Trump: Whiny Loser or Mad Genius?

[stripfan]

Here's how it was done. With or without Trump, an insurrection is inevitable.

Democrats cheated to win the presidential election

“Baseless allegations of election fraud” is a lie offered by the liberal media. The easiest voter fraud to identify and convict is double voting by people who moved and voted

www.galvnews.com

 

[sy barite]

I'm super curious to know what the commonly agreed rules were about what could not be said.


Who was banned from Twitter for this? I'm not saying it didn't happen... I'm just unaware... could you please post a link to some info about that?


But wouldn't it have to be regulated regardless? You began your post by saying everyone previously agreed that certain types of speech should not be permitted.


Why only violence and nothing else? Not hatred? Should it be totally "free speech" say to post on Facebook or Twitter the way "Back in Toronto" posts?

Would it be "free speech" for someone to post your full real name, address, family photos etc on this website, or those of a sex worker, since there's no violence involved?

What about Tweeting false information to manipulate a stock price?

What about false information that arguably harms the public good, e.g. telling people vaccinating children will give them autism, or telling people that the vaccinations we need to end this endless pandemic are actually a way of Bill Gates putting microchips into your arms, etc. etc.

Really it seems like there are a lot of different potential reasons why certain types of speech arguably should be regulated on mass communication platforms.

I'll try to answer each of your questions, but I think you may be reading something into my statements that is not there. I do believe that except for advocating violence, all speech should be free. But I am not saying that speech should be free of consequences. The questions you asked seem to imply that's my position, but it's not.

I'm super curious to know what the commonly agreed rules were about what could not be said. But wouldn't it have to be regulated regardless? You began your post by saying everyone previously agreed that certain types of speech should not be permitted..
Commonly agreed rules about what could not be said are those I already mentioned above. Rules such as those against shouting fire in a crowded theater or clear calls for violence. Today we have played games with language to call almost anything violence and then censor or take more drastic action.

Would it be "free speech" for someone to post your full real name, address, family photos etc on this website, or those of a sex worker, since there's no violence involved? What about Tweeting false information to manipulate a stock price?
Doxing is already legal. The case against it today is based on morality, respecting someone's privacy and fear of retribution. Stock prices are a different case. You can go ahead and spread false information about stock prices, but if the SEC finds you doing so to profit from it unfairly, there are specific penalties. Similarly, I'm free to defame you, but if I cannot prove what I say, you can sue me for slander or libel.
Who was banned from Twitter for this? I'm not saying it didn't happen... I'm just unaware... could you please post a link to some info about that?
Megan Murphy, Canadian feminist, received a life time ban from Twitter for simply saying a transgender person was not a woman. She's one of the most high profile cases, but there have been many others. Calls for the same to be done to J.K. Rowling have been made.

But Twitter has done far worse than that. Look up the case of Bret Weinstein, whose Twitter and Facebook accounts were suspended or stifled before the election (and still are), simply for proposing something he called Articles of Unity, a framework for opposing political sides to work together. There are many examples of such action by Twitter and Facebook, but the media doesn't give them a lot of attention because they are overwhelmingly taken against conservative views...Weinstein isn't even a conservative but he was proposing something that was thought to potentially harm Biden's chances. That was apparently enough to get silenced.

Why only violence and nothing else? Not hatred? Should it be totally "free speech" say to post on Facebook or Twitter the way "Back in Toronto" posts?
What about false information that arguably harms the public good, e.g. telling people vaccinating children will give them autism, or telling people that the vaccinations we need to end this endless pandemic are actually a way of Bill Gates putting microchips into your arms, etc. etc.
There should be no "hate" laws. All speech should be allowed save for that advocating violence, as I said above. Yes, you should be able to say you hate jews and blacks etc....even "BiT's posts...yes, they should be allowed. Free speech counts for nothing if it applies only to speech you like. You have to allow distasteful and ugly thoughts to be shared, to be aired, in order for them to be properly examined, discussed and hopefully discarded. Same goes for misinformation that could lead to harm. You should be liable for what you say and that liability could increase depending on the context. If neighbour Joe tells you not to vaccinate your kids because aliens will abduct them he will be less liable for damages than if your doctor tells you the same thing. It is up to you to judge what you hear and read and to consider the source.

