Do you find it troubling that Big Tech can silence a U.S. president, or anyone, for that matter?

No

It’s more troubling that people think they can say what they want without consequence.

Yes, we need these idiots to stay in public view. Silencing them just means they go underground.

No - I would find it disconcerting if they didn't kick out anyone who spews lies and falsehood repeatedly. However, I would question if they warned said user for his past posts else kicking out without a warning would be unfair to an extent.

Not really. It's the same in China.

It is in their Terms when you sign up. Unless you are paid by the service, otherwise just deal with it.

It's a pity they didn't do it earlier. People would still be alive.

I'm wondering what on the horizon this week because of all these decisions.

Yep, we are living in the beginning of a technocracy. Big tech already is controlling the media and elected officials and censoring what goes against their interests.

Do you find it troubling that Big Tech can silence a U.S. president, or anyone, for that matter?

When the person is inciting violence, or spreading hate, then they should be removed. I'm not sure why people think there should be an exception to this for the elites.

Govt shouldn't be using private Internet properties for communications. They should be holding a press conference and updating govt run, govt controlled, websites.

I'm against govt pushing notificatons via cell networks too - unless the govt is going to buy every person a cell pone and pay for a cell plan too. It is discriminatory.

we are living in the beginning of a technocracy.

Considering the president has the right to do whatever he wants, then pardon whomever he wants, and finally pardon himself, I don't see how a technocracy is any worse than an emperor.

No, of course not. If you dance with those leftist devils your feet get hurt. That is very clear in advance, before you sign up or take part there.

The rules apply to everyone, mostly.

"All animals are equal, except pigs and they are more equal than others."

George Orwell in the book "1984"

Not in the least.

Of course it's troubling. Big tech can either function as a platform, where they host that is not responsible for the content and stand back, only intervene to prevent a crime. Or they can act as a publisher, allowing them to censor but forcing them to take responsibility for the content they publish. They can't do both, at least on a moral level.

Big Tech wants it both ways. They want to act like a platform and avoid responsibility for allowing hate and threats of violence from, say, Iran's Ayatollah or BLM activists, and don't censor them. But they happily act as a publisher and censor opinions they don't like, regardless of how truthful and moderate they are, from right-leaning individuals and groups. They just lump in the reasonable moderates with the small number of far-right nutters and call the whole lot hate speech when it clearly is not. The Democrats won't argue because it suits their interests to silence their opponents. But even Angela Merkel has said this is going too far.

To the people who don't find it troubling, apply the same standard in the other direction and you'd quickly change your tune.

Perhaps "Animal Farm"?

I find it very troubling when Big Tech and small forums prevent certain views from being expressed, even when they are not incorrect or hateful.

Considering the president has the right to do whatever he wants, then pardon whomever he wants, and finally pardon himself, I don't see how a technocracy is any worse than an emperor.

But he can't. He can only pardon federal crimes, not state crimes like trying to blackmail the Georgia Secretary of State into finding 11,000 votes while threatening him with bogus criminal charges and personal harm like mob boss.

More voices are better. What is needed is for the readers to get educated as to what is real and what is not. Let the apples fall where they may. Most people know how to determine the difference. To shut someone out, and more so, to let others know that you are shutting someone out, just gives that person's base something to shout out about.

I find it troubling that "big tech", which is a right wing talking point, has become mainstream.

As for the companies involved, well, the right wing contingent keep pointing out that such companies can pretty much do what they like, being private and all.

Are we now being given a new narrative by our right wing pals?

45 has repeatedly told us about law and order and his supporters have done the same, saying blue lives matter.

In light of the murderous mob that was incited by an unhinged PotUS, kicking him off social media platforms is the least that can be done to punish him.

If you dance with those leftist devils your feet get hurt.

Does that apply to all capitalist outfits, or just the ones that have decided that platforming crazed would be dictators may not have been such a great idea?

Do you find it troubling that Big Tech can silence a U.S. president, or anyone, for that matter?

This is not a factual statement, now this should be "Can US based Big Tech companies silence there President"

As for the rest of the world..they need to start the process of decoupling from these Big Tech as these companies have shown, they can and will do what suits there narrative..

I see nothing wrong with what happened to the Orange Clown.

If I spout lies and hate speech I'll get banned too. Of course private comapanies can be selective about the content they host.

He hasn't been 'silenced' anyway...he is in a 'silent sulk', he has his own Press Office and can make statements whenever he wants through official channels.

What is needed is for the readers to get educated as to what is real and what is not. Let the apples fall where they may. Most people know how to determine the difference.

Except that, as has been proven time and time again, 'most people' don't know how to determine the difference.

As for the question of 'silencing' a US President, he's hardly silenced. All he has to do is walk into the press room, and he'll be on TVs around the world. Or put out a statement through the White House press office.

The simple fact is, even without his Twitter account, Donald Trump has more access to getting his words heard around the world than almost anyone in existence. This is inherent with the job he's (not) doing. The President of the United States sneezes, and ten million people offer a tissue.

