There are certainly parallels between the twitter banishment and the way China has and does act to control its population, but Twitter is a private company, not the government. However, they have not really followed their policies with respect to Trump, so can they now? (Well, they CAN, but should they?)
Isnt it dangerous to block free speech?
Are there other alternatives to blocking Trump (and minions) from Twitter?
Does this take away the moral high ground from the USA (relative to China, for instance)?
In as much as one can not yell "Fire" in a theater, arent there ways, short of complete blocking for life, of the president? I believe that he helped instigate the situation at the capital AND could encourage problems at the inauguration. But is THIS the best solution? (I really dont know. Can Trump be reined in by anyone, or is he truly 'mad' now making his twitter ban the best course of action?)
Who has the right to require them to follow their policies consistently? Only Twitter. If they don't you're free to point that out. They are not government. Although they are a monopoly of sorts. I'll explain.
Trump has enough money to build another Twitter for his own use, and we may see him doing that. I don't. Twitter shouldn't reevaluate what they do because of its effect on DJT.
Whereas I could get banned from social media and it would change how I live my life and what people know of me. I'd still have freedom of speech, but Freedom of speech doesn't count for much without freedom of hearing. Let's say I had some important groundbreaking thing to say of potential benefit to all mankind. It would likely never be heard or noticed, even if I broadcast it over all social media, because I am not a person who has people's attention. Fortunately I guess, I have nothing to say in that category in plain English. At the same time,
The arts are full of people who've expressed profound beauty that has yet to be exposed. We all know Mozart and Debussy were supposed to be cool guys, but their message might as well be in Chinese to most westerners. They were never censored. But their truth and its power are still only heard at the margins of society. The people who 'get' them understand they are too exceptional that what they have experienced could be explained to the rest. They are probably stunned that something so powerful can exist, yet have little more influence on the world than reading poetry to a moose. It's a cognitive dissonance experience.
Freedom of speech means little when people don't understand what they're hearing.
What's for sale, and out of reach for most, is influence. Freedom of speech plus freedom to disseminate plus the ability for people to understand equals communication. Freedom of speech is a only one piece of what's going on. That's why Twitter has outsize power. Should they be government-regulated? I don't know. How, and by whom?
Dr. Suess illustrated some of this in 'Horton Hears a Who.'
We should pay more attention to freedom to influence and how it is sold and bought.
Quote from: clean on January 09, 2021, 12:25:23 PM
...but Twitter is a private company, not the government.
End of story.
More broadly, I think Twitter and Facebook are trying to dodge further regulation. "See? Once he crossed the line, we dealt with it." Never mind that they kept moving the line every other time he crossed it.
Trump has repeatedly demonstrated himself to be unrepentant. Therefore, I believe a lifetime ban is appropriate. It's like when he was impeached and acquitted: the message he got was that he could get away with whatever he wanted to do.
Quote from: pgher on January 09, 2021, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: clean on January 09, 2021, 12:25:23 PM
...but Twitter is a private company, not the government.
End of story.
More broadly, I think Twitter and Facebook are trying to dodge further regulation. "See? Once he crossed the line, we dealt with it." Never mind that they kept moving the line every other time he crossed it.
But this goes back to the whole issue of whether they are a "platform" or a "publisher". If they are going to "edit" (in an extreme case, like this, of banning someone), then how much responsibility do they have to monitor EVERYTHING posted, and what rules do they have to follow about what kind of censorship they can (or possibly "must" ) engage in?
Other questions arise, such as:
Does the need to censor depend on the size of a person's following?
Does it depend on the popularity of a specific posting?
If some sort of non-profit organization started a similar platform, (so it wouldn't be a private company), should the rules be the same?
In addition to the Trump ban, mainstream conservatives are being stripped of their Twitter followers by the thousands right now, according to multiple mainstream conservative outlets. I would provide non-partisan evidence, but, of course, there is no such thing as a non-partisan news source anymore, and no progressive source will cover the story. It's frustrating.
What is being reported by everyone is that Apple and Google Play are threatening to ban Parler (the free-speech-friendly Twitter competitor) unless it institutes a speech-control policy.
So, to sum up:
The Left: "If you don't like Twitter's rules, build your own platform."