One of the earliest and I think the best, explanations of this is John Stuart Mills' chapter 2 on free expression in On Liberty. If you've never read it, or perhaps did in school a long time ago and forgot, you should give it a quick read. He lays out the principles and importance of free speech there in a wonderfully clear and persuasive way.

Let me just give you an example from my own beliefs. I hate certain religious teachings. I think they're evil and I should be able to say so without being accused of transgressing a law. Judaism's circumcision, Islam's teaching that a woman's testimony is worth less than a man's, Catholicism's doctrine of original sin....I hate them all. Note that plenty of people have gotten into hot water for doing exactly this, criticizing religious belief, which our courts have deemed tantamount to inciting hatred against an identifiable group. In all likelihood I would not be charged for saying publicly what I have said here, but I would probably be deemed to have technically broken the law as it's written--and if I held a position with the government, I'd be at great risk of losing it. Sections such as these landed Ezra Levant (not someone I'm a fan of), in front of Alberta's Human Rights Tribunal when he reprinted the Danish cartoons.

Section 319(1): Publicly inciting hatred[edit]
Section 319(1) makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years. There is no minimum punishment.[15]

Section 319(2): Promoting hatred[edit]
Section 319(2) makes it an offence to willfully promote hatred against any identifiable group, by making statements (other than in private conversation). The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years.[15]

Sorry for the length of the response, but as you can probably tell, it's a subject I'm warm to and which seems to be touching daily lives more and more. In short, I think that the actions which should be available to us to fight abhorrent speech should those of social pressure and specific damage laws.

 

[Sybarite]

I'll try to answer each of your questions, but I think you may be reading something into my statements that is not there. I do believe that except for advocating violence, all speech should be free. But I am not saying that speech should be free of consequences. The questions you asked seem to imply that's my position, but it's not.

I'm super curious to know what the commonly agreed rules were about what could not be said. But wouldn't it have to be regulated regardless? You began your post by saying everyone previously agreed that certain types of speech should not be permitted..
Commonly agreed rules about what could not be said are those I already mentioned above. Rules such as those against shouting fire in a crowded theater or clear calls for violence. Today we have played games with language to call almost anything violence and then censor or take more drastic action.

Would it be "free speech" for someone to post your full real name, address, family photos etc on this website, or those of a sex worker, since there's no violence involved? What about Tweeting false information to manipulate a stock price?
Doxing is already legal. The case against it today is based on morality, respecting someone's privacy and fear of retribution. Stock prices are a different case. You can go ahead and spread false information about stock prices, but if the SEC finds you doing so to profit from it unfairly, there are specific penalties. Similarly, I'm free to defame you, but if I cannot prove what I say, you can sue me for slander or libel.
Who was banned from Twitter for this? I'm not saying it didn't happen... I'm just unaware... could you please post a link to some info about that?
Megan Murphy, Canadian feminist, received a life time ban from Twitter for simply saying a transgender person was not a woman. She's one of the most high profile cases, but there have been many others. Calls for the same to be done to J.K. Rowling have been made.

But Twitter has done far worse than that. Look up the case of Bret Weinstein, whose Twitter and Facebook accounts were suspended or stifled before the election (and still are), simply for proposing something he called Articles of Unity, a framework for opposing political sides to work together. There are many examples of such action by Twitter and Facebook, but the media doesn't give them a lot of attention because they are overwhelmingly taken against conservative views...Weinstein isn't even a conservative but he was proposing something that was thought to potentially harm Biden's chances. That was apparently enough to get silenced.

