-backed coercion is still the only means censorship can be enacted against someone as those are violations of civil rights

    No. As the ACLU points out, private pressure groups can also apply enough pressure to censor speech. But it takes a hell of a lot of that kind of pressure. Even Twitter didn’t ban Trump when a huge chunk of the userbase was asking for that. (I’m not saying the ban is censorship. I’m making a point about pressure.)

    If tree falls in the woods but no one is there to hear it, did it make a sound?

    Irrelevant. A tree doesn’t have the ability to speak.

    You've been the wet towel of Techdirt for as long as I've seen you in the comment section.

    I’m not going to fuck you.

    It wasn't that many years ago that evangelizing free speech was the domain of liberals and progressives.

    I believe in free speech. Racists have every right to express their racist beliefs. The government shouldn’t stop them from doing that, either. What they don’t have is the right to make others listen to/host that speech. They shouldn’t have that right. No one should — especially the President of the United States.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  145. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:29am

    I bet you promoting LGBT ideas in Iran won't afford you with many Iranian private-sector businesses willing to host your speech.

    Should the law allow the dissident to force those businesses into hosting that speech? If not, your point is pointless. Those businesses can and should have the right to choose what speech they’ll host regardless of any outside pressure.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  146. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:31am

    Re: Re: Tech circle

    Not narrow at all, just maybe more informed on the issues perhaps. Maybe you need to be enlightened just a bit before speaking.

    comprehesion helps alot. Im sorry your having difficulty.

    As far as the electorial college a brillent idea since we are a Republics of 50 independent stats governed by rules of a "Republic", in lieu of a pure democracy.

    thus not a "Democracy" where decisions are made by the majority vote.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  147. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:33am

    Re:

    And the dissident could still make his own website, which is another way of communicating with people. (So is email. And Discord. And Signal, and Telegram, and Skype, and…)

    Making their own website isn't a good example. No one would know of it. And if no one reads the site or communicates on it, it may as well not even exist.

    The question here isn't one relevant for people with preexisting contacts, so Signal and email aren't relevant. Iran also blocks Discord and Telegram and pseudo-blocks Skype.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  148. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:36am

    Re:

    Me: This is censorship.
    You: They have every right to not allow your speech.

    It's like you're responding to a different post entirely or are agreeing with me in everything other than word choice.

    Those businesses can and should have the right to choose what speech they’ll host regardless of any outside pressure.

    How libertarian of you :^)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  149. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:37am

    Re:

    lol, that real coup there...yup ok with pipebomb....woah.... heavy duty stuff

    there yup. A few crazies and the rest sitting in chairs taking selfies sounds hard core to me.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  150. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're delusional if you don't think the majority of the English speaking Internet is congregated around Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  151. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:38am

    No one would know of it. And if no one reads the site or communicates on it, it may as well not even exist.

    So what? You’re not owed an audience. That only you hear what you say doesn’t mean you’ve lost the right to speak your mind.

    If I post something on social media and nobody pays it any mind — no likes, no boosts, no nothin’ — have I been censored?

    The question here isn't one relevant for people with preexisting contacts

    Except it is. Nobody is owed a connection with other humans. Not being able to communicate with others could be censorship, but it could also be people choosing to ignore an asshole. If people ignore me when I try to communicate with them, have I been censored?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  152. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:40am

    It's like you're responding to a different post entirely or are agreeing with me in everything other than word choice.

    I’m not agreeing with you. Someone choosing not to host your speech of their own free will doesn’t mean they’ve censored you.

    How libertarian of you

    Should you be forced by law to host third party speech on your private property? If the answer is “no”, for what reason should private businesses be forced to do that?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  153. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:42am

    Re: Cursing mothers

    Trumplers are now realizing what it feels like to be on the receiving end of "drinking them liberal tears", and they've realized they don't like it - and they're trying desperately to scramble off the sinking ship, which has already hit the seabed. Weaksauce insults is all they have left.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  154. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:43am

    \>the electorial college
    \>a brill[ia]nt idea

    Pick one.

    The Electoral College was designed to create minority rule. While I’m not one to push for the tyranny of the majority, the minority shouldn’t have that same tyranny. Or have you ignored Mitch McConnell’s refusal to bring bills up for a vote in the Senate only because House Democrats passed them?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  155. icon
    PaulT (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:50am

    Re: Re:

    “And if no one reads the site or communicates on it, it may as well not even exist.“

    ...and Twitter didn’t exist at one point, nor did their newer comptetitors.. so?

    You allowed the ability to speak. You have never had a fundamental right to an audience, online or offline

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  156. icon
    PaulT (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Define “majority”. You’re wrong whichever way you choose, I’m just interested in how to tell you how full if shit you are.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  157. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:53am

    Re:

    I think too many people focus on race..... How many racists do you think are out there....?

    I mean it sounds like one is hiding behind every tree or something just waiting to say something to you.... like something bad.

    Sheez ....I know there are racists there will always be.... but for God's sake this is a good country.

    Most and I mean most people are not racists just assholes and eveyone meets one. People need to put this crap to rest seriously over played over hyped.

    Omg Race Race RACE ...are we running yet?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  158. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:56am

    Re:

    I try to avoid responding to otherwording. But…

    I am trying to find out the scope of what you consider censorship. I was genuinely surprised when you listed an example beyond government-backed coercion.

    No. As the ACLU points out, private pressure groups can also apply enough pressure to censor speech. But it takes a hell of a lot of that kind of pressure. Even Twitter didn’t ban Trump when a huge chunk of the userbase was asking for that. (I’m not saying the ban is censorship. I’m making a point about pressure.)

    Counter-pressures there. It's not a far cry to imagine the attacks on Section 230 of the CDA would've dramatically escalated had be been banned earlier.

    Irrelevant. A tree doesn’t have the ability to speak.

    And someone speaking without anyone around to hear it may as well not be able to speak.

    I’m not going to fuck you.

    Don't flatter yourself. You're the buzzkill of the comment section. Mr. Akshewally. I don't expect to learn something new or interesting from your comments nor do I expect new insights - I expect a recitation of age old critical theory and little else.

    I believe in free speech. Racists have every right to express their racist beliefs. The government shouldn’t stop them from doing that, either. What they don’t have is the right to make others listen to/host that speech. They shouldn’t have that right. No one should — especially the President of the United States.

    They absolutely don't have the right to make others listen to the speech, though efforts at deplatforming are tantamount to making that decision on behalf of everyone else.

    And weather the platform has the right to censor someone from their platform has absolutely no bearing on the act of banning being censorship.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  159. icon
    Paul Alan Levy (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:57am

    Re: Re: Why bother explaining if what you say is so foolishly re

    Had they simply given your explanation it would have been honest. But the explanation they gave was basically dishonest.

    As for your second point, I rarely use Twitter anymore. But the question was a tad rhetorical.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  160. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 4:01am

    Re:

    The Turtle...yes the game both sides play...yeah seen that... we need to get rid of them all but I worry about some of these new ones and lack of life experience. Their perspectives are a bit concerning. Nobody I would trust with power to tell you the truth. Yet some look promising till their bought and get use to being rich and the power....heard it changes folks.

    I have been waiting to term limits ...why do these self serving turds ....oh wait they vote on it ..... guess we never get that either.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  161. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 4:03am

    And someone speaking without anyone around to hear it may as well not be able to speak.

    I still have the right to speak even if I’m ignored, intentionally or not. Not having an audience is not the same as having your speech suppressed or your rights violated.

    I don't expect to learn

    At least you’re honest.

    They absolutely don't have the right to make others listen to the speech, though efforts at deplatforming are tantamount to making that decision on behalf of everyone else.

    Anyone upset about Trump being banned can go find him on some other platform. He doesn’t, and his cult members don’t, have the right to make Twitter host his speech.

    [whe]ther the platform has the right to censor someone from their platform has absolutely no bearing on the act of banning being censorship

    Except it does. Did Twitter violate Trump’s civil rights by banning him? No. Did Twitter stop Trump from using other platforms? No. Did Twitter prevent Trump from calling Fox News or some other media outlet to rant about Twitter? No.

    Even under the loosest definition of the word, Donald Trump is no victim of censorship. I’ve yet to see a good argument saying he is. And you’re sure as shit not offering one.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  162. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 4:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What, do you think Reddit, 4chan, Something Awful, and a shrinking constellation of forums from the Web 2.0 days has more than 15% of the entire English-speaking Internet?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  163. icon
    JoeCool (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 4:06am

    Re: Re: Meanwhile and relevantly,

    "Sound moderation policy", yeah I want the company that has to put suicide prevention nets around its chinese factories to tell me what sound moderation policies are.

    What does one have to do with the other? Nothing. You do know that suicide rates for those workers is lower than the general population, right? Also, most American skyscrapers have provisions to try to stop suicide attempts. That in itself means nothing more than the owners of the building are worried about liability lawsuits from relatives of people who try to commit suicide using the buildings. You also seem to think that those factories are owned and operated by Apple when Apple is merely a customer. A big customer, yes, but still just a customer.

    If you want to complain about not taking Apple seriously about moderation advice, try pointing to their App store or something similar rather than oversea factories that supply them (and many other companies) some parts.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  164. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous, 9 Jan 2021 @ 4:19am

    Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship-WRONG,WRONG, & WRONG

    I was reading your article and it went to a piece of garbage when i read.

    "trump-inspired a mob of goons to invade the capitol building this week, and there remain legitimate threats that his cultish followers"

    I was on the grounds in the capitol on the 6th from 6 am -until after curfew was in place and national guard was dispatched. there was not a mob of goons that were trump supporters that were at all responsible for what happened, it was Antifa/BLM activists disguised as trump supporters with equipment not related to what trump supporters had, such as hammers for breaking glass, and other things such as walkie talkies communicating that they had to make trouble to make trump supporters look bad (in other words frame trump). they did not have American flags, they were not in patriotic garb other than hats resembling trump attire.

    Not everyone who was there were trump supporters, many of whom were there were people who lost their livelihood and were in opposition to Biden becoming president for many reasons, everyone should know by now why Biden is a terrible choice.

    There were so many people there, there was a sea of people as far as my eyes could see waving American flags. if i were to guess how many people were there, the estimate would be anywhere from 500,000-800,000 patriots there. patriots with American flags for what? for the save America march! CNN, MSNBC, and other anti-trump outlets didn't cover it the numbers were so great.

    When trumps speech was over pointing out valid claims of election meddling. most people went home, others stayed and marched to the capitol building which i remained and observed hanging with other conservative media outlets who were covering what was going on there. everyone was peaceful, but when i was at the capitol building, protesters were let in the barriers outside the capitol building, and after a short time after they were allowed inside by the security/police.

    At the same time, i observed people trying scaffolded to windows trying to break inside while protesters were outside chanting USA/waving American flags. these individuals, the ones breaking inside were not Trump supporters and were not there with flags or chanting USA. it was the trump supporters who put a stop to them when i pointed it out to a woman who began to shout, Antifa! (identifying the men breaking in the capitol building through the windows). it was trump supporters to by force made citizen arrests and brought these instigators to the police themselves.

    When a shot rang out, trump supporters left from inside and made it to where i was standing (which was outside the capitol across the street with media). they told me that they were first inside and were let in by security/police and had taken pictures with them and there was not hostilities or violence and that an unarmed woman had been shot and nobody who entered was armed and left right away while others who were dressed in black with walkie talkies had rushed inside passed them physically confronting police/security.

    during this time trump supporters remained outside the building and many dispersed and began going home when police/national guard in riot gear showed up. there were agitators who remained that were not trump supporters while trump supporters were actively trying to prevent them from confrontation with the police/national guard. everyone knew the bad actors were not trump supporters and there to make trump supporters look bad.

    i left shortly after but trump supporters were assaulted by the riot police/national guard. but at no point were trump supporters there to do anything other than show support for the president and make their voices heard that they wanted a stop to letting Biden become president.

    at no point did i see weapons in the hands of Trump supporters or trump protesters. this was a setup by the left and BLM/Antifa.

    How do i know? i was there and you were not.
    Furthermore, all big tech media are deleting video proof of what really happened, censoring the facts that trump supporters and other patriots were not there causing violence.

    how do i know? because my friends with he media had their videos removed without reasons given.

    so that blue hair of yours isn't such a good color for you, Masnick. you should put your own two feet on the ground where something happened before you write about something you know little to nothing about because you were not there.

    but the idea of your article is to radicalize your readers to hate the over half a million people that showed up who were skeptical of the election results, fed up with lockdowns and violence on their cities from BLM/Antifa, and lost everything. people that were grandparents, parents, families, homeless, veterans, and patriots. portraying them as "Trump-inspired a mob of goons to invade the capitol building this week, and there remain legitimate threats that his cultish followers", when that is not true. not true at all!

    But you know why BIG TECH and the media are rushing to stomp the voices of TRUMP supporters and revealing the truth? SO they can control the narrative on the media platforms and censor revelations that the election WAS STOLEN and such news would REUIN platforms like yours credibility, especially after falsely mischaracterizing Trump's supporters and the many other patriots in the hundreds of thousands in the capitol on Jan 6th.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  165. icon
    PaulT (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 4:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I think you’re deliberately lying about the nature of the internet to make a stupid point that bears no relation to reality, or pretending that your pathetically unimaginative use of the tools you have is what everyone does.

    But, hey, whatever keeps you from dealing with the real issues

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  166. icon
    techflaws (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 4:24am

    Re: Re:

    And in two weeks he won't be able to have those press
    conferences.

    And nothing of value will be lost. But wait, are you seeing the TV networks won't report on him anymore? Really?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  167. icon
    techflaws (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 4:27am

    Re:

    they should not be the ones who decide who gets to speak and
    not.

    Like Parler should not be able to ban me for making fun of drumpfist morons, right?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  168. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 4:30am

    it was Antifa/BLM activists disguised as trump supporters

    [asserts facts not in reality]

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  169. icon
    techflaws (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 4:31am

    Re: Tech circle

    He most likely did not expect what happened.

    Which is why he did not go along with the crowd as he said he would?

    Why did they stop the count on election night?

    Because they listened to the 'stop the count' idiots?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  170. icon
    techflaws (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 4:35am

    Re:

    Dorsey is traitor scum

    Why? Did he collude with Russia?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  171. icon
    techflaws (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 4:36am

    Re:

    Mmh, your tears are delicious, asshat.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  172. icon
    techflaws (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 4:37am

    Re: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship-WRONG,WRONG, & WR

    You fucking cowards aren't even man enough to own up to the fact it was loonies from your side who did this. Sad.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  173. icon
    Paul Alan Levy (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 5:03am

    Re: Re: Why bother explaining if what you say is so foolishly re

    Mike, I completely accept your response to my second point -- it was a somewhat rhetorical point, but I agree in retrospect that it was an ill-considered one (although I WOULD say that platforms ought to allow some sort of right of reply to a ban).

    And I agree that if Twitter had given the reasons that you articulate, the explanation for its decision would have been coherent. But for those platforms that are as broadly used as Twitter and Facebook are, it does seem to me that there is a moral or social obligation, certainly not a legal obligation, to be transparent about their decisions to remove users. Reasoned explanations are a form of accountability. We all praise companies for their transparency reports, for example, when they describe censorship decisions that have been forced on them by governments.

    Issuing a plainly fallacious statement is not consistent with that moral obligation and it is an evasion of accountability.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  174. icon
    PaulT (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 5:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I think you’re deliberately lying about the nature of the internet to make a stupid point that bears no relation to reality, or pretending that your pathetically unimaginative use of the tools you have is what everyone does.

