They really need to be explicit about why they did this. Twitter and Facebook have been right about banning DJT and the "Stop The Steal" conspiracists, but they've also spent social capital by doing it, and their reserves are very, very low.
(I think Ron Paul is a problematic character and not at all the idealist he's portrayed as by his fervid followers, but that doesn't matter here in the least).
>Twitter and Facebook have been right about banning DJT and the "Stop The Steal" conspiracists
How so? You call them conspiracists and they might very well be. In fact, let's say they are 100% conspiracists.
If "real conspiracists" are OK to be banned, how would you discern conspiracists from realists that tell it like it is?
Just because Twitter and Facebook says so?
There has been no shortage of actual stolen elections and/or election fraud worldwide (and one would presume, in the US historically).
Would Twitter by OK to ban people complaining about stolen elections in some Latin American country (where we can all agree that they might very well be stolen)?
At the same time, I wish people didn't jump to conclusions just yet. Yes, it could possibly be FB gone wild and starting weird blanket banning. It could be a mistake. It could be an organised group mass-reporting the account to make it banned and prove a point. (organised mass-reporting is relatively common) There's so many options.
I suspect and hope this will be reverted very quickly.
In what way have they been right? What has he written that is against their policies, or against a sane policy? Like I legitimately want to hear, what adequate reasons to you think they had to ban him? I haven't been able to find any, at all.
Or is your definition of "right" just referring to the fact that it's their private platform and they can ban whoever they want based on their own political views?
Not a fan of Ron Paul but this doesn't sit right. It doesn't appear that he has advocated violence or insurgency.
I wouldn't have a problem with legislation requiring disclosure of specific reasons for locking users out of their accounts, once a social media company, payment provider, or other online service provider reaches a certain size. Of course, under libertarian principles, Ron Paul would object to such a law, but that's where we are nowadays. Lots of ideological chickens coming home to roost.
I listen to Ron Paul all the time, not even once i have listened him to be racist or hateful to anyone, or advocate for violence. Actually this is what i dislike him the most, that he is too peaceful, almost against all wars. Other subjects he comments usually, is the climate change that it may be true, but most probably not man-made, he is not favor at all the compulsory vaccination because it is totally unscientific, and that most of the covid measures are totally authoritarian.
However silencing the political opposition is always a necessary step we have to make, so as to have a good functional democracy.
I look forward to the EFF and the ACLU getting their pages shut down then. Even they've come out and stated that we should be chilled with Parler's shutout.
>Yes, this is partly an attempt to erase the Trump movement from the pages of history, but it is also an attempt to silence any criticism of the emerging political consensus in the coming Biden era that may come from progressive or antiwar circles.
Getting banned right after saying this just shows that he's right. Combined with how DNC blocked Sanders and Gabbard, the next four years is going to be very bad for the rest of the world.
> Because no army – not even Big Tech partnered with Big Government - can stop an idea
This is more hopeful than conclusively factual. It seems pretty clear that platform owners believe very strongly that they can and should or must. It’s the must part that concerns me. Jack’s free-speaking interviews don’t imply any personal desire for censorship. He’s even spoken to the need for a decentralized Twitter.
Maybe the most important part of this quote is that Ron Paul explicitly implies a partnership where none so far is understood, and at this point such an implication is certainly on the fringe of conspiracy theories. And if you think about all of the POTUS death threats that have built massive audiences on the platform, it’s an extremely confusing and/or deeply troubling accusation. Who is this ‘Big Government’, and why would they seem to hate the one person that most Americans most closely associate with that term?
I guess the big question is whether censorship exists to protect powerless people from lies, or powerful people from the truth.
> President Trump’s permanent ban from Twitter and other outlets – was shocking and chilling, particularly to those of us who value free expression and the free exchange of ideas. The justifications given for the silencing of wide swaths of public opinion made no sense
That's all I need to read in order to dismiss anything further that he says.
