Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
20 years ago, there was no such thing as social media and presidents got along just fine!
This is not correct at all. You may have not been introduced to technology 20 years ago, but social media was alive and very popular on the internet 20 years ago... and even much earlier.
This is not correct at all. You may have not been introduced to technology 20 years ago, but social media was alive and very popular on the internet 20 years ago... and even much earlier.
I'm in my mid-50's so yes I remember that time well.
There were internet forums like this as well as newsgroups but I don't remember any social media as we know it now.
And it really doesn't matter. I could have said 30 years instead of 20 years and the point would be the same. Probably more than anyone else, if the POTUS wants to get word out about something, he has many different options in which to do so. They've been doing that since the founding of the republic.
Last edited by James Bond 007; 01-11-2021 at 06:49 PM..
No twitter isnt the govt but the fact they can silence a sitting president says something about the power they wield.
How is Trump silenced? He has the white house web page, the press room, a press secretary, the press pool, several TV stations that would love to have him on.
This is not a first amendment issue. As a private company, Twitter is free to associate with whoever it wants to. You might have a constitutional right to be a pathological liar, a 9/11 truther, a holocaust denier, or an open racist. But, Twitter has no obligation to host or support that speech. Just as people who don't like Twitter are free to boycott it.
If anything it is a corporate power issue. Although not a government institution, Twitter's platform is a major source of information and civic discourse. With that power, comes a responsibility to encourage free expression while minimizing malicious or false information.
On the merits, Trump's ban seems justified. He has used his account to spread conspiracy theories and outright lies. He is clearly not a responsible or honest actor in the marketplace of ideas. After last weeks riot at the Capitol inspired by his misinformation about a stolen election that takes on a new urgency.
But, Twitter does set itself up as being somewhat arbitrary. As conservatives note, the Chinese embassy has a twitter accounts where they had justified genocide against the Uighurs. Twitter took down the post. But, have not banned the account. https://www.businessinsider.com/twit...blocked-2021-1
Twitter should publicly release clear and consistent standards on what is acceptable on their platform. They should have an independent committee enforce those standards and oversee an appeal process. While none of this is formally required under the law, it would be a responsible action given their enormous influence.
How is Trump silenced? He has the white house web page, the press room, a press secretary, the press pool, several TV stations that would love to have him on.
He can no longer sit on the john shooting out tweets! So, I guess he's been silenced.
How is Trump silenced? He has the white house web page, the press room, a press secretary, the press pool, several TV stations that would love to have him on.
Maybe you are late into the game. Networks cut him off too .
This is not a first amendment issue. As a private company, Twitter is free to associate with whoever it wants to. You might have a constitutional right to be a pathological liar, a 9/11 truther, a holocaust denier, or an open racist. But, Twitter has no obligation to host or support that speech. Just as people who don't like Twitter are free to boycott it.
If anything it is a corporate power issue. Although not a government institution, Twitter's platform is a major source of information and civic discourse. With that power, comes a responsibility to encourage free expression while minimizing malicious or false information.
On the merits, Trump's ban seems justified. He has used his account to spread conspiracy theories and outright lies. He is clearly not a responsible or honest actor in the marketplace of ideas. After last weeks riot at the Capitol inspired by his misinformation about a stolen election that takes on a new urgency.
But, Twitter does set itself up as being somewhat arbitrary. As conservatives note, the Chinese embassy has a twitter accounts where they had justified genocide against the Uighurs. Twitter took down the post. But, have not banned the account. https://www.businessinsider.com/twit...blocked-2021-1
Twitter should publicly release clear and consistent standards on what is acceptable on their platform. They should have an independent committee enforce those standards and oversee an appeal process. While none of this is formally required under the law, it would be a responsible action given their enormous influence.
As someone pointed out before, American does not need an unelected leftist dolt CEO to filter a sitting POTUS message.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
