Re: US General Elections 2020

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:22 pm

{{ I agree Lance save on if Trump incited violence- the law doesnt actually require you to openly say- 'go do this' incitment is more general than that. And when you look at the language he used, and the fact their major grievences and reasons for being there and being angry at all were purely down to Trump refusing to accept the election result and oitright lying to them that the election was fraudelent and stolen then its pretty clear whose to blame.
Had Trump simply conceded as every other President who has lost has done, if he hadnt spewed weeks and weeks of lies and conspiracy theories and stoked up his followers in the belief they had something stolen from them, if he hadnt called the rally for that day in that place with the promise of something 'big' was going to happen, it would never have occured. He is solely to blame for tensions getting that high in that place, at that time.

Figg Id rather they were calling for jihad from London Bridge where we can see the buggers and know who they are, than they do it solely in the dark where we dont know anything until its too late.}}

by Lancebloke Sun Jan 10, 2021 5:44 pm

Trump supporters made that decision; I don't believe at any point Trump asked anyone to get violent. I think there may have been others that mentioned violence elsewhere but I amnoretty sure he didn't.

And it doesn't matter if he lied. Politicians do it all the time on all sides. You can't shut up the ones you don't like.

A serious conversation needs to be had about the role of social media and the regulation behind it because it is so influential.

I dont like hate speech but I think everyone should have the right to it short of actually asking people to commit an act of violence.

Again, all this does is all people to start controlling the narrative buy setting ever lower boundaries.

by halfwise Sun Jan 10, 2021 5:51 pm

He was speaking in code which his supporters understood quite well. There's no doubt he was gleeful when they broke into the capitol. I'm sure he knew exactly what might happen.

by Lancebloke Sun Jan 10, 2021 5:56 pm

Maybe he did... but that would unlikely stand up in court.

by halfwise Sun Jan 10, 2021 7:20 pm

Doesn't have to. Private platforms make their own assessments.

by Lancebloke Sun Jan 10, 2021 7:27 pm

Not if they get regulated so that they can't. They are already regulated for some things. In fact, I think I saw an argument thay suggests by choosing what can or cannot be shown they change themselves in to a being a publisher and have other regulations/obligations.

by halfwise Sun Jan 10, 2021 8:20 pm

Interesting approach to treat them as publishers - that would give them ownership over the content. I don't think they want that. But there's no need to stuff them into old categories: they are something new, and as Figgs pointed out they don't want to be a conduit for organized violence. They also want their user to feel free....up to a point. That's the social contract. We are all free...up to a point. You don't have the freedom to incite or plan violence.

Whether social media can be legally held responsible for the content that appears on their site or not, they still have investors who want them to be socially responsible. Society has a right to shut these things down.

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Jan 10, 2021 8:23 pm

{{{ Problem there Lance, as what your talking about is section 230 which means twitter and their like are not liable for what someone posts on their servers and are not counted as publishers, if that were removed that would mean no more twitter, facebook, comment sections on youtube, or anywhere really, in fact this very forum, as forumation which host us would then be liable for anything any of us posted on here as publishers, would probably go too.
As it is they act more like private clubs, you can use their services so long as you agree to whatever their rules on posting are. Trump has broken twitters rules many, many times, my issue is not with them deciding he broke their rules so should be banned, its that hes such a prominent figure it might be best to be able to see what he is doing rather thn it happening in secret off the radar. }}

by halfwise Sun Jan 10, 2021 8:28 pm

Where ever he is, he and his effects will be watched. The US security agencies have good reason to hate him, and will be more than happy to keep on eye on him and treat his followers as possible terrorists. No, he won't be able to hide from them, but I think it's good to have his cancer removed from the general population.

by Lancebloke Sun Jan 10, 2021 8:37 pm

Petty - I think that was the challenge. As soon as Twitter etc start policing and deciding what they let on the site outside if the law (inciting violence, chold porn etc) then they are acting like publishers, not a social media platform.

In my mind, so long as it is not against the law then society does NOT have the right to shut things down. That results in minorities being silenced on the whim of the majority.

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Jan 10, 2021 8:50 pm

{{ But I wouldnt say they are policing, they are simply enforcing the rules everyone agrees to when they sign on. If you join a golf club but then insist on wearing shoes that continually churn up the greens in violation of the club rules, and after repeated warnings you just keep doing it then surely they are perfectly right to ban you from their club? Twitter/Facebook etc do the same. If you want to use their platforms you have to sgn up to the rules, if you break the rules you get banned.
Thats not policing free speech, its policing their rules. If a Democratic Presdient had done the same they owuld also face the same ban. Not for their politics, but for simply repeatedly breaking their rules.

The real problem arises from folk thinking they can get news and information from such platforms instead of real news organisations.}}

by halfwise Sun Jan 10, 2021 8:57 pm

It's a good point that "rules" can be constructed to keep out minorities, but since these are private platforms, more can be formed with rules more suitable to the shut out minority. There will still be tyranny of the popular culture, but that's what you get with capitalism.