Why only violence and nothing else? Not hatred? Should it be totally "free speech" say to post on Facebook or Twitter the way "Back in Toronto" posts?
What about false information that arguably harms the public good, e.g. telling people vaccinating children will give them autism, or telling people that the vaccinations we need to end this endless pandemic are actually a way of Bill Gates putting microchips into your arms, etc. etc.
There should be no "hate" laws. All speech should be allowed save for that advocating violence, as I said above. Yes, you should be able to say you hate jews and blacks etc....even "BiT's posts...yes, they should be allowed. Free speech counts for nothing if it applies only to speech you like. You have to allow distasteful and ugly thoughts to be shared, to be aired, in order for them to be properly examined, discussed and hopefully discarded. Same goes for misinformation that could lead to harm. You should be liable for what you say and that liability could increase depending on the context. If neighbour Joe tells you not to vaccinate your kids because aliens will abduct them he will be less liable for damages than if your doctor tells you the same thing. It is up to you to judge what you hear and read and to consider the source.

One of the earliest and I think the best, explanations of this is John Stuart Mills' chapter 2 on free expression in On Liberty. If you've never read it, or perhaps did in school a long time ago and forgot, you should give it a quick read. He lays out the principles and importance of free speech there in a wonderfully clear and persuasive way.

Let me just give you an example from my own beliefs. I hate certain religious teachings. I think they're evil and I should be able to say so without being accused of transgressing a law. Judaism's circumcision, Islam's teaching that a woman's testimony is worth less than a man's, Catholicism's doctrine of original sin....I hate them all. Note that plenty of people have gotten into hot water for doing exactly this, criticizing religious belief, which our courts have deemed tantamount to inciting hatred against an identifiable group. In all likelihood I would not be charged for saying publicly what I have said here, but I would probably be deemed to have technically broken the law as it's written--and if I held a position with the government, I'd be at great risk of losing it. Sections such as these landed Ezra Levant (not someone I'm a fan of), in front of Alberta's Human Rights Tribunal when he reprinted the Danish cartoons.

Section 319(1): Publicly inciting hatred[edit]
Section 319(1) makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years. There is no minimum punishment.[15]

Section 319(2): Promoting hatred[edit]
Section 319(2) makes it an offence to willfully promote hatred against any identifiable group, by making statements (other than in private conversation). The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years.[15]

Sorry for the length of the response, but as you can probably tell, it's a subject I'm warm to and which seems to be touching daily lives more and more. In short, I think that the actions which should be available to us to fight abhorrent speech should those of social pressure and specific damage laws.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I read your link about Megan Murphy, who I see was banned for violating Twitter's policy on hate speech.

I don’t believe I’m misinterpreting what you are arguing for: you are advocating that with the sole exception of the explicit incitement of violence, all other forms of expression on privately owned websites should be permitted, no matter how offensive or harmful they are. Respectfully, I completely disagree. The world is much more complicated than that.

The purpose of politics is to sort out these types of disagreements, so if you continue to advocate for the types of changes you would like to see in the world perhaps in time they will come to pass.

But currently in pretty much all of the modern world so far the process of politics has settled this issue against your viewpoint, which many would consider extreme, and privately owned platforms have the right to moderate their forums as they deem appropriate for the greater good.

If admin couldn’t moderate this site except for explicit calls to violence then doxxing would be permitted. For myself the harm caused, even in the absence of violence, is massive and obvious, and I am incredibly grateful that this site, in addition to tech giants like Twitter and Facebook, have the legal right to moderate their sites in this way, in addition to the other ways that I’ve mentioned.

Personally I believe the error conservatives make is claiming their right of expression has been completely stifled and suppressed everywhere. That is quite obviously not the case. There are still myriad other avenues, forums and public spheres where people can still continue to make their views known, this website being one of the countless examples demonstrating that is true: they simply don’t have the right to do so everywhere in any way they choose in every circumstance.

