I wonder how much of this is fear that Facebook won't be able to maintain views throughout the 2024 election cycle if users are forced to other platforms to follow Trump.
The HackerNews crowd really needs to figure out how to deal with the cognitive dissonance of "the business can do no wrong while chasing the profits" and "but ma' freedoms".
To be fair, it has been quite a while (not in our lifetime AFAIK) since we had a sitting president with such antisocial behavior tendencies. It was uncharted territory.
I love how everyone just uses the term "sitting president" verbatim now when making this argument, as if the prospect of a president losing their social media accounts is supposed to fill us with dread, sitting or no. It's almost become like a verbal tic.
Everything that president said and did was covered by the press around the world, an army of spokespeople and a million online sycophants. He isn't (and certainly wasn't) "stifled" by the banning of his social media accounts. Really, tech companies bent over backwards to accommodate him, gave him far more slack than they would give you or I. And even then he had to cross the line twice.
Hell, he's still the frontrunner for the Republicans in 2024, and the last anyone heard from him was that he was selling NFTs.
The narrative of Trump being silenced by big tech isn't working, find another one already.
The Board found that the two posts by Mr Trump on 6 January severely violated Facebook's Community Standards and Instagram's Community Guidelines. "We love you. You're very special" in the first post, and "great patriots" and "remember this day forever" in the second post violated Facebook's rules prohibiting praise or support of people engaged in violence.
This seems like a ridiculous stretch of "praise of support of people engaged in violence" when right before "We love you." is "We have to have peace. So go home."
It's pretty clear this was a post facto decision - Trump needed to be banned, so let's see if we can come up with something to ban him for.
If corps are people, then it's men with multiple personalities disorder, with the number of personalities sometimes reaching tens. A few years ago one group of neurons (VPs) was in charge, and they believed that free speech is bad. Today another group of neurons has taken control, and they believe that free speech is good.
I used to share that opinion but as emails and DM's between three letter agencies and the social media platforms have been leaking it's harder to defend corporations. I will defer to Shoe for some details. [1]
Obviously, your intuition differs, but my view (as a New Zealander) is that Trump absolutely broke the terms of use of the platforms he was on and deserved being banned. Free speech means that you can't be imprisoned for your political views, not that everyone owes you a platform.
Meta finally realizing that folks will happily migrate to other platforms to read what they are interested in. I wonder if they'll change their stance on censorship of certain medical information next?
steponlego|3 years ago
bediger4000|3 years ago
advisedwang|3 years ago
ss108|3 years ago
thinking4real|3 years ago
Oh that’s hilarious. After tech companies stifling a sitting president, now they are going to straight faced claim this like it means a damn thing.
This is insulting to users’ intelligence.
papito|3 years ago
0xy|3 years ago
rootusrootus|3 years ago
krapp|3 years ago
Everything that president said and did was covered by the press around the world, an army of spokespeople and a million online sycophants. He isn't (and certainly wasn't) "stifled" by the banning of his social media accounts. Really, tech companies bent over backwards to accommodate him, gave him far more slack than they would give you or I. And even then he had to cross the line twice.
Hell, he's still the frontrunner for the Republicans in 2024, and the last anyone heard from him was that he was selling NFTs.
The narrative of Trump being silenced by big tech isn't working, find another one already.
refurb|3 years ago
https://www.oversightboard.com/news/226612455899839-oversigh...
The Board found that the two posts by Mr Trump on 6 January severely violated Facebook's Community Standards and Instagram's Community Guidelines. "We love you. You're very special" in the first post, and "great patriots" and "remember this day forever" in the second post violated Facebook's rules prohibiting praise or support of people engaged in violence.
This seems like a ridiculous stretch of "praise of support of people engaged in violence" when right before "We love you." is "We have to have peace. So go home."
It's pretty clear this was a post facto decision - Trump needed to be banned, so let's see if we can come up with something to ban him for.
stonogo|3 years ago
akomtu|3 years ago
Luciatrutth|3 years ago
[deleted]
petodo|3 years ago
[deleted]
amanaplanacanal|3 years ago
rvz|3 years ago
[deleted]
LinuxBender|3 years ago
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdjQWuJeVqE [video][13 mins]
JaimeThompson|3 years ago
CamperBob2|3 years ago
[deleted]
lazzlazzlazz|3 years ago
cma|3 years ago
peterashford|3 years ago
atkailash|3 years ago
[deleted]
bowmessage|3 years ago
lern_too_spel|3 years ago
If you got this wrong, consider if you got your medical knowledge wrong too. Try talking to your doctor for medical advice.
treeman79|3 years ago
[deleted]