A cynic would say that tech companies are ingratiating themselves with the new power, the Democrats, in order to get clemency on the anti-trust probes everyone was expecting for 2021.
What prevents Big Tech from occupying the Chinese market is the fact that the Chinese leadership does not trust them to toe the line perfectly. That won't change with a change in the White House.
Reinstating net neutrality will be a good thing. Shelving that mostly helped ISPs, who've now expanded their anti-competitive zero-rating practices to broadband.
> has anti-China policies, which reduces Big Tech's customer base.
Biden has already said he will not reverse the China policy - quite the contrary, unlike Trump who only resorted to bullying tactics (aka trade/tariff war), Biden intends to work out a China policy with allied countries (i.e. NATO / European Union) that will aim at changing the abusive practices China is doing, per https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/02/opinion/biden-interview-m... .
These kinds of actions only fan the big tech conspiracy flames, but surely if it's true that he never actually received a violation, then his account got 1000s of reports and was auto-locked.
I listen to him occasionally. He is a natural contrarian and has said things at various time that would likely be against social media policies. For example he had segments on his “Liberty Report” that encouraged mask skepticism and other such misguided things about dealing with Covid that he should know better about, being a former medical doctor.
I very much doubt he’s said anything in support of the recent insurrections though, he’s incredibly anti-war and generally promoting peace. IMO he has deteriorated mentally in recent years and has become significantly more kooky, which is a shame because IMO there are some things he’s been very right about and he’s almost the only one advocating for certain things.
Many Americans viewed this assault on social media accounts as a liberal or Democrat attack on conservatives and Republicans, but they are missing the point. The narrowing of allowable opinion in the virtual public square is no conspiracy against conservatives. As progressives like Glenn Greenwald have pointed out, this is a wider assault on any opinion that veers from the acceptable parameters of the mainstream elite, which is made up of both Democrats and Republicans.
This is what Americans need to understand. Democrat vs. Republican, right vs. left are smokescreens designed to distract you from actual issues. The real divide is more like legacy institutional technocracy vs. local-focused democracy.
In real terms: Trump and Sanders are mirror images of each other, not opposites. Both basically have/had the same populist platform with different implementations.
Fb, Amazon, Apple and Google ought to keep in mind that the Dems won’t be in control forever. Past history shows that one party controls the presidency for only 1 or 2 terms, the it flips. When the Republicans are back in control, I doubt they will have forgotten the attempted suppression by these tech companies and will be looking for some payback.
I am just watching this unfold from a few thousand miles away, but if you ask me, big tech is helping the democrats block all opposition.
Even before Trump was blocked, what I found really scary was blocking Unity 2020 (https://articlesofunity.org/). That movement was as far away from radicalism as any movement can be. Yet they got blocked because it could have hurt the Democrat victory. Now, by blocking Trump and other republicans, they are just sealing the deal and make clear that nothing goes without big tech approval.
Lack of clarity on these actions doesn't do anyone any good. On issues of moderation judgment calls are almost always necessary, but in return they should be coupled with some transparency and clear rationale, else it looks arbitrary or even retributive.
Whether or not people agree with the decision, we know exactly why Trump and several others got blocked this past week. This on the other hand is a case where rationale is currently unclear, and in that information vacuum people will fill in the gaps with their own ideas which are almost always going to cause them to trust the brand less.
Random anecdote: A libertarian friend got his facebook page banned because they wrote a book about covid (which criticised governments handling of the situation in their country).
They banned Ron Paul? This is getting insane. He is so far outside the Trump camp. He was the only person to vote against the Iraq war. His voice is a voice of peace and classical liberal values. You might disagree with him, but to ban him is just insane.
