donjazet:


Ohh, but it is. It is their own platform and they are very well within their rights to enforce thier terms and conditions.

Trump has been no normal president.
He's an individual who has broken down all Sense of decency in politics.
But the fact that we're now at an actually dangerous level, one that doesn't just comprise of dangerous rhetoric but also incitement of vandalism.

donjazet:
Few days ago here, a few of us called for the end to the protests and we were termed ingrates and fools.
I certainly hope you're enjoying the full blown anarchism that is now in effect.

Sometimes, common sense will look like unreasonable dissent to fools.
Make una continue to enjoy your "protests", na here we dey.
https://www.nairaland.com/6198927/aftermath-lekki-shootings-looting-lekki

nihilistjnr:


I dont think the bolded is true.

Zuckerberg in particular has faced congress grillings around 3-4 times over the last few years and specifically refused to police political statements on Facebook.

This statement below is from Nick Clegg, former Deputy Prime Minister under Cameron...and now Vice-President, Global Affairs and Communications for Facebook

https://about.fb.com/news/2019/09/elections-and-political-speech/

The above was facebook's official position in 2019. It is still on their website. Throughout 2020 companies were boycotting facebook for their refusal to police Trump and his followers.

More than 750 companies including Coca-Cola, Hershey and Unilever, Walgreens, Best Buy, Ford and Adidas refused to advertise on Facebook and Insta.

Despite losing a reported 7.5 Billion dollars in ad revenue in 2020, Zuckerberg refused to budge.
According to the Washington Post, Zuckerberg said

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/07/03/facebook-advertiser-boycott-hate/

So, please I dont buy the argument that Facebook suddenly developed a conscience. The 5 people that died now are not greater than the number of black people killed to death by racists who no doubt share ideology with Trump. I'm too cynical for that

There's something more sinister at play when Facebook goes against it's own principles to deplatform Trump as part of a coordinated move with the rest of Big Tech.

For one, I can see how the Democrats cleansweep might incentivize Zuckerberg to back the winner, and do what's best..for HIM. Today we like it, but tommorow we might not.

This is the point I'm trying to make.

pamcode:
That was fire for fire I believe. Trump is very undiplomatic, has an arrogant attitude and a bad mouth. The man is ready to abuse anyone who is against him which is a very bad character for a president or anyone in authority to have. Even then I have a feeling the criticism against him goes beyond issues of politics like it is something personal. Before Trump ran for president in his first term, did he already have a bad record?

P.S I am not supporting Trump here just trying to make sense of the whole situation.

A40:
I was speaking primarily about Twitter after all they initiated Trump's ban across other platforms. I don't know too much about Mark Zuckerberg's dealings and political leanings. But I know Jack is a bit more of a conscious cat or a SJW if you will.

Now what you need to understand is Trump is Chernobyl right now. This is not about Big Tech again as even vocal supporters of Trump are all backing out on him. His long time friend and supporter Bill Belichick just refused to collect their highest medal for a civilian from Trump, Deutsche Bank a bank that Trump owes hundred of millions of $$, a bank that literally bankrolled the Auschwitz camps say they are done doing business with him.

“The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.

Crazy Joe Biden is trying to act like a tough guy. Actually, he is weak, both mentally and physically, and yet he threatens me, for the second time, with physical assault. He doesn’t know me, but he would go down fast and hard, crying all the way. Don’t threaten people Joe

To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!

So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudl

These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen,
"Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way.
"Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!"

Section 230 “immediately should be revoked … for [Facebook cofounder Mark] Zuckerberg and other platforms.” - Joe Biden

“[The Times] can’t write something you know to be false and be exempt from being sued,” Biden added. “But he can ... [Section 230] should be revoked because [Facebook] is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false, and we should be setting standards not unlike the Europeans are doing relative to privacy.

“[Zuckerberg] should be submitted to civil liability and his company to civil liability, just like you would be here at The New York Times. Whether he engaged in something and amounted to collusion that in fact caused harm that would in fact be equal to a criminal offense, that’s a different issue. That’s possible.”

