Twitter's alleged bias towards left-wing trolls.

CtevenSrowder

FTA69 wrote: »

It's absolutely insane to see nominally left-wing people (rightly) criticise things like bias in the corporate print and televised media but then turn around and blithely suggest that Twitter and Facebook censoring political projects they don't like is ok as they are 'private platforms'. I mean that's the whole point - the fact that a few oligarchs have now acquired immense control over society's communications to the point they can censor the president of the most powerful country in the world is extremely worrying.

These corporations aren't booting Trump out of a sense of decency but out of a desire to see a smooth transformation of power and the continuance of the status quo whereby they can continue to accrue unimaginable wealth and power and influence. Ironically, the tactics they are deploying now will be used against any left-wing challenge. If a President gets in that wanted to tax the f*ck out of these people then we'll see their agenda laid bare. Facebook have already banned Press TV and Twitter has censored Cuba and Venezuelan politicians as well as the Kurdish freedom movement. (I got banned for posting a picture of Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan.) Now these might not be popular examples for many but it shows you the motivations at play - arbiters of what's acceptable politically and what's not with zero accountability to anyone.

Any serious left-wing person (and by that I mean people who want to see radical economic change not capitalist-minded people who want to fuss over nonsense like white privilege and trans bathrooms) should be immensely concerned with this development. Back in the day we had manufacturing oligarchs, then the Big Oil tycoons, then the banking and stock cartel - now the new Masters of the Universe are the tech companies and they have the same rapacious, selfish and anti-democratic ideals as any of their predecessors.

Back in the day capitalists used The American Dream and blind patriotism to bamboozle workers into compliance, nowadays we have the most unfettered capitalism and many are happy with it because it flies a rainbow flag or a BLM logo.

A fantastic post.

MisterAnarchy

revelman wrote: »

Are there different labels that can be used? Or perhaps it is the case that this is all too complex for simple labels. I see myself as a moderate that sees sense in what some people who call themselves ‘leftists’ advocate but I also see some sense in what some people who think of themselves as ‘right wing’ say. I don’t think I’m alone...

Whats funny is that if you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, you would have been labelled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today.

Dyr

FTA69 wrote: »

Any serious left-wing person (and by that I mean people who want to see radical economic change not capitalist-minded people who want to fuss over nonsense like white privilege and trans bathrooms) should be immensely concerned with this development.

But this is the left in toto now, from PBP to SF to Labour, to Labour in the UK, to the Democrats in the US. You can't divorce the political left from the "nonsense" because they're utterly hostage to it now.

markodaly

uptherebels wrote: »

can you point out where it states twitter is a public utility?
you don't seem to understand that "free speech" in the US actually means.
Nor do you seem to understand the ruling in question.
But that isn't surprising.

Sorry, I misspoke in relation to a public utility, but the ruling from the Federal Court and the SCOTUS case of sex offenders being allowed to access Social Media is clear. The Internet today is the 'public forum' thus has 1st amendment protections.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=07943015-cb5d-4efa-b040-d661e6fb3696

ustice Kennedy’s majority (incld. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) declares that “[a] fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more.” Packingham, Slip Op. at 4. The Court not only reiterated the basic tenet that “a street or a park is a quintessential forum for the exercise of First Amendment rights,” but took it further in stating:

While in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views, today the answer is clear. It is cyberspace—the vast democratic forums of the Internet in general, and social media in particular.

So, this blanket idiotic view that Silicon Valley and Social Media companies can do whatever they want, is not true. They are beholden to certain constitutional rights as regards the sex offender case. If Facebook decided tomorrow to ban all sex offenders from its site, they wouldn't be allowed to.

Regardless, social media companies and larger Silicon Valley companies like Google are going to be in for a rough legal ride over the next few years.

markodaly

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

That you believe the Democrats are on the 'left' exposes just how utterly defeated the 'left' truly is.

Ah that Chestnut again.

In the American context, Democrats are left. We know that, you know that.

Tony EH

markodaly wrote: »

Ah that Chestnut again.

In the American context, Democrats are left. We know that, you know that.

Not even close.

And YOU know that.

markodaly

FTA69 wrote: »

It's absolutely insane to see nominally left-wing people (rightly) criticise things like bias in the corporate print and televised media but then turn around and blithely suggest that Twitter and Facebook censoring political projects they don't like is ok as they are 'private platforms'. I mean that's the whole point - the fact that a few oligarchs have now acquired immense control over society's communications to the point they can censor the president of the most powerful country in the world is extremely worrying.

