Information Clearing House ✒ Biden’s Presidency Certified, Free Speech May be No Longer.

Catherine Shakdam

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” ― George Washington

 As of January 6, 2021 Twitter decided to suspend US President Donald Trump’s account, for all intents and purposes putting a sock into the man’s mouth for IT didn’t feel like entertaining his political rants. And though many will argue that such measures to silence Mr Trump were wielded in the public’s best interest, in the context of the violence we all saw unravel at Capital Hill this Wednesday, I’d like you to consider for a moment the implications of such a unilateral move.

And for those who missed it, Jo Biden’s presidency was certified by Congress late last night.

Twitter, however familiar the platform has become, remains forever a private entity, a corporate body that cannot claim to legislate or in this particular instance rule over our realities by shutting out certain voices and/or certain ideas. Such powers are far too great for any one individual or corporation to exercise without oversight and lawful recourses.  

Continue reading @ Information Clearing House.

America Under Censorship

Information Clearing House ✒ Biden’s Presidency Certified, Free Speech May be No Longer.

Catherine Shakdam

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” ― George Washington

 As of January 6, 2021 Twitter decided to suspend US President Donald Trump’s account, for all intents and purposes putting a sock into the man’s mouth for IT didn’t feel like entertaining his political rants. And though many will argue that such measures to silence Mr Trump were wielded in the public’s best interest, in the context of the violence we all saw unravel at Capital Hill this Wednesday, I’d like you to consider for a moment the implications of such a unilateral move.

And for those who missed it, Jo Biden’s presidency was certified by Congress late last night.

Twitter, however familiar the platform has become, remains forever a private entity, a corporate body that cannot claim to legislate or in this particular instance rule over our realities by shutting out certain voices and/or certain ideas. Such powers are far too great for any one individual or corporation to exercise without oversight and lawful recourses.  

Continue reading @ Information Clearing House.

37 comments:

  1. What a load of nonsense. Nobody took away Trump's freedom of speech. Citing authorities on the importance of maintaining the freedom of speech has no bearing on reality.

    There is no law that says that if a politician speaks then newspapers or other media must disseminate it to their followers or else their freedom of speech is being violated.

    Twitter and other big tech service providers do not have to amplify or disseminate anything Trump has to say... they can freely refuse anyone from using their service, even Trump.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have always thought when you are denied the right to reply you are censored. If Twitter allow something to be said about anyone and then suppress any right to reply, that in my view is censorship. As a private company banning him from using the facility per se is arguably its right but once they let others have a go at him, he should be given the right to reply.

      Delete
  2. Further, how many US twitter accounts are suspended, revoked or subject to technical problems everyday? But once Trump is suspended it becomes "America Under Censorshp".

    While Trump's freedom 9f speech remains intact, this article highlights a greater concern, how otherwise intelligent people like this author idolise one man to represent their world view?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Christy,
    Here's my problem with this. People say Trump is a fascist, I disagree but fine if that's what they think. Their response to what they perceive as fascism is to cheer corporate censorship of private citizens because there's a lot more than Trump being deplatformed. Fascism is a complex ideology to understand, it seems to me it contradicts itself but one of the famous fascist quotes is Mussolini saying it's basically a merging of state and corporate power. In supporting corporate censorship to oppose fascism not a contradiction.
    I don't use social media, don't know the rules, doesn't interest me. From a purely intellectual perspective is curtailing freedom of speech to hinder Trump or the alt right not ultimately counter productive?
    I take what you mean about the law but in barring these figures from platforms that what ninety percent? Of western society uses are you not helping their myth? Allowing them to play the victim and attract more support by other means.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 5 day countdown til next illegal criminal war. Something so refreshingly liberal and PC correct about that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AM

    That is the general rule with print media -things like twitter are different because they function differently. If an individual or group specifically targeted Trump with lies or potential incorrect information then Twitter might afford him the right to reply -but Trump also broke twitters user agreement --after repeatedly warning someone to stop breaching your own guidlines -you too might suspend them or ban them -you are censoring them but you are not depriving them from their freedom of speech or expression. I think the issue is Trump literally put all his eggs in the one basket with Twitter --he was so invested in using that to communicate to his supporters that it has literally shut him up once he was suspended from Twitter. And Trump's tweets are not really in response to someone tweeting him but more him getting a message out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Christy - I think it has to be the general rule with social media as well. I don't believe social media should be treated any differently from print media and feel that legislation pertaining to both should be regularised. If what happened to him happened to me I would feel I was being censored.
      But you have a point about breaking the rules. And they have to be there for all and no preferential treatment for presidents. Although I wonder what rules he actually broke given that so many others do the same and do not get banned.
      I didn't raise the matter of his advocacy being denied because it is a privately operated venture but I think he has a case about the right to reply. Given the stick he takes he would have a lot of replying to do.
      What TPQ would do with somebody like him is not ban him but boot him over to Bates & Wilkes Central or In the Sewer With Der Stürmer where people could read him if they chose to but where he would not be part of normal civilised discourse.

