Slashdot Mirror
President Trump Says It is 'Very Dangerous' When Companies Like Twitter Regulate Own Content (reuters.com)
In an interview with Reuters on Monday, the U.S. President Donald Trump said that it is "very dangerous" for social media companies like Twitter and Facebook to regulate the content on their own platforms. Trump's remarks come on the backdrop of technology giants Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Spotify, and YouTube ridding select kind of content of their platforms in the recent weeks. On Saturday, Trump argued that social media companies are "closing down the opinions" of conservatives. He tweeted, "They are closing down the opinions of many people on the RIGHT, while at the same time doing nothing to others. Speaking loudly and clearly for the Trump Administration, we won't let that happen."
Further reading: Twitter Is 'Rethinking' Its Service, and Suspending 1M Accounts Each Day.
Further reading: Twitter Is 'Rethinking' Its Service, and Suspending 1M Accounts Each Day.
Even though Twitter banned Alex Jones, you also see people like Will Wheaton self banning
Maybe so, but I believe we should have a law that Critical Internet Platforms such as Google Search, Facebook, Twitter, Uber, AirBnb, Netflix, etc.
Do not have the right and may not permanently ban a natural person nor suspend for an extended period from their platform.
In the 21st century: These platforms are as critical as other utilities like Electricity or Gas, and even if someone is caught stealing power and has their
service cut off, there are provisions where that person cannot be "Banned for life from buying electricity from that company" --- they just have to satisfy some conditions that likely include statutory penalties.
So I say... The law ought to stipulate that Twitter, etc, can take
measures to stop abuse or recover losses from significant monetary damages and delete or close an account immediately
after abuse, or apply a short time-limited suspension, But there must be a provision for the person to re-open at least 1 account and
resume legitimate use of the service in a manner following the same rules as all other users.
Also, they should not be allowed to suppress ALL a user's messages based on a few perceived violations.
The recourse for violations should be removal of violating content.
Violating content cannot be content that merely supports or opposes certain people for political office or follows a certain political ideology.
Alex Jones pushed violent attacks on innocent individuals
This probably didn't happen, if it did, there would be videos everywhere. The news banning him avoided showing any video, almost like it was made up.
I don't normally like the "point by point" refutation, but this post is so completely whacked... here goes:
> with no bases in truth
"Truth" (or lack of) is not a reason for censorship. Deleting things based on truth is subject to all kinds of bias and misrepresentation.
> Alex Jones pushed violent attacks on innocent individuals
Then he should be arrested. Was he arrested? I'm now wondering if your assertion is, in fact, true. The legal system has very explicit rules on what is legal speech, and a public forum for appeal with well-known rules and restrictions.
> To defend him makes you a nutter,
Insults are not arguments. I'll bet you're a liberal - because insults are all they have.
> giving him das boot.
"Das Boot" was a movie, originally in German ("The Boat", about a German U-boat during WWII), and you use the phrase as a pun of "the boot", meaning "to kick out".
I don't see how this works in any comedic, ironic, or literal way, unless you're casting the social media as nazis? Which I suppose they are, but it looks like the opposite of what you intended.
> Kendall happily defends traitors and dangerous people
A jab at Trump and Kendall. People are waking up to the fact that extreme rhetoric is simply noise in the public dialog. We get it, you're full of hatred, you have to throw insults because you have no arguments.
> [Kendall, Trump] so long as ideologically they agree with him. Otherwise he's for the opposite.
Someone who defends a position they agree with, and argues against a position they disagree with is... what?
If you have an argument that's not based on emotion, I'd like to hear it. Saying that social media "can run their business the way they want" is starting to wear thin, as social media invited everyone to participate and built a huge base and following, only to suppress certain viewpoints in the run-up to an election.
The term "anti-American" has been tossed around lately, but actually that previous sentence 'kinda fits. By suppressing one political viewpoint, those companies are using their built-up power to influence the results of an election.
On the face of it, that seems anti-American.