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
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.
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.
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."
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.
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?
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".
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Of course they can. He said them on national TV. Everyone who watched the speech heard him say it.
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.
Glad to hear you've been successful in maintaining your bubble. I'm sure you've been working very hard at it.
Still no links or anything else showing what he said...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Gosh no, you were watching Saturday Night Live. Not the Trump speech.
I'd tell you to watch the video, but you would still deny it.
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
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.
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.
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.
I don't know. Did he do it on Facebook or Twitter?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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/
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!".
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.
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.)
Did you see the links I left for you, Wilderness? (And anyone else looking for Trump’s actual speech.)
Damn. Now Parler been taken down, since they refused to ban Donald Trump. I guess this isn't good.
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
I read that Trump is not on Parler.
Also, what Scott said.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … witter-ban
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.
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
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?
by jeff61b 23 minutes ago
We know there are political extremists on both sides who can be encouraged to do dangerous and violent things, but until now, every president, whether Republican or Democrat, has been careful in their rhetoric to avoid inciting the extremists in their party to commit violence.But Donald Trump...
by Stevennix2001 9 days ago
Given everything that's happened, does anyone here think that Donald Trump should go to jail over what happened on Capital Hill the other day? Should Mike Pence take over the presidency effective immediately until Joe Biden can be sworn in as president? Or do you think that will only...
by Readmikenow 2 days ago
It seems that the speech of President Donald Trump may not have been the cause for the protest at the Capital. Of all places, CNN broke a story that is was actually planned BEFORE the speech took place. Could CNN have accidentally committed an act of journalism?"Investigators...
by alexandriaruthk 6 years ago
Do you think social media like Twitter and Facebook are more powerful than the mainstream media now?The media whether the print or is a powerful tool the shape the opinion of people, however social media like Facebook and Twitter gained importance and is considered a special tool in shaping...
by Readmikenow 5 days ago
I have been confused as to exactly how to handle a Biden presidency. I consider him a babbling old fool who got rich selling out the United States and his vice president as a female who is a socialist/communist and had to sleep her way into a career. My opinion of both is extremely...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
If Donald Trump is elected as President of the United States, what will be YOUR reaction? Why?
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|