      Delete
  6. David

    Sounds like you defined Trump as a facist if you consider the role of the Club for Growth -they seem to want a moneyocracy (merging state with corporate power) --they buy presidents rather than vote for them -they also bank roll groups like QAnon and Proud Boys -and all the republicans who voted against ratifying Biden as the next president recieved various amounts runing into the millions.

    Trump took twitter for granted and by banning him they have effectively shut him up because he relied on it so much -they have censored him but not silenced him -I do not see it as censorship but the withdrawl of a service he was abusing -big and small buisnesses -pubs and shops do these sort of things all the time -they have aright to select their clientiel and refuse those who abuse repeatedly their service. I think Google China is a more serious issue because Google's search engines censor information in and out of China according to what the regime want or don't want the people to see.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sign comments or they will not be carried

    ReplyDelete
  8. Christy,
    I don't fully understand Fascism to define anybody as such. My point was the people who call Trump a fascist often use the Mussolini quote to justify their claim and then go on to support the curtailing of free speech through unaccountable corporations. I see a contradiction.
    I listened to Chris Hedges talk about this on the Jimmy Core show and his worry was you can end up with China like censorship because this introduction of censorship was enthusiastically embraced. Time will tell.
    In my youth if the RA planted a lorry load of semtex outside a school I would have found a way to justify it. I feel Trump is making otherwise rational people blinkered with contempt the are also justifying what normally would seem outrageous to them.
    In his term we've had conspiracy theories in the main stream media in the US. Constant cries of fascism without evidence. An impeachment that had no substance, a Muller inquiry that was a waste of time. Clinton calling half the nation a basket of deplorables, msnbc calling for Trump supporters to be deprogrammed, Russians in complete control, apparently, a second impeachment, although this one seems credible, I think it's a tactical mistake, already you've got a Republican congresswoman citing impeachment on Biden for China links, if they get control of the house in two years time that might happen, is that the start of impeachment tit for tat? Now we have support of censorship all for a man who should be a free hit. If you can't beat Trump convincingly, look inward no outward.
    In the first lockdown I started to pay proper attention to Yankee politics and to me it seems there is a great failure in the democratic party, a lot of people are calling out their corporatism, now even the progressive Caucasus has toed the party line and Trump has been an absolute gift to them, one that they are milking. In doing so I think they are creating a lasting myth round a buffoon. Instead of being a failed one term President who achieved nothing he'll now spin it as witch hunt from the swamp. If ever there was a President who should have been allowed to hang himself it's him. It's like Darth Vader strike me down and I'll become more powerful than you ever imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nancy and killary are back in business it's a four day count down til the next illegal disgusting war. Liberals and fake perfectionists facilitating big pharma and the military industrial complex. Keep popping your opioids under the bed.

    Signing this in case twitter mk2 bans it

    Larry Hughes.

    ReplyDelete
  10. No chance of getting barred here Larry - only conspiracy nut jobs face that. Sure, you are not one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  11. AM

    If you treat Twitter the same as print media -or even bloggers -then you extent to them journalistic previlege -which we have seen in the past is impossible to regulate and can leave vulnerable people exposed to various harms ... Twitter is more like a public notice board in a shopping centre -most of the time it works well but adds that might be illegal or harmful can be removed without any right of reply. Companies like Twitter have discreation to err of the side of caution if they are concerned about certain messages or the motives of one of its users.

    Whatever any court/commission may ultimately decides to be the true interpretation of Trump's messages the general public perception is that they are incitement to others to commit violent crimes that were manifesting in real time in actual violence that left people dead --there is no way I could ever see you publishing articles from say dissident using equivalent language calling on people to wreck or take over Belfast City Hall.

    In addition, Trump is complaining about not having any right to reply to messages about him -that was not how Trump uses twitter -it was his conduit to get his message out -and in most cases, I think, others were replying to his messages or actions -say like seperating children from their parents and putting them in cages as one extreme example.

