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 SomeGuy on Saturday January 09 2021, @02:16PM (42 children)
I've said it before. The President of the United States of America has no business posting directly on a private social media web site. Anyone of power should not be posting directly to private social media web sites such as Twitter(R)(TM).
I honestly wish Trump had not given us such a vivid example of why this is the case. I wish he had just stuck to putting his foot in is mouth as usual.
His actions have placed a large stain on the use of social media. I can only hope that going forward people will realize the folly of social media. (Who am I kidding, they won't).
We should probably be glad that Trumpy's Trolletariat was just made up of twisted sick versions of Disney's "Minions". If they were people of real power, we would probably see our internet connections drop out as they rounded us in to death camps.
BTW, He said he would create his own social media network. That thought makes me shiver. Would you post on TrumpIt?
Somewhere in a dark corner trump is childishly sobbing "no ban! no me ban!"
realDonaldTrump has been kicked from the server. Reason: trying to overthrow the US government.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Socrastotle on Saturday January 09 2021, @02:37PM (14 children)
Is social media of today so different than media of yesterday?
Politicians, who care at all about the people that elected them, need to engage with those people. In yesteryear the government could have easily published "The Congressional Times" with nothing but verbatim dialogue from elected officials, but nonetheless they chose to utilize the private systems already in existence to aid the spread of their message. Along with all the downsides such utilization entailed. And so too today. I really think the only thing that's changed so much is that the fact our private institutions are not exactly political neutral becomes much more apparent when their entire service is simply working as a middle man who relays messages. Them deciding they don't like the message, and thus changing or even deleting it, is much more overt than an article written using half-truths.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Saturday January 09 2021, @03:21PM (12 children)
Yes. It IS different. It is instant, it is direct, it is raw and often unfiltered. Most importantly, people view it quite differently. Sure, previous forms of media have also been abused. But the scale and magnitude is much larger.
If I want to read news from a newspaper, that information is usually handed down through multiple levels, run through an editor who may choose to change or not publish that information. Then it is printed, distributed, i have to go out and buy one, take time reading it, and have time to think about what I read. In the past anyway, people took the time to scrutinize newspapers and papers that regularly published blatant lies or such would have been discredited.
TV and radio can be more direct, but they still have editorial control. As we have seen lately they can and will break away even from a Presidential announcement to correct what is being said.
But Twitter(R)(TM), Facebook(R)(TM) or even the Internet itself is much more direct. Filtering does not usually occur until AFTER something is posted. Because it is all still relatively new, people still view it as pure freedom of speech.
Idiots crave these little alerts lighting up their glorious toy cell phones. Reading a message that was posted DIRECTLY by the President of the United States (or someone else famous) makes them feel so special.
People need to change the way they perceive this kind of media. It needs to be taken much more seriously.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2021, @03:26PM
I would much prefer the President be mainlining Fox News content that reading social media. That way, he will be protected from frothing rightwing paranoia.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2021, @03:46PM (1 child)
You're obviously liberal. You should think about your stance and what you wrote. You might do a major about face if Biden tweets. And if he does, I hope your conservatives start calling him "divisive".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @01:07AM
It's almost as though you're unable to imagine any other mode of thought than uncritical authoritarianism. So since that is the only way of thinking you can comprehend, you believe your opponent must be doing the same.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2021, @04:07PM (4 children)
Is being "unfiltered" somehow a bad thing now? The lowly plebs don't get to read what's not approved by their nannies?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2021, @04:11PM (3 children)
If you're a filterer, than unfitered is ipso facto bad.
If someone brings up fake news from the MSM I ask them: "Who are you, that you can demand to be informed what really happened, and do you think entertainment companies would really tell you the absolute truth?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2021, @05:47AM (2 children)
No one of any particular account. Why do you ask?