 

[altaguetta]

Blm Antifa. Social and political justice demos
Trumps demo. Sedition, a coup of an democratic elected government by trump
No difference right ?

Dude! You missed the part when Biden and the democRats blatantly cheated. It was not a fair election. That's why people are upset. Now carry on living in your dreamworld!

 

[snoopdoggie]

Dude! You missed the part when Biden and the democRats blatantly cheated. It was not a fair election. That's why people are upset. Now carry on living in your dreamworld!

How did Biden cheat? There's no hard evidence that anyone has produced so far.

 

[Hornet]

How did Biden cheat? There's no hard evidence that anyone has produced so far.

He can’t hear your through his tin foil ear muffs

 

[sy barite]

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I read your link about Megan Murphy, who I see was banned for violating Twitter's policy on hate speech.

I don’t believe I’m misinterpreting what you are arguing for: you are advocating that with the sole exception of the explicit incitement of violence, all other forms of expression on privately owned websites should be permitted, no matter how offensive or harmful they are. Respectfully, I completely disagree. The world is much more complicated than that.

The purpose of politics is to sort out these types of disagreements, so if you continue to advocate for the types of changes you would like to see in the world perhaps in time they will come to pass.

But currently in pretty much all of the modern world so far the process of politics has settled this issue against your viewpoint, which many would consider extreme, and privately owned platforms have the right to moderate their forums as they deem appropriate for the greater good.

If admin couldn’t moderate this site except for explicit calls to violence then doxxing would be permitted. For myself the harm caused, even in the absence of violence, is massive and obvious, and I am incredibly grateful that this site, in addition to tech giants like Twitter and Facebook, have the legal right to moderate their sites in this way, in addition to the other ways that I’ve mentioned.

Personally I believe the error conservatives make is claiming their right of expression has been completely stifled and suppressed everywhere. That is quite obviously not the case. There are still myriad other avenues, forums and public spheres where people can still continue to make their views known, this website being one of the countless examples demonstrating that is true: they simply don’t have the right to do so everywhere in any way they choose in every circumstance.

I'm not sure we completely understand each other. I agree with you that speech can be moderated on private forums. I guess I failed to make myself clear on that point. What I am against is making any form of speech, other than calls for violence, illegal. Of course private companies have every right to moderate the speech that happens on their "dime".

This goes for big tech too. Twitter has every right to ban speech it doesn't agree with. My point is that it is not doing so in a wise way. You can say Murphy was banned for violating Twitter rules, which is true, but the devil is in the details. She was banned for saying men are not women...a belief held by the vast majority of humanity. Moreover, the ban by Twitter contended that her speech made Transgender people "unsafe" and transgressed Twitter's hate rules. Meanwhile, calls for jews to be "pushed into the sea" are tolerated. This is precisely what I was getting at in my lengthy post above.

 

[snoopdoggie]

Winning and losing is life, man. Stand up and stop crying like a baby. Biden lost before too. Ever see him whining? What happened when Hasek lost the Stanley Cup in 99? Did he sulk? No, he won later with the Wings, while teammates with Hull, no less. When you fall, you get up and try again. You don't cry like Drunk Trump.

 

[Sybarite]

I'm not sure we completely understand each other. I agree with you that speech can be moderated on private forums. I guess I failed to make myself clear on that point. What I am against is making any form of speech, other than calls for violence, illegal. Of course private companies have every right to moderate the speech that happens on their "dime".

This goes for big tech too. Twitter has every right to ban speech it doesn't agree with. My point is that it is not doing so in a wise way. You can say Murphy was banned for violating Twitter rules, which is true, but the devil is in the details. She was banned for saying men are not women...a belief held by the vast majority of humanity. Moreover, the ban by Twitter contended that her speech made Transgender people "unsafe" and transgressed Twitter's hate rules. Meanwhile, calls for jews to be "pushed into the sea" are tolerated. This is precisely what I was getting at in my lengthy post above.

