Agreed - Banning Trump an assault on democracy and free speech.

[Dear Mami]

Arcadian is one of those people when make me resent right-wingers for calling wokerism "left." It's right-wingism on stilts. Genuine Left politics abhors control/dictatorship by Capital/big business even more than it resents dictatorship by govt. Why? At least the vote gives some small semblance of accountability when it's the govt. These other folks are accountable to no one but themselves. We have a situation in which one, 36 year old, Zuckerberg is deciding which speech should be heard by millions (or a small board of about 4 heads of similar companies), and we think it's alright now, but one day, it maybe a Donald Trump Jr deciding things like that. Indeed, if the culture shifts like this, that's EXACTLY what the Zuckerbergs will do: shift and do dictatorship for whichever trend holds in that culture.

And it's not true that they are solely targetting right wingers. They treated "Bernie Bros" the exact same way back when Sanders was still a pest and have been killing independent Leftist media with unfair algorithms for about 2 years now. At least the right wingers have Fox to get their word out. True Leftists (i.e. who care about economics that caters for everyone) have no actual "big" platform apart from independent media so they feeling the heat even more than right-wingers. They are equally loathed by CNN/MSNBC and Fox.

[RV Pundit]

Unless he was posting child pornography or something that moral offensive; you cannot ban a whole POTUS for political expression  you disagree with - someone who say his election was stolen bla de bla. Democrats spend 5yrs on their Russia sour grapes.

If there rules are the same - why don't normal user get the same level of scrutiny - or disclaimer - Facebook bla de bla - this disclaimer.

I know democrats forced Facebooks and likes to take the heat for Russian alleged social media engeneering - but surely banning pORK is going over the top.

Ban BOTS, Sex pest, and other such morally repugnantly repressive folks - but banning a whole POTUS or Nigeria President - that got to be some cheek.

[Georgesoros]

Unless he was posting child pornography or something that moral offensive; you cannot ban a whole POTUS for political expression  you disagree with - someone who say his election was stolen bla de bla. Democrats spend 5yrs on their Russia sour grapes.

If there rules are the same - why don't normal user get the same level of scrutiny - or disclaimer - Facebook bla de bla - this disclaimer.

I know democrats forced Facebooks and likes to take the heat for Russian alleged social media engeneering - but surely banning pORK is going over the top.

Ban BOTS, Sex pest, and other such morally repugnantly repressive folks - but banning a whole POTUS or Nigeria President - that got to be some cheek.

So inciting people against each other is Politics??
You guys either live in wonderland or are CRAZY!! Apply the latter.
Trump wanted civil war and then declare martial law to hold on to power. Is this the crap you want???

[Georgesoros]

Are you OK?
Youre kinda off the chats
"Impose on everyone"?
People chose to use tech because its convenient, hence the rules that come with it. You dont ban a platform because your little **CK has been hurt!

Na so broda! 

It astonishes me the kind of loyalty this oaf commands among some folks. What can social science tell us about it? I understand deplorables in the rust belt acutely aware of white demographic trends latching on to his America white first platform but what is in it for a confused coal black miscreant? It is inexplicable.

Arcadian Sucker - I would call you pea-brained but that would be unfair to the pea. I always watch the extreme intolerance of liberals like you here - or in many Silicon Valley companies - or in US colleges - such a bunch of haters. I wonder where you get the audacity to point fingers at others? I have also always heard that the Rethugs will soon go stale, senile and extinct... ha! I loathe intolerance - which is what banning a (ex-) POTUS or President Buhari is.

Robina. You are taking this personal. Please take a break. No reason to turn on to insults. This is what Trump did to anyone who disagreed with him. Nothing in this world is permanent.

[RV Pundit]

If Americans can easily be incited by 14 characters tweet; then surely!
You clearly have a dim view of Americans and their institutions.

So inciting people against each other is Politics??
You guys either live in wonderland or are CRAZY!! Apply the latter.
Trump wanted civil war and then declare martial law to hold on to power. Is this the crap you want???

[Georgesoros]

If Americans can easily be incited by 14 characters tweet; then surely!
You clearly have a dim view of Americans and their institutions.

So inciting people against each other is Politics??
You guys either live in wonderland or are CRAZY!! Apply the latter.
Trump wanted civil war and then declare martial law to hold on to power. Is this the crap you want???

SCARY, right???
Risk of civil war is higher than when Martin Luther was murdered. Problem now is almost everyone armed. And they blame China.

[Dear Mami]

Unless he was posting child pornography or something that moral offensive; you cannot ban a whole POTUS for political expression  you disagree with - someone who say his election was stolen bla de bla. Democrats spend 5yrs on their Russia sour grapes.