No, I don't think "entertainment companies" are really telling me the truth. I think entertainment companies are for...wait for it!...entertainment. Instead, I turn to journalists and reporters for my news and information. Yes, particularly those nasty, icky MSM sorts of news sources. And why shouldn't I demand that someone who is telling me the news inform me what really happened? What are you afraid might happen to you if you were told the truth? Why do you have so little respect for yourself that you would willingly accept a comforting lie rather than uncomfortable truths? Why do you despise yourself so much?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2021, @07:04AM (1 child)
Because if you are nobody, you'll get what the entertainment companies choose to give you.
Who are working for entertainment companies. In any case, you will get what the corporate ownership chooses to give you.
Right back at you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @07:04AM
My! What a poor deluded little stooge you are! You may find this incredible but, unlike you apparently, I don't just accept whatever is handed to me. True, it requires that I critically evaluate the source and the content of my information but I find this extra work to be well worth the effort.
I dunno. I was hoping you would give us...something...more. This has been a disappointment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2021, @07:24PM
The most interesting thing here is I suspect you don't agree with yourself. Without straw manning you, you are suggesting it's a problem when people can read (or presumably hear) what the politicians they elect are saying. And as a solution you want greater corporate control over the government and politicians. In effect you have become an inadvertent lobbyist for overt corporatism.
The one thing I'd encourage you to consider is that the messaging that led you to this train of thought is coming from the very corporations who seek to supplant democracy with corporatocracy.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday January 09 2021, @09:34PM (2 children)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2021, @11:04PM (1 child)
Which is why Runaway kept complaining that he wouldn't shut his mouth. Not that he disagreed with Trump, but that he didn't like their fascist agenda being broadcast so clearly. Hard to recruit young people when Dear Leader is spouting off their racist grandpa.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @05:21AM
They want dog whistles, not megaphones.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @05:37PM
Actually, you do know that the White House does maintain a press office where the President can say whatever he wants on camera and not take questions, and he can post statements of his whenever he likes without any review or intermediary saying he cannot? That would, of course, entail the general press being able to easily analyze and editorialize on everything he says, which is why he rarely-if-ever uses it. (And his delusion that such outlets are 'fake.') And that he is even now free to open his own web hosting and social media network - I'm sure it would be Huge and The Best Ever.... All it would take is his doing so and I'm sure he'd have millions signing up for it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2021, @04:31PM
I do know whether twitter will updates from RSS or some such, (I don't use it) but he really should have been running his propaganda off a private site anyway. It isn't like he can't afford it. CC'iing his posts from a blog to twitter should have been relatively easy to accomplish, even if it required custom programming to do it. That way the ban wouldn't have really mattered.
I disagree with the idea that he shouldn't use twitter. Just as I think that politicians should get full reproduction rights of their interviews to prevent out of context soundbites. We should see them in all their glory, not just through the selective collections of massive conglomerate corporations. By the same token, we shouldn't be limited to state supplied copies of what they said either.
Obama did it fairly really well when the created the petition engine for whitehouse.gov. This gave them a way to work directly with the public, but within a response context. BTW, not a member of either party. I just think that we have a right to engage in real dialog, not just the crumbs passed to us through any particular corporate cheese grater.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2021, @06:41PM (1 child)
he should have had someone set up a activitypub server like mastodon, pleroma, etc for him. It would have been harder to gain followers but it would have been much more difficult to censor him. Safer for his followers too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2021, @02:07PM
I found an instance with this description:
Source: https://trump.pub/api/v1/instance [trump.pub]
Registrations closed so I'm guessing it's just for trump.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Reziac on Sunday January 10 2021, @03:06AM (1 child)
So, you're saying this guy has no business posting on Twitter?