    But, hey, whatever keeps you from dealing with the real issues

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  175. icon
    Paul Alan Levy (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 5:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Why bother explaining if what you say is so foolishl

    Kinda like the Peter Parker principle -- with great power comes great responsibility. It applies to Trump but it also applied to Twitter.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  176. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 5:07am

    Re: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship-WRONG,WRONG, & WR

    [Citations badly needed]

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  177. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous, 9 Jan 2021 @ 5:07am

    Re: "assert facts not inreality"

    You must have missed the part where I accounted the garb/equipment differences between the two.

    Trump supporters carrying American flags chanting USA oustide the capitol from where they were let inside gate barriers from the capitol by capitol police/security and Trump supporters were let inside, while other non-trump garb wearing individuals with obvious pre-planned equipment and riot gear initiated a break into the capitol building and prepared for a riot, unlike the Amerian patriots who tried to stop them where they were seen by Trump supporters. This is caught on camera by others and have been placed on Trump allied networks, but are not on Ant-Trump networks pushing the narrative it was "his supporters".

    None of the Trump supporters were there to do anything other than make noise so their voices were heard. Storming the capitol in numbers chanting USA wasn't initiated by Trump supporters, they were let inside. But the atmosphere changed when Antifa garb individuals successfully broke inside and the police/security changed tactics to oppose them being inside. Accounts of the people inside that came out told me a riot broke out inside by people dressed in all black attacking the police, which wasn't initiated by them.Now I'm saying this because I was on the ground and witnessed what was happening.

    There are numerous witness accounts on video that have been posted on youtube accounting for what happened as this to be the case. Trump opponent media are censoring it and removing video evidence of the accounts so the narrative Frame trump and the hundreds of thousands of supporters there are villainized.

    Make no mistake there were Trump supporters at the capitol and making their voices heard, many did go inside after being let in. However, many of whom had left from inside had told me and others who were with me that the atmosphere inside had changed by individuals who had begun attacking staff and breaking inside, that those breaking inside and fighting police were wearing Riot gear and organizing with walkie talkies.

    To me, this was an obvious attempt to FRAME Trump and his supporters and distract the public from finding out that contested states were stolen. Data scientists testified in Georgia days before proving that votes were removed in real-time from trump and awarded to Biden. That the Dominion software was never to remove votes, just add them. Yet they were switching in real-time and that the evidence incriminated the secretary of the state of Georgia.

    Such videos were on youtube but some have since been taken down after Jan 6th when the information was well-sourced and referenced with factual evidence.

    Since Jan 6th, there has been an obvious effort by the left to take over ALL the communication networks and remove any they cannot control or get them to manipulate people with their narratives mischaracterizing what happened.

    In addition video coverage of the Save, American March have all been removed from youtube. Most likely because advertisers are threatening the platform if they give Trump a platform to prove his innocence and downplay the numbers of people who were actually there.

    So what I'm saying is true and in reality. I was there. Obviously, you weren't. Neither was Masnick. But it's easy to just call me names and assert what I'm saying not to be true because it's your platform and you can dismiss what I'm saying because you want to. And since pitching the other side of the story from what actually happened doesn't please Techdirts advertising overlords Google, it's better to be safe and bash Trump supporters and patriots who were there to put a stop to Warmonger Biden in office.

    But now, with a Biden administration in office. The narrative from the administration will be like what happened in China after the Tiananmen Massacre. They are going to purge anyone and everyone who were in support of the opposition, censor their voices from accounting of what really happened, and changing the narrative with what they want you to see and hear on social media. And since platforms such as youtube, Facebook,and google depend on ad-revenue, they are going to bend right over and take the donkey cock the democrats are giving Americans and pass it on so everyone can get a taste.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  178. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 5:15am

    It is 1000 percent censorship when these social media pages are only blocking and banning conservative pages. Fuck whatever liberal loser wrote this from mommy’s basement and fuck the tech industry

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  179. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 5:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Can the RNC stop DNC people discussing DNC policy on their site, and vice-versa? If so, why can't any site have a bias, whether deliberate or as side effect of moderation efforts?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  180. icon
    Bloof (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 5:22am

    Re: Re: Why bother explaining if what you say is so foolishly re

    I remember when rightwingers got an anti twitter hashtag trending saying they were leaving and going to Parler for free speech, they weren't banned, the tag wasn't banned either, and the majority of them tweeted through their supposed departure and still tweet to this day.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  181. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous, 9 Jan 2021 @ 5:23am

    Re: Re: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship-WRONG,WRONG,

    Spoken like someone who wasn't there. Someone who's a BLM/Antifa/Biden supporter. Someone who listens to CNN, CNBC, NBC, MSNBC ant-trump, Anti-American garbage.

    While I wrote a testimony of my account on what happened. You write a sentence that characterizes me and ALL the hundreds of thousands of patriots that were there as cowards.

    Many Trump supporters put a stop to those breaking into the capitol and actually fought off the bad actors there to frame Trump and make him look bad.

    The playbook is a china tactic and instigating a riot was not what the American patriots were there to do. But You're a moron who wasn't there and you support Biden and likely a Troll so you'll say whatever that's a slander to a real American that was there with a bullshit lie.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  182. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 5:31am

    Re: Re: "assert facts not inreality"

    So your point is everyone that makes you look bad is a BLM or Democrat actor... Despite those people being very publicly identifiable, and their political opinions extremely visible from their own social media for the past few years? Your stance is that all of them are secretly anti-Trump plants?

    Damn, the QAnon lads are scrambling...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  183. icon
    PaulT (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 5:32am

    Re:

    The question you’re raising is why no conservative has managed to build a decently popular political platform, even if you weren’t lying about everything.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  184. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 5:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: To all conservatives whining censorship:

    "It also not only implies, but completely specifies that a government is causing it to occur."

    Wrong.

    You are conflating the words censorship and First Amendment.
    These two things are not the same, they do however overlap.

    Further point, Causing it to occur, as you put it is not required for the government to violate the first amendment.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  185. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous, 9 Jan 2021 @ 5:49am

    Re:

    I agree the platforms that enable people to exercise their 1st amendment then backstab them by removing their voices because of political affiliation is censorship.

    Look, Disney owns 90% of the media and cable networks. How do I know? Because I worked for them for a short period of time and this was their bragging point during orientation, no sh*t.

    So with Trump opposition groups from the left affiliated with big tech who get a large portion of their ad revenue from advertisers who are everywhere on the internet and cable are heavily influenced by such anti-trump companies, censorship of anyone in opposition to their political views is going to be an advantageous strategy for anyone who wants to assert their power. Platforms bow and obey when their earnings are threatened and then they bring in Left-wing, moderators and news anchors(yes men).

    Once everyone is squawking the same tune, independent media is the next target until everyone and anyone on their platforms pushes their narratives. It's more than censorship,it's now information warfare and it's OK according to Masnick.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  186. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 5:50am

    Re: Re: Re: To all conservatives whining censorship:

    Quite the stretch .. and only in CA.
    Good job.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  187. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 5:55am

    Re: Re: To all conservatives whining censorship:

    Not sure what your point is here.
    Should not have cancelled trump account because ... what?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  188. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 6:12am

    Re: Re:

    " The idea that censorship is purely a government activity is created by the people who want to censor everyone the most."

    Censorship and Freedom of Speech (1st amendment) .... are not the same thing.

    Word lawyering - lol

    Private business on private property conducting private activities do not need to adhere to any of your ill conceived ideas about what your rights entail.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  189. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 6:18am

    Re: Re: Re: "assert facts not inreality"

    False framing must be a profession you went to shool for. Because You took out of context what I said. Trump supporters and many patriots were there to make their voices heard at the capitol which they were let onto the grounds by police/security, then let inside.

    However the Trump supporters that came out and talked to me stated they themselves left when the atmosphwere changed and got violent agitated by black clad clothing agitators with riot gear and walkietalkies.

    Trump supporters there on the grounds had began fighting the agitators and stoping them from breaking inside and vandalizing the capitol.

    I'm not on QAnon dumbass. I'm a longtime techdirt reader and I'm a patriot. I was on the grounds of the capitol when all of this went down.I also spoke to others on the ground who said they also saw odd behavior from similar clothed groups of people communicating on walkie-talkies stating they needed/wanted to stir things up to frame trump an make him and his supporters/along with the mass protesters/patriots there look bad.

    There's video evidence of these accounts so I know this is true.

    Not everyone who tries to make me look bad is BLM or Democrat actor, just a douchebag full of sh*t Biden supporter, like you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  190. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 6:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: "assert facts not inreality"

    I'd pity you if you weren't on the side of fascism.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  191. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 6:21am

    Re:

    Wow, now US foreign policy and UN human rights discussions are censoring your opinions on your apple phone?

    Why not switch on wifi and go their webpage?
    No 5G coverage? Is 5G censoring you also?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  192. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 6:28am

    Re: Re:

    Who is they?

    We? Does that include me? Because you never asked.

    Do google and twitter control most discussion on the internet? From where does this claim originate?

    Do you think that communication platforms should allow the coordination of terrorist activities upon their private property for which they are liable for what goes on there?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  193. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 6:31am

    Re: Forgot to attached email...

    wut

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  194. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 6:32am

    Re: Re:

    No such thing

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  195. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 6:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So now political opinions are being outlawed?
    Please tell me more, I have not read nor heard about this one, is it another Qanon story?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  196. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 6:43am

    Re: Re:

    "He's been censored from Twitter and Facebook."

    For the sake of argument - ok. But so what?
    Do not try to say his 1st amendment rights have been violated because that is bullshit. The government had nothing to do with it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  197. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 6:50am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "if a company can censor a legally protected speech, it would still fit the definition of censorship, which isn't even the same as saying "My rights are violated.""

    What do you mean by the phrase legally protected speech?

    You can not call the cops on some business because they do not let you rant upon their property. Well, you could but might regret it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  198. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 6:52am

    Re: Re:

    Some people do not recognize nor understand hypocrisy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  199. icon
    wereisjessicahyde (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 6:57am

    Re: Re: this long to do it (things yo momma says)

    "flowery bouquet"? More like Word Salad.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  200. identicon
    stine, 9 Jan 2021 @ 7:05am

    Re: Re: Re: To all conservatives whining censorship:

    I don't believe its censorship, but I do think its a direct violation of "Knight First Amendment Institute, et al v. Donald J. Trump,et al".

    This means that has directly violated the order in said case.

    Also, all of president Trump's tweets, re-tweets, and their replies need to be saved as part of the permanent record.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  201. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 7:06am

    "So with Trump opposition groups from the left "

    Hate to spoil your party but several republicans have expressed their disapproval of Donald's activities. Seems every day more and more conservatives are realizing their savior and king is an ass who only cares for himself leaving them with nothing but the mess to clean up.

    " It's more than censorship,it's now information warfare and it's OK according to Masnick."

    Information warfare is nothing new, has been going on since humans began communicating. I never read anything from Mike condoning this type of thing, got any references? Yeah, figured as much.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  202. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous, 9 Jan 2021 @ 7:18am

    Re:

    You too must have went to school for false framing too. Or went to the school of dumbasses who will believe anything and anything you are told like some of the Republicans within Trumps party that have defected in opposition to him without knowledge of the facts, jumping to conclusions the mainstream media is spinning and telling you what to think mischaracterizing the hudreds of thousands of patriots on the grounds of the capitol.

    Information warfare is nothing new, has been going on since humans began communicating. But this excuse makes it OK according to you.

    And yes according to Masnick in this very aritcle explains all how Trump wasn't at all censored for his political affiliation and views, not one bit. He just got what he deserved, according to him,and that's OK because these platforms should be able to silence even the president of the united states if he's on their platform. This is information warfare because once someone is silenced the opponent can then put words in his mouth an frame whatever he did say in a way that villainizes him, just like your mischaracterization of what I said.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  203. identicon
    TFG, 9 Jan 2021 @ 7:25am

    Re: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship-WRONG,WRONG, & WR

    I look forward to the FBI tracking you and your terrorist brethren down.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  204. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 7:39am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The reason that not as many people hear what he has to say is because not that many people can be bothered to follow him to where he can speak.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  205. icon
    Matt (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 7:44am

    Of course it's censorship, but it is legal censorship

    Surprised this thread has gone on for so long arguing over whether it is censorship. Twitter is of course censoring Trump from Twitter which is their right to do. They are not censoring him from other apps or elsewhere in reality because that would be illegal. Censoring does not only mean suppression from a government. Companies can censor too, they just can do it legally. I can censor in my own household, and I can censor at my own business. I can't censor outside of it. It doesn't matter if any of us believe it is fair to censor him or not, we don't own Twitter. Twitter can censor within their own app for any reason. Those who don't like this will leave Twitter and those who support it will stay. This is how money works. Twitter is about making dollars and they had an easy win to appease the party that is going to own the White House, the House of Reps and the Senate which they took literally the day that party completed the sweep. (depeding on recounts)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  206. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 8:03am

    Re: Re:

    Perhaps a little reading of the history behind the many coup attempts that occur worldwide would be beneficial.
    There have been many and some succeed. I doubt that one could determine an outcome based solely upon their personal opinions of what transpired.
    Downplaying illegal activities, what's next .. proclaiming a divine right to take over the world?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  207. icon
    Bloof (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 8:05am

    Re: Re:

    He has access to a hell of a lot of heavily trafficked websites, the sympathetic right wing press would love to provide him with a soapbox, he also has his the money to hire someone full time to run his personal twitter -like service. He has the email addresses and phone numbers of millions of people who want to hear what he has to say, so even without twitter, he has more options to be heard by a wider audience than anyone on this website, including the owners.

    Trump is not being silenced or censored, he broke the rules of a private platform. The slope he is on is not slippery, he is waddling down by choice.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  208. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 8:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Just own it...

    Shut up trump no one likes you breathing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  209. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous, 9 Jan 2021 @ 8:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "assert facts not inreality"

    You use the word fascism as if you knew what the word means and it's history associated with it,but you don't. You're just making snarky short statements which are easy to do and doesn't take much brain power to construe.

    No, I'm no facist, nor am I on the side of fascism. What's taking place, all the censorship validating the march for America gathering was peaceful and what took place was not the fault of Trump supporters protesting, but not rioting or vandalizing the capitol is associated with the behavior of facism.

    False framing of what happened, slandering the hundreds of thousands of American Patriots of all walks of life, skin color, and religions who showed up demonstrating peacefully is a really sh*tty thing to do on a platform. Those people were the backbone of the country on which this country has been built on. They deserve their voices to be heard and they were ignored, while opposition media framed them and little anti-American twerps like you who didn't have the spine to show up in protest against Biden being elected is cowardice.

    You're really not an American if you don't stand for what is right.

    I'm not a Trump supporter you idiot. I'm a patriot. There's a difference.

    Biden plagiarized his speeches and political agendas. Responsible for turning Libya into a terrorist haven, despite Gaddafu being an ally. Villainized Wikileaks and other journalists for reporting abuses under the Obama administration. Tried to extradite and imprison Kim Dotcom for a no crime other than made up by the MPAA/RIAA at their behest. The attempts at trying to capture Edward Snowden for reporting to journalist Greenwald who was recently censored by his own co-owned business the intercept by Biden supporters.

    During the Biden administration Internet, Giants were throttling the internet of their users and while Ted Wheeler was an advocate rightfully so for net neutrality, he stepped down, which ended net neutrality with Ajit Pai appointed by Trump. But we also saw Google Fiber being almost outlawed nationwide because of their better service offered than competitor telecom giants. We all know how sh*tty AT&T and Verizon are etc, and how bad they were during the Obama Administration. No they weren't much better and choices didn't get better during Trump either, but they are who are in a bigger picture of information control of the internet.