    Of course we do not know the truth but Twitter said that it could see a trend in other chatter that was directly related to Trumps messages that was potentially heading toward more violence -the FBI have expressed serious concern because they have been picking up the same chatter from various sources.

    If there is further serious violence then Twitter could destroy its own buisness reputation if it did not act on the side of caution -I have never heard of it before but Parlor is out of buisness because it has a reputation of not regulating the chatter from trump and his far right followers.

    I think Twitter can legitamately claim that it has acted totally above board preemtively rather than have its concerns and do nothing only to later wash its hands of things after any violent events.

    As a blogger you do have certain previleges that Twitter does not have but you are expected to adhere to higer standards and obligations on the right to reply but if you were balancing the right to reply with obligation to prevent serious harm --I do not think you would have a crisis of conscience about what the safest thing to do would be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Christy - they are treated the same now as far I know for reasons of libel. They could only claim journalistic privilege if they were involved in legitimate news gathering activity. I am of a view that there should always be a right to reply. Any service that provides a platform for a person to be attacked should provide a Platform for the person to defend themselves.
      I suppose if you know the rules before you sign up to it then you are caught.
      Trump did use Twitter to get his message out and if he was using it to attack people those people should have the right to reply to him. He should have the right to respond to attacks on him. I don't see how it can be fair to deny him it.
      The incitement to violence (which is what I think he was doing) is open to interpretation. In that circumstance any service would be foolish to continue as was for the very reason that it too could face prosecution for providing a platform. There's the dinner. Finish later!

      Delete
    2. Christy - why would we not publish if people say they are going to occupy City Hall? I believe we would have carried Trump's statement had he sent it. Easy to say, but our only consideration would be whether or not it was a direct call to violence. I see the blog as a free inquiry site more than a free speech one. Free speech can include insults whereas free inquiry is about ideas. Myself and Henry Joy have beaten these ideas around (and over more than a few pints on one occasion) in a bid to finetune the service we seek to provide. TPQ is on record as trying to be guided by the logic of AC Grayling:

      Because it can do harm, and because it can be used irresponsibly, there has to be an understanding of when free speech has to be constrained. But given its fundamental importance, the default has to be that free speech is inviolate except … where the dots are filled in with a specific, strictly limited, case-by-case, powerfully justified, one-off set of utterly compelling reasons why in this particular situation alone there must be a restraint on speech. Note the words specific strictly limited case-by-case powerfully justified one-off utterly compelling this particular situation alone.

      I don't think we have been as stringent however. We don't permit bullying which we feel is an attempt to curb free speech.

      I don't see what privileges we have over and above Twitter. We try to set our own standards and adhere to them.

      I cannot see a circumstance where we would deny the right to reply. Our decision would have to be based on what the reply contained but that would also go for what the piece being replied to contained.

      Delete
  12. David

    Whether Trump is fascist or not does not concern me -I see him as harmful and devisive and utterly without conscience. I think doing nothing could undermine confidence and legitimacy in any democracy -I think his first impeachment was wholly justified -and many republicans choked in voting against it -and acknowledged what he had done was wrong with statements like he had learnt his lesson and he would not repeat them -Adam Schiff forewarned back then that Republicans had enabled him to get worse.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Christy,
    It's not me who brings Trump and fascist in to the same sentence. I agree he's harmful and without conscience, although I believe that about all politicians I am aware of to sliding degrees. I believe politicans should be decisive.
    I'm not advocating doing nothing, rather I believe the course to go down was the policy road, rather than conspiracy theories. I would have constantly asked his base, where's your wall?, why is his deportation record worse than Obama?, why is there swamp members in his cabinet? why is he intervening overseas? Not Russia spy and pee tape nonsense.
    An inquiry in to the allegations of the first impeachment found inadequate evidence, how then can it be justified?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mackers you're too tolerant me and Trump got banned from FB I got a month for a comment that wasn't covid19 cheerleader standard or BBC compliant. Obviously martyrdom is much more difficult to achieve on the boul Quill. Message to self..must try harder the bastards must s got vaccinated already. Me n Pablo were out today saw a few grannies and grandads spoil sports weren't masked up. So obviously unafraid... Soooo disappointed.
    Larry Hughes

    ReplyDelete
  15. AM

    I maybe put that wrong and not incontext -twitter published they were going to take CH. Twitter only suspended Trump's account after the violence and not before -Twitter was used as one of the main ways that he communicates to his followers -I am not aware that the issue about the right to reply was at play -there had been violence and twitter was being used to maintain that momentum in readinenss for inauguration day -it was being used or potentially used as a medium to direct the violence and not free speech of getting a valid idea/message out. Any service, including your own, that is used to incite/direct violence and continues to provide that service knowing it is for that purpose makes itself an invaluable party to the violence or unlawful conduct. Which I know you are not in disagreement with.