Ahh OK well then yes my apologies I was mistaken - I did misunderstand you. We're on the same page then: Twitter and the rest can ban whoever they wish and regulate speech however they choose.

I have empathy for Murphy's position so I'm not trying to make a case as to whether it's right or wrong of Twitter to ban her. But we both agree it's their absolute right to do so, and Murphy needs to either abide by their rules or find somewhere else to make her case. So really the only question regarding Twitter is whether banning someone is a wise choice or a foolish choice from a business perspective, or whatever other criteria you wish to measure by.

If the more foundational question is what free speech is permitted in society in general and not on internet platforms, then personally I feel we're still in pretty good shape here since there are plenty of other places we can freely discuss all these issues and more, like Massage Planet!

 

[LazyBoy]

How did Biden cheat? There's no hard evidence that anyone has produced so far.

Cant reach people who refuse to believe facts and are addicted to fake news and their own narrative. I find it hilarious that Trump and his mob keep crying foul and its them who are trying their hardest to steal the election. They keep saying Stop the Steal. Well, that's easy. Get your ass off the street and accept Trump's loss and let him go off into the sunset with his tail between his legs.

 

[snoopdoggie]

Cant reach people who refuse to believe facts and are addicted to fake news and their own narrative. I find it hilarious that Trump and his mob keep crying foul and its them who are trying their hardest to steal the election. They keep saying Stop the Steal. Well, that's easy. Get your ass off the street and accept Trump's loss and let him go off into the sunset with his tail between his legs.

Agreed. If only Dump Trump would accept defeat, he wouldn't be in big trouble as he is now. By getting impeached, he will lose his pension and will no longer receive secret service security.

 

[imthedude]

Dude! You missed the part when Biden and the democRats blatantly cheated. It was not a fair election. That's why people are upset. Now carry on living in your dreamworld!

They blatantly cheated the same way Jesus regularly appears to people in their coffee.

 

[sy barite]

Ahh OK well then yes my apologies I was mistaken - I did misunderstand you. We're on the same page then: Twitter and the rest can ban whoever they wish and regulate speech however they choose.

I have empathy for Murphy's position so I'm not trying to make a case as to whether it's right or wrong of Twitter to ban her. But we both agree it's their absolute right to do so, and Murphy needs to either abide by their rules or find somewhere else to make her case. So really the only question regarding Twitter is whether banning someone is a wise choice or a foolish choice from a business perspective, or whatever other criteria you wish to measure by.

If the more foundational question is what free speech is permitted in society in general and not on internet platforms, then personally I feel we're still in pretty good shape here since there are plenty of other places we can freely discuss all these issues and more, like Massage Planet!

Yes, I think we agree on principles, but maybe not conclusions.

Someone like say Alex Jones, has effectively been silenced. Much as I hate the stuff he's said, I think it's wrong for that to happen. Also the more recent case of the attempt to get rid of Parler does not bode well. Collectively, Twitter, Apple, Google and Facebook basically control dialogue online. Factor in that mainstream media is on the same side as big tech and you have a situation (in the U.S. at least) where half the population is frozen out of discussion and the other half is fully backed by the establishment. Not a good recipe for unity ,or peace, for that matter. Since the Capitol riot, I have heard numerous statements in the media and on Twitter basically saying that ALL Trump supporters bear some degree of guilt for January 6. That's not only wrong, it is inconsistent, since the same people would never assess their side by the same rules--and yet you have a seeming consensus in legacy and social media. The best we can hope for in such a situation is that conservatives will create their own "bubbles" and then the two sides won't talk at all. At worst, the conflict will go beyond words.

 

[imthedude]

There are more than two sides and anyway, liberals and leftists are not on the same side.

 

[Sybarite]

Yes, I think we agree on principles, but maybe not conclusions.