    My poliical views more side with Tulsi Gabbard and some left wing figures such as Jimmy Dore. But having been around for almost 40 years. Trump hasn't started wars, and has tried to restore border security, no weeken it. I've been a victim of violence from mexican cartels who snuck passed the border wall, I've been to the crumbling infrastructure southern border wall. I've seen how difficult it is to catch illegal immigrants crossing the border and I know they are underfunded, staffed, and paid to better their facilities that are already at full capacity.

    I've got a really good idea in what direction this country is going and with the mass censorship deleting people reporting the truth with people spinning sh*t comments and falsely framing them as fascist when you don't know who they are or anything about them, just goes to show you'll say anything to pitch me as a villain and what I'm saying as insignificant. Why? Because you're a troll to oppress anyone who's not on board with a corrupt democrat government with Biden as president.

    It's sad the direction this country is going. It's like a reefer madness video was watched by Biden supporters and decided it's not only OK to mass censor them, but it's OK to slander and demonizes them too.

    You are a fool an a tool.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  210. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 8:24am

    Re: Re:

    Someone once told me that name calling is that last vestige of a losing argument, do you agree?

    You claimed "it's now information warfare". I simply pointed out that is nothing new as you claim. But so what.

    Not censored .. perhaps a statement as to what you think that means, would be informative.

    Some pro claim corporations are free to conduct business as they so choose, and this is free market capitalism. These same people also seem to hold the idea that these same private businesses operating within the framework of free markets are not allowed to control the assets of said business when it involves their comments on some forum they claim is a town square public property ... are they really advocating for the government takeover of their business? Isn't that communism? I thought that conservatives hated the thought of communism, boy was I wrong!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  211. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous, 9 Jan 2021 @ 8:27am

    Re: Of course it's censorship, but it is legal censorship

    I also agree with this viewpoint to a degree. But as a president of your own country, this censorship applies morally on the grounds because you don't like him or what he says as a moderator. The business model is sort of beyond the normal business where private businesses aren't public so if you mouth off at your boss or whatever rumor goes around about whatever you said they didn't like they might fire you. However, freedom of speech is protected and when it is made public, censoring the content when you are a political leader amounts to information warfare.

    I think had Trump left to Parler much earlier, the platform would have been way more successful with more influence to resist being censored as a platform by Apple and Google just because Conservatives left the left wing platforms no longer have control so the next way to do so is through revoking their way to make money.

    Democrats are abusing their positions of power in an attempt to demonize and destroy any social network that allows Trump or conservatives they can no longer control under the platforms they are monetizing with their ad revenue. It's a complete power grab and not an American thing to do, it's a communist regime tactic and this is what they are doing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  212. identicon
    TFG, 9 Jan 2021 @ 8:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "assert facts not inreality"

    I see that you have drunk the Koolaid about the terrorists that invaded the Capitol.

    They were 100% Trump supporters. There was no false flag operation. They were terrorists attempting a coup in support of a terrorist leader.

    I hope you will wake up, and see that you have been taken advantage of by the soon-to-be-former President.

    Until then, I will call you both fascist and terrorist sympathizer.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  213. identicon
    TFG, 9 Jan 2021 @ 8:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship-WRONG,WRO

    If you were there, you were part of a terrorist insurrection.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  214. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 8:40am

    Re: Re: Re: To all conservatives whining censorship:

    "conservatives have historically been rabidly pro-corporate"

    More precisely, they have been pro-power, with the tacit understanding that that means them. Occasionally, the ones that wield the power are on the other team. That takes some getting used to.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  215. icon
    Matt (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:05am

    Re: Re: Of course it's censorship, but it is legal censorship

    Information warfare is as good a word for it as any, but it is perfectly legal. Morality is always someone's judgement call.

    I think what really gets the republicans upset is that Twitter only cares about "safety" or "inciting" when there's a chance to mute or suspend a republican. But, that's their right too, it's their company, they can do whatever they want. And, fair or not, Trump just is such an easy guy to root against for most of us because he spent much of the last four years constantly mocking and insulting people. Even if we believe he had some accomplishments, the berating of non-politicians and non-entertainment/ shock anchor journalists (I don't believe there are any actual journalists left) just pissed people off. I would much prefer Twitter to just say, "We're tired of his insults and he's free to go elsewhere" instead of pretending like all of a sudden they care about safety... days before he finally leaves office and all three elected houses go Democrat. We just had a year of riots (not the peaceful protesters, those folks I admire, the actual rioters who robbed, beat, burned, and destroyed.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  216. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:05am

    It's funny people argue about Twitter making up rules as they go along. Like all professional online services, it says in its Terms of Service that:

    We may suspend or terminate your account or cease providing you with all or part of the Services at any time for any or no reason

    And in all likelyhood has said so since the service was founded.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  217. icon
    Matt (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:17am

    Re:

    I didn't argue about this at all. I agree it's their right. I said I wish they'd own it and don't pretend it's something else. Trump is a bully who insults people constantly. I'd kick him off my service too. I wouldn't pretend it was for safety, otherwise I would have kicked him off after Charlottesville.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  218. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:38am

    The problem is when Twitter started to hold Trump to a lesser standard due to being president.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  219. icon
    techflaws (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship-WRONG,WRO

    Real American, my ass. And still too much of a coward to own up to it. And no, I don't need to have been there to see what you assclowns did, neither does the world you've all impressed so deeply.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  220. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:42am

    At least he conceded.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  221. icon
    techflaws (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:42am

    Re:

    And fuck you too, whiner.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  222. identicon
    Rocky, 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Why bother explaining if what you say is so foolishl

    And I agree that if Twitter had given the reasons that you articulate, the explanation for its decision would have been coherent. But for those platforms that are as broadly used as Twitter and Facebook are, it does seem to me that there is a moral or social obligation, certainly not a legal obligation, to be transparent about their decisions to remove users.

    There are basic 2 things here that needs to be taken into consideration:

    1. As a user, I want to know what specific behavior got an account banned/moderated so we can learn from it.
    2. As a social platform, I don't want to go into specifics of banning/moderation decisions so users doesn't learn how to game the system.

    How do we reconcile those two things? There is no easy answer unfortunately.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  223. icon
    techflaws (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:44am

    Re: Re:

    Disney owns 90% of the media and cable networks. How do I know?
    Because I worked for them for a short period of time and this was
    their bragging point during orientation, no sh*t.

    It must be true then!

    Have you already stashed up on weapons? Cause "they" are coming for those next, you know!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  224. icon
    techflaws (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:45am

    Re: Re:

    or went to the school of dumbasses who will believe anything and
    anything

    The projection is strong in this one.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  225. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:46am

    Re: Re:

    [Projects facts not in evidence]

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  226. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Tech circle

    Maybe you need to be enlightened just a bit before speaking.
    comprehesion helps alot. Im sorry your having difficulty.

    [Projects facts not in evidence]

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  227. icon
    techflaws (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:49am

    Re: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship-WRONG,WRONG, & WR

    I was on the grounds in the capitol on the 6th from 6 am -until
    after curfew was in place and national guard was dispatched.

    Pics or it didn't happen.

    not true at all!

    You're right. There was no election fraud. Trump lost fair and square. It gives me chuckles every time that with his abysmal track record for the last years he actually thinks he could have only won.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  228. icon
    techflaws (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:50am

    Re:

    When?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  229. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: "assert facts not inreality"

    False framing must be a profession you went to shool for.

    [Projects facts not in evidence]

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  230. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:58am

    Re:

    Personally I just love that argument, as not only is it completely full of shit and yet another example of those cowards refusing to own their own actions but it means that not just Trump but everyone is trashing the insurrectionists, even those they thought were on their side.

    They stormed the capitol and attempted to 'stop the steal' and all they got was thrown under every bus in the country when it failed, who ever could have expected that a cult headed by someone well known for betraying those around him the second they become a liability would betray those that engaged in insurrection for him when it failed?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  231. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 10:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'll repeat something I said in another comment, which is that you can call a private platform kicking someone off their property censorship rather than moderation/discretion, but in so doing you're weakening the word to the point that it loses any impact. When censorship can range from the government telling everyone 'that person is not allowed to speak, period' and a private business deciding that they'd rather not host a particular person's speech to say 'they've been censored' rather looses any kick.

    Can they still speak, or have they just been told to leave a particular building(digital or otherwise) and can speak just fine elsewhere? Those are two very different things, so by watering down the term to include both you've essentially made the claim of censorship useless at describing what took place, and you might as well just toss it out entirely and stick with a more lengthy explanation of what happened, which is what you'll have to do every time at that point since the word 'censorship' has been made effectively meaningless.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  232. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 10:29am

    Re:

    who?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  233. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 10:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Of course it's censorship, but it is legal censorshi

    "I think what really gets the republicans upset is that Twitter only cares about "safety" or "inciting" when there's a chance to mute or suspend a republican."

    That behavior might even be expected from a known narcissist.
    Also, with most of the incitement coming from Trump supporters and Trump himself, what would one expect from twitter?

    It's sorta like watching one of those jackass type videos where someone's brilliant idea does not work out for various multiple reasons. While cringing, I wonder what did they think was going to happen.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  234. icon
    MindParadox (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 10:42am

    Not censorship

    I like to think of Twitter as a Christian Bakery,

    And Trump as a Gay Wedding Cake!

    LOL

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  235. icon
    Bloof (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 10:54am

    Jimmy Dore and Tulsi Gabbart

    So politically you side with a far left comedian who aspires to being the Bernie or bust version of Alex Jones that believes that the progressives aren't progressive at all if they don't screech 100% of the time like teapartiers, and a pro war, pro corporation borderline republican who's spent her career fighting against LGBQT+ rights and is doing the 'The left is all to blame for the far right's actions!' media tour in the hopes of getting a fox news gig.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  236. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 11:18am

    Re: Re:

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  237. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 11:19am

    Wednesday’s mob assault on Capitol Hill was shocking and brazen: Hundreds of MAGA-hat-wearing rioters broke into the seat of American democracy. They stormed the halls, looting property and assaulting law enforcers, all in service of an absurd political demand: reversing the outcome of an election.

    Now where had I witnessed such scenes before? The answer: in blue-governed cities in my native Pacific Northwest throughout last summer and into the fall and winter.

    The right-wing political violence was met with universal rebuke from politicians of both parties and the media. But many of those who are loudest in condemning the Capitol Hill riot went radio-silent when rioters destroyed and looted in the name of Black Lives Matter.

    Last May, thousands of rioters in Minneapolis brought the city to its knees after the police-involved death of George Floyd. Over three days, rioters burned down a police station, looted hundreds of businesses and burned entire neighborhoods to the ground. Mass street violence also broke out in Washington, DC, New York City, Los Angeles, Seattle and dozens of other cities; at least two dozen died in the course of the riots.

    Vice President-elect Kamala Harris encouraged her millions of Twitter followers to donate to a Minnesota crowd-funding effort that paid bail for accused rioters. So, too, did more than a dozen Joe Biden campaign staffers. The Minnesota Freedom Fund raked in more than $35 million in donations with their help.

    In Portland, Ore., where I’m from, masked extremists from both BLM and Antifa smashed their way into the Multnomah County Justice Center on May 29. The building houses the Sheriff’s Office, a police station and jail. Rioters ransacked the ground floor, hoping to break into the jail to free prisoners. When that failed, they started fires; city and county staff fled for their lives.

    But the rioters were just getting started.

    SEE ALSO

    The anti-cop hypocrisy of Portland’s pols
    For the next four months, BLM-Antifa rioted every night in Portland, setting fire to streets and buildings and assaulting responding officers with concrete and mortar explosives. In July, they tried to storm into a federal courthouse downtown. Night after night, hundreds and then thousands of rioters brought in electric tools, rope and explosives to breach the barrier erected to protect the building.

    More than 277 injuries of officers were reported by the Department of Homeland Security in Portland alone. Hundreds of injuries were reported by other police departments in different cities.

    Local politicians at the time condemned law enforcement and lionized the criminals. Portland city councilwoman Jo Ann Hardesty spread a conspiracy theory that police were engaging in false-flag arson attacks to frame left-wing protesters. Mayor Ted Wheeler told President Trump in a news conference to take his “troops” and leave. Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden called the officers an “occupying army.” Oregon Gov. Kate Brown described them as “secret police abducting people in unmarked vehicles.”

    The media were no better.

    In August, NPR gave an unchallenged platform to Vicky Osterweil to promote her book “In Defense of Looting.” During the interview, the author argued that rioting and looting were legitimate acts of protest. Both local and national media rigidly only referred to the far-left rioters as “protesters.” The Associated Press, which sets guidelines for journalists, amended its stylebook to discourage use of the word “riot,” given protesters’ “underlying grievances.”

    Hours after pro-Trump rioters stormed the Capitol, Antifa tried to break into the Multnomah County Courthouse in downtown Portland. A mob of black-clad Antifa militants proceeded to smash businesses and public buildings using hammers. On one wall, they spray-painted an Antifa logo and the warning, “The state can no longer suppress us.”

    Protesters then confronted Mayor Wheeler at a restaurant and hit him. But by morning, no national media had reported on the anti-government violence in Portland — the third riot in the city since New Year’s Eve.

    The upshot should be clear: The deadly storming of the Capitol building is the logical outcome of norms set by the left in 2020. By winking at and apologizing for Antifa, liberal elites telegraphed that political grievances ought to be resolved through violence.

    Those showing righteous indignation now only months or weeks ago argued that the riots were “mostly peaceful” and that vandalism and looting don’t count as violence.

    That’s the problem with political irresponsibility: Once the law grants quasi-authorization to hitherto-proscribed conduct, there’s no telling how events might spiral.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  238. identicon
    Totally Verifiable Anonymous Source, 9 Jan 2021 @ 11:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship-WRONG,WRO

    ^ This guy has purple skin and two noses and wears a shirt that says "I'm a big ol' liar" and also he smells bad. How do I know? I was there!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  239. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 11:32am

    Re:

    (>_>)

    Marginalized groups holding rallies and marches against brutal state violence, occasionally resulting in property destruction after they are met with overwhelming police force.

    (<_<)

    A bunch of lunatic fascist toadies haphazardly forcing their way into the Capitol on behalf of an odious wannabe dictator, in vague protest of a procedural formality, with some carrying equipment signaling a clear intent to kidnap and kill people, and others accidentally tazing themselves to death, facing a police response mostly ranging from apathy to complicity.

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  240. icon
    crade (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 11:45am

    Re: Re:

    Not control most discussion on the internet.. just, you know, google and twitter should maybe control google and twitter..

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  241. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 11:45am

    Three things.

    1. A cake can’t be gay.

    2. Masterpiece Cakeshop was never forced to bake a cake for a gay couple.

    3. Masterpiece lost its case on the merits at every stage but SCOTUS (where it won the case on technical grounds).

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  242. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 11:49am

    Twitter only cares about "safety" or "inciting" when there's a chance to mute or suspend a republican

    Can you name any notable Democrat that has attempted to incite a riot through Twitter?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  243. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 11:57am

    private businesses aren't public

    You made a mistake here. Do you want to know what it is?

    It’s not in the sentence itself. In and of itself, that is true; a private business isn’t public(-facing). Your mistake is in conflating “private” with “privately-owned”.