The Right: "Okay, it's called Parler."
The Left: "Sorry, we've made it impossible for anyone to download Parler."
The Right: "Oh, well, we've still got our websites, magazines, nonprofit organizations, and access to the American banking system."
The Left: "For now."
Quote from: pgher on January 09, 2021, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: clean on January 09, 2021, 12:25:23 PM
...but Twitter is a private company, not the government.
End of story.
[. . .]
Yes, try reading the First Amendment. You'll probably find it easier to understand than that dipshit Josh Hawley does.
So, what should Twitter do about posters like Lin Wood? He has said that VP Pence should be taken out and hanged. People (not just a few, obviously) are clearly taking that literally.
And, for the record, I do not foR one second believe the gentleman who claimed he just picked the zip ties up To give them to police. But, even if I'm wrong, someone took them into the Capitol.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2021, 01:20:39 PM
Quote from: pgher on January 09, 2021, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: clean on January 09, 2021, 12:25:23 PM
...but Twitter is a private company, not the government.
End of story.
More broadly, I think Twitter and Facebook are trying to dodge further regulation. "See? Once he crossed the line, we dealt with it." Never mind that they kept moving the line every other time he crossed it.
But this goes back to the whole issue of whether they are a "platform" or a "publisher". If they are going to "edit" (in an extreme case, like this, of banning someone), then how much responsibility do they have to monitor EVERYTHING posted, and what rules do they have to follow about what kind of censorship they can (or possibly "must" ) engage in?
Other questions arise, such as:
Does the need to censor depend on the size of a person's following?
Does it depend on the popularity of a specific posting?
If some sort of non-profit organization started a similar platform, (so it wouldn't be a private company), should the rules be the same?
A non-profit organization is still (usually) a corporation. It just has different tax rules.
I think they're trying to do enough to avoid being liable for everything, so that they can make their own rules. All of these platforms do have rules; Trump dodged them by being "newsworthy."
Quote from: clean on January 09, 2021, 12:25:23 PM
Isnt it dangerous to block free speech?
Depends. At the extremes, yes. But, last I checked, Canada, Germany, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, France, etc. are all doing just fine, despite banning some forms of speech.
But, as has been pointed out, this is not
government censorship, which is what free speech rights actually pertain to.
Quote
Are there other alternatives to blocking Trump (and minions) from Twitter?
Sure. Prosecution (and conviction) for crimes, impeachment and removal, etc. I would imagine, however, that he's violated Twitter's terms of service any number of times, and removal from the platform is a perfectly reasonable, measured response in that case.
Quote
Does this take away the moral high ground from the USA (relative to China, for instance)?
What moral high ground?
Moreover: there's plenty that they do right and well in China, in addition to the bad. Same with the US (but let's not gloss over the significant harms which the US is responsible for worldwide). They bake bread in China, too, but that's hardly a good reason to stop doing so yourself.
Quote from: spork on January 09, 2021, 03:48:25 PM
Quote from: pgher on January 09, 2021, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: clean on January 09, 2021, 12:25:23 PM
...but Twitter is a private company, not the government.
End of story.
[. . .]
Yes, try reading the First Amendment. You'll probably find it easier to understand than that dipshit Josh Hawley does.
Not quite. Social media companies are
de facto public utilities and should be regulated as such [slaps cheek, hard]. Take a railroad analogy: Railroads are common carriers and they
must provide service to any passenger willing and able to pay the fare. However, passengers may not behave as they wish -- they can't go around spraying paint on the walls of railcars, e.g.
Thus, the Trump question is whether he tweeted something illegal, like inciting to riot. This is a quintessential court case. Twitter must specify why it banned Trump [getting kicked off the train] and Trump must have the right to sue.
If these entities were ever actually regulated, I'm sure the corresponding law would say that you can't offend anybody.
Of course, these entities might one day become like town newspapers once were -- collecting points for the like minded. That would solve the problem without regulation.
Quote from: spork on January 09, 2021, 03:48:25 PM
Quote from: pgher on January 09, 2021, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: clean on January 09, 2021, 12:25:23 PM
...but Twitter is a private company, not the government.
End of story.
[. . .]