Someone like say Alex Jones, has effectively been silenced. Much as I hate the stuff he's said, I think it's wrong for that to happen. Also the more recent case of the attempt to get rid of Parler does not bode well. Collectively, Twitter, Apple, Google and Facebook basically control dialogue online. Factor in that mainstream media is on the same side as big tech and you have a situation (in the U.S. at least) where half the population is frozen out of discussion and the other half is fully backed by the establishment. Not a good recipe for unity ,or peace, for that matter. Since the Capitol riot, I have heard numerous statements in the media and on Twitter basically saying that ALL Trump supporters bear some degree of guilt for January 6. That's not only wrong, it is inconsistent, since the same people would never assess their side by the same rules--and yet you have a seeming consensus in legacy and social media. The best we can hope for in such a situation is that conservatives will create their own "bubbles" and then the two sides won't talk at all. At worst, the conflict will go beyond words.

You don’t like the conclusions, but to some degree they are the logical result of your own belief system. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

The commitment to the maximum level of freedom and the Randian / Libertarian / conservative belief that business should be subject to the absolute minimum level of regulation possible is ironically how you end up with behemoth tech monopolies having outsize control over speech in the public sphere in the first place.

You previously stressed that freedom to say what you believe does not mean freedom from consequence from what you say. Since we both agree that in a free society private entities have the absolute right to run their businesses as they choose, that means that when the underpinning of the entire system is threatened by people who want to deny the results of free and fair elections, private entities have the right to respond in the ways that protect what they perceive as the interests of their own businesses as well as their country as a whole.

Denying the obvious outcome of elections in a democratic society is not really good for unity and peace either. If your goal is that anyone can say what they want, short of inciting violence, and presumably companies can hire and fire who they want, doesn’t it follow that businesses have the absolute right to decide, for example, that the following is what they want to say and how they choose to run their business?

The talk radio network that airs Dan Bongino and Mark Levin warned staff to stop ‘dog-whistle talk.’

If conservatives want to be the party of personal responsibility and law and order then they need to be responsible, accept the consequences for what they say and do, and follow the existing laws of the land.

What remedy do you propose to solve the problem you’re complaining about?

 

[snoopdoggie]

They blatantly cheated the same way Jesus regularly appears to people in their coffee.

Jesus is everywhere. He's in your livingroom. He's in your car. He's in your breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

 

[sy barite]

What remedy do you propose to solve the problem you’re complaining about?

It's complicated isn't it? I agree that I am hoist by my own petard on this subject. The very principles of freedom of speech (in the context of the U.S. and its first amendment) and private enterprise which I'm defending have inevitably led to this situation. I don't think our freedom of speech laws (not that I think we have freedom of speech in Canada), envisioned a world where so few companies could control so much public discourse.

What I'd like to see is for big tech to receive some assurance from government that they will not be regulated. If those few big companies did not have to worry about Washington forcing them to moderate discussions to "protect" people against hate speech, misinformation, and sometimes just offense, then I think they'd simply pass themselves off as utilities with no more responsibility about what gets said on their platform than Bell has about what people say over their phone lines. I think that might work, because of the simple rule of competition.

However, the opposite is happening. Now that they are in complete control of the government, there's nothing stopping Democrats from carrying out the threats they've been making for years, to regulate social media. And if they do, it's going to make the problem worse. In that case the best we can hope for (from my perspective), is that the Democrats will overreach-and piss off enough people to lose control of the government. No one's motives are pure. Both sides realize that whoever controls the rules of communication can also affect elections, and because culturally speaking Democrat America is dominant, they certainly have the edge. Luckily they are terrifically incompetent.

 

[altaguetta]

For the Trump haters:

Here is the proof that he was Einstein compared to the sick, evil, fascist DemocRats:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1350216042052784128

 

[Sybarite]

It's complicated isn't it? I agree that I am hoist by my own petard on this subject. The very principles of freedom of speech (in the context of the U.S. and its first amendment) and private enterprise which I'm defending have inevitably led to this situation. I don't think our freedom of speech laws (not that I think we have freedom of speech in Canada), envisioned a world where so few companies could control so much public discourse.