    Trump has abused Twitter to put out lie after lie -all of which were fanning the flames -twitter initially attempted to label the twits as false or unreliable -Twitter was then faced with the fact that Trump's tweets were directly leading to serious violence and possible more loss of life in real time -it pulled the plug and had every right to do so and was not breaching Trumps freedom of speech in doing so. Effectively he can say what he wants but take it elsewhere. I see Twitters response as a no brainer if even for its ownsake in selfpreservation.

    I follow your academic reasoning on censorship; even if speech is offensive or unflattering -I myself do not have a problem with that -you draw the line at bullying -Twitter seems to have drawn the line at insurrection/coup ...because it did allow him to make abusive and bullying tweets up until 8th January.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Christy - The issue of a right to reply was non-existent because up until they gagged him he could reply all he wanted. Twitter continues to allow people to say what they want about him and he has no right to reply. The fairest thing to do would be to stop permitting all criticism of him if it is not going to allow him to reply. It could easily have banned his tweets which it had suspicions about but instead chose a blanket ban.

      A service has to be able to face down insinuations that it is a platform for incitement to violence if it feels that what it hosts is not an incitement. There will be no shortage of people willing to shout incitement for the purpose of closing down discussion. On TPQ John Coulter once advocated a nuclear strike on Iran. We did not ban him as obviously nothing was going to lead from it. But it could be argued that he was inciting violence.
      I would think Trump could easily win any court case around incitement to violence if it is restricted to his Twitter comments alone. Of much more serious concern for him has to be any evidential trail that might exist outside of Twitter and which I think there might well be.

      Trump lies through his teeth but I don’t think lying alone is reason to censor him. I have argued somewhere on TPQ that lying has to be permissible under free speech. The dangers of banning it are ultimately greater than the lie itself.

      I think Twitter has seriously breached his freedom to inform in using the blanket ban. If he is to take it elsewhere the elsewhere could be seriously limited and there is still the problem of denying him a right to reply. Twitter should say that it does not recognise any right to reply – but in my mind that is censorship.

      I don’t see my reasoning as academic but practical: it comes with the turf of trying to run a free inquiry blog as the problem invariably comes up in one form or another. There are just sometimes when decisions have to be made.

      Twitter did allow Trump to make a lot of noise prior to 8 January. It also banned some of his tweets or put out a health warning on them. It had the option to ban anything he said that was an incitement to violence but it chose to silence him instead through the use of a blanket ban rather than a filter.

      Delete
  16. David

    Trump is all about conspiracy theories so I ma not sure how you flip that one? I am not fully up on Obamama's deportation policy but I do know he did not forcibly sperate children from their parent and lock them in cages -not disimilar to images of the Jews being seperated during the second world war.

    If I were an American I would be very concerned about his 100s of millions of dollars of debt as a security liability -Russia is thought to hold his tab -and he is consistently passive or favourable to the Russians -even when it was learned that they were paying bounties on the heads of US service personnell overseas. His first impeachment failed -not because it was without foundation but because the witnesses were not compelled to provide thei evidence -there is a difference to how you were spinning that. He abused his presidential remit by witholding money from the Ukraine unless they initiated a prosecution into Biden's son -Trump was concerned about Biden beating him at the elections and was trying to improperly infulence the election even back then. Congress had asigned the money in line with US international security interests -so Trump was undermining those interests out of self interest -many Republicans have conceded to that but refused to impeach him for their own political reasons -in addition Trump was aware of how contagious the pandemic was and lied to Americans that it was harmless hoax by democrats to steal the election --he has organsied super spreader events and discouraged vulnerable people from taking basic pracautions that might have saved their lives -he is certainly responsible for 100s of thousands of deaths that might have been avoided but for his appalling leadership -he was more concerned about Wall Street.