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden [twitter.com]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2021, @05:56AM
There is still a few weeks left, but yes.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2021, @03:07AM (21 children)
I think one of the problems with how America is set up is that it's set up such that messages from politicians need to get filtered through private media to really get out there. It's hard for people to get direct access to government, politicians, and political candidates, at least outside the Internet. Even within the Internet many of the platforms are privately owned, webhosts can perhaps filter platforms they don't like, and even if you try to start your own platform and you want to raise funding private payment processors can stop people from sending you funding. The lack of a publicly hosted information platform with free speech principles enforced that no private entity can interfere with, alongside the private ones, I think is a bad thing.
With respect to payment processors I can think of two possible options. One is to require payment processors that directly or indirectly benefit from FDIC insurance to be speech neutral with respect to payment transactions (ie: My bank account is FDIC insured. So if my bank provides a payment processing service or works with one then the payment processing services they provide or work with must be speech neutral all the way down the chain to the intended end recipient of the payment).
Or the government can provide its own optional payment processing service to compete with (but not replace) the private ones. Any banks or entities (ie: brokers) that provide payment processing services or work with any payment processors must also work with the government provided one (the government can cover the legitimate costs this may incur, I don't mind) and any recipient is eligible to receive payments from the government provided payment processor. Sure, the government can monitor my payments but no one is forcing me to use the government's payment processing service, I can still use the private ones. If this really does drive the private payment processors out of business then maybe the government is just better at providing payment processing services than private businesses? I wouldn't have a problem with that.
People get their message from broadcasting. The FCC grants broadcasting monopolies to private media. So if you don't have cable or the Internet you generally get your media from private media (yeah, there are often government stations as well, mostly local though).
Cable. Cable companies are private media and many of the stations on them are private (ie: Fox and CNN).
OK, now we finally have the Internet but not everyone has an Internet connection. So finally there does exist .gov websites that you can access the government directly and get information directly from them. Still, it's not enough.
This is not to say that private media needs to go away. It should be allowed to exist alongside public media. But we also need public, government sponsored, media as well. Broadcasting should, for example, have a lot more government owned spectra. It should have spectra owned from local, county, state and the federal government. While cable should be allowed to have private media outlets it should also be required to host public media as well. Of course the government can pay for this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2021, @02:16PM (20 children)
I think you are wrong. I believe journalism is an integral and important part of a well-functioning democracy. Politicians need to be filtered by a journalist who act as a mild opposition, questioning the truth of a politicians statements. It's a very current issue and it does not seem to me that the democracies of the world is better off with politicians mass-communicating directly with voters.
I think the best source of news is actual newspapers (those on paper).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2021, @04:35PM (14 children)
When you show me a traditional newspaper that criticizes intellectual property extremism then maybe I'll agree with you (I'm sure there are extreme examples out there but, for the most part, traditional media is unfairly very one sided on the issue). Until then I hold the position that newspapers are private entities that care about their own private interests and their private interests can conflict with the public interest.
Furthermore one of the problems with this line of thinking is that it assumes that some self selected 'journalist' is somehow smarter or better than the rest of us. That this 'journalist' is special and is somehow worthy of being my filter because they know what's better for me than I do. They know what I should know more than I do. I think this line of reasoning is dangerous.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2021, @05:15PM (8 children)
(same poster)
The more and more I think about it the more I realize that this whole model we have in America where speech should get filtered through private media (ie: 'journalists') before having the opportunity to be widely disseminated is unacceptable. Private companies have their own private interests in mind (whether it's online media such as social media or traditional media) and their private interests may conflict with the public interest and when they do I have no reason to trust that they will act in the public interest. In fact I have good reason to believe they won't.
With respect to government sponsored media competing with private media I wouldn't mind politicians appointing their own journalists and the government funding them. At least it would provide competition for private journalists and it removes the conflict of interest that may exist between a private company, with a profit motive, and a government journalist (sure there may be a conflict of interest between the government journalist and the elected politicians that appoint them but the private media can help keep them in check. They can keep each other in check). Or perhaps we should vote for a public journalist to head the public media. Or we could consider how other countries do it like how yo have the BBC and whatnot.