Yes, try reading the First Amendment. You'll probably find it easier to understand than that dipshit Josh Hawley does.
If you're referring to his threatened lawsuit against Simon and Schuster, he's being disingenuous, not stupid. He has no case and will not attempt to make one, as he is, despite appearances, a smart and expensively educated lawyer.
But, dammit, I wish S&S hadn't cancelled his book deal. Why must progressive organizations constantly bend over backwards to prove conservative grievance-mongers right?
Quote from: pgher on January 09, 2021, 04:06:07 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2021, 01:20:39 PM
But this goes back to the whole issue of whether they are a "platform" or a "publisher". If they are going to "edit" (in an extreme case, like this, of banning someone), then how much responsibility do they have to monitor EVERYTHING posted, and what rules do they have to follow about what kind of censorship they can (or possibly "must" ) engage in?
Other questions arise, such as:
Does the need to censor depend on the size of a person's following?
Does it depend on the popularity of a specific posting?
If some sort of non-profit organization started a similar platform, (so it wouldn't be a private company), should the rules be the same?
A non-profit organization is still (usually) a corporation. It just has different tax rules.
I think they're trying to do enough to avoid being liable for everything, so that they can make their own rules. All of these platforms do have rules; Trump dodged them by being "newsworthy."
What would they be "liable for"? And what possible line(s) could be drawn that could be
reasonably upheld, given the millions of users and millions of posts every day? Most especially, if they can be liable for what they
allow, they can no doubt be held laible for what they
censor, (especially if can be shown to be somehow discriminatory).
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2021, 05:42:54 PM
Quote from: pgher on January 09, 2021, 04:06:07 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2021, 01:20:39 PM
But this goes back to the whole issue of whether they are a "platform" or a "publisher". If they are going to "edit" (in an extreme case, like this, of banning someone), then how much responsibility do they have to monitor EVERYTHING posted, and what rules do they have to follow about what kind of censorship they can (or possibly "must" ) engage in?
Other questions arise, such as:
Does the need to censor depend on the size of a person's following?
Does it depend on the popularity of a specific posting?
If some sort of non-profit organization started a similar platform, (so it wouldn't be a private company), should the rules be the same?
A non-profit organization is still (usually) a corporation. It just has different tax rules.
I think they're trying to do enough to avoid being liable for everything, so that they can make their own rules. All of these platforms do have rules; Trump dodged them by being "newsworthy."
What would they be "liable for"? And what possible line(s) could be drawn that could be reasonably upheld, given the millions of users and millions of posts every day? Most especially, if they can be liable for what they allow, they can no doubt be held laible for what they censor, (especially if can be shown to be somehow discriminatory).
They want to avoid the situation dismalist describes. Twitter etc. don't want to be regulated monopolies with some government agency forcing them to police user posts. They want the section 230 liability protections that separate them from e.g. newspapers.
Quote from: pgher on January 09, 2021, 08:34:06 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2021, 05:42:54 PM
Quote from: pgher on January 09, 2021, 04:06:07 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2021, 01:20:39 PM
But this goes back to the whole issue of whether they are a "platform" or a "publisher". If they are going to "edit" (in an extreme case, like this, of banning someone), then how much responsibility do they have to monitor EVERYTHING posted, and what rules do they have to follow about what kind of censorship they can (or possibly "must" ) engage in?
Other questions arise, such as:
Does the need to censor depend on the size of a person's following?
Does it depend on the popularity of a specific posting?
If some sort of non-profit organization started a similar platform, (so it wouldn't be a private company), should the rules be the same?
A non-profit organization is still (usually) a corporation. It just has different tax rules.
I think they're trying to do enough to avoid being liable for everything, so that they can make their own rules. All of these platforms do have rules; Trump dodged them by being "newsworthy."
What would they be "liable for"? And what possible line(s) could be drawn that could be reasonably upheld, given the millions of users and millions of posts every day? Most especially, if they can be liable for what they allow, they can no doubt be held laible for what they censor, (especially if can be shown to be somehow discriminatory).
They want to avoid the situation dismalist describes. Twitter etc. don't want to be regulated monopolies with some government agency forcing them to police user posts. They want the section 230 liability protections that separate them from e.g. newspapers.