First of all we don't know the details here: quite possibly this could be one of the following (non-exhaustive): either a overzealous and politically motivated MAGA moderator who thought that barring Ron Paul could be a great way to make a point and cause a backlash that swings the pendulum back to giving conspiracy nuts a free rein again. Or, a politically ignorant moderator that wanted to score some points for achieving a perceived but misunderstood, objective. Or, an automated response to a coordinated flood of reports by an anti-libertarian brigade. Or, an automated response to a flood of comments calling for the execution of the VP, a flood of pornographic pictures by a community brigade or the like. Or, it could be a conscious effort by top brass on FB to punish Ron Paul on their platform for criticizing tech censorship. Out of which the last one seems the least probable, but in lieu of an official and forthright response from FB everyone is free to speculate wildly.
But agree, it is ironic that Ron Paul complains about it. It is almost as if he really wants FB to behave like a public utility type service. Maybe it's time they did.
I think the hardcore libertarian is complaining that oligopolies embedded with the inbound political administration are collaborating to shut out oppositional voices. Not seeing any contradiction with first principles of free markets and liberty there.
> Those who continue to argue that the social media companies are purely private ventures acting independent of US government interests are ignoring reality. The corporatist merger of “private” US social media companies with US government foreign policy goals has a long history
Says Facebook is an arm of the government advancing shady goals and murderous drone attacks then wonders why he got blocked
You are kind of proving his point: you are narrowing the window of acceptable opinion not to merely exclude "kill all X" but to also forbid stances like "Big Tech helps advance US gov interests overseas“.
How can one not see the Orweillian direction this all seems to be taking?
[+] [-] tptacek|5 years ago|reply
(I think Ron Paul is a problematic character and not at all the idealist he's portrayed as by his fervid followers, but that doesn't matter here in the least).
[+] [-] coldtea|5 years ago|reply
How so? You call them conspiracists and they might very well be. In fact, let's say they are 100% conspiracists.
If "real conspiracists" are OK to be banned, how would you discern conspiracists from realists that tell it like it is?
Just because Twitter and Facebook says so?
There has been no shortage of actual stolen elections and/or election fraud worldwide (and one would presume, in the US historically).
Would Twitter by OK to ban people complaining about stolen elections in some Latin American country (where we can all agree that they might very well be stolen)?
[+] [-] viraptor|5 years ago|reply
I suspect and hope this will be reverted very quickly.
[+] [-] Erlich_Bachman|5 years ago|reply
In what way have they been right? What has he written that is against their policies, or against a sane policy? Like I legitimately want to hear, what adequate reasons to you think they had to ban him? I haven't been able to find any, at all.
Or is your definition of "right" just referring to the fact that it's their private platform and they can ban whoever they want based on their own political views?
[+] [-] CamperBob2|5 years ago|reply
I wouldn't have a problem with legislation requiring disclosure of specific reasons for locking users out of their accounts, once a social media company, payment provider, or other online service provider reaches a certain size. Of course, under libertarian principles, Ron Paul would object to such a law, but that's where we are nowadays. Lots of ideological chickens coming home to roost.
[+] [-] phoinix|5 years ago|reply
However silencing the political opposition is always a necessary step we have to make, so as to have a good functional democracy.
[+] [-] rriepe|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eyelidlessness|5 years ago|reply
But do they? Because you feel like it? Or because they have some real obligation?
[+] [-] drak0n1c|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Anon1096|5 years ago|reply
Oh wait, we all know that won't happen.
[+] [-] turing_complete|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _v7gu|5 years ago|reply
Getting banned right after saying this just shows that he's right. Combined with how DNC blocked Sanders and Gabbard, the next four years is going to be very bad for the rest of the world.
[+] [-] jl2718|5 years ago|reply
This is more hopeful than conclusively factual. It seems pretty clear that platform owners believe very strongly that they can and should or must. It’s the must part that concerns me. Jack’s free-speaking interviews don’t imply any personal desire for censorship. He’s even spoken to the need for a decentralized Twitter.