    Twitter is a privately owned public-facing business. That it serves the general public doesn’t strip it of any rights. It has the same right to kick out troublemakers as does a Walmart. Thinking otherwise is a mistake.

    freedom of speech is protected and when it is made public, censoring the content when you are a political leader amounts to information warfare

    That might mean something in this conversation if Twitter admins were political leaders.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  244. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 12:01pm

    You're really not an American if you don't stand for what is right.

    Americans don’t stop being Americans because they’re insurrectionist assholes. Hell, the United States welcomed back the gotdamn Confederacy after the War to Preserve Slavery. What makes the assholes who carried the Stars’n’Bars back then any better than the assholes who carried the Stars’n’Bars into the Capitol (for the first time!) this past Wednesday?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  245. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 12:06pm

    There's video evidence of these accounts so I know this is true.

    Video of people saying “it was Antifa” doesn’t make their claims true. And of the people already arrested for their role in Wednesday’s riot, most of them (if not all of them) had made their beliefs known via social media well before then. To wit: The woman who was shot and killed inside the Capitol had long been a fervent pro-Trump conservative.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  246. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 12:09pm

    Re:

    "Now where had I witnessed such scenes before? The answer: in blue-governed cities in my native Pacific Northwest throughout last summer and into the fall and winter."

    False Equivalence.

    Of these two cases you cite, in which one are there people screaming Hang the VP? In which case were there people who sought to hold political representatives hostage?

    Take your bullshit down the hall.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  247. identicon
    Sejanoz, 9 Jan 2021 @ 12:27pm

    Jonathan Pie said it better than I ever could.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  248. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 12:35pm

    How many racists do you think are out there....?

    By last count, at least 73 million in the US.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  249. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 12:41pm

    "Only hate filled monsters."

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  250. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 12:51pm

    "a lack of imagination"

    Indulge my lack of imagination, then, what specific speech are you angry at social media for censoring?

    I'm not as well versed at LGBT in Iran as I am dissidents behind the Great Firewall of China, whose blogs I encounter, as well as news of their arrest.

    Curiously they're telling a truth suppressed by the government.

    Twitter is censoring Trump based on lies confirmed by facts to the contrary from multiple sources (having been thoroughly examined by dozens of judges in dozens of courts).

    I'm quite aware of what censorship looks like. When books in public libraries and school curricula are challenged, when people are imprisoned for releasing information embarrassing to the administration, when media is rated outside what will be offered by resellers. Heck, when Apple decides that a book or game is outside its acceptable parameters (the iOS environment being an actual walled garden)

    Go on. Present your case. I am so far unimpressed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  251. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous, 9 Jan 2021 @ 12:53pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    More false framing. Yes, I agree in rerospect, freemarket, capitolism, etc, etc. But this isn't in the same context and you know it and construing my statements to fit your narrative.

    Look, I understand Trump should have wised up and left the platforms he agreed to the terms and conditions of as president. He could have appointed someone within his administration to create such a platform, but he then would be characterized as a "king", dictator, etc, had he been with all the power to such a platform. I imagine his his mind he wanted to be viewed as an American patriot and a choice of the American people he could communicate with and to easily. But Twitter, Facebook etc, were getting massive funding and advertising revenue through his opponents and they chose to hire far left authoritarians to censor anyone who was in their political opposition, so yes this was information warfare.

    Was what happened fair, in my eyes, no, he had his voice in the power of people who hated him, so why not abuse your power as a moderator and shut him up, CEO's the platforms were OK with it, so why not do it when you have the advantage to dish insult to the president. I have no idea why he didn't just go elsewhere, it was a dumb move on his behalf and still is.

    In no way do I think restricting free trade and business dealings is entirely ethical, but when it becomes politically motivated, it's no longer business protected by law, when the political opponent is the one dictating what the president of the country can have a voice to the people or not, that's not just censorship, it's information warfare, as I said before. And I don't exactly know what can be done about this problem because it could go both ways and it's unethical either way.

    Yes you were wrong but you were right just a little of your framing when you stated, corporations are free to conduct business as they choose.

    Should the government take over their business when they become a nation security threat to the president while they frame the opposite is true against their president?

    When there is a political standoff with the injured party as the president, while the instigator a low-level moderator, CEO, and pro-democrat advertiser overlords dictating to the platform they sponsor, that if they just do what they want them to, then they'll get more revenue for censoring the president, there's a problem.

    Now the left is doing a cleansing of any and all conservatives. Including the #walk-away movement, videos clips of evidence proving election tampering, silencing sources the provide testimonials by data scientists stating their investigations in PA, and in Georgia found that in-real time election results were being flipped, and they were independent credentialed investigators.

    The left wants to sweep under the rug any and all legitimate ongoing investigations of the Biden family and the real election results from data scientists. They want you to be unable to be informed by anyone else but whom they choose you to be informed by. They want to be your parent overlords and don't want you to have a choice. This is your fascism, and it's not coming from Trump.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  252. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:00pm

    Libertarian

    Go onto 4Chan/b and take a look at some of the freest speech around. If you like you can participate.

    They moderate for very few things. Commercial spam mostly. Also child porn. I think some categories (Furry porn, MLP -- porn or otherwise) are restricted to hours and zones.

    And yet, they too have to moderate.

    There are some places that exist that are very near free-speech zones, and they illustrate why more popular platforms moderate.

    But people like you still have a platform.

    Heck, 4Chan/b was a rallying center for Trump's base in 2016. Some still like him. More are critical than before.

    Enjoy!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  253. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:05pm

    Pipe bombs

    A single poorly made unworkable Molotov Cocktail and (I think) a gun replica was enough to cause vast pearl clutching and mass condemnation of the 2014 protests of the shooting of Michael Brown

    But pipe bombs in the US Capitol left by violent white insurgents are somehow no big thing.

    Double standards.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  254. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:09pm

    "delusional"

    You mean cats and porn are no longer the (vast) majority of the web?

    Do you have a source for this assessment? Or is this #NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  255. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous, 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:11pm

    Re:

    I was there, you weren't. But I guess you wanna tell me what I witnessed that you know nothing about. That way you can shove your narrative of anti-Trumpism on me and portray me as making things up. I get it, That's your game. You win, I don't know anything, you know it all, when you weren't even there. Got it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  256. identicon
    DocGerbil100, 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:15pm

    Well, now. As much as most of us would prefer not to have seen that crude attempt at a coup, the subsequent communications coming from the various Trump-supporting camps are terribly enlightening.

    Few things illuminate people as well as the fictions and lies they create when under real pressure. In this case, it seems like they've mostly all fallen back to the default behaviour of psychopaths and trolls everywhere:

    • It never happened;
    • If it did happen, it didn't happen that way;
    • If it did happen that way, someone else did it;
    • If it wasn't someone else, you made us do it;
    • If you didn't make us do it, you did it first;
    • We're all the same really, why can't we all just get along?

    None of this nonsense from the right is going to fly. It's just not convincing at all.

    In particular, false flag operations appeal to the far right precisely because so many of them are psychopaths, people with reduced empathy, who enjoy gaslighting and manipulating others -- and who are far less upset by the idea of betraying their supposed principles and hurting their own side, in order to frame the other guy.

    The rest of us feel some measure of cognitive dissonance just thinking about doing something like that -- the far left, especially so, given that it's such a profound antithesis of what they stand for.

    The last four years have been very regrettable, but thankfully, the reign of idiocy is at last coming to it's end. They've already thrown away congress and the presidency and now, with this fiasco, they've shown the world their true colours, giving away exactly who they are and how they think.

    We know their souls. Basically, they're crap.
    It's time for them to go. :)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  257. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:15pm

    Antifa false flaggers

    Is this about the Corvo / Soviet tattoo?

    It's too bad the alleged Antifa false-flaggers didn't bother to false flag their faces. Twitter detectives have already doxed the lot and they're getting arrested, much the way the Boogaloos who burned down Minneapolis police precincts were arrested by the FBI.

    I think we'll be aware of their allegiances soon enough.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  258. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:20pm

    Not man enough to own up...

    I don't think it's a masculinity thing, but processing that

    So often I've heard:
    Real Christians wouldn't...
    Real Americans wouldn't...
    Real Republicans wouldn't...

    In fact, oh yes, they totally would.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  259. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:32pm

    "1000 percent censorship"

    Another shining example of the kind of insightful argument we can expect from Trump-supporters.

    Perhaps you should stay off the internet until you come to your senses.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  260. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:36pm

    Re: Re: The VIP rule makes sense

    Are you sure you comprehended the paragraph you responded to?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  261. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:42pm

    BLM/Antifa/Biden -- CNN, CNBC, NBC, MSNBC

    Wow! You know all the words to the song!

    🎺🎵Build the wall!🎶🎵

    🎶Lock her up!🎵

    🎵🎶No Collusion!🎵

    All the hits. Want to call us snowflakes?🎶

    📯

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  262. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:48pm

    Hypocrisy

    I switched to double standard only to find they just don't care for rule of law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  263. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:53pm

    "Not narrow at all"

    That's not explaining yourself.

    But your willingness to dismiss the US as even trying to be a democracy does inform me of your position.

    Perhaps you think might should be the deciding factor that determines who rules. It's preferred by big guys and guys who can afford to hire armies.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  264. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 1:58pm

    Analogies

    A better analogy would be to think of Twitter as a highway-side billboard company.

    And Trump as a pharmaceutical company selling bleach injections to cure COVID-19.

    One injection and never worry about 'Rona again!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  265. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:09pm

    Of course you are for it. You are a disgrace to anything you ever stood for.

    you cheerlead censorship on a website made to protest censorship, simply because you don't like the guy being targetted.

    Congratulations you are a fascist. You support censorship and justify it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  266. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:13pm

    Re: To all conservatives whining censorship:

    One would hope on a tech website people would grasp the difference between claiming to be a publisher and having the right to censor, and claiming to be a platform where you cannot be held liable for what people say on your website.

    Claiming to be both a platform and a publisher is illegal and conflicts with 2 sets of laws.

    As long as twitter claims they are a platform they can't be a publisher.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  267. icon
    Tanner Andrews (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:17pm

    Re: Re:

    And if you actually think that was an attempt to subvert democracy guess you never seen an actually coup

    I think I have seen one. Or video of it, actually, since I was down here in the City while it was happening up there.

    Let's see: a fading politician and a melted lawyer stirred up a crowd to ``march down Pennsylvania'' [Ave] and stop the constitutionally required function of canvassing the electoral votes. Said crowd, so stirred, then commenced to do that thing. They broke into the seat of government, tore down the flag on that building and replaced it with their own, and by force effectively ousted the Senators and Representatives who were there to carry out the function of government.

    Let's see. Ah, here it is: ``Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort''. I knew I had that around somewhere. Levying war is, roughly, assembling a body of people to effect some object by force, generally against some government. So, for instance, if you stormed the a government capital, that would probably count.

    It is really hard to see how forcibly replacing the flag on the Capitol, and forcibly displacing the folks inside, can be viewed other than as levying war against the United States.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  268. identicon
    TFG, 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:22pm

    Re:

    Point 1: "Gay Wedding Cake" is read as 'gay wedding' cake. AKA, a cake for a gay wedding.

    Point 2: Exactly. Thus, the irony of those who would hoot and holler in support of Masterpiece Cakeshop now hooting and hollering when Twitter kicks them off.

    Point 3: Which I think gives it even more irony. They will hoot and holler about something that legally had basically no merit: for Masterpiece Cakeshop, because it harmed those they hated. Against Twitter, because it's a restriction on their own hatred.

    It's brought up as a demonstration of the sheer blind hypocrisy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  269. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:22pm

    Re: How many racists do you think are out there....?

    LOL. Your a fucking toon. Not all supporters of Trump are racists... but now we have a documented liar and intellectual insecure President elect. Let's see if he's held to the same standard.... And before you toss out the old "Sources Required", do a bit of research. Biden has lied so many times, and it's so well documented, you'd have to be fucking willfully dishonest to dispute it.

    Out with the Racist, and In with the pathological liar... are we really better off?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  270. identicon
    TFG, 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:24pm

    Re:

    Okay, fascist.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  271. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:24pm

    Re: Re:

    On the other hand, if I tweeted that I wasn't going to attend the inauguration, that wouldn't get my Twitter account banned on an incitement theory. His was. That's weak even as a "last straw".

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  272. identicon
    TFG, 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:25pm

    Re: Re: How many racists do you think are out there....?

    I have done my research. I would like to see that you have done yours.

    So. Sources required.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  273. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:31pm

    Re:

    that publisher can publish their uncensored game on Steam.

    Funny how that particular version is "uncensored" when you claim that it was never censored at all. Maybe your definition of "censored" is not the same one that the rest of us are using, no matter how many times you insist that you are right.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  274. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:50pm

    Re: Re: To all conservatives whining censorship:

    Read and understand this article otherwise you are making a comment based on wishful thinking, and which has no relevance to the real world.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  275. identicon
    Rocky, 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:59pm

    Re: Re: To all conservatives whining censorship:

    One would hope on a tech website people would grasp the difference between claiming to be a publisher and having the right to censor, and claiming to be a platform where you cannot be held liable for what people say on your website.

    One would hope that you would grasp the difference between a social media platform and a publisher. Also, should social media platforms be liable for what people say on it?

    Claiming to be both a platform and a publisher is illegal and conflicts with 2 sets of laws.

    And which laws would that be?

    As long as twitter claims they are a platform they can't be a publisher.

    Yes they can. They can publish their own speech, they can comment on others peoples speech, while at the same time being a social platform for others, because otherwise they have lost their 1A rights.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  276. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 2:59pm

    Re: Re: How many racists do you think are out there....?

    but now we have a documented liar and intellectual insecure President elect.

    Small correction required, you description applied much more to the outgoing president whose inability to accept defeat and lies about a stolen election led directly to an invasion of the Capitol.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  277. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're making vague appeals to the "nature" of the Internet while ignoring network effects dominating social media.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  278. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:06pm

    And unfortunately, Mitch is being his usual obstructionist self and refusing to bring the Senate back into session for the trial part of the impeachment until after Trump's already out. At least he'll be out of the way soon.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  279. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:07pm

    The plot thickens!

    Guy Hornhat has been arrested. He is Jake Angeli aka Arizona man, Jacob Anthony Chansley charged (at the moment) [with violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds. (Source: AP). Chansley's in-costume persona is well known at Pro-Trump protests and public gatherings.

    Does anyone want to argue that he's really an Antifa provocateur? (Damn, Antifa is so good at this!)

    Then there's Lectern Man, the guy who made off with Nancy Pelosi's podium. He is Adam Johnson of Parrish, Florida, meaning he's Florida Man in disguise. Also, father of five. He too concealed his secret Antifa allegances with a social media history of anti-BLM sentiments. He too has been arrested (on charges of theft, at least).

    So raise your hand if you think that was a Russian water tentacle.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  280. identicon
    Rocky, 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:14pm

    Re: Re:

    Context matters, and the term uncensored in the context of games means it will contain sex, violence, blood, gore and other things that isn't appropriate for all audiences.

    Now, if you actually look up the etymology for the term uncensored in the context of games you will quickly find that games was actually censored by the government which was found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

    These days, the term means that a game is intended for a mature audience (see ESRB ratings for example).

    In short, you are wrong because you couldn't be bothered to understand the context.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  281. identicon
    Rocky, 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:16pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Ah, but you don't understand! It was just a guided tour that got out of hand!

    /s

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  282. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:25pm

    Re: Re: To all conservatives whining censorship:

    Newsflash:

    The tech website absolutely knows the subject.

    You, on the other hand... not so much.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  283. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    How is it even possible for Paul to "ignore" the deranged hallucinations of another person?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  284. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:28pm

    Re:

    [Project facts not in evidence]

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  285. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:28pm

    Re: Re: How many racists do you think are out there....?