If there rules are the same - why don't normal user get the same level of scrutiny - or disclaimer - Facebook bla de bla - this disclaimer.

Russiagate was not propagated by the actual Left but by "Liberals" who couldn't accept that giving people a bad candidate (Killery) under the religion of wokeism (vote for the woman no matter what!) resulted in the loss of the election. Russiagate was what confirmed for me that Liberals were genuinely nuts  all the while pretending nuttery was the privilege of right-wingers alone. They propagated that crap from MSNBC, via especially Rachel Maddow, nonstop 247, till Muller's reports came to nil. It was an ACTUAL leftist journalist (Aaron Mate) who debunked Rachel Maddow for her Russia conspiracies video by video, claim by claim, on Twitter. And yes, it is THESE independent voices on the Left that have been getting gutted by big tech in the past two years. They're hated by Fox but just as much by CNN/MSNBC, so unlike the Right, they don't have any "ally" in big media when google's algorithms come for them. At least Right-wingers have Fox which is still the biggest news network in the USA in terms of viewership/ratings.

Your mistake, pundit, is thinking liberals are the same thing as Left. It's the Right that lumps them together but they are VERY different. The Left has been wanting Facebook and their friends regulated/nationalized loooong before Trump. They like control by Capital (like Big tech) even less than they like control by govt, because Capital has ZERO accountability to the public good. They'll do whatver they want or whatver gives them a profit even if it's very bad for everybody. At least a govt is somewhat accountable to the electorate, however imperfectly. This was Angela Merkel's point: She said, essentially, that parliaments/govts should determine what free-speech rules are/should be on these platforms via regular law-making procedures, not the CEOs or boards of these companies. That way, there'd be fairness. I agree with her.

[RV Pundit]

We are agreed that Facebook and these big media - require regulations - just like any other mass media is regulated - radio, tv, name it. Gov has to regulate them -somehow despite it's democratization of the content creators.

Unless he was posting child pornography or something that moral offensive; you cannot ban a whole POTUS for political expression  you disagree with - someone who say his election was stolen bla de bla. Democrats spend 5yrs on their Russia sour grapes.

If there rules are the same - why don't normal user get the same level of scrutiny - or disclaimer - Facebook bla de bla - this disclaimer.

Russiagate was not propagated by the actual Left but by "Liberals" who couldn't accept that giving people a bad candidate (Killery) under the religion of wokeism (vote for the woman no matter what!) resulted in the loss of the election. Russiagate was what confirmed for me that Liberals were genuinely nuts  all the while pretending nuttery was the privilege of right-wingers alone. They propagated that crap from MSNBC, via especially Rachel Maddow, nonstop 247, till Muller's reports came to nil. It was an ACTUAL leftist journalist (Aaron Mate) who debunked Rachel Maddow for her Russia conspiracies video by video, claim by claim, on Twitter. And yes, it is THESE independent voices on the Left that have been getting gutted by big tech in the past two years. They're hated by Fox but just as much by CNN/MSNBC, so unlike the Right, they don't have any "ally" in big media when google's algorithms come for them. At least Right-wingers have Fox which is still the biggest news network in the USA in terms of viewership/ratings.

Your mistake, pundit, is thinking liberals are the same thing as Left. It's the Right that lumps them together but they are VERY different. The Left has been wanting Facebook and their friends regulated/nationalized loooong before Trump. They like control by Capital (like Big tech) even less than they like control by govt, because Capital has ZERO accountability to the public good. They'll do whatver they want or whatver gives them a profit even if it's very bad for everybody. At least a govt is somewhat accountable to the electorate, however imperfectly. This was Angela Merkel's point: She said, essentially, that parliaments/govts should determine what free-speech rules are/should be on these platforms via regular law-making procedures, not the CEOs or boards of these companies. That way, there'd be fairness. I agree with her.

[Dear Mami]

The REAL problem that's never mentioned; the thing that forces people from both sides of the political isle to take positions that otherwise contradict their "normal" principles when it comes to governance, is that the US has downright CRAZY "constitutional rights" including "free-speech rights" that prevent their various branches of govt from regulating matters like the use of such spaces. Other countries don't absolutize any set of rights so they can comfortably regulate the use of social media without going overboard. In the US, whenever they want to change something, they end up using somewhat dishonest (in my estimation) routes; because the "legitimate" paths to accomodating social changes that ought to be reflected in the law are blocked by their toxic politics which has made it impossible to change any part of the constitution "properly" going forward.

