Donald Trump is banned indefinitely from Instagram and Facebook.

1. 0

   Stevennix2001posted 3 years ago

   After the riot on capital hill the other day, Mark Zuckerberg has announced that Donald Trump's accounts on both Instagram and Facebook are suspended indefinitely; citing how the social networking platforms do NOT want to give Trump any way to incite more violence after what happened.  What are your thoughts on this? 
   
   Is banning Trump on social media the right thing to do to try to prevent more violence?  Or do you see this as a form of dangerous censorship, which could lead to a bad precedent in the future?  Please discuss. 
   
   Edit:  Here's an article link to know more:
   
   https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/don … 03863.html

   replyreport
   1. 82

      peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      In many countries in Europe the Holocaust denial is punishable and forbidden.
      Do these countries use dangerous censorship?
      I think not. There is a limit to freedom of speech. As there is such a thing as hate speech, which is punishable in my country The Netherlands for instance. Is The Netherlands therefore a less free country. Nope.
      
      Words are powerful and can indoctrinate people. For instance, let them think that there was voter fraud with no evidence, but as Goebbels said : If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
      
      And that's exactly what Trump did, Tweets go fast, people don't fact check them, hear them half. And so Trump incited violence, aggression and suspicion. If one does this too often, and with a big impact, then yes Twitter has the right and moral compass to ban such a person, may it be the president or John Sixpack?
      Lock her up, - Do you think that's a normal campaign chant!!! - 4 years ago Trump already used hatred as a weapon, today he wanted to incited a coup!
      Trump banning on social media is absolutely the right thing to do to save the US from more violence and another Coup attempt.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Stevennix2001posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         While you're right that there is such a thing as "hate speech", the problem is who's determining what qualifies as "hate speech", and which is not?  I was literally labeled a homophobe and a bigot on Youtube recently in a comment section simply because I refused to acknowledge the possibility that Spider-Man aka Peter Parker was canonically bisexual.  My basis for that claim was because a) the character has never shown any bisexual tendencies to liking both genders, at least not when I used to read comics.  And b) it's because Stan Lee even confirmed that Peter Parker aka Spider-Man is canonically straight before he died.   This is fact, so if the creator of the character says he's straight, then I'm inclined to believe what he says over everyone else.  And because I made that claim, I was attacked in that comment section claiming I was spreading "hate speech", so my question to you is what qualifies as "hate speech", and which does not?   
         
         Also keep in mind that the Iran leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, was never banned from Twitter after he made tweets inciting how all the Jews needed to be eradicated, yet he's still allowed to be on Twitter, but Trump isn't?
         
         
         https://nypost.com/2020/10/28/iranian-l … ic-tweets/
         
         Don't get me wrong, I completely understand what you're saying, and I agree that maybe Twitter and other social media platforms do have a right to protect their users from misinformation and lies that could incite violence.   However, the problem is why is Trump being banned but guys like Ayatollah Khamenei  aren't being banned for their rhetoric?  Just seems a bit hypocritical if you ask me, and honestly the term "hate speech" is a bit subjective these days as it seems like if you even have an OPINION that contradicts what someone else believes, then it's automatically considered "hate speech" these days honestly, as I brought up earlier with my Youtube comment example.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            It's about context, content and timing.
            You can not compare your experience with what Trump is doing unless you have a million followers or so.
            Twitter is a US company. So what happens in Iran is less an issue than what happens on the doormat.
            Twitter decided to ban Trump, not because people disagree with his opinion. But because Trump was promoting a coup. Promoting fake news about the elections. And after the coup, he justified the violence with saying: “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously and viciously stripped away.”
            How many Tweets have you read from the Ayatollah? How powerful are these tweets and damaging for the United States democracy? - next to nothing compared with Trump''s tweets. It is again about impact.
            So no it is not hypocritical as you can not really compare the two Twitter accounts.
            Hate speech is not subjective. Nor are spreading of lies. One sentence is not important, but a repetition of hate phrases is indeed hate speech. Just as one lie is not that powerful, but a repetition of lies is. As Trump is spreading lies about the election. Or as  Joseph Goebbels said: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Live to Learnposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Love your last line because that is exactly what the left is doing to justify policing thought. You think, what I think of what someone else thinks is justification for censorship. Because what you think I think someone else thinks might make me think of something you think constitutes violence,in your mind.
               