    [Asserts facts in direct opposition to reality]

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  286. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This is what passes for discourse here?

    You're entitled to your own opinions but you're not entitled to your own facts.

    And the insults? Grow up.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  287. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:44pm

    "Not all supporters of Trump are racists"

    Yeah, I [gave them the benefit of doubt once]
    (https://strangenewwords.wordpress.com/2018/09/17/boaty-mcboatface/). I have since been corrected by observations from multiple sources.

    I have a hypothesis that the Trump GOP hierarchy is a pyramid of chumps with each tier playing confidence games on their subordinates. While my evidence so far is only anecdotal, so far I've not yet seen a counterexample.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  288. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:45pm

    Ugh.

    Stupid markup errors.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  289. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 3:54pm

    Re:

    And unfortunately, Mitch is being his usual obstructionist self....

    Ignorant bigot.

    It would require unanimous consent to bring the Senate back in session. Mitch, I am sure, knows some senator(s) who would not consent. You and I can't know whom that might be, unless they make an announcement.

    If I had to bet, I'd bet at least one of the seven elector-objector-senators would object here also. (If I had to bet, I'd bet up to 6 matchsticks and a toothpick.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  290. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 4:00pm

    "closet fascist"

    Yeah, I don't think I made the argument you think I made.

    VIPs talking to each other and relaying important information to the people: good.

    VIPs lying on mass media and making contrafactual claims to incite loyalists to violence and subversive action: bad.

    Does that help?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  291. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 4:01pm

    Re: Not man enough to own up...

    The problem with that is that there are many people who do try to honestly live by the actual tenets of the faith - grace, compassion, mercy, love, all the things Jesus actually taught - instead of using it as an excuse to project their own hate, yet people like you refuse to see the difference and acknowledge they exist. If you don't want your beliefs smeared with a wide brush, don't do it to others. Acknowledge that not everyone is the same. Recognize that your anti-cross bias blinds you to the fact that many of us utterly abhor what's too often done in the name of the faith we have, but since we're not the insane wackos Trump and his ilk are, we don't make headlines and so we don't get noticed as often. Yet people like you lump us in with them simply because you think it's okay to judge and dismiss every other belief system except yours. Intolerance can come from the other side, too, you know.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  292. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 4:14pm

    A Christian who voted for Trump might not be a bigot. But Trump being one wasn’t a dealbreaker for them. That alone says enough.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  293. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 4:18pm

    Not all supporters of Trump are racists

    But his racism wasn’t a deal breaker for them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  294. icon
    AC Unknown (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 4:28pm

    Obligatory XKCD comic

    This calls for a most well-known XKCD comic:
    https://xkcd.com/1357/

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  295. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 4:38pm

    True Christians

    Yeah, I get my policy from the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, who regards as Christian anyone who self-identifies as one.

    And this is necessary because according to the Catholics, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus or No salvation outside the [Roman Catholic] Church. (They might give the orthodox churches a pass. The same goes for the Southern Baptist Convention, which is the largest denomination in the US. So one way or another there are a whole bunch of Americans who think you are not true Christian, whereas I do.

    (The Universalists believe everyone gets salvation, Christian or otherwise, which I respect. You may think they are false, but they don't think the same of you.)

    But we saw both in 2016 and 2020 that 80% of White Protestant Evangelicals and 80% of Catholics voted for the irreligious guy who lies about his convictions, who is a known adulterer and a known racketeer (by orders of magnitude compared to the other candidate). So no, I don't give Christians the benefit of doubt that I might have a few years go. They gladly discard creed for pragmatism when it suits them, and we now have demonstrable evidence that religion does not convey moral fiber at all.

    Perhaps we should do right not because it's a religious edict but because there's rational cause to do it that way.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  296. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 5:14pm

    More plot(ters)

    Deskman (the guy with his feet on Pelosi's desk) is Richard Barnett from Arkansas, and did the FBI the courtesy of turning himself in. He's also cultivated a social media presence as a staunch Trump supporter and gun rights advocate, and believes face masks (to prevent the spread of COVID-19) is the precursor to forehead chips (to track our location and thoughts? I'm not sure why in the forehead.)

    Mason-Jar was arrested in the Capitol and was identified as Falkville, Alabama man, Lonnie Coffman. Eleven Molotov-Cocktail-style bombs made of mason jars filled with homemade napalm were later found in his truck nearby. He had an (unlicensed? improperly licensed?) handgun on his person when he was arrested. An additional handgun and an M4 Carbine assault rifle were also found in his vehicle. Conversations with police revealed he knew about the bombs placed within the Capitol building.

    Death-Text is Georgia man Cleveland Meredith Jr. who has a history of sending SMS texts threatening physical harm to House Speaker Pelosi. I'm not sure if this means he has a number where Pelosi receives texts or he's texting someone else saying I totally want to hurt that Nancy woman. Meredith's social media habits show that he likes Trump, QAnon claims and sharing fringe hypotheses about the less-wholesome activities of Democrats and libs. Or that's what Antifa wants you to think.

    Other names arrested include: Mark Leffingwell; Christopher Alberts, of Maryland; Joshua Pruitt; Matthew Council, of Florida; Cindy Fitchett, of Virginia; Michael Curzio, of Florida; Douglas Sweet, of Florida; Bradley Ruskelas, of Illinois; Terry Brown, of Pennsylvania; Thomas Gallagher. I haven't researched them yet. Are any of these names familiar to my fellow Antifa comrades?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  297. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 5:21pm

    Antifa special-forces shadow queers behind every tree!

    I should direct you up here. Maybe you know some of these people.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  298. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous, 9 Jan 2021 @ 5:24pm

    Re: Re: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship-WRONG,WRONG,

    You what, it's sh*t commenters such as yourself that really makes Techdirt not really worth reading from.

    I have a mind of my own and I made a decision to go to the march and my account is my own in support to stop Biden from being elected.

    I wouldn't have had there not been testimony from a reputable data scientist that published their findings that votes were switched in real-time giving votes from Trump to Biden.

    Biden is a known warmonger and his allies. It was a no brainer to show up, and i don't regret meeting decent hard-working patriotic people from all walks of life in support of stopping one of the most corrupt politicians ever, who's about screw America good, thanks to supporters like you.

    I didn't vote for Trump. Can't call me anything other than a patriot to protect the country from more tyranny caused by corrupt democrats. I certainly don't give a pass to Trump or Republicans either but Trump was the better choice, by far. You're so screwed with Biden and Democrats in office.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  299. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 5:40pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You know what's funny about you big brain players and how everyone can tell you're a desperate Trump toady?

    It's because any time there's a huge Trump fuckup and consequences happen, your first responses are always some variation on "fuck the tech industry" or "but her emails". It's never "Trump misbehaved". Then after your arguments have been proven to be full of shit it becomes "actually I never liked the guy and didn't vote for him". Yet you'll post here on a site that gets rubbished for being "Liberal", carrying so much of Trump's water I'm genuinely surprised you haven't herniated your own spine.

    Look, your side lost, you're angry, everyone gets it. The least you can do to salvage yourself is to stop pretending this anger is about any kind of righteous indignance.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  300. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 5:43pm

    Re:

    Crickets!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  301. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 5:43pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    When did the government actually censor games? As far as I know, the closest they came was attempting to require ID to buy things that were rated for adults.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  302. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous, 9 Jan 2021 @ 5:45pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    With Democrats in control of both the house and senate, already having screwed America to the point they'll have no choice but to create a surveillance police state and take away your 1st, and 2nd amendment rights to such a degree, nobody will ever be able to through revolution take back the country.

    Never again will anyone be able to enjoy these freedoms once they get their way.

    The illusion of choice is what's taking place under the democrat rule. You don't have a choice to challenge the validity of election results, you don't have a choice on who your president is, Democrats already chose the candidate for you. The internet is next and VPNs will be outlawed. You'll never be able to torrent or stream a pirated film. You'll be under surveillance and all thanks to Democrats and supports of their party like you.

    There are 6 communication companies that own 90% of the media. Disney has a stake in them all. So yes, that validates this claim they themselves made. https://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6?r=US& amp;IR=T

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  303. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 5:58pm

    Re:

    But censorship requires a violation of civil rights.

    It does not.

    Let's say Twitter left all of Trump's tweets up, and a court decided that one of his tweets was libelous and issued an injunction saying it had to come down. So now it's the actual government deleting Trump's tweet. Are you saying this wouldn't be censorship, even though you have the full force of the government forcing it to come down? Or are you taking the position that any restrictions on speech, even rather uncontroversial and legal ones, are a violation of civil rights?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  304. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 6:08pm

    Not a fan of what Trump has done at all, but I think it is a dangerous path to start letting companies or any group decide what can be said on massively influential platforms. Sometimes sensational things need to be said! For instance, what if there was an issue with the voting? Or some other corruption that needs to be exposed? You can not shut it down because some people do not want to talk about the possibility! We have to be able to discuss difficult things. If not, then who gets to decide where the line is? Even then if you can decide on the line how to you make sure the line does not drift over time? Journalists of all people should know the danger of censorship. The last thing we need is a Ministry of Truth! There is always someone out there that will be offended by something. We need to realize how dangerous it is letting any group decide what is acceptable to say. Even if it is done fairly and without bias, over time, no one will be able to say anything except for the most bland small talk. The only time compromising free speech is justified, is like the quote says, when "preserving democracy is, by definition, even higher on the priority stack", where there is immediate and provable harm. People have the right to be free from harm and preserve democracy, but they do not have the right to shut down views they do not agree with or find offensive.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  305. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 6:12pm

    Re: True Christians

    But we saw both in 2016 and 2020 that 80% of White Protestant Evangelicals and 80% of Catholics voted for...

    Where the heck are you getting your numbers? 80% of Catholics? That's not even close. Catholics are not white Evangelicals when it comes to politics.

    "Exit polling done for NBC News (among voters who have completed voting or reached by telephone), showed that among Catholics, 51 per cent voted for Biden, compared to 47 per cent for Trump."

    Pretty close to the nationwide numbers. Next time, double check your sources before you write off a huge segment of the population, would you?

    https://nationalpost.com/news/world/who-won-the-christian-vote-in-the-2020-u-s-election-its-com plicated

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  306. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 6:14pm

    There are reports on conservative websites that a lot of conservative voices are being censored.

    Could this bring another attempt to remove Section 230 in the future?

    I fear it might, though not likely for at least two years, since the Dems will control both houses of Congress, but a red wave in 2022, if it happens, could bring another attempt to revoke Section 230, because conservatives are hopping mad right now.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  307. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 6:17pm

    Re:

    Wrong!

    US state law and federal and many other countries assume that if you can read the posting in their jurisdiction then their law applies.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  308. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 6:20pm

    Re:

    But on the other hand, those companies have every right to decide what kind of speech they want to allow on their company's website.

    Twitter has every right to shut down the President's account. They should have that right. But they shouldn't actually do it; not with a flimsy excuse like claiming the President saying he won't be at the inauguration is incitement.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  309. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous, 9 Jan 2021 @ 6:22pm

    Re: Re: Cursing mothers

    Do you mean patriots? Because that's who you are talking about and certainly you are NO PATRIOT. Just some sh*t talking troll.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  310. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    anonymous, 9 Jan 2021 @ 6:37pm

    Re:

    No, but it is a form of warfare. Censoring the president of the USA is a big deal when the rest of the world says, haha. I suppose the insult to injury for it to happen over and again would to any non-political famous person rationally think, just get on another platform. Why he never did, I'm not sure. I hadn't heard of parler until this year. Perhaps the lack of alternatives was rational. Perhaps it was because he wanted to appear like he was a human being and could communicate to his citizens freely and the world and the convenience to him was why he stayed. In any case, those that wanted to silence him did at their whim because they simply didn't like him.

    Big Tech doesn't feel the threat of section 230 being revoked so Democrat supporters of the platforms he was on were clearly eager to censor/remove him thereafter Biden was officially delcared the nominee.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  311. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous., 9 Jan 2021 @ 6:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "assert facts not inreality&quo

    NO, sry, that is false, there has already been identified individuals who were from BLM identified who were there engaging in violence and were inside the capitol building.

    Nobody there supporting Trump were Terrorist, but there were Angry people once that innocent unarmed girl was shot in the head point blank, that pissed a lot of Trump supporters inside off.

    Terrorist are armed with guns and Trump supporters were with American flags. These weren't ALL trump supporters as you say either, many were patriots. ALL were there to make their voices known they did not want a BIDEN president.

    No you're choice of words are you being a complete unpatriotic piece of SH*T. And that's who you are as a person, you're no patriot. There were no terrorist there. Terrorist strap bombs to their chests, bear guns, take hostages of women and children, rape them, murder them and blow buildings/people/and themselves up.

    The Americans there were peacful, though many were angry, and they were armed with American Flags. So what if they were in the capitol building wherever they were. They didn't have the intention to kill anyone or break into the capitol, they were let inside. Your instigator/agitators breaking into the building windows have yet to be identified and were stopped by Trump supporters and patriots at the capitol building, that's not what terrorist or facist do. They aren't patriotic, and that's not what facist do either.

    Your a MORON adolecent mind controlled from the tit of your favorite television PROGRAMMING.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  312. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 6:55pm

    Re: Re:

    It seems that Trumps continuing claims of election fraud was the reason it was shut down. Such claims can be considered incitement to further violence, especially since they were used for a invasion of the Capitol.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  313. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 7:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Godsdamn, you kool-aid drinkers are dumb.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  314. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous, 9 Jan 2021 @ 7:31pm

    Re:

    Just because patriots stayed and protest and allowed through the gates of the capitol building and let inside only for an unarmed Trump supporter to be shot in the head would cause a conflict with anyone that saw that during a protest. The weaponized instigators were stopped by the very group you are claiming were there as terrorists/rioters and turned them in. The police/National guard were assisted by the Trump supporters of those who were attacking police. There's a difference between de-escalation and prevention of violence and peaceful demonstration, outside the capitol and inside. I'm not saying confrontation did not happen with Trump supporters but the main problem was shooting an unarmed woman point-blank in the head, which stirred up plenty of emotions from those inside the building.

    I was there with a friend of mine who is press. I saw what was going on. I saw nothing wrong with it under the circumstances, people were serious, they didn't want Biden.

    I didn't want Trump, but I'd want Trump over Biden any day of the week. That doesn't make me or anyone there facist or terrorists just because you weren't there and would like to think that so you'll spin it that way because you're a lonely piece of garbage who has nothing better to do than make adolecent sh*t Posts.

    Come years end, Biden is going to be really hated, and each year exponentially so. In addition to the squad and Democrat so-called progressives who screwed America on each Covid relief bill to enrich themselves, their special interests, and overseas non-essential/ethical programs.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  315. identicon
    Rocky, 9 Jan 2021 @ 7:34pm

    Re: Re:

    Imagine for a moment that the date is January 8th, 1905. President Roosevelt tells the newspapers that he wants them to publish an opinion piece he has written but they refuse. Is that censorship?

    In regards to Trumps use of Twitter, he's technologically illiterate and those who ran his account in the beginning showed him how the app worked since he was very skeptical about it. When he realized how easy it was to use and most importantly, how easy it was to get some kind of validation for what he posted he couldn't stop using it. It was never about him wanting to appear like he was a human being, it was all about stroking his ego.