But that's exactly the point. If they have the resources to police certain accounts, and choose to do so, they're acting like a publisher. If they claim it's impossible to police all accounts, and so they don't do it at all, they're acting like a platform. The more policing they do, the less they can claim the protection of a platform. If they don't
spell out (and abide by) clear, objective, published rules about what they censor, they deserve to be treated like a publisher, with all of the liability that entails.
I got put in FB jail for 24 hours once, and don't even know why.
Quote from: nebo113 on January 10, 2021, 06:14:38 AM
I got put in FB jail for 24 hours once, and don't even know why.
I created a page that was unpublished for being an imposter. I still don't know why and there's no way to really appeal. I mean, there is, but I think the email goes to a black hole.
Quote from: mahagonny on January 09, 2021, 01:07:22 PM
Who has the right ...
Too long to read (upthread). Summary, don't worry about Trump's freedom of of speech being suppressed. He's still got more of it than any of us. Freedom to be heard will never be equal.
We should be concerned about big tech companies having so much control over what we see and what we are not able to see. However, they also have a right to remove content from their platforms, and this is especially true when that content is (1) demonstrably false and (2) likely to incite violence. It is notable that Parlor has itself taken down a post from a Trump attorney calling for Pence to be assassinated.
In addition to (or instead of) being upset with social media companies, Republicans and conservatives should look in the mirror and think about some of the insane content that they have been posting. Republican/conservative accounts that do not traffic in deranged misinformation, conspiracy theories, and calls for violence are not being canceled, as far as I can see.
Finally, Republicans in congress should think hard about the solution they are proposing. Amending or doing away with section 230, will lead to more censorship, not less.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2021, 05:07:24 AM
Quote from: pgher on January 09, 2021, 08:34:06 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2021, 05:42:54 PM
Quote from: pgher on January 09, 2021, 04:06:07 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2021, 01:20:39 PM
But this goes back to the whole issue of whether they are a "platform" or a "publisher". If they are going to "edit" (in an extreme case, like this, of banning someone), then how much responsibility do they have to monitor EVERYTHING posted, and what rules do they have to follow about what kind of censorship they can (or possibly "must" ) engage in?
Other questions arise, such as:
Does the need to censor depend on the size of a person's following?
Does it depend on the popularity of a specific posting?
If some sort of non-profit organization started a similar platform, (so it wouldn't be a private company), should the rules be the same?
A non-profit organization is still (usually) a corporation. It just has different tax rules.
I think they're trying to do enough to avoid being liable for everything, so that they can make their own rules. All of these platforms do have rules; Trump dodged them by being "newsworthy."
What would they be "liable for"? And what possible line(s) could be drawn that could be reasonably upheld, given the millions of users and millions of posts every day? Most especially, if they can be liable for what they allow, they can no doubt be held laible for what they censor, (especially if can be shown to be somehow discriminatory).
They want to avoid the situation dismalist describes. Twitter etc. don't want to be regulated monopolies with some government agency forcing them to police user posts. They want the section 230 liability protections that separate them from e.g. newspapers.
But that's exactly the point. If they have the resources to police certain accounts, and choose to do so, they're acting like a publisher. If they claim it's impossible to police all accounts, and so they don't do it at all, they're acting like a platform. The more policing they do, the less they can claim the protection of a platform. If they don't spell out (and abide by) clear, objective, published rules about what they censor, they deserve to be treated like a publisher, with all of the liability that entails.
This not how section 230 works. There's no differentiation between a publisher and a platform.
230 is simple: users are legally liable for the content they post. It protects you when you forward an email, it means I'm not legally liable for what you post on this forum, it means that the CHE was not liable for what people posted in discussion comments.
230 makes no distinctions between publishers and platforms: it just refers to "interactive computer service". There's no amount of moderation that makes something no longer an "interactive computer service". The whole point was to separate out things that had user submissions from things like newspaper Op-Eds. The latter is discussed as a "publisher" because the newspaper editors screens Op-Ed pieces and chooses to publish them in the paper. They're not submitted directly by users.
The title is snarky, but the article is good: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml
Quote from: writingprof on January 09, 2021, 03:46:39 PM
What is being reported by everyone is that Apple and Google Play are threatening to ban Parler (the free-speech-friendly Twitter competitor) unless it institutes a speech-control policy.