They are 50-50 roughly speaking; their constitution requires 75% of the 50+ states to agree to change as a start The country is in a cultural gridlock. So instead you have dictator big tech and judiciaries "finding" things in the constitution that are not/were obviously never there. All this stuff is because their politics means they can't change their laws to accommodate modern cultural realities in the same way their counterparts in Europe can.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Are you OK?
Youre kinda off the chats
"Impose on everyone"?
People chose to use tech because its convenient, hence the rules that come with it. You dont ban a platform because your little **CK has been hurt!

Na so broda! 

It astonishes me the kind of loyalty this oaf commands among some folks. What can social science tell us about it? I understand deplorables in the rust belt acutely aware of white demographic trends latching on to his America white first platform but what is in it for a confused coal black miscreant? It is inexplicable.

Arcadian Sucker - I would call you pea-brained but that would be unfair to the pea. I always watch the extreme intolerance of liberals like you here - or in many Silicon Valley companies - or in US colleges - such a bunch of haters. I wonder where you get the audacity to point fingers at others? I have also always heard that the Rethugs will soon go stale, senile and extinct... ha! I loathe intolerance - which is what banning a (ex-) POTUS or President Buhari is.

While not necessarily agreeing with your characterization, I think it's a good thing to have intolerance for certain things.  There are times when you have to treat one side in the manner it deserves and to hell with balance and fairness .  Such as a head of state championing Nazis and similar ideals.  I don't get the impression that tolerance for liberals is tolerance for tolerance's own sake.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Twitter exports their bad manners to Africa


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/05/world/africa/nigeria-twitter-president.html

There has been some RTLM level shade directed at Igbos recently.  I wonder if that is what was deleted.

I imagine it was some vitriol, but that should be dependent on local laws not their policies. It should be rather obvious this wouldn't be tolerated in Africa.

I think he mentioned something along the lines of Igbos being dealt with in the language they understand while referencing the Biafra war.  It's easy to ignore if this were some anonymous faceless account, but is pretty toxic stuff coming from a head of state.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

The REAL problem that's never mentioned; the thing that forces people from both sides of the political isle to take positions that otherwise contradict their "normal" principles when it comes to governance, is that the US has downright CRAZY "constitutional rights" including "free-speech rights" that prevent their various branches of govt from regulating matters like the use of such spaces. Other countries don't absolutize any set of rights so they can comfortably regulate the use of social media without going overboard. In the US, whenever they want to change something, they end up using somewhat dishonest (in my estimation) routes; because the "legitimate" paths to accomodating social changes that ought to be reflected in the law are blocked by their toxic politics which has made it impossible to change any part of the constitution "properly" going forward.

Granted that practical regulation is necessary.  But the issue here is kicking someone off a platform for violating policies he agreed to.  How do you make that "relative"?

They are 50-50 roughly speaking; their constitution requires 75% of the 50+ states to agree to change as a start The country is in a cultural gridlock. So instead you have dictator big tech and judiciaries "finding" things in the constitution that are not/were obviously never there. All this stuff is because their politics means they can't change their laws to accommodate modern cultural realities in the same way their counterparts in Europe can.

I agree the US is hopelessly crippled by its constitution.  It's become a suicide pact.  But you have it wrong about what the REAL problem is.  Big tech are doing what is good for their bottom line legitimately.  The real problem is the Republican party. 

[RV Pundit]

USA will eventually unravel like USSR

The REAL problem that's never mentioned; the thing that forces people from both sides of the political isle to take positions that otherwise contradict their "normal" principles when it comes to governance, is that the US has downright CRAZY "constitutional rights" including "free-speech rights" that prevent their various branches of govt from regulating matters like the use of such spaces. Other countries don't absolutize any set of rights so they can comfortably regulate the use of social media without going overboard. In the US, whenever they want to change something, they end up using somewhat dishonest (in my estimation) routes; because the "legitimate" paths to accomodating social changes that ought to be reflected in the law are blocked by their toxic politics which has made it impossible to change any part of the constitution "properly" going forward.

They are 50-50 roughly speaking; their constitution requires 75% of the 50+ states to agree to change as a start The country is in a cultural gridlock. So instead you have dictator big tech and judiciaries "finding" things in the constitution that are not/were obviously never there. All this stuff is because their politics means they can't change their laws to accommodate modern cultural realities in the same way their counterparts in Europe can.

[RV Pundit]

Surely it not like they were asked to flash it on their homepage? Like a headline. It on his small wall; people will read it; move on;if it's reported; it can be snoozed or deleted; but to ban the president?