These corporations aren't booting Trump out of a sense of decency but out of a desire to see a smooth transformation of power and the continuance of the status quo whereby they can continue to accrue unimaginable wealth and power and influence. Ironically, the tactics they are deploying now will be used against any left-wing challenge. If a President gets in that wanted to tax the f*ck out of these people then we'll see their agenda laid bare. Facebook have already banned Press TV and Twitter has censored Cuba and Venezuelan politicians as well as the Kurdish freedom movement. (I got banned for posting a picture of Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan.) Now these might not be popular examples for many but it shows you the motivations at play - arbiters of what's acceptable politically and what's not with zero accountability to anyone.

Any serious left-wing person (and by that I mean people who want to see radical economic change not capitalist-minded people who want to fuss over nonsense like white privilege and trans bathrooms) should be immensely concerned with this development. Back in the day we had manufacturing oligarchs, then the Big Oil tycoons, then the banking and stock cartel - now the new Masters of the Universe are the tech companies and they have the same rapacious, selfish and anti-democratic ideals as any of their predecessors.

Back in the day capitalists used The American Dream and blind patriotism to bamboozle workers into compliance, nowadays we have the most unfettered capitalism and many are happy with it because it flies a rainbow flag or a BLM logo.

I may not agree with much of you say sometimes, but I agree with the core argument here.

Twitter, Amazon, Google, they have amassed huge power and the idiots cheering them on now, will rue the day in the future.

When I agree with Glenn Greenwald on an issue, things must be pretty ****ed up!!

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1349009352603148292

Tony EH

PintOfView wrote: »

Can someone help me to understand what left and right wing mean today?
I'd love a list of what lefties and righties believe, and the 'extreme' and 'radical' shades of same, so I can see where I fit in!

Good luck getting any kind of logical answer to that on here.

The best you'll receive is posters strawmanning the "other side" and filling your head with a load of baloney.

Tony EH

FTA69 wrote: »

It's absolutely insane to see nominally left-wing people (rightly) criticise things like bias in the corporate print and televised media but then turn around and blithely suggest that Twitter and Facebook censoring political projects they don't like is ok as they are 'private platforms'. I mean that's the whole point - the fact that a few oligarchs have now acquired immense control over society's communications to the point they can censor the president of the most powerful country in the world is extremely worrying.

How is pointing out a reality "insane"? A private company enacts rules and if you break those rules, you'll be sanctioned. Pointing this out is simply pointing it out.

It's the right and the neo-liberals who are all about deregulation and letting the "market" decide and this is the result. Because if they want government to step in and regulate private companies, then that's going against what they've been preaching about previously.

The problem is not pointing out something. The problem is people wanting to have their cake and eat it.

FTA69 wrote: »

These corporations aren't booting Trump out of a sense of decency but out of a desire to see a smooth transformation of power and the continuance of the status quo whereby they can continue to accrue unimaginable wealth and power and influence. Ironically, the tactics they are deploying now will be used against any left-wing challenge. If a President gets in that wanted to tax the f*ck out of these people then we'll see their agenda laid bare. Facebook have already banned Press TV and Twitter has censored Cuba and Venezuelan politicians as well as the Kurdish freedom movement. (I got banned for posting a picture of Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan.) Now these might not be popular examples for many but it shows you the motivations at play - arbiters of what's acceptable politically and what's not with zero accountability to anyone.

These companies are banning Trump because he's now bad for their profile and therefore bad for business, after using him to make a lot of money of off his bullshit previously. Post the events of the 6th and the fact that he is the embodiment of a lame duck President, he's no longer as viable as he once was, especially in the case of optics.

It literally is capitalism in effect.

Wanderer78

Tony EH wrote:

It literally is capitalism in effect.

We truly need to be a lot clearer when we use the term capitalism, because capitalism wasn't actually always like this

senordingdong

Tony EH wrote: »

It literally is capitalism in effect.

It literally is a monopoly in effect.

No 'neo-liberal', or 'capitalist' as ever advocated a monopoly.