               Keep repeating the lie that entire train of thought makes sense. It's already been ingested by the left, regurgitated by the left, causing people who can see both sides to fear commenting, leaving people who lean further right to suffer persecution for laughing at the absurdity of the hypothesis.

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Question for you Live to Learn. If a person with 2 million followers would on a regular basis deny the Holocaust. Should this person be banned from Twitter, or should he/she be allowed to tweet because of freedom of speech?

                  replyreport
               2. 86

                  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  I agree, keep repeating a lie it will become a fact to some individuals. In my view, the lie starts by changing the context of what was said or perpatrated. And then just keep pounding. The ugly word that defines what is being done is "brainwashing".

                  replyreport
                  1. 82

                     peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Yes, Commercials are also incredibly good at it. Repeating the same thing over and over again. And suddenly you almost think that diet coke is good for you...Oh, no, Coke Zero is even healthier....

                     replyreport
                     1. 77

                        Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        +

                        replyreport
                     2. 86

                        Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Very much the same. That's how people get rich off ads. Plenty willing to pay to get the ear or eye of the general public.

                        replyreport
            2. 0

               Stevennix2001posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               I was never comparing myself to Trump.    I was just using a personal experience that happened months ago on YouTube to cite how "hate speech" can be subjective sometimes as I was accused of that merely because I refused to accept that Spider-Man and all fictional characters by extension are canonically bisexual.    That's all I was bringing up because it seems like if you say anything someone doesn't agree with then it can be argued as "hate speech" just like what the people on YouTube said I was doing for not agreeing with them.    So who's wrong in that particular instance?   Me or them?   
               
               As far as the ayatollah, it's hypocritical because from my understanding, Trump was banned for not only spreading misinformation but for "hate speech" that allegedly incites violence?   Can we agree on that?   And if that's the case then why isn't the ayatollah, the leader of iran, banned?   He literally said jews needed to be eradicated which means he thinks they should be dead.   
               
               Does that not incite violence?     What if a few Muslim americans see that and try to kill jewish Americans over it?  Would you consider it a big deal then?  Don't get me wrong, I'm sure most Muslim americans would never do that but what if a select few do based on his rhetoric?   
               
               You're right that what iran's leader tweets has no bearing on our democracy, nor calls it into question.   However that's not one of the primary reasons Trump was banned.  It was over fear of inciting violence so if that's the case then the ayatollah of iran needs to be banned on twitter and other social media as well.  Otherwise all you're going to be doing is giving the right more ammunition to not only think the election was rigged, but also think they're being persecuted.   
               
               And didn't Biden say we needed to reunite the country?   I believe he did and I agree.  But unless twitter starts banning everyone like the leader of iran too, then all your doing is further the "us vs them" mentality.    We need to stop that.   
               
               We need to stop labeling each other as the enemy and start seeing all Americans as just that.... Americans.    We need to stop persecuting a person for having different ideals, and instead try to understand each other and come to a compromise somewhere in the middle.   That's the only way our country's democracy will survive, and I think deep down you know this as well. 
               
               Seriously, a lawyer at PBS recently said how children of trump supporters should be taken away and put in re education camps yet the media rarely talked about it.  Yeah the lawyer was fired.  Thank God but the media barely mentions it.  Why is that?    The point is we need to stop and assess everything that's going on with both sides right now before it's too late because the longer hostilities are built up between both parties I do fear there will be more violence to come which I pray to God doesn't happen but I fear it will if the events continue to go unchanged.

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Hi Steven, You touch on a lot of points here. And it shows how broad and difficult the discussion is.
                  
                  If someone is accusing you of hate speech, it does not mean it is. Neither will Twitter or Facebook ban you from using their networks.
                  Again I think it depends on context, content, and frequency.
                  If I call you a redneck or a nigger, it does not mean a thing. Only when I constantly call you that, and tell stories behind your back about that you're not to be trusted as you are a jew hating redneck son of a nigger...(Sorry for the language..) then you can accuse me of hate speech. As it is systematic, frequent and targeted.
                  
                  
                  The difference between the Ayatollah and Trump is obvious. Trump incited violence against politicians. Trump has thousands of loyal followers in the US who will literally do what he says. He says fight, they fight.
                  If the Ayatollah says kill US politicians, I think nobody in the US will pay attention. That's a big difference. Trump showed with his tweets to be a danger to the democratic structure of the US. He basically was trying a coup! A violent takeover. That's far more dangerous than any tweet the Ayatollah ever made. Twitter banned Trump's account as Trump was after the besieging of the Capitol still tweeting aggressive tweets towards politicians. And spreading misinformation about the elections. So again, it is about content and context. Trump wasn't banned from Twitter for a long time, even if he was spreading misinformation. But he crossed a line. Trump is not the only one who is banned by social media. And you have to do quite a lot before they ban you.
                  