What I'd like to see is for big tech to receive some assurance from government that they will not be regulated. If those few big companies did not have to worry about Washington forcing them to moderate discussions to "protect" people against hate speech, misinformation, and sometimes just offense, then I think they'd simply pass themselves off as utilities with no more responsibility about what gets said on their platform than Bell has about what people say over their phone lines. I think that might work, because of the simple rule of competition.

However, the opposite is happening. Now that they are in complete control of the government, there's nothing stopping Democrats from carrying out the threats they've been making for years, to regulate social media. And if they do, it's going to make the problem worse. In that case the best we can hope for (from my perspective), is that the Democrats will overreach-and piss off enough people to lose control of the government. No one's motives are pure. Both sides realize that whoever controls the rules of communication can also affect elections, and because culturally speaking Democrat America is dominant, they certainly have the edge. Luckily they are terrifically incompetent.

Hopefully it will be some consolation to know Twitter is not happy about this state of affairs either, and CEO Jack Dorsey – whose philosophical outlook on the matter is similar to your own – feels he was railroaded into a place he never wanted to go to by Trump...

Twitter banned Trump forever... And it brought to an end an era of free speech online that Twitter — which a senior executive once referred to as “the free speech wing of the free speech party” — had itself helped create.... Billionaire Twitter CEO and founder Jack Dorsey wasn’t celebrating the moment. He lamented what the decision meant for the vision of an open Internet that he and his Silicon Valley peers shared when they sought to build a new type of microblogging service 15 years ago. While necessary for public safety, he said it would be “destructive to the noble purpose and ideals of the open Internet” over the long term...

Until recently, the company was so reluctant to police content that it only put into place a formal misinformation policy last year.... Public figures were so important to Twitter that, like Facebook, the company long gave them a newsworthiness exemption. They were allowed to say things that would be considered to be policy violations if uttered by everyday users, on the grounds that what these people said was in the public interest. Twitter, and Dorsey in particular, long maintained that even the worst lies should be corrected with more speech rather than removing them. It was Twitter’s responsibility to show “how global leaders think and treat the people around them,” he said. But Twitter came under more and more pressure as the Trump presidency wore on....

For years, he and Twitter had benefited immensely from being at the center of conversations, the public square where news happened. Now, a dangerous precedent was set, he said, in that people were retreating from the public square even further. Dialogues across different viewpoints would be even less possible, and technology companies were becoming even more powerful than governments. That the company had to ban Trump, he felt, was a failure of his service to maintain civil discourse, perhaps existentially.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/16/how-twitter-banned-trump/

----

In a lengthy philosophical tweetstorm, Twitter chief executive Jack Dorsey said he took no pride in the decision to remove President Trump’s account from the service last week, describing the decision as a “failure” to ultimately create a service that could sustain civil discourse and healthy conversations... “This moment in time might call for this dynamic, but over the long term it will be destructive to the noble purpose and ideals of the open internet,” he wrote....

Dorsey, along with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, is a strong proponent of building platforms that can encompass as many voices as possible. That latitude and pro-free speech stance was extended even further with politicians. Twitter — like Facebook — has long given exemptions to public figures regarding their hate speech policies on the grounds that what they said was newsworthy and worthy of public debate. The decisions last week, to effectively silence those voices, Dorsey pointed out, would have huge ramifications.

“They limit the potential for clarification, redemption, and learning,” he wrote. “And sets a precedent I feel is dangerous: the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/13/twitter-trump-ban/

 

[Hornet]

Free Speech is never 100% “Free”. Statements that are dangerous and false are not protected. The example given is yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre is not protected by the First Amendment.

The internet should never be completely open. By that, some things should not be allowed to be shown or discussed, namely things like child pornography or ISIS beheading captured westerners. The difficulty will be determining where to set the dial on the level of freedom or control.