To be clear, they've stopped hosting the app as a download. It can still be downloaded from somewhere else and installed on Android, installed on a jail-broken iPhone, or accessed through the web browser on either.
No longer being willing to host and distribute a piece of software is hardly the same as "banning Parler".
In new news, AWS is pulling hosting for Parler, so they will need to switch to another host or host it themselves. I don't know why so many websites try to be reliant on some intermediate host rather than doing it themselves, honestly- it puts you in a much more precarious situation.
What this highlights is how critical it is that Net Neutrality be in place at the federal level. A company does not have to do business with you, but you can put your own site on the internet without having to do business with anyone else. And it is then critically important that we have laws that prevent ISPs from blocking traffic to or from that site.
Quote from: eigen on January 10, 2021, 09:18:12 AM
The title is snarky, but the article is good: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml
That was really informative. Thanks for the link.
Funny how conservatives are all for free enterprise and corporate rights until companies start doing things they don't like, then they want the government to step in and tell companies what content they most allow on their private platforms.
Nothing is stopping Trump from setting up his own website or messaging system, hosted on his own server, to communicate with his followers. He could even charge them a subscription rate!
Quote from: Puget on January 10, 2021, 10:18:56 AM
Nothing is stopping Trump from setting up his own website or messaging system, hosted on his own server, to communicate with his followers. He could even charge them a subscription rate!
I assume that the right combination of private companies acting in unison could prevent even this. Am I mistaken?
Quote from: writingprof on January 10, 2021, 12:59:13 PM
Quote from: Puget on January 10, 2021, 10:18:56 AM
Nothing is stopping Trump from setting up his own website or messaging system, hosted on his own server, to communicate with his followers. He could even charge them a subscription rate!
I assume that the right combination of private companies acting in unison could prevent even this. Am I mistaken?
How? A number of companies make setting this up easier (Amazon being a prime example) but none are necessary.
Quote from: pgher on January 10, 2021, 06:31:20 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on January 10, 2021, 06:14:38 AM
I got put in FB jail for 24 hours once, and don't even know why.
I created a page that was unpublished for being an imposter. I still don't know why and there's no way to really appeal. I mean, there is, but I think the email goes to a black hole.
Every 18 months or so, my Facebook account is disabled because someone has reported me as using a false name and profile picture. There's a long process of getting it reinstated. On the other side of the coin, I've seen flagrantly fake accounts used to harass family members -- all of which is apparently allowed. I've spoken on the fora before about my ongoing struggle with some of that garbage. Of course the rules don't work as intended.
Quote from: pgher on January 10, 2021, 01:05:16 PM
Quote from: writingprof on January 10, 2021, 12:59:13 PM
Quote from: Puget on January 10, 2021, 10:18:56 AM
Nothing is stopping Trump from setting up his own website or messaging system, hosted on his own server, to communicate with his followers. He could even charge them a subscription rate!
I assume that the right combination of private companies acting in unison could prevent even this. Am I mistaken?
How? A number of companies make setting this up easier (Amazon being a prime example) but none are necessary.
I don't know how. That's why I'm asking. But I'm pretty certain that the neo-Nazi site 8chan was kicked off the web after Cloudfare denied it services. (Pardon me if I've got the names wrong. We mainstream-Republican neo-Nazis sometimes struggle to recall the details of our own mythology.)
Quote from: writingprof on January 10, 2021, 01:41:11 PM
Quote from: pgher on January 10, 2021, 01:05:16 PM
Quote from: writingprof on January 10, 2021, 12:59:13 PM
Quote from: Puget on January 10, 2021, 10:18:56 AM
Nothing is stopping Trump from setting up his own website or messaging system, hosted on his own server, to communicate with his followers. He could even charge them a subscription rate!
I assume that the right combination of private companies acting in unison could prevent even this. Am I mistaken?
How? A number of companies make setting this up easier (Amazon being a prime example) but none are necessary.
I don't know how. That's why I'm asking. But I'm pretty certain that the neo-Nazi site 8chan was kicked off the web after Cloudfare denied it services. (Pardon me if I've got the names wrong. We mainstream-Republican neo-Nazis sometimes struggle to recall the details of our own mythology.)