                  --We need to stop persecuting a person for having different ideals, and instead try to understand each other--
                  I think you are right there. Listening to what the other has to say is the first step. There are quite some problems in American society, and I don't think a new president can solve these.
                  You have the Black Lives Matter issue for instance. And you have the issue of the gap between poor and rich becoming bigger. The virus showed the fragility of society. Thousands of people suddenly without work. and more. There is a lot of work still to be done. And I think you are 100% right that we have to start to listen to each other. People have genuine concerns, and why? Why did people smash the windows of the Capital? (Voter Fraud is the simplistic answer.- as I think the problem is much deeper than that. I think for a lot of people too many things have changed in the last 20 years. The society they grew up in as a child changed. And some people don't feel at home anymore. (Just my thought)
                  
                  That lawyer at PBS was a stupid man/woman. Why was it not mentioned in the media? There are a lot of things not mentioned in the media. Did you know that in march Sudan's prime minister just barely survived an assassination attempt? It wasn't mentioned in the western media....
                  There is a lot not mentioned, and it depends on the day. Politicians know this too. Often in times of disaster, when the news is focused on human suffering, politicians try to get unpopular laws through parliament. Without the news picking it up. The wall of Mexico was a smokescreen of Trump for instance. The first thing he actually did when he was in office was to lower the tax for the rich. But you won't win a campaign with that slogan.. And what has he actually done with that famous wall in these 4 years?
                  
                  Let's hope indeed that people keep their heads cool. As violence is never the answer and never solves problems.

                  replyreport
         2. 77

            schoolgirlforrealposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Trump has flaws for sure. But God help this country. Trump did some extremely valuable things.  Reversing the killing of unborn which angers God. He helped Jerusalem which I hear was biblical.
            I think as bad as he seems he did a lot of good. He is against communism and socialism which I dont think Biden is.  Not 2 mention Biden seems senile?

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Even though Trump stole $10'000 from me and probably the worst President ever.
               Everyone is entitled to free speech.
               
               Even Hitler did some really good things. Trump was also an escape goat for others who were far worst than both of them.

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  schoolgirlforrealposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  10,000?

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Did a sandcastle for his -Trump World Casino. He loved it he said,  and did not pay me.

                     replyreport
                     1. 77

                        schoolgirlforrealposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Wow

                        replyreport
2. 92

   IslandBitesposted 3 years ago

   The tantrum must be HUGE!
   
   Twitter permanently suspends President Donald Trump
   
   "After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence," Twitter's official "Safety" account tweeted.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      ScottSBatemanposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      They have some courage now that Trump can no longer use the power of the federal government to punish them.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         True, they don't fear his power now.
         Karma can be such a b_tch

         replyreport
3. 61

   Live to Learnposted 3 years ago

   I'm a believer in free speech. Period.

   replyreport
4. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago

   This is not censorship of free speech. Twitter and Facebook are private companies who can control the content on their platforms as they see fit.  That said, they do have an awful lot of power. In this case, I agree with their decisions.

   replyreport
5. 94

   wildernessposted 3 years ago

   And now the claims of incitement to riot cannot be fact-checked.  Convenient.
   
   But how will the prosecution prove, beyond a reasonable doubt (assuming that left wingers care about that minor point), that he DID incite the riot without being able to produce his words?  Sounds like a double edged sword.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      ScottSBatemanposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Of course they can. He said them on national TV. Everyone who watched the speech heard him say it.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Apparently not; all I've seen is that he proposed a peaceful and political protest.  I DO hear the claims to the contrary but can find nothing to support them and no one is providing any links.  Just unsupported claims.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Glad to hear you've been successful in maintaining your bubble. I'm sure you've been working very hard at it.

            replyreport
            1. 94

               wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Still no links or anything else showing what he said...

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Why should I bother taking the time to provide links to information that's plastered across every legitimate news site across the internet? You'll just re-interpret his words for him and claim they don't mean exactly what they mean.
                  
