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: 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.