A40:
I was speaking primarily about Twitter after all they initiated Trump's ban across other platforms. I don't know too much about Mark Zuckerberg's dealings and political leanings. But I know Jack is a bit more of a conscious cat or a SJW if you will.

Ibime:


Zuckerberg wanted to step out of policing politics on his platform simply because of the cost of doing so (hiring a lot more fact checkers, Facebook police etc) and for the fact that it would absolve him of the Cambridge Analytica scandal by taking a position that we just don't police.

Make no mistake, Zuck is very anti-Trump. His wife is Chinese and his children speak mandarin, and I'm sure they can't stomach Trump's anti-Chinese rhetoric. But the guy just dey separate Business from personal, although they hired a lot of Facebook police to police right-wing groups, infact 10 times more than Twitter but he never challenges Trump directly, same with Bezos. It was Zuck that busted the kidnap plot on Michigan Governor by monitoring right-wing groups on Facebook for example.

At Facebook, we don’t think tech companies should be making so many decisions about these important issues alone. I believe we need a more active role for governments and regulators, which is why in March last year I called for regulation on harmful content, privacy, elections, and data portability. We stand ready to work with Congress on what regulation could look like in these areas. By updating the rules for the internet, we can preserve what’s best about it—the freedom for people to express themselves and for entrepreneurs to build new things—while also protecting society from broader harms. I would encourage this Committee and other stakeholders to make sure that any changes do not have unintended consequences that stifle expression or impede innovation.

nihilistjnr:


This is why we're questioning what's going on, because this is too coordinated to be a result of some protest. If you're looking primarily at Twitter, I am not.

Did you read the Tweets Twitter banned Trump for?

These are the tweets
1:


2:


Are you honestly telling me that these are the tweets that broke the camels back? What rules did these break really?

In the past this man has tweeted that he will physically beat up Joe Biden:


tweeted a threat to start a war with Iran:


tweeted that congresswomen of colour should go back 'home'
,

tweeted when the looting starts the shooting starts during BLM....


but was he taken off twitter? No. Were the posts hidden? No.

But it's now that he said he's not going to inauguration, that the camel's back broke., and somehow backs of all the camels at all other tech companies broke at the exact same time.

Stop it my guy.

Instead maybe we should look at what Biden thinks about regulating Social Media

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-biden-nytimes-interview.html

Essentially, a man who believes Social Media companies should bear civil and even criminal liability for the posts submitted by their userbase, has just become President of the United States. Not only that, his Party now control both the Senate and the House of Reps.

All of sudden, Big Tech are falling over themselves to ban a known enemy of this new President who could make life difficult for them - bruh that's a very dangerous precedent.

nihilistjnr:


The bolded is incorrect.

Zuckerberg said last year that he was more than happy welcome more policing on Facebook...as long as it wasn't HIM setting the rules

Ibime:


Zuckerberg wanted to step out of policing politics on his platform simply because of the cost of doing so (hiring a lot more fact checkers, Facebook police etc) and for the fact that it would absolve him of the Cambridge Analytica scandal by taking a position that we just don't police.

Make no mistake, Zuck is very anti-Trump. His wife is Chinese and his children speak mandarin, and I'm sure they can't stomach Trump's anti-Chinese rhetoric. But the guy just dey separate Business from personal, although they hired a lot of Facebook police to police right-wing groups, infact 10 times more than Twitter but he never challenges Trump directly, same with Bezos. It was Zuck that busted the kidnap plot on Michigan Governor by monitoring right-wing groups on Facebook for example.

A40:
Anticipating that a US president still in the middle of his term and still eligible
for reelection would be banned is a bit naïve

I have told you that the events of last week and a culmination of the past misdeeds of Trump was what led to the ban. I don't recall saying it was about his tweets else this mass boycott of Trump would have started and ended on social media.

His banks, PGA, Bill Belichick are they part of Big Tech as well?