                  If you haven't already heard them it's because you choose not  to.

                  replyreport
                  1. 94

                     wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Well, I posted a timeline, by some left wing rag, of his evil comments inciting people to riot.  Unfortunately the only thing Trump had to say was that there would be a peaceful protest at the capital...all the rest was by someone else and was no more "incitement" than Trump's comment.
                     
                     So yes, a link to what you considered "incitement to riot" would be helpful.  As would your "interpretation" of his words - just what it takes to spin it into what it wasn't.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Just watch the speech. I already know you won't consider anything Trump said to be incitement because I bet you've already watched it.
                        
                        I guess you also think the Trumpers who said they went there because Trump told them to are liars.

                        replyreport
                  2. 70

                     ScottSBatemanposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Not to mention all of the videos of his speech on national news channels.
                     
                     I guess all of those world leaders, prosecutors, lawyers and Republican officials who condemned the speech are wrong.

                     replyreport
                     1. 94

                        wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        As I told Pretty, I found a timeline of his inciting words: one message that there would be a peaceful demonstration and a dozen or so comments from other people.  For sure, Trump's incitement to riot.

                        replyreport
                        1. 70

                           ScottSBatemanposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           I'm sure all of those Republicans who were there are wrong about Trump.
                           
                           Again, do you support or condemn the attack on Capitol Hill?

                           replyreport
                        2. 72

                           Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           Dan,
                           
                           History is written by the victors.
                           
                           MSM shapes and determines what the people hear and see.
                           
                           Trump = America's Hitler
                           
                           This is now the accepted reality, this is how history will remember him.

                           replyreport
                        3. 77

                           schoolgirlforrealposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           replyreport
         2. 70

            ScottSBatemanposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Gosh no, you were watching Saturday Night Live. Not the Trump speech. 

            replyreport
            1. 94

               wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Still no links....

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  ScottSBatemanposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  I'd tell you to watch the video, but you would still deny it.

                  replyreport
               2. 86

                  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  And there won't be.

                  replyreport
                  1. 70

                     ScottSBatemanposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Do you own a TV or computer? Why link to text when you can just watch the video?
                     
                     I suppose you could actually use the Internet to look at the news articles about the speech.
                     
                     https://duckduckgo.com/?q=what+did+trum … amp;ia=web

                     replyreport
                     1. 86

                        Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Yes, videos are one of the best ways to derive context. However, they need to be in full, not a minute or two of what the poster exposes one to. The context just matters to anyone that wants to research the truth. Photo's, bylines rarely give a true picture.

                        replyreport
      2. 86

         Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         What words did he say to evoke the people at the rally to riot?  When you make such a provocative statement you should offe some form of factual proof.

         replyreport
6. 0

   Stevennix2001posted 3 years ago

   While I get why twitter and Facebook did what they did, my only question is why do they still allow people like kim jong un who literally threatened war against us on multiple occasions including over that interview movie several years back yet he's still allowed to keep his Twitter account?     It just doesn't make sense to me.   As much as trump has messed up recently, I don't see why twitter is banning him considering you have other people still on there that are arguably worse.  Kim jong un being one of them.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know. Did he do it on Facebook or Twitter?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Stevennix2001posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         No, I don't believe so.  I guess that explains why.   
         
         Edit:.  I know when it came to the interview movie he issued the threat to us at the UN citing he would consider the movie being released as a declaration of war as I remember following that news story closely.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, these companies do have a right to control the content on their
            own  platforms. If you think about it, they have given Trump and others massive leeway to say whatever they want. I believe they would prefer not to censor anyone because their product is a social.platform that relies on interesting and  yes, inflammatory, content to draw participation. But, they also have to be concerned about their role in encouraging violence for moral as well as legal reasons.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Stevennix2001posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               That's what I figured too when I first heard about it.  Honestly I'm not surprised this happened.  I know Trump still has his parler account which is supposed to be the new rival to twitter but it's nowhere near as popular as the other social media platforms.

               replyreport
7. 77

   Castlepalomaposted 3 years ago

   What's next, all the accused fake New networks will cancell him? He will have to pick a street corner in New York. Like a homeless nutcase and do his speeches.

   replyreport
8. 84

   FatFreddysCatposted 3 years ago

   

   replyreport
9. 80

   emgeposted 3 years ago

   Ken,  this is one of the favourite quotes of Stalin and it's true. I don't think I would like to add anything to it

   replyreport
10. 95

    LongTimeMotherposted 3 years ago

    Hey, Wilderness. I notice you’re after Trump’s speech, so here’s a link that takes you to the entire event. Trump’s speech plus others.
    
    https://www.facebook.com/fox13newsutah/ … 967930600/

    replyreport
    1. 94

       wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

       I must be blind.  Scanning through the first video I saw nothing of Trump, and nothing on the rest of the videos there, either.
       
