POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

I don’t know, I think Facebook users lean more right than left and and vice versa for Twitter. Or that’s how is used to be, before January 6th.

 

You are in favor of censorship, too, as are most everyone. You just want to draw the line at a different place. You think the KKK should be able to freely post on Twitter, without them deciding they want to ban them from their private platform? Pedophiles? Obviously, these are extreme examples, but there are situations in which a private company in this regard has to establish some ground rules for conversation. I can find tons and tons of conservatives on Twitter, Facebook, etc., so the line isn't conservative views, but something else and Trump and others crossed it, repeatedly. We even have lines here on this board, ones you probably agree with keeping, by and large.

So, no, liberals, well most, are not in favor of censorship (historically, that's been the realm of conservatives, checking out things like the banned list of library books and such), but there was a desire to remove right wing trolling and instigation through blatant lies which put people in danger.

 

Conservatives win the stupid meme trophy on Facebook, based on my feed, that's for sure.

 

Facebook may be more right leaning, just because of older people. But their employees are predominately left, on both sites, and that swings things a good bit.

 

Don't start this you think this and that shit uni. You are wrong too often to keep it up.

There were 12000 tweets or FB posts with "assassinate trump" a couple years ago.
Were those people banned? Many said they weren't when contacted. Wonder why...

 

Any idiot can pay $5 a month, get a website, and say whatever damn foolish thing they want.

People aren't censored, simply because they aren't able to say whatever damn foolish thing they want on someone else's website. Even if they used to be able to.

 

There are people who have literally committed genocide and posted about it, on facebook that haven't been banned. Facebook doesn't ban much until very recently.

 

FB and twitter didn't ban or censor all of those posts that actually mention killing the POTUS. So censor all or censor none

 

No. Censor whomever. They get to decide who posts on their website, just like you get to decide who you let in your house.

Just because their property is digital, it is still their property, and they have property rights.

 

Wrong in whose eyes? Yours? Please.

I see, personally, all kinds of nasty shit about Obama, Kamala Harris, Biden, AOC, etc. on my feed alone and none have even gotten a warning, if we're going by random anecdotal evidence. Trump and crew posted shit for years and years with no repercussions, too.

 

"You think the kkk should be allowed to post on twitter" you posted at me.
Like I said, you are wrong, again. And yes in my eyes, which is all that matters. I dont care if you think you are right.

 

It was a question, hence the sign at the end of the phrase being this, "?", meaning it was a question of do you think this should be. If it was a statement, it would have a period at the end. So, you are wrong and, not in your eyes, but objectively, by making this "I think" statement.

 

You’re right, man. You’ve got it all figured out. Nothing to see here.

 

So let me get this straight. Trump broke rules, so they banned him. And everyone else who still has access to Facebook and Twitter hasn’t broken any of those same rules? Is that actually your position? That these sites choosing to ban Trump while other accounts remain active isn’t completely arbitrary?

 

That's the best argument you have? That they haven't gotten everybody who violated the terms of agreement? Is Trump the only person whom they've banned? Did he, one of the most prominent figures on social media, not violate those terms for years before they finally had to take the hit and ban him?

I mean, you're argument here isn't nearly as solid as you think it is. It isn't based upon if he deserved to be banned or did or did not violate the terms of agreement, but the "What about him?" defense. The idea being, if you can find someone or people who should have been banned, but was not, then Trump should not be. I don't find this particularly persuasive.

 

You don’t see a problem with him breaking the rules for years and them not banning him for it? You don’t see the problem with picking and choosing when they want to enforce their rules?

You have no idea what my argument is. I haven’t made my argument and likely won’t. Because float already has it all figured out.

 

Yes, I have a problem they didn't cut the cord earlier when he was violating the rules, but they were afraid to do so. But, again, your statement here isn't that he didn't violate the rules, but merely the timing.

And, your question could easily be framed another way, you realize, right? If Trump was breaking the rules for years and didn't get banned, then it's hard to suggest it was arbitrary due to his politics. Otherwise, if they were about silencing conservative voices, he would have been bumped a long time ago. Something else, i.e. his involvement in the incitement of the storming of the capitol and repeated ethical violations, became too much for them to ignore any longer.

Can I also not find a ubiquitous number of conservative and Republican commentators and politicians on social media platforms? If they are looking to silence conservative voices, they are doing a really shitty job of it.

 

Afraid to do so? You're joking, right? If by "afraid," you mean afraid of missing out on all the money they were making off him, then sure, I guess they were afraid.

The something else is that they no longer stood to profit off him and instead stood to lose money if they failed to silence him.

Big LOL at Uni thinking Facebook is following some guiding moral code in their choices of who to ban and when to ban them. Jesus dude.

There's a reason leaders all over the world, including many who were not exactly Trump fans pointed to his banning on these websites as problematic. What was the quote by the Russian dude in jail over there? Something about how "enemies of freedom of speech" will exploit this moving forward? Yeah, nothing to see here.

Also, can we circle back to the original link, which was not about Trump being banned, but about them taking down a video posted by someone else who interviewed him? What rule did that person break by posting a video of an interview she did with the former POTUS?

 

Government should control private business AND profit motives are bad? [uck fay]ing commie!

 

No longer stood to profit of him? Jesus dude. Big LOL at Indy thinking Facebook and Twitter couldn't "profit" from having the most prominent voice in the Republican Party continue to say crazy shit which people would consume massively.

Couldn't profit off him. Holy shit.

And, for the 4,596,506th time, free speech is from the government, not a private entity. Facebook banned 20,000 Chinese users who were trying to undermine the Hong Kong freedom movement. I guess it was because they couldn't profit from them or something.

I'm not arguing Facebook and Twitter are these paragons of moral turpitude. I'm arguing they apply their policies unevenly because that's how it usually works in the real world, particularly when you are dealing with the massive numbers they do. But, the idea there is an ideological war going on isn't supported by any sort of framework, considering I can find any viewpoint represented prolifically on the social media platforms.