    His presidency is quite literally a modern day Nero -and instead of playing a fiddle, he played golf.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Christy,
    I'm aware Trump deals in conspiracy theories. conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories regardless of who peddles them. As for flipping, you talk as if I'm a Trump supporter, I think the man is a scumbag but I refuse to let my personal feelings for him rob me of critical thinking.
    His first impeachment failed through lack of proof therefore calling it baseless is legitimate. Aaron Mate an investigative journalist did great work revealing the lack of substance in the charges against him, in his view ultimately strengthen him. It shouldn't matter but Mate was vehemently anti Trump.
    I don't think anyone is in doubt about his nefarious nature, proving criminal activity is paramount. If corruption is reason enough for impeachment then that's got to hold across the board, the Clinton Foundation, Biden's Ukrainian and China links, otherwise what is the point. If your outrage is limited only to one man or one side it's at best subjective at worst counterproductive.
    I agree with his attitude towards covid, I don't know how much deaths he was responsible for, as although the majortity of epidemiologists were for lockdowns, a decent minority argued that western lockdowns were insufficient even counterproductive. As far as super spreaders , while true for objectivity you must also criticise BLM if you're concerned only about life saving.
    The Nero comparison is kind of my point all along instead of being remembered for what he is an incompetent, we are creating a myth around him.

    ReplyDelete
  18. David

    I am no fan of Biden in part because Trump is right, he's been in admin before and didnt achieve much change if any. While aware of the BLM spreading events they were spontaneous acts responding to groundswell of revulsion at police brutality and racism... I distinguish them from Trump's selfish spreader events just about him.

    The first impeachment didn't fail because there was no evidence; Republicans refused to allow evidence to be heard by way of a number of crucial witnesses... that does not mean Trump was innocent.

    Trump golfed while America burned is more representative than myth because te will be remembered as the worst and most dangerous president ever. That is befitting him.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Of interest:
    Online misinformation about election fraud plunged 73 percent after several social media sites suspended President Trump and key allies last week, research firm Zignal Labs has found, underscoring the power of tech companies to limit the falsehoods poisoning public debate when they act aggressively.

    https://www-washingtonpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/16/misinformation-trump-twitter/?outputType=amp

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Christy - Carrie mentioned this yesterday shortly before your comment came through. I don't see it as material to the issue of freedom of expression. I tend to see it much as I see Holocaust Denial. There will be much less Holocaust denying online of we ban all the Holocaust Deniers. The more salient point is should we? I thought the decision by Austria to jail David Irving was irredeemably wrong and wrote as much at the time. People should be free to deny the Holocaust and be ridiculed for it, losing their reputation in the process.

      Delete
  20. Christy,
    I feel we're going in circles a wee bit here. I'm not disputing BLM right to protest, I'm saying the minute we call one rally a super spreader and ignore a protest we lose credibility. You either support lockdown or you don't. The virus won't care about your political allegiance.
    I'm not saying there's no evidence, importantly there wasn't enough. A diplomat overhearing a phone call and dodgy business deals isn't enough to prove conspiracy. Blaming Republicans doesn't stand up to legal scrutiny.
    I agree that's how he should be remembered as an incompetent, that's not the myth I refer to, the myth I refer to is the one being spun by his base, a man of action who was hindered by witch hunt impeachments and censorship. I believe we're playing in to his hands in that regard.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Independent fact checkers and dismissing fifty percent of an agrument I'd fascism however you look at it. After all the fancy drivel and hot air, would the real fascists please step forward.
    Larry Hughes

    ReplyDelete
  22. AM

    I wasnt making any assertion with the link other than it was of interest... how it relates to the various angles of the issues involved.

    I just read another article, about the tech companies, which makes clear that Twitter acted to remove itself from being used as a platform advocating for or glorifying violence. The main tech companies are working together by blocking search words and trends that breach their rules about violence.

    Question: should freedom of speech cover fake news and deliberate conspiracy theories to undermine public confidence or trust in whatever is being targeted? I am not talking about genuinely mistaken information but intentional falsehoods to achieve an objective-- it is of course the staple diet of politicians, especially election promises but how do you deal with the more extreme? There maybe no way of doing it other than as Twitter has done, made a decision to ban a US president and just take the fall out for it.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Christy - I know you weren't making any association but I made it because I thought it was useful to raise a point. Should deliberate falsehood be suppressed? In my view no. That will lead to the Ministry of Truth. And then something need merely need to be called false in order to be suppressed. I think the reference point here is Holocaust Denial. David Irving knows a Holocaust took place and lied that it did not. He should never have been jailed for that denial unless he gave untrue evidence in court, but then it becomes a perjury matter.