I hear ya. During the debates about Obamacare when they talked about the "death panels" in Canada I was having trouble remembering all of the details of them. Unpatriotic of me, I know.
Quote from: writingprof on January 10, 2021, 01:41:11 PM
Quote from: pgher on January 10, 2021, 01:05:16 PM
Quote from: writingprof on January 10, 2021, 12:59:13 PM
Quote from: Puget on January 10, 2021, 10:18:56 AM
Nothing is stopping Trump from setting up his own website or messaging system, hosted on his own server, to communicate with his followers. He could even charge them a subscription rate!
I assume that the right combination of private companies acting in unison could prevent even this. Am I mistaken?
How? A number of companies make setting this up easier (Amazon being a prime example) but none are necessary.
I don't know how. That's why I'm asking. But I'm pretty certain that the neo-Nazi site 8chan was kicked off the web after Cloudfare denied it services. (Pardon me if I've got the names wrong. We mainstream-Republican neo-Nazis sometimes struggle to recall the details of our own mythology.)
You're thinking about Gab and 9Chan, I think. GoDaddy pulled the domain registration from Gab, best of my recollection- but they could still register in another company, or become a domain registrar themselves.
It seems like there is no right-wing group who is willing to set up as a domain registrar, which is strange, as it seems like it would be a profitable niche.
Quote from: eigen on January 10, 2021, 09:15:23 PM
Quote from: writingprof on January 10, 2021, 01:41:11 PM
Quote from: pgher on January 10, 2021, 01:05:16 PM
Quote from: writingprof on January 10, 2021, 12:59:13 PM
Quote from: Puget on January 10, 2021, 10:18:56 AM
Nothing is stopping Trump from setting up his own website or messaging system, hosted on his own server, to communicate with his followers. He could even charge them a subscription rate!
I assume that the right combination of private companies acting in unison could prevent even this. Am I mistaken?
How? A number of companies make setting this up easier (Amazon being a prime example) but none are necessary.
I don't know how. That's why I'm asking. But I'm pretty certain that the neo-Nazi site 8chan was kicked off the web after Cloudfare denied it services. (Pardon me if I've got the names wrong. We mainstream-Republican neo-Nazis sometimes struggle to recall the details of our own mythology.)
You're thinking about Gab and 9Chan, I think. GoDaddy pulled the domain registration from Gab, best of my recollection- but they could still register in another company, or become a domain registrar themselves.
Nah, he's right that it was Cloudflare pulling the plug on 8chan: https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/security-cut-off-cesspool-hate-8chan-forum-64778026
Quote from: eigenIt seems like there is no right-wing group who is willing to set up as a domain registrar, which is strange, as it seems like it would be a profitable niche.
Yeah, that's interesting.
Mercy! Thank you all for informing me of all these right wing websites, communications services, and social media, of which I had no clue.
It is true that anyone can create his own website, and that is good. But it is not good enough. Again, consider the common carrier railroad analogy to using the web. To use the railroad tracks, one would have to buy one's own locomotive and carriage to avail oneself of the railroad tracks.
No, "net neutrality" for the net is not good enough. Gotta have a common carrier type solution for the web.
Deplatform fascists.
Why is this even a question?
First they came for the fascists. Then they came for the conservatives, and then the democratic leftists. But I was none of these. And when they came for me ... .
Quote from: larryc on January 10, 2021, 10:34:38 PM
Deplatform fascists.
Why is this even a question?
The sticky point is how to define "fascists". To groups like ANTIFA, anyone who
didn't participate in the BLM protests is a fascist.
From Britannica.com:
Quote
Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft, in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation.
While "contempt for electoral democracy" would certainly apply to Trump, the "rule of elites" brings up the question of why the richest people, i.e. tech billionaires, mostly support the Democrats, and the society where " individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation" fits much more with the progressive agenda than with the far right, who in the US tend to be extremely distrustful of governments.
So to identify any significant group as "fascist" pretty much requires picking and choosing what characteristics to include and what to leave out. The term doesn't readily apply to
any significant group.