    Anyway, no one is entitled the use of someone else's private property. If Trump so desperately want to communicate with people, it so happens there is a site he can use without restrictions or moderation, it's called whitehouse.gov

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  316. identicon
    Rocky, 9 Jan 2021 @ 7:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    See Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  317. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 7:47pm

    Re:

    they do not have the right to shut down views they do not agree with or find offensive

    You mean what Parler does?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  318. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous, 9 Jan 2021 @ 7:51pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    False, no such statements were made and then the following statement to invade the capital. He did say however that he would march with them to the capitol and let it be known they were not in support of Biden, which did happen and for many hours outside a barricade. The security/police at the barricades let them inside, then once outside the capitol building let them inside the building too. Before that, protesters were standing outside the building shouting USA and waving American flags. There was no incitement of violence by the large majority of the people there. There were individuals unusually prepared for a riot and carrying walkietalkies making statments that they needed/wanted to make Trump look bad. There were individuals stopped from committing violence by Trump supporters and they were turned in to the police by them. Howeve, there was a Trump supporter shot and killed point blank by a police officer/security guard of the capitol building that did spark conflict, that really did happen. Though on the level in comparison to what happened and BLM/ANTIFA burning businesses down, beating up women, children, and bullying bystanders, none of that happened. People went home when things heated up. Some stayed and filmed, but once the curfew was being enforced they did leave mostly peacefully.

    The majority of people there did not make up the minority of instigators actually vandalizing and damaging property and fighting with law enforcement, except perhaps those that reacted when that girl was shot by capitol police.

    Trump did not incite the incident. Though what you are trying to do is make him and Trump supporters guilty by association and making the circumstantial side of Trump supporters being there automatically guilty just because you don't like them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  319. identicon
    Rocky, 9 Jan 2021 @ 7:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Cursing mothers

    You mean patriots like those who walked around in the Capitolium waving a Confederate flag?

    If you are a patriot carrying the Confederate flag you are a confederate patriot, you know, the Confederation that rebelled against the USA because they thought slavery was just fine.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  320. identicon
    Rocky, 9 Jan 2021 @ 7:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "assert facts not inreality

    If I hadn't seen what you posted earlier I would have attributed this post to Poe's law.

    I do wonder how the fuck you'll survive and get old with how gullible you are.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  321. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 7:58pm

    Re:

    It's worth noting that the movement against Section 230 is bipartisan. Biden has made it quite clear that curbs against Section 230 are a part of his upcoming agenda, though odds are it won't have the "Big Tech-limiting" outcomes he wants. But then movements driven by the IP lobby have never led to the intentions they hoped for, see: SESTA.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  322. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 8:01pm

    Maybe Christians are not very good at Christianing

    Catholics are not white Evangelicals when it comes to politics.

    Are you sure you read what I wrote? I thought I made that clear.

    In 2016, the White Catholics vote 60% Trump according to pew research. So yeah, I was wrong. Latin Christians were 77% Clinton supporters, so they're an entirely different voting bloc.

    Still 81% of Evangelicals are staunch Trump voters, and plenty of them gave him a mulligan regarding his sinful past.

    In 2020, according to Pew Catholics were closer to 50%, though the Register notes practicing Catholics (that is those that actually go to church, pay tithes, have regular confessions and so on) it was closer to 60%. It's not clear whether this includes both White and Latin.

    I don't think I'm the problem when it comes to people writing off large segments of the population. I'm not the one campaigning for office telling the world that Latins are criminals and rapists.

    I will never argue that someone cannot be Christian (or any other religion or ideology). Only, when someone practices their faith through discriminatory behavior or by pressuring establishment to enact discriminatory policy I will assert these actions are contrary to pluralistic civilization, and to the American Way. And that person should stop doing that and be ashamed no matter what his or her religion is.

    Of course, this happens a lot. Many churches hate women and gays given they prioritize suppressing both women and LGBT+ over even their wars on hunger and on poverty. Big Religion in the US pushed to get Justice Barrett onto the bench to undo Roe (which she might not do) and assert that Incorporated persons are more equal than human persons (which she definitely will do.) So yeah, we have some big faith players who are moving to make American lives worth less.

    I would argue many religious institutions are systemically unrighteous and contemptible. And this includes the CDF no matter what Pope Francis says in media spots. It's evident that religious institutions favor power and politics over creating good in the world.

    And given the known character of Trump before 2016, it's telling that his religious votes were profoundly higher than Clinton's and Biden's, the reverse should have been true if Christians were consistent about adhering to their own creeds.

    But instead, they gave him a mulligan.

    And that taught me that sin is for other people. Untermenschen. Friends and fellow parishioners get mulligans.

    You won't convince me that Christianity is worthwhile, Anonymous but you might be able to convince me you're trying really hard to do right, and to be a good Christian.

    But only if you cared what I thought for some reason.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  323. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 8:04pm

    Identified individuals from BLM at the Capitol

    Then you have a name and a source to share with us. Yes?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  324. icon
    Ed (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 8:08pm

    Tangentially

    Don't know if it's worth noting at this stage, but Trump has also repeatedly played down the severity of covid-19 using twitter.

    Were it not for section 230, I imagine that someone would be holding twitter responsible for 370,000 deaths in the USA.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  325. identicon
    Rocky, 9 Jan 2021 @ 8:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The illusion of choice is what's taking place under the democrat rule. You don't have a choice to challenge the validity of election results, you don't have a choice on who your president is, Democrats already chose the candidate for you.

    So all these court-cases about the election and all the extra vote-counting was the Democrats doing? Seems Trump and the GOP was even more impotent (or should that be incompetent?) than I thought.

    Jeez, logic and facts isn't your forte it seems.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  326. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 8:11pm

    "I saw nothing wrong with it"

    You might want to give Stephen Miller a call. I'm sure he could use a bright eyed intern that has no cringe reflex.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  327. identicon
    Rocky, 9 Jan 2021 @ 8:15pm

    Re:

    What you should ask yourself is what these conservative voices are saying to get moderated or banned from a service. Is it "I'm taking my children to the day-care center" or is it something like "We should forcibly occupy the Capitolium and hang that traitor Pence"?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  328. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 8:16pm

    You can tell a lot about a person by who they associate with

    'I'm not a racist, I just choose to belong to and support a group that includes them' isn't quite the defense they might think it is.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  329. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 8:18pm

    Re: Re:

    Yes that could count as censorship. Again, they'd have a good reason to censor, but that does not change the fact that they are using their power to silence him.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  330. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 8:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    As always with that lot, 'every accusation, a confession'. They tried to steal the election by overriding the will of the people like the losers they are, failed, and so naturally they're accusing the other side of doing that.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  331. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 8:28pm

    Re:

    Censorship involves someone using their power to prevent you from speaking, or intimidate you into not speaking. It does not stop being censorship just because other platforms exist. A platform may have every right to censor you, but that doesn't make it not censorship and not a violation of the principle of free speech.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  332. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:16pm

    Re: Re:

    Censorship involves someone using their power to prevent you from speaking, or intimidate you into not speaking

    And by your own definition there, you admit there was never any "censorship."

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  333. identicon
    TFG, 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "assert facts not inreality

    I will continue to hope that you will wake up and see that you have been taken advantage of by the soon-to-be-former President. I won't hold my breath, but I will hope.

    Until then, you continue to be a fascist and a terrorist sympathizer, desperately grasping at false narratives to ensure that it's anyone's fault but yours and those you supported.

    To be very clear: BLM was not present at the Capitol raid. Antifa did not replace the rioters. It was all pro-trump supporters. It was everyone Trump invited to the Capitol. It was planned as a coup, as a way to overturn the legal results of the election. It was a terrorist act, an insurrection, and thing less. To deny this is to delude yourself. To claim anything else is to give aid and succor to enemies of the nation.

    There is no other truth in this instance.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  334. identicon
    Rocky, 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:29pm

    Re: Re:

    Just because patriots stayed and protest and allowed through the gates of the capitol building and let inside only for an unarmed Trump supporter to be shot in the head would cause a conflict with anyone that saw that during a protest.

    What the fuck have you been smoking? They violently attacked the police guarding Capitol Hill, they smashed windows and doors to force their way in. Media is chock-full of videos from the attack and all of the videos prove you are full of shit and a liar.

    You don't have the balls to own up to what happened, you cowardly reprobate.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  335. icon
    techflaws (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:35pm

    Re: Re: Not man enough to own up...

    who do try to honestly live by the actual tenets of the faith

    Like 'Slaves, obey your masters - even the cruel ones'?

    Impressive.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  336. identicon
    Rocky, 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You do know there is a lot of videos of the attack on Capitol Hill, right? The videos actually tells another story, and the story is that you are a lying piece of shit. To be fair, perhaps you aren't lying but then it means your grasp on reality and facts is tenuous at best.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  337. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:41pm

    Re: Re:

    So you didn't want Biden... But you didn't vote for Trump.

    You didn't want Trump... But by your own admission you didn't do a thing to prevent Biden the devil from taking power.

    You don't like Trump... But you only admit this after you were accused of supporting him, and even then only to use as a counterpoint to justify why a Democrat-run government would be worse.

    You know what this reminds me of? It's exactly the same as the Democrats who hated Hilary, exercised their right to not vote, then pissed themselves when Trump won in 2016. Remember what Trump's team did back then? Mocked their opponents mercilessly, drank their liberal tears.

    So here's the question - given your conscious decision to not support the candidate you preferred, to prevent the candidate you hated from winning - what courtesy do you think you deserve, considering the courtesy that was given to those who disliked the results of 2016?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  338. identicon
    TFG, 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:43pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Please stop lying. I'm sure you won't, but I'm still going to ask you to stop.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  339. icon
    techflaws (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:47pm

    Re: Re: Re: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship-WRONG,WRO

    I have a mind of my own and I made a decision to go to the march
    and my account is my own in support to stop Biden from being
    elected.

    Wow, you're that dumb, huh? Like that stupid bitch that said in an interview, she wouldn't have marched to the capitol if she only had known Pence had NO POWER to change the outcome - like the media outlets she does not believe told her all along.

    Don't brag about making up your mind if it includes blindly believing Faux news instead of reading up on your laws, genius.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  340. icon
    techflaws (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You don't have a choice to challenge the validity of election
    results, you don't have a choice on who your president is,
    Democrats already chose the candidate for you.

    So, Republicans were held at gunpoint being unable to control election results, really? What about all the minority voter suppression tricks they've pulled over all these years? That was embedded Democrats or something?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  341. icon
    techflaws (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:52pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    LOL, the link does NOT prove what you think it does. Figures.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  342. icon
    techflaws (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:54pm

    Re: Re:

    an unarmed Trump supporter to be shot in the head

    Who was NOT shot in the head, you lying fuck.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  343. icon
    techflaws (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:56pm

    Re:

    Delicious tears are those, my friend.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  344. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Doe, 9 Jan 2021 @ 9:56pm

    cen·sorship
    /ˈsensərSHip/
    the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

    As you can see, what Twitter did was censorship BY DEFINITION.

    The fact that it was an act of censorship has nothing to do with the legality or propriety of the action.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  345. icon
    techflaws (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 10:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    False, no such statements were made and then the following
    statement to invade the capital.

    It's funny you still think you can score points with obvious lies. As with Drumpf's hilarious claim, he had the biggest inauguration crowd where the videos (even those of Faux news and other shitty outlets) showed it was anything but.

    Hey genius, there's videos of Trump's speech where he promised to storm the capitol with the MAGA crowd. Of course he LIED YET AGAIN and stayed away like the coward he is.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  346. icon
    techflaws (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 10:04pm

    Re:

    What source do you cite? Does it include the fact that censorship refers to the act done by governments?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  347. identicon
    Rocky, 9 Jan 2021 @ 10:30pm

    Re:

    Holy shit! Have Twitter suppressed and prohibited Trump from speaking?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  348. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 10:48pm

    they are using their power to silence him

    On their property and only their property. He can go to any other property that will have him and continue to speak. Your right to speak freely doesn’t give you the right to an audience.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  349. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 10:55pm

    I think it is a dangerous path to start letting companies or any group decide what can be said on massively influential platforms.

    And if the law forced the owners of those platforms to host speech against their will — that wouldn’t be a dangerous path?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  350. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 10:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Fam, one of your team literally told everyone else's mom to get cancer because he disagreed with the article.

    Your team had four years to grow up before Twitter finally decided you couldn't cope with the responsibility. Get over it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  351. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 10:58pm

    Are you saying this wouldn't be censorship

    Yes. The courts decide what speech is and isn’t legally protected. Taking down illegal speech isn’t censorship to me. Argue otherwise and you’ll be arguing on behalf of every form of illegal speech. That includes CSAM (i.e., child porn). So how far do you want to take your argument?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  352. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 11:21pm

    The whole Backpage Affair was Harris' thing

    Kamala Harris was spearheading going after Craigslist and later Backpage when CL removed its personal ads.

    All the pre-post moderation algos used to advise a user about inappropriate ads was used against Backpage suggesting it was advising traffickers how to get around anti-trafficking laws.

    A hole was carved in Section 230, which not only killed personal ads (outside members-only pages) but also drove trafficked victims to the streets and killed peer-support for sex workers.

    But it means we know how much damage will be done if any holes are carved out of 230, and we know Washington will give zero fucks, considering they call it a success even though trafficking is higher (though less visibly so).

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  353. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jan 2021 @ 11:28pm

    Twitter and section 230

    When Twitter was smaller, it just wouldn't be feasible. Now I'm sure it would try to direct lawsuits to tweeters rather than Twitter itself, and then keep a special batch of highly-venomous lawyers to make any suit long and arduous while another lawyer countersues.

    IANAL and don't know exactly how it works (so I might be thinking of it like a super-powered fight in The Boys) But I do know a legal warchest and a team of blue-haired lawyers seems to be the recipe for copyright domination.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  354. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 11:52pm

    Re: Re: this long to do it (things yo momma says)

    Facebook, Twitter & co. don't really want to invite political scrutiny unto themselves. Political scrutiny means laws may be introduced which are disadvantageous to them, or which otherwise introduce red tape.

    The Trump dilemma is such that if you terminate his account, then he could move to retaliate against you. Even if he does need to be terminated, it may be easier to "let someone else go first" and attract his ire. Or to experiment with something small, and see what happens.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  355. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 12:29am

    if you terminate his account, then he could move to retaliate against you

    Twitter could easily cite the First Amendment in its defense. The law doesn’t (and shouldn’t) force Twitter to host anyone’s speech. No one should have the power to make Twitter do that — and that includes a sitting president.

    Or do you want a precedent that says a platform you own must host someone else’s speech no matter what?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  356. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 12:35am

    Re: Meanwhile and relevantly,

    There need to be some serious anti-trust laws implemented against Google and Apple here. Force them to allow for alternate app stores, side-loading, and so on.

    I'm not even conservative. Many serious problems have arisen from Google and Apple's absolute power. Abuses of monopoly, high fees, limited selection, deplatforming platforms like Tumblr (the source of my main gripes with Apple) on a whim until it crippled itself.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  357. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 12:52am

    Re:

    Censorship is silencing someone by government means. Trump is in part being silenced (on Twitter) by Democrats instructing social media platforms to do so. By that construction, you could say the government is wielding it's influence against him.

    It is admittedly justified censorship, as he is violating the spirit of incitement precedent, even if he isn't violating the letter of it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  358. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 1:02am

    Surprised you didnt mention Lindsay Grahams moronic response....

    "Twitter may ban me for this but I willingly accept that fate: Your decision to permanently ban President Trump is a serious mistake.

    The Ayatollah can tweet, but Trump can’t. Says a lot about the people who run Twitter.