      Delete
  23. David

    I got your point, mine was you cant stop a spontaneous public reaction but you could stop wilful intention of a single individual.

    Importantly, we dont know the weight of evidence because it was suppressed.

    I think Trump loyalists will remember him in mythical terms realists and historians will not be so flattering.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Fake news.. BBC CNN FOX SKY
    What exactly is the debate?
    Larry Hughes

    ReplyDelete
  25. Christy,
    I take your point. The media reaction to both was hypocritical. There was organisation in the BLM movement and the free zone etc, it was all spontaneous.
    I hope you're right about his legacy. We will find out next couple of years. I'll leave it that just now, watching 'pool v Utd, hoping United score so I can get a childish dig at Anthony. Celtic are shite, can't get excited about them, the next best thing as a football fan is annoying somebody else about their team .

    ReplyDelete
  26. AM

    I agree with you-ish; but I posed it as a question because the thought occurs to me that the likes of Trump, QAnon, Proud Boys etc might not be the real threat but are merely the manifestation of online obscure recommendation algorithm systems which can effectively create a false reality as delusional as religion for the masses. Unlike someone like Irvine making an argument that we can assess for ourselves the obscure recommendation algorithms work at a different level to ensure that the false message is constantly being positively affirmed through overt/covert and subliminal messaging. Its not exactly free speech but more like using Chinese water torture to make people like or hate anything.

    Essentially whoever is behind the curtain of the algorithm is the threat, a nameless, faseless, undefined entity who determines what information we receive and thus manipulates our thoughts -from what we want to eat, buy online -to who to hate. It becomes more than one individual having freedom of speech to tell a lie instead of the truth but more a physcological static noise mindfuck we might not even be aware of half the time.

    What is talking to us is an algorithm that uses our own desires, insecruities, prejudices, biases and tunnel vision against ourselves. The algorithm is not actually speech, so can you deprive it of the freedom of speech?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Christy - I think algorithm issues pose a different problem and need to be addressed. I would not see the suppression of that type of thing as censoring and more a case of calling out foul play.

    Free speech only interests me insofar as it is the means by which ideas are conveyed. I am not motivated in the way that some free speech fundamentalist might be - anything goes. An example I sometimes give is that if somebody uses free speech to make an argument that, say, black people are less intelligent than people from other races, it is an idea and I would therefore not agree with it being censored. It should be taken apart. But if somebody wants to call a black person a nigger, I would not be having it. That is simply an insult, not an idea and therefore has no purpose in developing free inquiry.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Trump's claim that the US election was stolen is the not the only big lie of the 21st century but it is the one which may have the greatest consequences if not stamped upon by every legitimate authority including Big Tech, for it is fuelling the narrative of the far right coalition that he has radicalised.

    The first big lie of the 20th century was that Germany lost the First World war due to "the stab in the back" by Jewish forces. It was articulated by an obscure German Army corporal who had that stage was far removed from the seat of power than a rather more well known property magnate (of German ancestry). History tells us that such genies are almost impossible to put back in their bottles.

    ReplyDelete
  29. AM

    Foul play is one way of putting it. Essentially we only saw Trump, we did not see the algorithms permeate his nonsense and garner over 70million votes. There was 73% less chatter re-affirming claims about the alleged election fraud after Trump had been suspended from using social media. Banning him did not affect his freedom of speech but seemingly has significantly neutralised the algorithms that generate his message far and wide. How can the use of algorithms be legitimately stopped or regulated to play fair? Algorithms do have alegimate purpose but the simple click of a key can make the difference between whether the public get true or false information.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Social Media and the Big Tech Giants are run by enormously wealthy and UNELECTED corporate interest groups.

    By agreeing that they can entertain censorship you best beware of the obvious outworking; they can choose the narrative.

    They banned the US President for so called incitment to violence.

    They do not ban ISIS accounts or the Iranian President when he calls for Israel to be wiped from the face of the earth.

    Why not? Because one is socially acceptable, the other less so.

    Publish and be damned, if you believe in censorship well fuck you. I want to hear what everyone says then I'll make my own mind up. Trump is a tool, but regardless he had a shitload of people voting for him.

    And Biden is clearly afflicted by the onset of senility, not hard to work out the vested interests want a black female Democrat President in 2021.

    ReplyDelete