There is so much they can do before permanently banning a head of state.

Delete the post, hide the post, warn the poster, suspend the account for a week, name anything.

Infact the best is to simply hide the post - make it invisible - unless edited. We are going nearly 10 yrs here - and NOBODY has been banned or even suspended.

I think he mentioned something along the lines of Igbos being dealt with in the language they understand while referencing the Biafra war.  It's easy to ignore if this were some anonymous faceless account, but is pretty toxic stuff coming from a head of state.

[GeeMail]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-57408179

Trump hails the Naija country.

"Congratulations to the country of Nigeria, who just banned Twitter because they banned their president," he said in a statement released on Tuesday.

He suggested that he should have banned Facebook while he was in office, but said the company's boss Mark Zuckerberg "kept calling me and coming to the White House for dinner telling me how great I was".

... A group of human rights organisations says it has filed a case with a West African regional court against the Twitter ban, saying it contravenes the right to the freedom of expression.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Surely it not like they were asked to flash it on their homepage? Like a headline. It on his small wall; people will read it; move on;if it's reported; it can be snoozed or deleted; but to ban the president?

There is so much they can do before permanently banning a head of state.

Delete the post, hide the post, warn the poster, suspend the account for a week, name anything.

Infact the best is to simply hide the post - make it invisible - unless edited. We are going nearly 10 yrs here - and NOBODY has been banned or even suspended.

I think he mentioned something along the lines of Igbos being dealt with in the language they understand while referencing the Biafra war.  It's easy to ignore if this were some anonymous faceless account, but is pretty toxic stuff coming from a head of state.

I think Buhari was given a timeout of a few days and his tweet deleted.  He was not permanently banned.  Some people will want special treatment for him because he is President.  And I agree.  Just that the said special treatment includes special expectations for him and his peers. He cannot just go in and heckle people the same way you and I can.  Some people listen to these fools religiously.

[Dear Mami]

Granted that practical regulation is necessary.  But the issue here is kicking someone off a platform for violating policies he agreed to.  How do you make that "relative"?

I disagree, Termi, that that's the key issue here. No one is saying he has been illegally kicked out. The argument is that monopolies of this magnitude should not have the power to do this, given the importance of their platforms to public discourse. This is just the latest incident, but this argument was being made even be4 Trump smelt the White House. It's the right-wing position to say businesses should be allowed to control public life in this manner: They are only changing tune in this specific area (social media) over the past few years because it's affecting them. The key issue for those complaining is that this state of affairs is both wrong and dangerous for any nation going forward and ought to change.

I agree the US is hopelessly crippled by its constitution.  It's become a suicide pact.  But you have it wrong about what the REAL problem is.  Big tech are doing what is good for their bottom line legitimately.  The real problem is the Republican party.

Here, again, I strongly disagree. The U.S's problem is that it's an oligarchy and not the democracy it lies to its people it is. Unfortunately, too many Democrats think only Republicans serve that master. The Democratic party has been the Oligarch's puppy ever since the late 80s and esp the 90s when the Clintons' influence in the party grew. The Republicans are just more in-you-face about it. Both parties play to cultural divisions and different demographics to avoid changing the economics but they serve the same bosses in the end.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Granted that practical regulation is necessary.  But the issue here is kicking someone off a platform for violating policies he agreed to.  How do you make that "relative"?

I disagree, Termi, that that's the key issue here. No one is saying he has been illegally kicked out. The argument is that monopolies of this magnitude should not have the power to do this, given the importance of their platforms to public discourse. This is just the latest incident, but this argument was being made even be4 Trump smelt the White House. It's the right-wing position to say businesses should be allowed to control public life in this manner: They are only changing tune in this specific area (social media) over the past few years because it's affecting them. The key issue for those complaining is that this state of affairs is both wrong and dangerous for any nation going forward and ought to change.

That is not how I understand the issue of corporate influence in American politics.  It's not so much about how a corporation carries out its business as it is about its ability to influence policy through financing of politician's campaigns. 

In other words, Democrats are strongly opposed to twitter, facebook, google etc from being able to finance political campaigns.  In terms of regulation, Democrats again favor net neutrality, which means you or I can compete on a relatively even keel with facebook, twitter etc when it comes to access to internet resources, which would be expensive if net-neutrality is killed.  This runs counter to what the tech giants prefer.  Republicans are conversely hostile to net neutrality - something which would result in an unfair advantage to the tech giants.

I agree the US is hopelessly crippled by its constitution.  It's become a suicide pact.  But you have it wrong about what the REAL problem is.  Big tech are doing what is good for their bottom line legitimately.  The real problem is the Republican party.