Tony EH

Wanderer78 wrote: »

We truly need to be a lot clearer when we use the term capitalism, because capitalism wasn't actually always like this

Well, if we take capitalism to mean a "system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state" then what Twitter et al are doing abides by that perfectly. The likes of Twitter trade off of selling user data and providing ad space and if kow towing to the likes of Trump and his lot damages their ability to do that, then they'll cut him loose like a hotsnot, even after previously using him to make money.

I cannot think of anything more capitalistic.

Trump and Trumpism has become toxic and he's being abandoned by people left, right and centre. He is no longer worth the effort and due to his actions has lost the Presidency, house and senate due to his bullshit, lies and egging on a mob to engage in a coup in the nation's capital. This is his last gasp and once his tenure is up, his viability as a useful way to make money will plummet significantly. Even further than it has already. So these private, for profit, businesses are getting out fast.

Tony EH

senordingdong wrote: »

It literally is a monopoly in effect.

No 'neo-liberal', or 'capitalist' as ever advocated a monopoly.

You don't know what a monopoly is.

Junkyard Tom

markodaly wrote: »

Ah that Chestnut again.

In the American context, Democrats are left. We know that, you know that.

You won, get over it. Now own your mess.

senordingdong wrote: »

No 'neo-liberal', or 'capitalist' as ever advocated a monopoly.

Capitalism has the drive to monopolise as an inherent flaw. You either destroy or buy out competitors.

Some things like motorways, power grids, sanitation, and public healthcare are 'natural' monopolies I'm sure even 'capitalists' would accept are the most rational way of providing that service.

senordingdong

Tony EH wrote: »

You don't know what a monopoly is.

I do.
And this meets the criteria

Tony EH

senordingdong wrote: »

I do.
And this meets the criteria

There are many separate companies involved in withdrawing from Trump because they no longer want anything to do with him. It doesn't even remotely fit.

Monopoly: A market structure characterized by a single seller, selling a unique product in the market.

senordingdong

Tony EH wrote: »

There are many separate companies involved in withdrawing from Trump because they no longer want anything to do with him. It doesn't even remotely fit.

Monopoly: A market structure characterized by a single seller, selling a unique product in the market.

Monopoly: exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market.

FTA69

Tony EH wrote: »

How is pointing out a reality "insane"? A private company enacts rules and if you break those rules, you'll be sanctioned. Pointing this out is simply pointing it out.

It's the right and the neo-liberals who are all about deregulation and letting the "market" decide and this is the result. Because if they want government to step in and regulate private companies, then that's going against what they've been preaching about previously.

The problem is not pointing out something. The problem is people wanting to have their cake and eat it.



These companies are banning Trump because he's now bad for their profile and therefore bad for business, after using him to make a lot of money of off his bullshit previously. Post the events of the 6th and the fact that he is the embodiment of a lame duck President, he's no longer as viable as he once was, especially in the case of optics.

It literally is capitalism in effect.

I agree with your first point in the sense there’s a lot of people on this forum who are rank hypocrites because they will champion the primacy of private property on one hand and then on the other hand will moan when that principle is exercised. However, I’m not as much concerned with that in my point but people who profess to be concerned with radical change genuinely happy about the recent actions of the tech giants and who believe in them presiding over censorship. That’s also a reality and one we must be concerned with as well as it throws up all manner of possibilities in future.

As for your second point, we seem to be in agreement to be honest. The tech giants are backing Biden because he’ll guarantee the continuance of a system that works wholly in their interest and do it without the vulgarity of Trump. Which also tells us all we need to know about Biden.

Sir Oxman

Nermal wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1349059275461685250

LOL

.

mariaalice

I'm still going to take an 80%/ 20% view of it with the tech companies and social media. Its 80% self-interest 20% and fear of Trump making life difficult for them when he was president.

Fear is how it all works when in power he did not have to anything just imply he might.

Trump tried to ban TikTok https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/53620689.

Plus i have no time for the whiny, ..' it's not fair that they cant spread their Jewish conspiracy theories nonsense on social media'.

Tony EH

senordingdong wrote: »

Monopoly: exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market...

...by a single entity.

Even with the definition provided for you, you still want to be wrong.

FFS. :rolleyes:

Invidious

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

That you believe the Democrats are on the 'left' exposes just how utterly defeated the 'left' truly is.

No true Scotsman...

The most popular candidate for tech donations in 2020 was Bernie Sanders. He's not on the "left," by your standards?