       Not looking for what other people said, not looking for what other people think Trump meant: looking for Trump's words that incited a riot, that told people to break into the capital.  And "We're going to have a peaceful demonstration" doesn't fill the requirement.  Neither does "We have to fight for our country", or "It's going to be wild!".

       replyreport
       1. 95

          LongTimeMotherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          I don’t know what videos you were scanning through. The link I gave you takes you to one video. It is the entire ‘March to Save America’ rally.
          
          Scroll through to one hour and 11 minutes from the end and you’ll see President Trump behind his big safety screens. I didn’t bother trying to find the first frame of him. I’m sure you’ll manage to hear everything he says.

          replyreport
          1. 95

             LongTimeMotherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

             Here’s the important document to read when watching Trump’s speech here.
             
             It lists the ‘fact checks’ ... in other words, all the lies Trump told ... just in this one speech.
             
             There’s a lot of them, but without looking at this document it is impossible to see “both sides of the story.”
             
             https://www.factcheck.org/2021/01/trump … ica-rally/
             
             I think it is important for everyone to examine both sides, without just taking the word of one person (in this case, Trump.)

             replyreport
11. 95

    LongTimeMotherposted 3 years ago

    Did you see the links I left for you, Wilderness? (And anyone else looking for Trump’s actual speech.)

    replyreport
12. 0

    Stevennix2001posted 3 years ago

    Damn.  Now Parler been taken down, since they refused to ban Donald Trump.  I guess this isn't good. 

    replyreport
    1. 92

       IslandBitesposted 3 years agoin reply to this

       Huh?

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Stevennix2001posted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Parler was a new social media app that's meant to be the new rival to Twitter.   It's been growing in popularity among conservatives, since unlike Twitter and Facebook these days, Parler doesn't believe in censorship.   Hence, why they refused to ban Donald Trump like the other bigger named social media apps did like Facebook, Twitter and etc.
          
          However, it seems they've been taken down recently, as Amazon, Google, and Apple are refusing to carry the app citing how they refuse to support them if they're allowing people on their platform that could incite violence.  I.E. Since they're not banning Trump like the other social media apps are, then they get de-platformed by the bigger tech companies. 
          
          https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/tech … arler.html

          replyreport
          1. 92

             IslandBitesposted 3 years agoin reply to this

             I read that Trump is not on Parler.
             
             Also, what Scott said.
             
             
             https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … witter-ban

             replyreport
             1. 0

                Stevennix2001posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                hmm thanks for the information.  I thought he did join parler.  I guess that's what I get for believing in Fox News on that one.    Either way, it does seem rather strange that Amazon, Google and Apple would stop supporting their platform all of a sudden considering it was rising rapidly in popularity; especially among conservatives in this country.

                replyreport
    2. 70

       ScottSBatemanposted 3 years agoin reply to this

       It wasn't because they refused to ban Donald Trump. It was because the site was promoting violence.
       
       Parler has been down for days and is still down because no company wants to touch a website that promotes murder. Not even its software providers.
       
       "Parler was not even trying to suppress the threats of terrorism, the incitement of violence, the planning of terrorism." - CEO of Okta, a Parler software provider
       
       https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/13/okta-ce … reats.html

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Stevennix2001posted 3 years agoin reply to this

          But can you technically argue that Twitter is doing the same thing by not banning the leader of Iran, after his Tweet, about eradicating all Jews?   I mean if that doesn't promote murder, then I don't know what does.  Look, I'm not saying Twitter and other social media apps aren't justified in banning Trump, as they're free to ban whoever they want.  I'm just wondering why ban Trump over the possibility of him inciting more violence, but not the leader of Iran?  It's just hypocritical honestly, as he should be banned too don't you think?

          replyreport
13. 0

    erikmamaposted 3 years ago

    I think it's great. Free speech does not entitle us to go into someone else's home (FB and IG) and do and say what we want, especially when it incites an entire nation.

    replyreport
    1. 94

       wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

       It's not enough that you can block his posts, or not use FB, you would prevent anyone else from seeing what he has to say as well?  Just because you don't want to see it and don't want to take the effort to stop it in your home?

       replyreport