There are many carefully coded race or class based private clubs in the world. I'd leave it to popular opinion to shut them down. And I'd leave it to popular opinion whether Twitter is doing the right thing shutting down Trump. I think it will break narrowly on their side.

by Mrs Figg Mon Jan 11, 2021 12:18 am

I think social media has subtly changed our ideas of what is acceptable in a public forum, it has lowered our threshold for what is acceptable. It has lowered our moral standards and we accept ever more extreme and dangerous garbage to have a voice. I mean, the grooming of kids to go off and blow themselves up for IS, the sexual grooming of young girls and boys, revenge porn, Q-anon, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy nutjobs, incels, and now Trump followers, its off the scale madness, and years ago we would have been appalled at things we take as normal now. years ago those things were underground and in the dark corners, now its in the public domain.

by halfwise Mon Jan 11, 2021 12:26 am

this world is a dangerous place for kids. Nowadays they can go through all sorts of trauma and commit suicide before their parents have the slightest clue that anything was going on. It's even more prevalent in asian countries with a stronger culture of conformity. It makes me ill to think of the beautiful teenagers we lose.

by halfwise Mon Jan 11, 2021 12:37 am

Speaking of the power of big media, it looks like Parler, a platform that has been used by the far right, is being put out of business because all the big companies refuse to carry or distribute it.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/parler-ceo-says-dropped-every-200411770.html

by Mrs Figg Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:30 pm

I don't know if anyone agrees with this but I have noticed that the traditionally liberal Left is now micro-managed and bullied within an inch of its life whereas the conservative Right can pretty much say what the heck it likes without much censure. For example, as a member of the Labour party, just mention the State of Israel being nasty to Palestinians and people are accused of anti-semitism, when JK Rowling just happens to mention menstruating women and she is snowed under with rabid attacks and accused of being anti-LGBQT, just mention destroying statues might be as bad as the thing it attacks and Twitter ignites in rage. The Left will soon be too afraid of offending such sensibilities and be shut down, this is bullying in my book and stops adult debate. On the other hand the Right wingers are as free as birds to corrupt and twist the truth, to insult, and threaten without any push back.

by Lancebloke Mon Jan 11, 2021 7:08 pm

I think the "left" seems to attack itself more then anything. Everyone seems to be offended by everything and then wants to stop anyone else from causing offence... even when facts are involved.

I have seen the LGBT community throw people to the wolves that they were supporting the fay before. Feminists the same. BLM and general race related groups.

The right tend to stick to their own and shout and everyone but are normally consistent with their own group.

by halfwise Mon Jan 11, 2021 7:12 pm

That's an interesting twist to say that the right are free to twist the truth. I'd add that the left are equally unfree to speak the truth.

by Mrs Figg Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:36 pm

But traditionally the Left are socially liberal and not really known to twist the truth, they are generally anti-fascist, anti-racist and I doubt antifa is involved with Q-anon conspiracies and twisting truth about vaccines. That's the Right wingers. But I do think the Left is going through an existential crisis and eating its own. They seem to be hyper sensitive to anything to do with identity politics, like its a badge of honour to be offended. The Left is no longer muscular and healthy, its a whining wimp.

by halfwise Tue Jan 12, 2021 12:20 am

I'd say comedy is a good measure of truth: you don't see the joke unless it's reflecting truth. The snowflakes of the left are killing comedy.

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Jan 12, 2021 12:34 am

{{ Thing with comedy, whilst I agree things get taken too far these days in crie sof outrage at everything and anything, on the otherhand Ive no desire to see the return of Bernard Manning and his like, telling jokes about pakis and jews to his all white audiences. Its a fine line to judge however. }}

by Lancebloke Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:38 am

The left being socially liberal is the problem. I think they have achieved quite a substantial amount of their goals and now things are being pushed too far.... as you say identity politics.

It seems the identity of groups are now more important than the individual in a lot of the extreme left (and the extremists are always the most vocal) and that is exactly what happens on the far right.

That is why the political "left" struggles with winning a lot of people on the "right" or centre even though most of the policies they push are populist ones.

by halfwise Tue Jan 12, 2021 12:20 pm

Holy crap. Not only has Deutsche Bank dropped Trump (just about the only bank who would tolerate him), but a large number of corporations have called an end to financial donations to politicians who supported his push to overturn elections. Shocked

Trump and his family business are now basically ruined. People like Ted Cruz are politically crippled. As far as I know there has never been a corporate backlash like this, especially against republicans, since big business got involved in politics. Shocked

Companies have dropped commercials on shows of controversial TV personalities, but this has rarely been done publicly to politicians, as America is evenly divided politically and companies don't want to lose half their customer base.

Trumpism is basically dead in mainstream politics. It will of course live on in the swath of extremists he inflamed, and it's a HUGE segment of the population. But with corporate support strangling their message it may get tamped down. This is simply incredible. What follows will be a titanic struggle between corporate interests and a very volative (and gunslinging) portion of the population. I have no idea where this is going.

by Mrs Figg Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:57 pm

Twitter is finally crushing Q-Anon, it is years too late and the damage has been done, but it is good news that 70,000 accounts have been nixed.

by Mrs Figg Tue Jan 12, 2021 5:01 pm

halfwise wrote:Holy crap. Not only has Deutsche Bank dropped Trump (just about the only bank who would tolerate him), but a large number of corporations have called an end to financial donations to politicians who supported his push to overturn elections.

Trump and his family business are now basically ruined. People like Ted Cruz are politically crippled. As far as I know there has never been a corporate backlash like this, especially against republicans, since big business got involved in politics. Companies have dropped commercials on shows of controversial TV personalities, but this has rarely been done publicly to politicians, as America is evenly divided politically and companies don't want to lose half their customer base.

Trumpism is basically dead in mainstream politics. It will of course live on in the swath of extremists he inflamed, and it's a HUGE segment of the population. But with corporate support strangling their message it may get tamped down. This is simply incredible. What follows will be a titanic struggle between corporate interests and a very volative (and gunslinging) portion of the population. I have no idea where this is going.

wowzer! the people who own America have had enough. Lets hope as you said that the Trump message will eventually be quashed.