Section 230 is a double edged sword. If it gets revoked even better, it just means every single thing you tweet would most likely be fact checked. Most likely Trump does not grow to this monster he's become and less nutjobs running amok all over social media

Ibime:


No its not. He dey jump jump after seeing that policing is inevitable but he still wants Govt to set the rules. When Dorsey was going in heavy on policing, Zuck warned them that you can't police the whole network and they should take a laissez-faire approach

At Facebook, we don’t think tech companies should be making so many decisions about these important issues alone

Section 230 made it possible for every major internet service to be built and ensured important values like free expression and openness were part of how platforms operate. Changing it is a significant decision. However, I believe Congress should update the law to make sure it’s working as intended. We support the ideas around transparency and industry collaboration that are being discussed in some of the current bipartisan proposals, and I look forward to a meaningful dialogue about how we might update the law to deal with the problems we face today.

afrodoc2:


Lol. The guy bit off more than he can chew. I wonder if Ted Cruz and other bottom feeders will stick with him.

Well that is good news. I didn’t think they had the time to do it.

Americans should actually be ashamed of themselves for voting such an obnoxious and obvious anti-democrat as President.

nihilistjnr:


Twiiter did not say it was a culmination of anything - The said specifically that they banned Trump for those two tweets.

Look, if Twitter were really concerned about Trump inciting violence, that tweeted threat to a Nuclear Super Power should have been enough to ban him. The Threat to shoot BLM protesters should be enough to ban him especially as white supremacists actually went on to shoot and kill black protesters.

Twiiter did nothing.

This level of coordinated action from parties who either had previously either actively refused to police Trump(facebook) or turned a blind eye(twitter), were under threat of being sold(TikTok) or only God know's what(Spotify, Shopify, Reddit, Pornhub) must be triggered by something far more serious than the excuse that Trump has been inciting a mob.

The man came to power on the slogan 'drain the swamp'. It didnt take 4 years for the world to realise Trump was a neo-fascist piece of shyttt...so why is this action happening now? In such coordinated manner? And should these companies whose owners have clear political bias really have this kind of power?

This is my own concern, not whether Trump is a piece of shytt.

A40:
Yes. When you commandeer an invasion that has not occurred in 200+ years getting deplatformed should be the least of your worries.

What do you think happens if Trump is banned only on Twitter and their right wing propaganda forum Parler is allowed to exist on their platform? It will only multiply and make Amazon, Apple and Google accomplices of sort. If they are against Trump and the carnage he unleashed it's common sense they ban him on their platform

Future cases should be argued on their merits as it should be in any sane society not this whataboutism I'm seeing here.

timay:


@bolded.

Like. Izzou has said before, when the table turns in future, because it definitely will, the will also accuse you of doing whataboutism. by then it will be too late and a precedent will have been set

A40:
Anticipating that a US president still in the middle of his term and still eligible
for reelection would be banned is a bit naïve

I have told you that the events of last week and a culmination of the past misdeeds of Trump was what led to the ban. I don't recall saying it was about his tweets else this mass boycott of Trump would have started and ended on social media.

His banks, PGA, Bill Belichick are they part of Big Tech as well?

Section 230 is a double edged sword. If it gets revoked even better, it just means every single thing you tweet would most likely be fact checked. Most likely Trump does not grow to this monster he's become and less nutjobs running amok all over social media

TrebleChamp:
Greetings...

Skimpledawgg:
Swissh no dey carry me play.

When you are ready to pay your debt and you are online, notify me with this moniker. Dropped my details days ago and nothing.

No annoy me o

Skimpledawgg:
Swissh no dey carry me play.

When you are ready to pay your debt and you are online, notify me with this moniker. Dropped my details days ago and nothing.

No annoy me o

This 2021 go long ohh

nihilistjnr:




Omo the first case of a ghost returning from the dead to troll the nigga he owes money...

SwishMMM

izzou:


This 2021 go long ohh

Skimpledawgg:
Swissh no dey carry me play.

When you are ready to pay your debt and you are online, notify me with this moniker. Dropped my details days ago and nothing.

No annoy me o

Skimpledawgg:
Swissh no dey carry me play.

When you are ready to pay your debt and you are online, notify me with this moniker. Dropped my details days ago and nothing.

No annoy me o

Skimpledawgg:

As in, I don expect alert tire.

Small 18k o.

Abi he dey run around to pay eruditor own join? Maybe o

afrodoc2:



Hahahaha

The number you are calling is Swisshed off.

So the guy bobo you twice.