Just some random thoughts to consider. The current model needs to change though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2021, @08:35PM
Anyone can set up their own site and publish news, as evident from stormfront and breitbart. Can you elaborate on how anyone's freedom to publish news is being restricted?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @12:42AM (4 children)
The mechanism at work is that the readers pay for the newspaper, so that they depend on you and are motivated to deliver quality journalism. If you're reading free news, you're being used.
There is always trash tabloids and the like, but I'm talking about journalism, those who does a lot of work collection data and details and verifying information.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @01:48AM
There's a new model that has arisen in Germany: Nobody read traditional media anymore, so the publishers allied with the government. The government pays subsidies to the publishers in the name of "opinion diversity", the publishers in return dutifully praise Dear Mommy Leader's government and policies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @03:01AM (2 children)
"The mechanism at work is that the readers pay for the newspaper"
Newspapers make, or at least have traditionally made, most of their money through advertising. What they charge isn't meant to cover their costs (or really even come close), it's meant to deter people who aren't really interested in reading them from getting them (ie: using them for other purposes).
If you like newspapers that's fine. It's your prerogative. You have absolutely zero right to use the government to try to take away or limit my alternative options so as to force them down my throat. I don't want newspapers. I see them as self interested private companies. They aren't interested in the public interest. They are interested in their own private interest. I'm not interested.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @03:12AM (1 child)
(Same poster)
To be clear I am (borderline) pirate partisan. So if there is a newspaper that releases its content under a creative commons license and substantially covers intellectual property law so as to mostly criticize it (at least to criticize the intellectual property extremism that currently exists and call for more reasonable law) I might consider subscribing to such a newspaper.
I have contributed money to Techdirt, Soylentnews, and Wikipedia. I'm willing to put my money where I believe it should go.
As far as I can tell there is a conflict of interest between the interests of private newspapers and the public interest (ie: in the case of intellectual property) and most newspapers will put their own private interests ahead of the public interest. This is true for the mainstream media as well. I see this as dishonest and despicable. A newspaper that either doesn't cover intellectual property issues because doing so conflicts with their private interests or one that supports intellectual property extremism because that's what's in their private interest is dishonest. I would say most newspapers are, by and large, dishonest. They don't deserve my attention. Why should let a self serving private entity be the source of my information and opinions?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @03:16AM
Why should I let a self serving private entity be the source of my information and opinions? *
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @07:15AM (1 child)
Sounds to me like what you are describing is a communications director. You know, like what they (used to) do at the White House? The big elephant in the room, of course, is that the current yutz in the Oval office keeps stepping on his own messaging. The real solutions is to replace said yutz with someone else. Help is on the way on January 20.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @10:20AM
You're still not reading.
Private media outlets are still not required to carry the message of the communications director, for instance. The way that media in the U.S. is structured is such that in order to get your message out to the masses it almost needs to get filtered through private media (as explained before). That structure itself needs to change. Politicians should not be required to have their message filtered through private media to communicate with the masses. The masses should have free and unfiltered access to what the government has to say. The private media is free to use their private media platforms for commentary and journalism but the government itself should have a stronger media platform of its own.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @12:38AM (4 children)
A journalists' job is not to shield you or censor information. They do the job of tracking down sources, investigating and including different perspectives.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @03:23AM (3 children)
No one is saying they can't have their own private media outlets to do so. Just that the government (or anyone, really) should not be beholden to (self interested) private (commercial) entities in order to communicate to the masses. The journalists are also free to communicate to the masses as well.
Private entities / corporations (Facebook, CNN, Fox, Twitter) should not be the gatekeepers of mass information. This model needs to change. They should be allowed to spread information but they shouldn't be the gatekeepers of information. The media has gotten out of control in this country (especially CNN, they are polarizing everyone, they are dishonest and they take everything out of context, but this is true for the media in general) and it shows what corporate controlled communication results in. It's toxic. This model needs to change.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @07:27AM (2 children)
Sorry, but none of these entities/corporations is a "gatekeeper of information. They have absolutely no power to stop you from finding alternative sources of information. Seriously, what do you think would happen if CNN or Fox found out you tuned in to BBC as well, for example? Exactly what leverage do you think they might have to stop you?
