Donald Trump sues Facebook, Google and Twitter

[Lunokhod]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPOFzTi_iJg
I think it relates to his account on YouTube because the above story is on YouTube. I wonder if they will allow him to reopen his accounts eventually? Some of the coverage suggests he may not get far with this approach though. From what he says this is also intended as a defense of freedom of speech in general too, so it may have some wider relevance than his personal accounts.

[Pentium4User]

Regardless what happens, it shows that tech censorship is going on.
This also will definitely no help against political extremists.

I recommend: Not using Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. whenever possible.

[fatboy]

It is ironic that Trump is going after them, because conservative voices are generally amplified on those platforms.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

He had four fucking years to do this when it would have made a difference and with the full force of the federal bullshit. Fuckin pointless.

Also dude, no.. No they aren't.

[Marcus]

and with the full force of the federal bullshit

The problem is that the Federal apparatus, in all its forms, was not a force at his disposal but another barrier.

[fatboy]

Here is an article on my statement, but I guess Trump is more pissed about being banned than anything else.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90600052/an ... l-networks

And yes, the mofo should have went after big tech while he was still in office

[Moonchild]

Another tantrum leading to another misfire. Not surprising.

[Lunokhod]

Re the article about who is being suppressed:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQPPvp ... TQZUCnOgng
https://www.facebook.com/cpusa/
https://twitter.com/communistsusa?ref_s ... r%5Eauthor
The USA Communist Party has Facebook, Twitter and YouTube accounts - as you might expect, of course, they are a political party - but is the former elected president of the USA really more of an extremist? Even in losing the election he still had the support of a significant section of the population.
Various other groups labeled as "left wing extremists" here seem to have various social media accounts too:
https://www.counterextremism.com/conten ... ted-states
So I am not entirely convinced by that.

[Cassette]

The article that fatboy referenced cited a study using large sets of data to determine if there is a large trend of bias against conservatives. I would sooner believe that to small anecdotal examples. An argument would have to made even in the examples that they are receiving preferential treatment. Should the USA Communist Party be banned merely because they call themselves Communist?

[Marcus]

The article that fatboy referenced cited a study using large sets of data to determine if there is a large trend of bias against conservatives

I've read the "study" (downloaded the PDF).
It's so obviously a commissioned study to present a pre-determined conclusion that only in the dumbed down idiocracy we live in it could find some credence... if it's read, most will probably just read the title:
"False Accusation:
The Unfounded Claim that
Social Media Companies Censor Conservatives"
But think of it this way: one of Twitter's rules to close accounts is if they "have the potential to lead to offline harm". But that's such a vague statement that almost anything can fit. Whatever Twitter's Gods decide. And in these circumstances there's no point of seriously studding the subject; it's a corrupted game.

[Cassette]

And yet it hasn't been proved that social media is specifically against conservatives. I've heard of left wing and right wing groups and individuals being banned. Sometimes it's right and sometimes it isn't. I haven't seen conclusive evidence that they are against one ideology more than the other. That's not to say that they always have good justifications, but that I don't believe left vs right ideology is the determining factor.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Says the JustOffian communist supporter.

[moonbat]

And yet it hasn't been proved that social media is specifically against conservatives

Big Tech, which includes FAANG + Twitter definitely is. When they were initially banned, they were taunted with 'First amendment doesn't apply to private platforms' (which is correct). So they created their own separate ones - Gab and Parler as Twitter alternatives. And then bam - their hosting providers, domain registrars and payment processors all turn against them. But no worries, they can just go create a parallel internet of their own

Regarding Trump and whoever handled IT for the POTUS office - here was a squandered opportunity to both be independent of private tech companies and push an open source project. Mastodon is a federated, open source Twitter alternative. You can set up your own server and decide which other ones to connect to. Or not, and keep it as strictly standalone private server. Since there are dozens of instances, it can't be centrally shut down.
Trump could've set up a Mastodon server for the exclusive use of the White House and POTUS. Makes sense for official government communication to be in an open format on a server that belongs to the government and not someone else. It would have promoted Mastodon as an alternative since he was quite popular, and forced the limelight away from Twitter. Since it can still be synced with a Twitter account, he could have done that and at least none of what he said (however banal) would vanish at Twitter's whim.

[Cassette]

Yes, it keeps being asserted that these social media networks have an anti-conservative bias, but more assertions isn't evidence. And, Tobin, ad hominems are logical fallacies which only demean yourself. Using them is like pulling the pin on a grenade, and then throwing the pin.

Parler was founded in August of 2018 and they didn't go offline until January of 2021 so that's quite a long "bam". They came back online the next month so no parallel internet was needed. You can disagree with the reasoning given, but at least be accurate about what actually happened.

[moonbat]

Parler was founded in August of 2018 and they didn't go offline until January of 2021 so that's quite a long "bam".

I'm sure they're grateful to Amazon for letting them last at least that long while they were growing in terms of users.

They came back online the next month so no parallel internet was needed.

Using a smaller ISP that's already being accused of hosting fAr riGHt content, because it is so much better to be a fucking authoritarian instead. Remains to be seen how long this ISP lasts, since today your presence on the internet is at the pleasure of these overlords. When their upstream provider decides that they're not worth supporting because of wrongthink, then you can no doubt find some other excuse to dismiss the event.

[WiseWolf]

He had four fucking years to do this when it would have made a difference and with the full force of the federal bullshit. Fuckin pointless.

Also dude, no.. No they aren't.

Depends on your idea of conservative...

In a lot of countries in europe, people like Bernie Sanders would be viewed as centrists, and the rest would be either outright fascists or republican conservatives.

My point being, we have very few real democrats. When bribes are so common place from corporations that even so called democrats and so called liberals accept them,

you should be aware, that they are not legit people of the left wing. They are like republican light.

smh...

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Tell me woofy is there actually any start to your talents?

[Marcus]

babbling...

Bernie Sanders is a marxist twit wherever he is.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Still would have been more entertaining to watch than what we got.

[Cassette]

When their upstream provider decides that they're not worth supporting because of wrongthink, then you can no doubt find some other excuse to dismiss the event.

I haven't dismissed any events. I'm saying make a case for why they're wrong for their stated justification instead of pretending these actions happened with no reason given and decided by anti-conservative corporate overlords in ciger smoke filled rooms. When you inaccurately describe events to make an argument it gives the appearance that you don't actually have good reasoning. When a claim is made the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. There is a claim that social media companies are biased against conservatives and I don't believe that claim has met its burden of proof.