    I’m more determined than ever to strip Section 230 protections from Big Tech (Twitter) that let them be immune from lawsuits."

    How can someone who clearly doesnt understand both the constitution and the law be a senator in this day and age??

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  359. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 1:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: To all conservatives whining censorship:

    I don't believe its censorship, but I do think its a direct violation of "Knight First Amendment Institute, et al v. Donald J. Trump,et al".

    It is not even remotely in violation of the ruling in that case. That case only noted that if a government official creates a public space, then they cannot discriminate on the basis of speech.

    That's got nothing to do with Twitter shutting down Trump's account.

    Also, all of president Trump's tweets, re-tweets, and their replies need to be saved as part of the permanent record.

    That is the job of the National Archives. Not Twitter.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  360. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 1:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Of course it's censorship, but it is legal censorshi

    I think what really gets the republicans upset is that Twitter only cares about "safety" or "inciting" when there's a chance to mute or suspend a republican.

    This is false. People across the political spectrum have been banned from Twitter. It's just that Republicans seem to be more "oh woe is me, I'm a victim..." about it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  361. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 1:14am

    Re:

    I agree, I'm not a fan of the euphemistic language myself, especially when it is overwhelming used in a deflective way. When, and if the tables turn, the other side would be happy to use it in the very same way.

    On the contrary, I'm a big fan of free speech, although perhaps there is a certain level of tolerance to be had for world leaders who leverage platforms to sow discord. I don't know how to solve that problem entirely, but electing decent leaders, and breaking the cycle which leads to inept leaders getting elected could help.

    Would giving diverse groups a greater voice in government help to voice the them and us patterns which dominate politics? Do we need something akin to ranked voting to weaken the constraints of the two party system, and the ability to helicopter in candidates? Are people simply too uninformed about politics? Do we need education in critical thinking skills?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  362. identicon
    DocGerbil100, 10 Jan 2021 @ 1:32am

    Re: Re:

    Oh, such cutting remarks! Why, I can barely read the numbers on my Killer Sudoku, through the haze of angry, bitter tears. :D

    Oh, wait -- it's you, isn't it! How's life on the mountain, Beardy? I hope the recent decriminalisation efforts in your area haven't hurt your profits too much. I'm sure we'd all hate to see you kicked offline for failing to pay your internet bills.

    For anybody wondering, this is the same troll who's been annoying real people on left-of-centre fora for at least a decade. His pseudo-replies here (and on posts above) are very much his classic trolling strategy -- when he's under stress, his writing style carries as strong and clear a signature as Vincent's brushwork:

    • He likes to adopt a bizarre writing style or fake foreign accent, forcing readers to translate sentences in their heads and distracting them from noticing and responding to either logical inconsistencies or repetitious claims made through different sockpuppets;
    • His texts are peppered with false assertions about the person he's responding to -- another distraction tactic;
    • His longer responses, such as this one, tend to follow very similar paragraphic patterns -- a section of factual text, usually with falsehoods mixed in, followed by another of the same, followed by one with personal abuse mixed in, for cognitive dissonance purposes, finished off with some future predictions that are either self-evident certainties or aren't true at all.

    At this point, it's all very hackneyed and unconvincing, even by the standards of career trolls. He should probably lay off the weed and concentrate on doing a competent job.

    In other news, I see that not only has the orange fart managed to get himself banned everywhere, but Parler itself is getting kicked out of services across the board. As appalling as the Capitol invasion was, it's been the gift that keeps on giving, when it comes to the dismantling of the alt-right.

    Civilisation as we know it is showing Beardy and his friends the door. Somehow, I don't think we'll miss them. :)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  363. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 1:34am

    Re:

    Nice try with the argument to the children. However, that is censorship, even by your standard, as they're censoring the child porn by force of law (and presumably their own moral standards).

    Simply because the content is morally objectionable, and abhorrent doesn't mean the mechanism which is used to stop it could not be considered a form of censorship. If we took that logic further, we could say any ban on any content would not truly be "censorship", because we agree with the premise for banning it.

    If the courts set a truly ridiculous standard, would it suddenly become censorship, or stop being so, as it fell in and out of line with your personal standards? Sometimes, censorship can be justified. However, when it comes to facilitating the most free speech possible, the courts will only reserve the facility of censorship for the most egregious of cases.

    We like to think of censorship as a "bad thing", and in many cases, it is very much a bad thing. It is a very slippery slope which can be tough to control once it gets going, and we should be aware of that. But, it is a tool, just like any other tool.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  364. identicon
    DocGerbil100, 10 Jan 2021 @ 1:39am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I forgot to mention something on that list:

    • He typically likes to respond to people's posts without addressing the original topic or actually answering much of anything they've said -- he'd much rather drag the conversation away to something abstract, speculative or entirely irrelevant.

    So it is here.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  365. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 1:54am

    Re:

    Would there even still be an internet if 230 got revoked? Even if we went back to the pre-230 days with no moderation being better than moderation, wouldn't a legion of people lining up to sue you still result in you going down?

    Some laws require a certain level of moderation, so you might not even be able to get away with having no moderation. It's a catch 22.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  366. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 2:09am

    Re: The whole Backpage Affair was Harris' thing

    To be precise, Backpage told the traffickers which keywords were prohibited, keywords which nonetheless would have made it harder for them to pitch their wares (than if Backpage had simply looked the other way at the keywords, which they instead could have done).

    Some of the keywords were fairly innocuous like "greek" and "greece". If they returned an opaque error, it would have just caused confusion with legitimate users. Backpage tried to do the right thing, and in doing so, it got twisted against them. It is much like Prodigy / Compuserve.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  367. identicon
    Rocky, 10 Jan 2021 @ 2:35am

    Re:

    How can someone who clearly doesnt understand both the constitution and the law be a senator in this day and age??

    If you want to be crass about it, money and shady promises.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  368. icon
    techflaws (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 3:04am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Oh, so you have millions of followers? Really?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  369. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    the lone voice, 10 Jan 2021 @ 4:12am

    lone voice

    not easy - yes, it was. I doubt it required more than clicking the ban hammer icon.

    not unreasonable - dunno... would require a jury of peers to decide this

    not censorship - um, what? a private company CENSORED a user. how is this not censorship?

    its getting exhausting. all of YOU need to shut up, mask up, take the jab, submit to whatever lockdown , tracking , or whatever the National Socialists are going to shove down your throat. be happy owning nothing, stop complaining. there is only two classes now, and you aren't in the privileged one. so vote now, vote often, vote when dead or if you are a bot, it doesn't matter. you still are not in the good queue. oh, and quit using the term fascist. you are not using it correctly. the fight right now is socialists/communists vs those not wanting to be socialist/communist. still, you appear to be in the wrong queue.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  370. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 4:33am

    how is this not censorship?

    Twitter didn’t stop Donald Trump from speaking his mind. They only told him he couldn’t do it on Twitter any more.

    quit using the term fascist. you are not using it correctly.

    What do you call trying to keep Trump as president through acts of violence and intimidation? Because that sure as shit ain’t democracy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  371. icon
    PaulT (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 4:47am

    Re: Re: How many racists do you think are out there....?

    “ Not all supporters of Trump are racists”

    But he is extremely popular among racists. Non-racist Trump supporters just happen to have a different mental deficiency.

    “ Out with the Racist, and In with the pathological liar”

    Such as not thinking that Trump is a pathological liar, which you really have to be deficient in some capacity not to have known.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  372. icon
    PaulT (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 4:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No, I’m addressing actual reality, I was just hoping you’d go into more detail about your hallucinations so I could explain why you’re wrong. But since you’re refusing to do so, I will just state that there’s no metric by which what you’re saying is factually correct. Feel free to provide evidence I can disprove if you don’t like this

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  373. icon
    PaulT (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 4:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    “ With Democrats in control of both the house and senate, already having screwed America”

    You do know that only just happened and they can’t be held responsible for what Mitch and his cronies did, right?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  374. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 4:54am

    Re: lone voice

    lone voice believes a lot of the political bullshit, even in light of recent events lone voice claws at the last remains of a failed coup desperately clinging to the fantasy that is ProudQanonGOPNazi.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  375. icon
    PaulT (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 4:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    A lot of videos taken and live streamed by self-proclaimed “patriots” nonetheless, who are as far from the “antifa” boogeyman as you can get unless they’re going to claim that the entire alt right movement is secretly “antifa”

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  376. icon
    PaulT (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 5:02am

    Re:

    The ayatollah? Why do I think he’s talking about Khomeini somehow and he just doesn’t understand the many ways in which this is stupid?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  377. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 5:03am

    Re:

    Amazon has decided not to host parler, so parler is looking for a new home, and expects to be down for a week or so.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  378. icon
    Bloof (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 5:04am

    Re: lone voice

    You can tell someone's arguing in good faith when they claim nazis were on the left, because they're called national socialists, don'tchtaknow! None of the 'proud patriots' he riled up believe nazi conspiracy theories about 'globalists', the recycled blood libel Qanon stuff and other antisemitic conspiracy theories, infowars people sure weren't on the scene when that female terrorist was shot, and all the known nazis among the crowds of trump supporters, complete with nazi tattoos are all leftist plants.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  379. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 5:10am

    Re:

    Agreed.

    In addition it needs to be pointed out that censorship performed by a private individual or business upon their private property has nothing whatsoever to do with your Freedom of Speech addressed within the First Amendment to the US constitution.

    You have no Freedom of Speech upon the private property of other individuals or businesses, they have the right to tell you to STFU and GTFO.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  380. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 5:22am

    Re:

    "There are reports on conservative websites that a lot of conservative voices are being censored."

    They decided to not follow the terms of service.

    Many of those who whine about being censored by individuals or businesses, believe that the constitution protects everything they have to say.

    Apparently this upsets conservatives. Well, too bad.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  381. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous, 10 Jan 2021 @ 5:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Gain entry on property they, themselves let in. And they don't tend to shoot unarmed people in the head facing them point-blank in the head, you dumbass.

    Obviously, you're framing the hundreds of thousands of people that were there at the Save America march, every one of them with the intention to "subvert democracy", doesn't make it true. Most of the people gathered inside and outside the capitol building and at the march were staunch patriots and wanted their voices hered by showing up in numbers, whether they were Trump supporters or not, there were there to make it know that they didn't want Biden elected, their presence was democratic. Their actions to go to the capitol was democratic, their actions to voice themselves while outside the capitol shouting USA was democratic, when they were let inside the capitol building, some saw that as a way to get the point across more democratically.

    Under the circumstances, the people there were very patriotic and proactively stopped ba actors breaking into the capitol, because that did not reflect thier intent. Mostly, everyone, there was unarmed and very vocal that they did not want biden. The message conveyed by accessing the capitol was stopped, do not elect biden. That was democratic. The moment cops shot and killed that unarmed woman who was democratically protesting within the capitol building because she we let inside, then tensions inside were confrontational.

    A democratic demonstration is pretty much suppose to make a point if you are against whatever it is. They were legally allowed to gather and assemble and make their voices heard. They were let inside so they weren't unlawfully inside. However, when escalations rose after that woman was shot in the head, I suspect the anger with those protesters was like anyone else would respond if they saw someone who was unarmed and innocent would do get very angry/upset a moral human response.

    Joe Biden did not "win" fair and square. Independent data scientist who investigated the voter data within PA and GA found Votes were in real-time being taken from Trump and Given to Biden. Their testimony wasn't to side with Democrat or Republican but to reflect the data from their investigations. They made their investigation results publically available for anyone to see the results.

    There were TWO hearings in GA within Fulton county that revealed there was election fraud.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjbAFuoQOvo

    The second one is the video that has the testimony from the data scientists.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSfbEiV-Uxg'

    So, yea, I think the protests after the Save America March was a patriotic thing to do up to the capitol building, even after the point at which they were let inside the barrier gates, and let inside the capitol building. I don't think that their presence inside after that unarmed woman protester was going to end well, and obviously it did'nt. Nobody could have foreseen that outcome.

    The Patiots and Trump supporters did have a conflict inside after that. However the supporters outside did identify bad actors and made attempts to stop them from breaking inside the capitol building. Obviously since you're a Democrat supporter you'll spin this in a way to FRAME everyone outside the capitol building, and inside it too, and Trump himself, as "subverting democracy".

    No, subverting democracy is doing nothing and allowing a tyrannous political party(the democrats), get away with screwing America. These were patriots that were there, for the most part, to make their voices heard and to get their point accross peacefully(as in unarmed protest).

    Unfortunately, Democrats doubled down their rhetoric with condecending tone towards the opposition party, and successfully manipulated Republicans in opposition to not fight democratically challenging the election results of the contested states.

    I think that anytime there is that large of a body of people that feel that strongly about not allowing a candidate to be the president that the evidence should he presented an heard in a court. That never happened thanks to frivolous cases, and judges unwilling to hear the ones that were legitimate on their merits. And all of that is legitimate rationale for why all the patriots there at the capitol should have been there every step of the way.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  382. icon
    PaulT (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 5:56am

    Re: Re:

    I saw that, which raises the question of how incompetent their IT guys are if they don’t have a good enough disaster plan in place, especially if they only hosting on cloud services. I have scripts that can duplicate our entire infrastructure in about an hour on a different host if needed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  383. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 6:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course it's censorship, but it is legal censo

    So twitter justifiably bans trump, but allows 14k twitter users to share "Hang Mike Pense" before finally removing it, but only after the major news networks started reporting on it. Then you see Trump and conservatives going to Parlor, only to have Amazon announce that they are now dropping Parlor from their hosting.

    Seems to me the Republicans are justified with their "oh woe is me, I'm a victim..." Stance.

    Hell, the Dem's are going to burn 230 to the ground at the first chance they get. Then lets see what happens then.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  384. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous, 10 Jan 2021 @ 6:20am

    Re:

    They gained entry on the property they(capitol police/security), themselves let in.

    Obviously, you're framing the hundreds of thousands of people that were there at the Save America march, every one of them with the intention to "subvert democracy", doesn't make it true. Most of the people gathered inside and outside the capitol building and at the march were staunch patriots and wanted their voices hered by showing up in numbers, whether they were Trump supporters or not, there were there to make it know that they didn't want Biden elected, their presence was democratic. Their actions to go to the capitol was democratic, their actions to voice themselves while outside the capitol shouting USA was democratic, when they were let inside the capitol building, some saw that as a way to get the point across more democratically.

    Under the circumstances, the people there were very patriotic and proactively stopped ba actors breaking into the capitol, because that did not reflect thier intent. Mostly, everyone, there was unarmed and very vocal that they did not want biden. The message conveyed by accessing the capitol was stopped, do not elect biden. That was democratic. The moment cops shot and killed that unarmed woman who was democratically protesting within the capitol building because she we let inside, then tensions inside were confrontational.

    A democratic demonstration is supposed to make a point if you are against whatever it is. They were legally allowed to gather and assemble and make their voices heard. They were let inside so they weren't unlawfully inside. However, when escalations rose after that woman was shot in the head, I suspect the anger with those protesters was like anyone else would respond if they saw someone who was unarmed and innocent would do get very angry/upset a moral human response.

    Joe Biden did not "win" fair and square. An Independent group of data scientists who investigated the voter data within PA and GA found Votes were in real-time being taken from Trump and Given to Biden. Their testimony wasn't to side with Democrat or Republican but to reflect the data from their investigations. They made their investigation results publicly available for anyone to see the results.

    There were TWO hearings in GA within Fulton county that revealed there was election fraud. The hearings were made public with the titles, Georgia Senate subcommittee hearing on election issues Testimony of Jovan Hutton Pulitzer, and Georgia Senate subcommittee continues hearing on election issues.