Here, again, I strongly disagree. The U.S's problem is that it's an oligarchy and not the democracy it lies to its people it is. Unfortunately, too many Democrats think only Republicans serve that master. The Democratic party has been the Oligarch's puppy ever since the late 80s and esp the 90s when the Clintons' influence in the party grew. The Republicans are just more in-you-face about it. Both parties play to cultural divisions and different demographics to avoid changing the economics but they serve the same bosses in the end.

Actually, only Democrats currently suggest the US is a democracy.  Republicans long abandoned that notion.  You've probably come across the ridiculous, "it's a republic not a democracy" right-wing nonsense.  The demographic changes have resulted in the GOP coming out as an openly anti-democratic minority rule force.  This, IMO, is the real danger facing the US today.  The election that Biden won in Georgia just a few months ago, would today be overturned by the Georgia legislature.  This is analogous to Jubilee parliamentary group being able to overrule the IEBC in Kenya.  It's insane, but it is happening across a few GOP controlled states, including all the ones that Trump lost.

Does "oligarchy" it affect both parties?  Probably.  But it's right-wing in origin.  Corporations are able to get off with favorable taxation terms and regulations under Republican administrations.  The Democratic party is generally "hostile" to corporations on that basis.  So their influence is not as pronounced on the Democratic side.  There is a reason AOC and ilk gravitate towards the Democrats rather than Republicans.  It's because in a nutshell they are definitely not the same.  That's why Keystone pipeline, Arctic drilling etc are on Biden's chopping block.  No.  They are not the same.

[GeeMail]

Bitmask your Left-democracy vs the rightwing-republic argument is deep and insightful. I'm not deeply familiar with party politricks here but things are becoming clearer. It really depends on what issue. Traditionally, Democrats tended to side with liberal policies that empowered citizens, for example. This is the irony today, because there are also many democrats who feel the second amendment, for example, should not be touched even though more of them tend to favor gun regulation. This is in stark contrast to republicans most of whom are rabidly against any attempts to water down the second amendment. Gun control is a hot issue right now and most republicans will not support any controls. On issues like climate change, democrats tend to favor federal policies on carbon emissions. Republicans don't agree. With time, the democrats have pushed the US towards a more socialist agenda, which makes their policies stand out against the Republicans.

[Dear Mami]

That is not how I understand the issue of corporate influence in American politics.  It's not so much about how a corporation carries out its business as it is about its ability to influence policy through financing of politician's campaigns.

All you say is true, Termi, but the issue of the regulation of speech by social media companies has ALSO been in very serious discussion in both leftist and right-wing circles for a very long time. Perhaps it's because I've been in the Youtube scene following independent media for years now, but this has been a big deal. The influence of Capitalists even over media outputs is also a part of this discussion: paying politicians isn't the only way monopolies corrupt society.

Does "oligarchy" it affect both parties?  Probably.  But it's right-wing in origin.  Corporations are able to get off with favorable taxation terms and regulations under Republican administrations.  The Democratic party is generally "hostile" to corporations on that basis.  So their influence is not as pronounced on the Democratic side.  There is a reason AOC and ilk gravitate towards the Democrats rather than Republicans.  It's because in a nutshell, they are definitely not the same.  That's why Keystone pipeline, Arctic drilling etc are on Biden's chopping block.  No.  They are not the same.

Honestly, I'll wait for them to actually be chopped first before I give Dems a shred of credit. Biden so far has promised the moon and delivered crumbs, like Democratic presidents always do: Minimum Wage, Yemen, Private prisons, even this patent-thing. Right now, they are even dropping the climate business we were promised was the most important crisis of our time. I've learned to wait to see what actually happens in implementation, not what Liberal media hypes up. Sure, they make certain they are slightly better than Republicans to keep their base happy but will always leave office with things 99% the same, even when they control both houses.

AOC in her second terms has morphed into a centrist Democrat in everything but the Israel-Palestine issue. She blocked the force-the-vote movement and even donated against progressive candidates and was heavily criticized for it by leftists. People who go to Capital Hill eventually succumb to the game: the power of Capital. You should see a video of Pelosi 30 years ago I saw some months ago, as a fresh congresswoman. She was exactly like AOC! Singing universal health care in detail and whatnot. Right now, you can't even say she's the same person. So, respectfully, I disagree with you. The American government is a tool of the oligarchy, including the DNC, and its biggest politicians. Everyone goes to Washington with good intentions but eventually succumbs to business as usual, unfortunately.