Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Curious layman

Trump and social media

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

 

IMG_4327.PNG.3964b57c7bc32acc36f9ec744e686574.PNG

After Twitter put the fact checker on this tweet Trumps now accusing them of stifling free speech.

Quote

Mr Trump then accused Twitter of interfering in the US presidential election scheduled for 3 November 2020, saying the company was "completely stifling free speech, and I, as president, will not allow it to happen".

And

Quote

Mr Trump on Wednesday threatened to "strongly regulate" or even "close down" social media platforms.

Question: can he do this, should social media be worried? 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52815552

 

 

Edited by Curious layman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll regret it. Maybe not today and maybe not tomorrow but soon. And for the rest of our lifes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile his Press Secretary, and staunch defender, has vote by mail 12 times in the last 12 elections...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kayleigh-mcenany-vote-by-mail-record-comments-absentee/

I guess he's learned this from all his dictator friends that he idolizes.
The first step to becoming a despot, is control of the media.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/trump-is-set-to-announce-an-executive-order-against-social-media-companies/ar-BB14HYNa?ocid=msedgntp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot see a way where he can directly do that, I would think that it is in direct conflict with the first Amendment. That being said, there indirect ways which could achieve similar goals, such as de-legitimization of outlets, creating news monopolies and so on. Another route specifically for social media could make unattainable demands or to remove means of monetization. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His mindless minions are also already attacking the platform like good little human bots and putting the safety and security of the company leadership in question. Jack Dorsey is gonna need a more expensive security detail now that he's focused the deranged on to a new target / enemy of the dear leader...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Is a website a democracy? SFN isn't, so why should anywhere else that is privately owned be?

I'm not sure about the UK at the moment either.  Johnson today blocked several questions from the press aimed at his scientific advisors and would not let them answer. There was also an article about how they (the conservative gov) are planning to pay newspapers such as the daily mail to print their lies/positive news stories about how well they are handling the crisis. I'm seeing daily lies from them. :-(  Cummings last week altered blog entries from years back so he could claim foresight regarding the pandemic...  they lied about a nhs government staff member.  They lied continually in the run up to the election.... but people still voted for them...  I'm sure a lot of people, even though they are told about their blatant lies (it's not even half truths or propaganda some of it, just plain lies) will not see through it...  they jump to the govs defence with angry vigor. It's quite depressing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So apparently they are trying to remove liability protection. Which in the end could backfire- after all it would mean that the companies would then have an incentive to remove posts that may be construed as, say, call to violence.

But it is interesting to see what the US government is focusing on- twitter wars and keeping folks out of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, DrP said:

I'm not sure about the UK at the moment either.  Johnson today blocked several questions from the press aimed at his scientific advisors and would not let them answer. There was also an article about how they (the conservative gov) are planning to pay newspapers such as the daily mail to print their lies/positive news stories about how well they are handling the crisis. I'm seeing daily lies from them. :-(  Cummings last week altered blog entries from years back so he could claim foresight regarding the pandemic...  they lied about a nhs government staff member.  They lied continually in the run up to the election.... but people still voted for them...  I'm sure a lot of people, even though they are told about their blatant lies (it's not even half truths or propaganda some of it, just plain lies) will not see through it...  they jump to the govs defence with angry vigor. It's quite depressing.

 

Boris does have a point there. It wouldn't be a good precedent for them to be involved in a mainly  political matter. They would lose their neutrality. The police have given their view and that's the most important. Plus we can make our own judgement. I don't think Cummings will be around by years end.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Boris does have a point there. It wouldn't be a good precedent for them to be involved in a mainly  political matter. They would lose their neutrality. The police have given their view and that's the most important. Plus we can make our own judgement. I don't think Cummings will be around by years end.

It's a social scientific question, directed at the scientists (the second questioner makes that clear)...  his claim that the question is political is dodging it. So what if there are political undertones anyway? It's a press conference with the prime minister and his scientific advisors.... what questions should they be asking? It's dictatorship over democracy and freedom of the press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, DrP said:

It's a social scientific question, directed at the scientists (the second questioner makes that clear)...  his claim that the question is political is dodging it. So what if there are political undertones anyway? It's a press conference with the prime minister and his scientific advisors.... what questions should they be asking? It's dictatorship over democracy and freedom of the press.

How do you know that they didn't ask him beforehand to keep them out of the politics? I'm sure we'll get to hear their view when they are no longer in their current jobs.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

How do you know that they didn't ask him beforehand to keep them out of the politics? 

It's a press conference with the prime minister and his advising scientists...

a. The questions were entirely valid from a social science angle.

b. It's a press conference with the Prime Minister! Why would you expect the questions not to be political?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DrP said:

It's a press conference with the prime minister and his advising scientists...

a. The questions were entirely valid from a social science angle.

b. It's a press conference with the Prime Minister! Why would you expect the questions not to be political?

Why would would you expect scientists to answer politically loaded questions... that was Boris's job? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Is that the kind of example you want people to follow" is a question about epidemiology, not politics.
It's obvious that the scientists, like any sensible people, would say "No, it isn't".
That's got nothing to do with politics. There would have been no loss of "impartiality"  involved in answering it.


But Boris didn't let them answer because it made his friend look like an idiot.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2020 at 6:35 AM, Curious layman said:

 

IMG_4327.PNG.3964b57c7bc32acc36f9ec744e686574.PNG

After Twitter put the fact checker on this tweet Trumps now accusing them of stifling free speech.

And

Question: can he do this, should social media be worried? 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52815552

 

 

He can not and should not. I wouldn't like seeing my social media platform do something like this, but I fully endorse their freedom to do it. Even if he was stopping something bad, he'd be setting a dangerous precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.