Maybe the most important part of this quote is that Ron Paul explicitly implies a partnership where none so far is understood, and at this point such an implication is certainly on the fringe of conspiracy theories. And if you think about all of the POTUS death threats that have built massive audiences on the platform, it’s an extremely confusing and/or deeply troubling accusation. Who is this ‘Big Government’, and why would they seem to hate the one person that most Americans most closely associate with that term?
I guess the big question is whether censorship exists to protect powerless people from lies, or powerful people from the truth.
[+] [-] im3w1l|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JasonFruit|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TwoBit|5 years ago|reply
That's all I need to read in order to dismiss anything further that he says.
[+] [-] rvn1045|5 years ago|reply
Their actions have huge consequences and we're not even pressuring them to explain why they're doing what they're doing.
[+] [-] RachelF|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] liquidify|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smsm42|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] youeseh|5 years ago|reply
- rescinded net neutrality, which helped FAANG companies.
- threatened to break up Big Tech.
- has anti-China policies, which reduces Big Tech's customer base.
The new administration may be reversing all of the above.
[+] [-] offby37years|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drak0n1c|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] inglor_cz|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unityByFreedom|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yed|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mschuster91|5 years ago|reply
Biden has already said he will not reverse the China policy - quite the contrary, unlike Trump who only resorted to bullying tactics (aka trade/tariff war), Biden intends to work out a China policy with allied countries (i.e. NATO / European Union) that will aim at changing the abusive practices China is doing, per https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/02/opinion/biden-interview-m... .
[+] [-] cush|5 years ago|reply
Everyone needs to chill out.
[+] [-] akvadrako|5 years ago|reply
It's just about how all these left-wing platforms are acting at the same time to silence those they disagree with.
[+] [-] Andys|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] donny2018|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnCohorn|5 years ago|reply
I very much doubt he’s said anything in support of the recent insurrections though, he’s incredibly anti-war and generally promoting peace. IMO he has deteriorated mentally in recent years and has become significantly more kooky, which is a shame because IMO there are some things he’s been very right about and he’s almost the only one advocating for certain things.
[+] [-] ceilingcorner|5 years ago|reply
Many Americans viewed this assault on social media accounts as a liberal or Democrat attack on conservatives and Republicans, but they are missing the point. The narrowing of allowable opinion in the virtual public square is no conspiracy against conservatives. As progressives like Glenn Greenwald have pointed out, this is a wider assault on any opinion that veers from the acceptable parameters of the mainstream elite, which is made up of both Democrats and Republicans.
This is what Americans need to understand. Democrat vs. Republican, right vs. left are smokescreens designed to distract you from actual issues. The real divide is more like legacy institutional technocracy vs. local-focused democracy.
In real terms: Trump and Sanders are mirror images of each other, not opposites. Both basically have/had the same populist platform with different implementations.
[+] [-] agumonkey|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redisman|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmcguckin|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tjansen|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] npunt|5 years ago|reply
Whether or not people agree with the decision, we know exactly why Trump and several others got blocked this past week. This on the other hand is a case where rationale is currently unclear, and in that information vacuum people will fill in the gaps with their own ideas which are almost always going to cause them to trust the brand less.
[+] [-] jokethrowaway|5 years ago|reply
Random anecdote: A libertarian friend got his facebook page banned because they wrote a book about covid (which criticised governments handling of the situation in their country).
[+] [-] mchusma|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _hudj|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rapsey|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] maxehmookau|5 years ago|reply
Give me a break.
[+] [-] stareatgoats|5 years ago|reply
But agree, it is ironic that Ron Paul complains about it. It is almost as if he really wants FB to behave like a public utility type service. Maybe it's time they did.
[+] [-] aksss|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boxmonster|5 years ago|reply
Says Facebook is an arm of the government advancing shady goals and murderous drone attacks then wonders why he got blocked
[+] [-] axiosgunnar|5 years ago|reply
How can one not see the Orweillian direction this all seems to be taking?