SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the twitter-and-facebook-and-twitch-and-snapchat-and... dept.
Twitter permanently suspends Trump's account:
US President Donald Trump has been permanently suspended from Twitter "due to the risk of further incitement of violence", the company says.
Twitter said the decision was made "after close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them".
Mr Trump had earlier been locked out of his account for 12 hours.
Twitter then said that it would ban Mr Trump "permanently" if he breached the platform's rules again.
Reacting to the permanent ban, Trump 2020 campaign adviser Jason Miller tweeted: "Disgusting... if you don't think they're coming for you next, you're wrong."
It comes after Mr Trump tweeted several messages on Wednesday, calling the people who stormed the US Capitol "patriots".
Hundreds of his supporters entered the Capitol building as the US Congress attempted to certify Joe Biden's victory in the presidential election. The ensuing violence led to the deaths of four civilians and a police officer.
The siege took place just hours after Trump addressed supporters and told them: "We will never give up; we will never concede."
[...] On Thursday, Facebook said it had suspended Mr Trump "indefinitely". The popular gaming platform Twitch also placed an indefinite ban on the outgoing president's channel, which he has used for rally broadcasts. So has Snapchat.
Two online Trump memorabilia stores were closed this week by e-commerce company Shopify. On Friday, Reddit banned its "donaldtrump" forum for the president's supporters.
[...] The big question now is, can Trumpism survive without the backing of mainstream media? Or will it simply slip into the shadows of the internet?
(Emphasis retained from original.)
Also at Ars Technica, CNET
Full Twitter explanation at: blog.twitter.com
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Unixnut on Saturday January 09 2021, @07:46PM (9 children)
At some point in the past (before I was born from what I can see), a great con was born, the con that the "Left" and "Right" wing are opposite ends of the political spectrum.
At school I was taught this, drummed into my head. A line with Marxism on the left, Fascism on the right, but as I grew older I came to realise that both "sides" are in fact the same.
Both of these sides are authoritarian in nature. We get to pick whether we get collectivist authoritarianism from the left, or non-collectivist authoritarianism from the right.
The real divide is not between left and right, but between authoritarians and liberals. A liberal being one who is pro-individualist/anti-authoritarian.
I consider myself a liberal, an anti-authoritarian, but that does (more than often) make people put me on the right side of the spectrum rather than the left, because left-wing ideology is inherently collectivist, which requires authoritarian rule to make sure people all work for the collective good over their natural behaviour.
Unfortunately most people are stuck in the "Right Vs Left" mindset, which is like picking which master a slave will serve. Whichever you pick, you are a slave.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2021, @07:57PM (1 child)
You're still operating under that con. You need at least two axes to describe political space.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2021, @11:42PM
I got a disagree mod so let me propose a set of axes. I also think that the World's Smallest Political Quiz has too few axes.
- Personal: libertarian <-> authoritarian
- Economic: decentralized <-> centralized
- Stratification: equity <-> exploitation
On the right (+) side of all three axes we find systems like feudalism (capitalism is capable of values exploitation- and centralization-wards of feudalism). On the left (-) side of all three axes we find the kinds of theoretical societies that would evolve from a Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat.
(Score: 2, Troll) by hemocyanin on Saturday January 09 2021, @08:04PM (4 children)
Very well stated.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2021, @10:58PM (3 children)
No, pro-individualist is not necessarily liberal. Many of the protections society provides to ensure liberty are authoritarian and communal. Simple logic like less rules equals more freedom are just wrong and must be ignored.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2021, @02:11AM (1 child)
"Many of the protections society provides to ensure liberty are authoritarian and communal." -- you mean like laws? Well, yeah, the concept of a legal framework for a society is communal, but the pro-individualist position on this that isn't actually out-and-out anarchism is not to have no laws, but to restrict what laws can be passed. It's analogous to unconscionable terms in a contract. However, none of that contradicts the idea of pro-individualism being liberal; it contradicts the idea of letting individuals interfere with each other.
So take another swing at explaining why you don't think that liberality correlates with a smaller ruleset, because this one was a whiff.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2021, @04:21AM
So you're a moron? Def a u prob.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 11 2021, @04:48AM
He also mentioned anti-authoritarian.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2021, @08:26PM
That's an interesting statement, but I view you as being at odds with yourself. How do you draw the line? I know, zig-zag, very carefully, etc.
Trouble with all of it is: you're either D or R. Ain't any other choices.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by acid andy on Sunday January 10 2021, @02:23PM
I agree with most of what you say and I think the distinction is vitally important and so often missed. I would have hoped that opposition to authoritarianism could unite a great many people across the left / right divide, even on this site, if only people could think more sensibly.
I don't entirely agree. I'm a slightly left-wing libertarian (both "libertarian" and "liberal" have been misused so much recently--to be clear, I'm in favor of increased civil-liberties for the little guy). I don't think it's a complete contradiction in terms although it might be wishful thinking. I do think that any political ideology other than anarchy will require some degree of authoritarian rule purely to implement the policies. You can always use carrot rather than stick to motivate people to change their behavior though of course you have to work out who works to produce those carrots (robots?).
When the right enforce laws to try to protect big businesses (or indeed any businesses), land ownership, and wealth acquisition, they're making some people work contrary to their natural behavior as well. The thing about authoritarianism (and libertarianism) is it's never applied consistently across the board to all groups of people. So you get authoritarian rule over the poor and unbounded liberty for the rich and big business. I'd prefer the latter groups to receive more regulation and those who have less to get a bit more freedom.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?