Trump should’ve been kicked off social media a long time ago. They made way too many exceptions for him because of his status as president.

I find it quite disturbing that many people apparently believe access to social media is more of a right than access to free healthcare.

gaging hate speech and free speech are two totally different things .... he wasn’t presidential material at all with the venom and hate he was spreading

45 has repeatedly told us about law and order and his supporters have done the same, saying blue lives matter.

What does seem to be lacking in the Blue Lives Matter people is the respect towards the Black Lives Matter efforts. The Black Lives Matter organizers are made of from 50 smaller groups each with a slightly different agenda - with some I agree about and some I find abhorrent. Overall, the goal for all these groups is change to make for a less violent, less hassle, more fair lives for non-majority people where society sees character, not skin color.

Blue Lives do matter. So to tan, black, green, rainbow, yellow, red, white, and albino lives. But the Black Lives Matter folks concentrate on one group which can seem exclusionary to all the others. Considering history and facts, it doesn't seem unreasonable to concentrate on black lives at this point in history. That doesn't mean the other groups aren't important, just not the concentration of that specific group. Look at the statistics between black and non-black interactions with police. Something is off. Police techniques need to change. Some cities HAVE changed once mandated by the Feds years ago. They didn't have violent protests in those cities where police work with the communities and have made real changes in how they police dangerous parts of their cities. https://www.npr.org/2020/06/08/872470135/new-police-force-from-scratch-n-j-city-proves-its-possible-to-reform-the-police That change happened in 2013.

I see it as the difference between funding breast cancer research and funding pediatric brain tumor research. Both are terrible. Both matter. I'm not going to say that breast cancer research is less important because I choose to donate to the pediatric brain tumor foundation.

Questions are actually,

If a president should even communicate anything of importance (unfiltered and unrefined) through twitter as opposed to press releases?

If the internet should be free of any type of moderation, due to "free speech"? can you even imagine what that would be? If there should be moderation, why shouldn't the POTUS be.

Nice post TheFu. Balanced and reasonable.

Fighting injustice is not a zero-sum game.

I find it troubling that "big tech", which is a right wing talking point, has become mainstream.

Not me. Massive SNS platforms have become a significant tool of communication worldwide, and these companies, motivated only by profit, are making decisions which affect democracies. They shouldn't be left to regulate themselves, there needs to be a framework in which they operate.

That said, that's not absolute. As with anything in real life, a nuanced response is necessary. Fully opening these companies up to liability for what is posted on their sites would cripple them, which would in turn remove the tool that we use to communicate. There is currently a balance of sorts - they are responsible for removing content when it is brought to their attention. Maybe this is enough, or maybe it needs refining, but scrapping this protection altogether would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Right now, we definitely need more of a framework around big tech, how they treat our data, and how they influence our cultures. That doesn't mean scrapping their protections altogether, even though that would quickly rid us of our right-wing problem on social media.

The issue is truth.

Trump lies constantly. His outrageous and unsubstantiated lies damage the credibility of a nation and society in general so greatly that outlandish lying has become normalized by other politicians and his supporters as justifiable.

When normal people have to justify curtailing the actions of a sociopathic narcissist, the crazy people have won.

If your child lied as much, as often and as outrageously as Donald Trump does, would you just accept it and justify the child as having the right to be an antisocial monster?

Heck, I've been censored here for saying something that was completely true and based on FBI data straight from the government website, but the censor here didn't know the facts thought it was something discriminatory.

No it is not troubling.

You should not be able to spout off anything you want at all times without repurcussions

This ENTIRE topic would be better served & discussed if it was just about the average person on the street being silenced etc rather than trump!

Throwing his name in this topic guarantee's it wont be reasonably debated

Ahead of an upcoming election, Uganda just banned Twitter.

Twitter responded with :"...We strongly condemn internet shutdowns – they are hugely harmful, violate basic human rights and the principles of the #OpenInternet."

Just anyone, yes

People with power who abuse it, no

The rules need to be tailored for the impact.

Someone with less than 10 follows and reshares (whatever those are) don't need to be held to the same accountability as someone with 500 followers or 500,000 followers. It is about responsibility to the truth and not being hateful to anyone when you have more people seeing what is written.

Saw a few years ago that Twitter or Facebook claimed over 2B userids. They don't need to worry about any with only 50 people in their social group. They need to worry more and more as the number of followers increase for an account. Accounts with lots of followers need to be banned when they lie about important things.

Accounts like "The Onion" are satire and are supposed to make things up - but that is known by people who read The Onion. That's different than lies from a lawyer representing any govt official. I thought lawyers weren't allowed to lie in public statements - doesn't that get them disbarred?

If the DNC or GOP want to lie, they can do that on their own servers. If their servers get kicked off a connection to the internet, they can find other providers which will host them.

Access to social networks is not a right for any individual. There are lots of things that aren't rights.