Sounds to me like what really irks you is that they refuse to hop on the Trump train and toe the party line. What you really want is propaganda. Sorry, but no thanks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @01:24PM
"They have absolutely no power to stop you from finding alternative sources of information."
and you're still missing the point. For those that are interested go back and read what was typed in by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10, @03:07AM (#1097774)
https://soylentnews.org/politics/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=41551&commentsort=0&mode=threadtos&threshold=0&highlightthresh=0&page=2&cid=1097774#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @02:30PM
"They have absolutely no power to stop you from finding alternative sources of information."
As stated, most of those alternative sources of information are private as well. The government shouldn't be at the mercy of private media to get its message out. That's not a good model.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2021, @06:16PM (4 children)
Also what qualifies someone as a 'journalist'. Does their opinion have to align with yours? Do they need certifications? Is there a government approved certifying body? Does someone need certifications to express their 'free' speech now? Must they pay for those certifications? Can they have their certifications revoked if the certifying body doesn't like their speech? What if they criticize the certifying body? Or can anyone simply claim to be a journalist certifier? Do I get to certify myself? Can I declare myself a journalist?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @12:34AM (3 children)
Write me an article and I'll tell you if it lives up to the standards of journalism. It does not matter which opinion the journalist holds, the reporting is probably always a bit colored, but when I read a newspaper whose editorial line don't align with my personal philosophy, it's usually still great journalism, sometimes it's even more interesting. The only difference between editorial lines is their focus, and even though it is possible to guess what they would vote, they still deliver thoughtful analytical articles with plenty of details, because they're educated journalists trained to report on facts, ask good questions and talk to sources from different angles. Journalism is a craft and I would strongly encourage you to persue that career and learn the craft of written journalism. A good journalist work almost like a scientist. They ponder different perspectives, investigate, travel to where things happen and interview people.
You don't find the good articles on the internet is my point. Even those from establised newspapers are watered down clickbait summaries, compared to those you get in your newspaper.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @03:35AM (2 children)
Find me a newspaper that's honest enough to substantially discuss and criticize intellectual property (at least the way it currently is) and I'll consider it.
Intellectual property laws are very obviously one sided.
Term limits are way too long
Copy protection privileges are opt out and not opt-in. They should be opt-in.
The penalty structure is one sided. The penalties for infringement are insane relative to the penalties for falsely claiming infringement.
Copy'right' isn't a right, it's a privilege. Perhaps it should be renamed.
Find me a newspaper that covers these issues and at least tries to be balanced. Because our intellectual property laws are so dishonestly unbalanced and corporate bought that any honest journalist should make a reasonable effort to cover them and to allow critics the opportunity to be heard. Our current intellectual property laws are so outrageous that for me to consider a media outlet honest I require that it covers these issues and does an honest job of allowing intellectual property extremists to be heard. It's an absolute requirement, I will not settle for anything less. I don't see how an honest media outlet can be serious about ignoring this issue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @03:39AM
err.... and does an honest job of allowing critics of intellectual property extremists to be heard *
I don't see how an honest media outlet can be serious about ignoring this issue or how they can be in favor of such intellectual property extremism (which would naturally be in the private interests of a media outlet but is not in the public interest) *
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @09:15PM
I can't. It's such a niché topic and I don't think a newspaper completely dedicated to that topic could afford to pay a journalist. Perhabs you should check if the Pirate Party publish some sort of magazine, if not you could suggest it. It sounds like that would be where the topic would get most attention and now don't forget to subscribe to the monthly IFPI,RIAA,MPAA newsletter as well to get some different perspectives :P