Tony EH

FTA69 wrote: »

I agree with your first point in the sense there’s a lot of people on this forum who are rank hypocrites because they will champion the primacy of private property on one hand and then on the other hand will moan when that principle is exercised.

This has always been a problem with zealots of any shade and not just on here. They're happy with things so long as they're on the pig's back and don't give a tinkers cuss if there are others put out by the measures they like to see in place. In fact, a lot of them rejoice in the fact that it 's puts others out. But then they start whinging when those measures they were for turn around and bites them on the arse.

Then it's time for a "new look" at things.

That type will always be around and they'll always be unworthy of an ear.

FTA69 wrote: »

However, I’m not as much concerned with that in my point but people who profess to be concerned with radical change genuinely happy about the recent actions of the tech giants and who believe in them presiding over censorship. That’s also a reality and one we must be concerned with as well as it throws up all manner of possibilities in future.

Who are these people though? The vast majority of people understand that if you're out of line on a message board and break their rules, you'll get the whip. And if you continuously do it, you'll get banned from using that platform. There's nothing else to really understand here and I don't really see any of these "people who profess to be concerned with radical change" in any state of rejoice. They just see that things have come to a head and enough is enough. Sure, there'll be those that will be delighted with Trump getting chucked off of Twitter, but the vast majority of people are simply saying "well, what did you expect?".

Look, Trump's had his chances. Many more than than most, it has to be said. But he continued to use Twitter to lie about stolen elections and rile up an armed mob. That's pretty much the zenith of online trolling right there and it's a miracle that he wasn't banned long before now. Jesus, I know people that have been warned/banned off of Twitter for a fraction of what he's got up to.

In addition, you have sites like Parler and QAnon that have been repeatedly the centre of congress for the most extreme types, up to and including leading an attack on the US Capitol building.

It has just reached a point where that just cannot continue. Because the next time might be much worse. So we have companies manoeuvring away from these things because it's just become too much.

As to the "possibilities for the future", they're exactly the same as they were before Trump got the ban hammer. Private companies will have the right to enforce their rules as they see fit.

Nothing's changed here.

FTA69 wrote: »

As for your second point, we seem to be in agreement to be honest. The tech giants are backing Biden because he’ll guarantee the continuance of a system that works wholly in their interest and do it without the vulgarity of Trump. Which also tells us all we need to know about Biden.

Biden really has nothing to do with it.

The "tech giants" were more than happy to let Trump say all manner of bollocks for years. They profited off of that quite handsomely and he brought in a revenue stream, because a lot of people, outside of his worshippers, checked in to see what crazy bullshit he was typing that day. But he's no longer that golden goose, and in a week he'll be nothing.

But with more and more businesses dominoing away from Trump's baloney, it's only natural that other businesses will follow suit and eventually the whole area of revenue will be gone.

Secretly, I'd say that there are lot of folk at Twitter (including Dorsey) who would have loved to see Trump stay and keep being a viable angle for money. But an insurrection built on lies causing a host of companies to bail is just too powerful a force to ignore.

Tony EH

Invidious wrote: »

No true Scotsman...

The most popular candidate for tech donations in 2020 was Bernie Sanders. He's not on the "left," by your standards?

Sanders, who the DNC scuppered TWICE.

Yeh, that party's real Left wing.

Junkyard Tom

Invidious wrote: »

He's not on the "left," by your standards?

He'd be a regular centrist social democrat in Europe. You'll notice too that he was sidelined by the Dems for being a loonie lefty commie.

Invidious

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

He'd be a regular centrist social democrat in Europe.

So ... who are the genuine "left," in your view?

timmyntc

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

He'd be a regular centrist social democrat in Europe. You'll notice too that he was sidelined by the Dems for being a loonie lefty commie.

Sidelined because he wasn't in keeping with the party's big business interests.

The 2 parties in America have long bowed to corporate interests.

Danzy

suicide_circus wrote: »

Big Tech and the POTUS are now politically aligned.

Cosy.

The Democrats are now the party of big corporations. Dow 50 Companies.

conorhal

This made me laugh pretty hard.

https://twitter.com/loganclarkhall/status/1349123610926047233

zom

Day after banning half of America because "Twitter is private business and they can ban whoever they want", Twitter is whinging about censorship as they got banned in Uganda ahead of national election:

https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1349059275461685250
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-twitter-uganda-deplatform-conservatives-censorship-trump

Welcome to Brave New World