    I tried submitting this text with links but I wasn't successful, so I suspect the youtube links were the issue.

    So, yea, I think the protests after the Save America March was a patriotic thing to do up to the capitol building, even after the point at which they were let inside the barrier gates, and let inside the capitol building. I don't think that their presence inside after that unarmed woman protester was going to end well, and obviously it did'nt. Nobody could have foreseen that outcome.

    The Patiots and Trump supporters did have a conflict inside after that. However, the supporters outside did identify bad actors and made attempts to stop them from breaking inside the capitol building. Obviously, since you're a Democrat supporter you'll spin this in a way to FRAME everyone outside the capitol building, and inside it too, and Trump himself, as "subverting democracy".

    No, subverting democracy is doing nothing and allowing a tyrannous political party(the democrats), get away with screwing America. These were patriots that were there, for the most part, to make their voices heard and to get their point across peacefully(as in unarmed protest).

    Unfortunately, Democrats doubled down their rhetoric with condecending tone towards the opposition party, and successfully manipulated Republicans in opposition to not fight democratically challenging the election results of the contested states.

    I think that anytime there is that large of a body of people that feel that strongly about not allowing a candidate to be the president that the evidence should he presented an heard in a court. That never happened thanks to frivolous cases, and judges unwilling to hear the ones that were legitimate on their merits. And all of that is a legitimate rationale for why all the patriots there at the capitol should have been there every step of the way.

    Democracy is pretty much when everyone agrees to either agree on something and make it happen, setting aside disagreements and differences. Obviously, that wasn't the case with present investigations in contested states. Had investigators not found problems within contested states and contested states allowed investigations, then I'm certain things would never have gone to the extent that they did.

    Democrats used what happened to exaggerate the event and as a coup and labeled protesters rioters and terrorists and successfully manipulate Republicans from contested states to give up contesting election results. In addition, Democrats financially funded Facebook and Twitter happily obliged calls by democrats to silence(censor) all conservatives up to the president.

    Democrats and supporters are using what happened to take control and the tyranny will continue so long as their enablers allow it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  385. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 6:40am

    Re: Re: Re: To all conservatives whining censorship:

    "majority of Obama-era Democrats are just like Reagan-era Republicans"

    Only in some specific things like maybe economics, but they were very different in other areas such as civil rights.

    Also, Obama did not rely upon a ouija board.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  386. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 7:16am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Their problem may be in finding a new hosts, especially seeing how toxic they have suddenly become. Companies do not like coups, as they can create an unstable business environment.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  387. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 7:18am

    lets see what happens then

    You’d lose many of the places you use to spread your inanity, that’s what would happen.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  388. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 7:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yeah, they just couldn't sell it to minors - that's about the same as requiring ID, which I said. They were perfectly free to sell it to everyone else.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  389. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 7:33am

    Re: Re: Re:

    So if someone riots based on a claim, then we shut down that claim? Is that the standard? I'm not saying this was the same as the summer protests, but you should realize that if that's the standard we're setting, it would have unfortunate implications on other causes which have protests that turn violent.

    It could be "considered" incitement, but only by someone who doesn't know or care what incitement actually entails.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  390. icon
    PaulT (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 7:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Of course, but any competent admin there must have predicted this possibility and made contingency plans. It might not be as simple as switching your terraform config to azure when aws isn’t available due to the controversy, but if you’re on cloud infrastructure and it takes a week just to come back up, you’re doing something wrong.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  391. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    r_rolo1 (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 7:39am

    Mixed feelings ...

    Well, for starters, I couldn't care less for Trump ( not an American , for starters ) and his Twitting antics, but IMHO it is clear that Twitter, while most likely having justified reasons to not wanting Trump in their platform, has been sleazy enough in the last years with their actions to make some people reticent about out of the rulebook actions.

    Say, some of you might remember ( Mike will for sure since this issue was covered in here ) when Twitter started making games with their blue checkmarks and removing them of some "undesirables" while stating in their TOS that blue checkmarks were just a confirmation that that account was of the person it was passing to be ( and not some impersonator ) and NOT an endorsement ... and how the issue got so muddled that Twitter have put the whole process of awarding those checkmarks on ice for quite a while. That and other issues really do not paint Twitter as exactly evenhanded, even if they were acting as fairly as they could ( and for sure some think they weren't, otherwise this wouldn't have been a issue in the first place ).

    Sure, and back to the article above, every case is a case, but a rule with an exception for every case is not a rule, is at best a statement of intentions, at worse a velvet glove to diguise the iron hand of self interest of whoever is ruling those cases ... and neither of them is a good thing. There is a reason why laws are impersonal, after all, and it would be of good tone of Twitter ( and Facebook, as it was also mentioned ) if they followed that example for their own good ... it would save them of trying to be the conscience of those who have none.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  392. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 7:41am

    Re: To all conservatives whining censorship:

    ...You do realize that only Leftists are saying "Muh private platform" these days, right?

    Even LIBERTARIANS are saying "This is too much!"

    https://theintercept.com/2020/10/15/facebook-and-twitter-cross-a-line-far-more-dangerous -than-what-they-censor/

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  393. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 7:44am

    Re:

    Fascism is a merger of business and government. It allows businesses to get favored status and ignore the law while the government can do what it wants (silencing certain kinds of people from speaking for example) Kind of like what's going on with big tech.

    Hey, don't yell at me, Mussolini knows more about fascism than you do, he's the guy who coined the phrase after all.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  394. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 7:46am

    Re: Re:

    No, China.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  395. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 7:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course it's censorship, but it is legal censo

    Uh, no

    ONLY the right has been banned on Twitter. There have been ZERO people on the left who have been banned for violence or anything.

    Tweets about "Punching nazis" are still up. Tweets from Antifa and BLM calling for violence are still up.

    You really are an idiot, Mike. As soon as you're no longer useful, you'll find yourself banned as well.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  396. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 7:51am

    Re:

    First Amendment says that the government can't RESTRICT your speech.

    Why are you putting things into it that aren't there?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  397. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 7:52am

    Even the discredited ACLU is saying that this is too much.

    When a group that lost all credibility over the past five years says "hey, you know, this might be too much", there's a problem.

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/8/aclu-raises-concerns-amid-trump-twitter-ban /

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  398. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous, 10 Jan 2021 @ 8:10am

    JUST STOP READING TECHDIRT

    It's obvious free thought from patriots and voices from conservatives are not welcome here, so just stop reading Techdirt, it's become a left-wing garbage platform to vilify Trump, his supporters, and patriots with false framing.

    Masnick wants revenue and the left have taken over most payment processors, social media networks, and internet platforms. You don't get to have a voice here, you're nobody here. Go somewhere else where you're respected and heard, and read from a better source. Masnick may have had a great platform before with awesome articles but the framing narratives by the articles here and commenters have become too toxic to bear any reason to continue reading Techdirt.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  399. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 8:20am

    Bye, Felicia~ 👋

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  400. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 8:22am

    Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  401. icon
    Bloof (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 8:26am

    Re: JUST STOP READING TECHDIRT

    What happened to Techdirt, guys? During the Obama era, they covered laws the democrats approved that negatively affected tech, but they've been so harsh to republicans since trump took power, made a slew of bad laws, approved mergers that never should have happened, killed net neutrality and gutted the FCC, all while he and other republicans make made daily pronouncements attacking tech for not letting conservatives do anything they like on their platform! Bias! Trump derangement syndrome, that's what it is!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  402. icon
    PaulT (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 8:33am

    Re: JUST STOP READING TECHDIRT

    Why is it that when you people comment here you always announce yourselves as utter morons up front? Wouldn’t you get further if you pretended to understand reality on the first posts?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  403. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 8:34am

    Re: Mixed feelings ...

    Lots of rambling text, not sure what you are trying to say.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  404. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 8:34am

    Re: Re:

    "He's been censored from Twitter and Facebook."

    No he's been kicked off of Twitter and Facebook, which is their right as private companies. Twitter and Facebook do not owe anyone access to their services, they could kick off anyone who doesn't pledge allegiance to the mole people if they want. Probably a poor business decision but it is an option.

    "And in two weeks he won't be able to have those press conferences."

    In two weeks he won't be in the white house, why should he be able to have White House press conferences? He can have other press conferences if he wants, like at Mar a Largo, or perhaps at 4 Seasons Total Landscaping (provided he pays the conference fee and rents a roto tiller). But no, he is not allowed to have White House press conferences after he leaves office.

    Anyone can have a press conference, but they are not owed attendance by the press, or anyone for that matter. In point of fact I routinely hold press conferences in the living room about the state of the lights in the house, yet the main stream media has never once responded to my invites.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  405. icon
    PaulT (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 8:34am

    Re: Re: JUST STOP READING TECHDIRT

    If people spend far more time stating correctly that Trump is a moron.. maybe the problem isn’t tech dirt?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  406. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 8:39am

    I routinely hold press conferences in the living room about the state of the lights in the house, yet the main stream media has never once responded to my invites.

    Big Bulb is keepin’ you down, man~

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  407. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous, 10 Jan 2021 @ 8:52am

    Observe all the sh*t comments

    Just look through these toxic comments. The strategy is to vilify, shut you up, and grow their lies to no ends to falsely from you.

    Don't give in to the deception of this article or the comments. Think for yourself, stand up for America. This is social engineering that reflects what is happening right now.

    Google hammer and scorecard gave to china by James Comey. Focus on the facts that independent data scientists testified election results were being changed in real-time. Do not believe all these people slandering you for your patriotism and voicing your side. Do not believe the left-wing media pushing the narrative this was a coup ordered by Trump and his supporters, it was not.

    Antifa and special forces groups were there as bad actors.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNktWsMfizQ&feature=emb_logo

    Your Outrage is manufactured

    BLM RIOTS/Left-Wing Violence

    lasted 7 months

    condemned mostly by republicans

    encouraged by left-wing media and encouraged by democrats advocating civil unrest

    police force used 23+ people shot dead

    700 officers injured

    150+ fed. building damaged

    hundreds of small businesses destroyed

    no outrage

    Capitol protest and civil unrest that turned into a riot

    lasted several hours

    condemned by democrats&republicans

    encouraged only by fringe political groups Qanon, Antifa/BLM.

    police used

    1 patriot shot dead

    14 officers injured

    one federal building damaged

    no small businesses destroyed

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  408. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 8:53am

    Re:

    The government could host an all-legal-speech neutral forum or just take over USENET, or the people could migrate back to USENET, which was "all or nothing" in that you accepted all of its speech or none (within a newsgroup). A USENET with verified identities might work.

    They can't be forced to host speech they don't want to host, but they can't for anyone to take them seriously if they ban too many people for the wrong reasons. The market has punished censorship in the past, such as with AOL and Yahoo.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  409. icon
    Bloof (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 9:05am

    Re: Observe all the sh*t comments

    All instigated by the left, we know, definitely not the right, despite these people openly planning violence on Parler, The Donald, 4chan and other right wing platforms, the being crowds packed with people who helped to organise Charlottesville, right wing 'celebrities' like Baked Alaska, members of right wing groups like the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers, as well as reporters from the Blaze and Infowars covering it live, going from openly inciting to screaming false flag to declaring those who died to be patriots despite also being false flags when it's convenient. Donald Trump, Alex Jones and others in no way helped to instigate, nope, all infiltrators despite nobody identified, arrested or killed being shown to be left wing.

    The left wing folk who caused this all just bled into the night, almost like they were never there.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  410. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Richard Lareau, 10 Jan 2021 @ 9:06am

    Re: Free speech

    Your argument that a "private" company, twitter, shouldn't be forced to carry anyone's speech is invalid
    Since Twitter is a monopoly, it is a PUBLIC UTILITY that EVERYONE should have the right to use it.
    A highway is a public utility. We can't say Trump can's use such and such highway because we don't like him.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  411. icon
    Paul Gregory (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 9:12am

    This should worry nearly everyone

    This is effectively "I don't like what you have said, or, didn't say - so you are banished." If you OBJECTIVELY look at the flagged tweets, there is nothing remotely objectionable about them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  412. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 9:14am

    Re: Re: Free speech

    Back in the real world, private platforms are not, and can never be, the public square, no matter how much idiot sheep like "Richard" lie that they'e monopolies or confuse them for actual utilities like internet service.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  413. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 9:16am

    Re: Re:

    If you see "preventing active and imminent terror threats" as "the wrong reasons" that's a you problem.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  414. icon
    r_rolo1 (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 9:17am

    Re:

    No, I do not believe that the government should have the right to do what you say.

    The issue is that Twitter, while having all the right to have their TOS in the way they like, has been less than stellar following their own rules at times and, in the specific case of Trump, are literally playing by ear ( like the article above states ). Sure, they are entitled to do so, but it does not give a good look to them and definitely does not make them look even handed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  415. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 9:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Perhaps they'll copy Stormfront's tactic, and seek hosting in Russia where their content is actually illegal for no reason than to fuel their userbase's delusions of persecution when they're banned.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  416. icon
    r_rolo1 (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 9:20am

    Re: Re: Mixed feelings ...

    Ok, let me give you a TL:DR

    Twitter is not wrong in banning Trump ( their plataform, their choice ). But it has skirted their own rules for #reasons ( justified or not ) so many times that adding one "play by ear" decision will surely not make them look more fair.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  417. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    anonymous, 10 Jan 2021 @ 9:21am

    Re: Observe all the sh*t comments

    Correction I meant to say Special forces were there

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNktWsMfizQ&feature=emb_logo

    And Antifa/BLM was there as well as bad actors.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  418. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 9:22am

    Re: JUST STOP READING TECHDIRT

    It's obvious free thought from patriots and voices from conservatives are not welcome here,

    [Asserts facts not in evidence]

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  419. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 9:25am

    If this censoring of anyone, yes it is censorship, that 3 guys in silicon valley don't like doesn't scare you, you are not very bright.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  420. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 9:46am

    Re:

    [Projects facts not in evidence]

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  421. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous, 10 Jan 2021 @ 9:54am

    Re: Re: Observe all the sh*t comments

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  422. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous, 10 Jan 2021 @ 10:04am

    [Projects facts not in evidence]

    Ssays the low information Anti-American, projecting no facts or evidence, just insults to real American patriots projecting facts in evidence.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  423. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous, 10 Jan 2021 @ 10:04am

    [Projects facts not in evidence]

    Says the low information Anti-American, projecting no facts or evidence, just insults to real American patriots projecting facts in evidence.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  424. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 10:11am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Not sure about that - in Hong Kong they mnaaged to organise quite a protest despite the ban of most apps and heavy censorship. I am not comparing the two movements, just making a point about overall effectiveness of the bans.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  425. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 10:14am

    Re: Definitely Censorship

    It's kind of like saying that the telephone company can ban you from using a telephone because you still can walk outside and talk to people.

    Yeah! I mean, in terms of Trump, what can he do? Can't send out a press release anymore, amirite Koby?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  426. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 10:19am

    Re: Re:

    If you're referring to Twitter allowing Trump to continue posting things that would have gotten any other user banned ages ago then sure, they make judgement calls along the way. Their ToS is setup in such a way as to allow them to do so.

    I agree. It wasn't a good look to have not banned Trump back in 2016.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  427. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 10:27am

    Re: [Projects facts not in evidence]

    ... but enough about yourself.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  428. identicon
    TFG, 10 Jan 2021 @ 10:45am

    Re: Observe all the sh*t comments

    Your sht comment has been observed. I will now flag it for being sht.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  429. identicon
    TFG, 10 Ja