Quote from: writingprof on January 09, 2021, 03:46:39 PM
In addition to the Trump ban, mainstream conservatives are being stripped of their Twitter followers by the thousands right now, according to multiple mainstream conservative outlets. I would provide non-partisan evidence, but, of course, there is no such thing as a non-partisan news source anymore, and no progressive source will cover the story. It's frustrating.
They aren't being "stripped" of their followers. Twitter has been banning people who post violent threats, or are associated with groups who do. So, basically people are complaining that they are losing their violent, fascist followers.
Conservatives: Private companies can discriminate against whoever they please! It is a core tenet of freedom!
Also conservatives: Private companies that discriminate against us are mean and bad and this is what they do in China!
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2021, 07:55:46 AM
Conservatives: Private companies can discriminate against whoever they please! It is a core tenet of freedom!
Also conservatives: Private companies that discriminate against us are mean and bad and this is what they do in China!
This. Also add to the second line "and the government should stop them from doing it!"
See also: Trying to overthrow a free and fair election and then complaining that impeachment will "divide the nation". The hypocrisy is truly stunning.
Quote from: Puget on January 11, 2021, 08:16:10 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2021, 07:55:46 AM
Conservatives: Private companies can discriminate against whoever they please! It is a core tenet of freedom!
Also conservatives: Private companies that discriminate against us are mean and bad and this is what they do in China!
This. Also add to the second line "and the government should stop them from doing it!"
See also: Trying to overthrow a free and fair election and then complaining that impeachment will "divide the nation". The hypocrisy is truly stunning.
We now have this strange category of statements from the far right (Trump, Cruz, FoxNews, etc) that are entirely predictable and routine but are also stunning.
Since the movement is entirely one that seeks to promote certain people and groups and is without any other principles, it makes no sense to engage in argument with them. A better goal is simply to point out to people who might be tempted to listen to them that their speech consists entirely of bullshit, in the technical sense.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 06:05:14 AM
Quote from: larryc on January 10, 2021, 10:34:38 PM
Deplatform fascists.
Why is this even a question?
The sticky point is how to define "fascists". To groups like ANTIFA, anyone who didn't participate in the BLM protests is a fascist.
From Britannica.com:
Quote
Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft, in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation.
While "contempt for electoral democracy" would certainly apply to Trump, the "rule of elites" brings up the question of why the richest people, i.e. tech billionaires, mostly support the Democrats, and the society where " individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation" fits much more with the progressive agenda than with the far right, who in the US tend to be extremely distrustful of governments.
So to identify any significant group as "fascist" pretty much requires picking and choosing what characteristics to include and what to leave out. The term doesn't readily apply to any significant group.
There is no such thing as Antifa. It's a straw-person invention used to stir up demsgogues' idolaters.
M.
Quote from: mamselle on January 11, 2021, 08:40:33 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 06:05:14 AM
Quote from: larryc on January 10, 2021, 10:34:38 PM
Deplatform fascists.
Why is this even a question?
The sticky point is how to define "fascists". To groups like ANTIFA, anyone who didn't participate in the BLM protests is a fascist.
From Britannica.com:
Quote
Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft, in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation.
While "contempt for electoral democracy" would certainly apply to Trump, the "rule of elites" brings up the question of why the richest people, i.e. tech billionaires, mostly support the Democrats, and the society where " individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation" fits much more with the progressive agenda than with the far right, who in the US tend to be extremely distrustful of governments.
So to identify any significant group as "fascist" pretty much requires picking and choosing what characteristics to include and what to leave out. The term doesn't readily apply to any significant group.
There is no such thing as Antifa. It's a straw-person invention used to stir up demsgogues' idolaters.
M.
Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)) would disagree:
Quote
Antifa is a left-wing anti-fascist and anti-racist political movement in the United States. It is highly decentralized and comprises an array of autonomous groups that aim to achieve their objectives through the use of both nonviolent and violent direct action rather than through policy reform.
And how about the Congressional Research Service (https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10839)?:
Quote
This In Focus discusses the background ofthe U.S. antifa
movement, whether or not members and their actions may
be categorized as domestic terrorists and domestic
terrorism,respectively, and issues around designating
domestic groups as terrorists