• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

EU country's start to question social media after trump ban and parler ban

tfur

Member
Oct 21, 2007
3,584
980
1,305
Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny (who was poisoned by Putin this summer) condemded action of Big Tech too:



He would know. Putin went after Internet in similar fashion after 2010-2011 protests. Forced most independent companies out of country and installed a limited firewall to block websites he doesn't like. They took away VK from Pavel Durov and tried prosecuting him causing him to escape. Durov then made Telegram and Russian government tried blocking it unsuccessfully. Which is why I suggest Trump to move there now (it's unblockable and Apple would have a hard time removing the app with 500 million users)

Democrats are effectively repeating what Putin did step by step but on a global scale. This is creepy as fuck.

Whatevs, the smooth brains will just say he is doing a whataboutism...
 

Cato

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,405
8,472
755
Serious question: if net neutrality was still around, could have Big Tech gotten away with this?

Yes. Network Neutrality would have had no impact on this, it is completely orthogonal.

Network Neutrality is only brought up as a gotcha, "you silly repubs, see you brought it on yourself, hahaha"..
Because that is how divided the world is. Take anything and fabricate it as a gotcha to the other side.
 
Last edited:

Iorv3th

Member
Jan 16, 2013
6,393
2,300
755
I needs to be monitored and filtered. Things that are not true should be deleted and / or removed, but in a way that presents factual information. Right now it's just a giant hate capacitor.
So like a book store that only carries non-fiction
 

DESTROYA

Member
Jan 1, 2011
9,504
14,448
1,190
USA
Hope the EU bans them outright, fuck these poisonous platforms, yes both the left, right are both complicit in where they are now.
 

showernota

Gold Member
Jun 6, 2020
2,911
8,754
600

“There’s been a lot of people who have said and done a lot of things on Twitter previously that haven’t received that sort of condemnation or indeed censorship. But I’m not one who believes in that sort of censorship,” McCormack said, speaking to ABC Radio National on Monday.

At a press briefing later, McCormack doubled down on his criticism of Twitter.

“I say to the owners of Twitter that if you are going to take down the comments of [the person] who is still the American president, you need to think also about the photo, the doctored photo, the doctored image,” McCormack told reporters, referring to the faked photo posted by a Chinese government official of an Australian soldier holding a knife to an Afghani kid’s throat.
 

CrankyJay™

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,268
1,610
530
I mean it was very transparent what happened. They coordinated to silence a group of people for "fear of violence" (yet left alone 99% of all those who preach hate) and did so swiftly and in conjunction. Twitter, FB, Insta all ban Trump. Trump moves to Parler. Parler is platformed by AWS. Parler is hacked. And just for good measure Stripe bans the Trump campaign leaving them without a pay portal.

Totally no collusion or conspiring at all.

I mean unless they are all just run by soft dicked plebs who get spooked by the slightest trend they dont like.... I would believe this.
Sounds more like a “me too” thing rather than collusion, not wanting to have to deal with the fallout of not doing something and being boycotted.
 
Last edited:

Kreen101

Member
Sep 4, 2019
779
1,564
350
Interestingly, even Centre-Left and Left-wing politicians in France have spoken to disapprove of Big Tech's banning of Trump from their platforms. And nobody hates Trump more than those people. But their left-wing principles make them both distrustful of big corporations wielding too much power and supportive of the basic principle of free speech.

That's because, while they too are changing under the influence of the new identity politics, "deplatforming" Left coming from the US, they are still the a larger extent the Old Left, which believed in freedom of speech and was wary of Billionaires and giant corporations.
 

Sparhavoc

Member
Sep 4, 2020
650
1,239
470
Every other world leader should be concerned. Simply put, if they have a problem with you they can disconnect you
 
Oct 15, 2019
743
1,392
390
New York
Trump can have a press conference at any time and his words would be heard around the world instantly. He's not censored.
The media have shown they can and will exercise discretion of what they show the people. Every major network besides Fox stopped showing the president's daily covid addresses, and even Fox cut away from his press secretary when Trump tried to contest the election
 
Last edited:

Bitch Pudding

Member
Oct 3, 2014
8,208
335
570
Germany
Trump can have a press conference at any time and his words would be heard around the world instantly. He's not censored.

It's not that easy IMHO. Imagine for a second there was one dominating TV station with 90%+ market share, like Twitter and Facebook dominate their segment. And now that TV station refuses to air someone's press conference or statements, because of its CEO decision. I'm with Angela Merkel on this one. Hate speech or inciting violence by members of a government should be subject to prosecution under the respective law of the country, including the possibility to de-platform that person, but it should not be the decision of that platform's CEO.
 

lock2k

Banned
Jun 13, 2018
5,991
9,159
645
Brazil
Damn you know is bad when EU, and even Mexico says this is an issue. If the government doesn’t step in I can see FB,Twitter being local to the u.s only. We need more people to put pressure on them.
That would be a blessing.
 

luxsol

Member
Jun 7, 2004
1,358
70
1,430
Get rid of Social Media Cancer like Twitter and Facebook.
95% trash and hate anyway
I do like how people say this shit, yet this forum is almost completely beholden to Twitter for nearly every news piece posted here.

I block twitter and facebook as much as possible, so when i come here to read the threads, 90% of the threads just have the LOADING TWITTER underlined text. So i'm almost clueless at what's going on unless text is quoted by OP or the posters below have thoughtful replies that address the article.

I stopped visiting GAF daily since the late 00s and only started posting irregularly again, so i find it weird how we went from getting our news from actual websites by "professionals" to just mostly one sentence quotes from "journalists (read: bloggers)"
It'd be cool if everyone here stopped sourcing twitter so much, because then i wouldn't need to unblock a frame or hunt down the news article for myself.
 

lock2k

Banned
Jun 13, 2018
5,991
9,159
645
Brazil
I do like how people say this shit, yet this forum is almost completely beholden to Twitter for nearly every news piece posted here.

I block twitter and facebook as much as possible, so when i come here to read the threads, 90% of the threads just have the LOADING TWITTER underlined text. So i'm almost clueless at what's going on unless text is quoted by OP or the posters below have thoughtful replies that address the article.

I stopped visiting GAF daily since the late 00s and only started posting irregularly again, so i find it weird how we went from getting our news from actual websites by "professionals" to just mostly one sentence quotes from "journalists (read: bloggers)"
It'd be cool if everyone here stopped sourcing twitter so much, because then i wouldn't need to unblock a frame or hunt down the news article for myself.
I agree with this.
 

Poop!

Member
Nov 21, 2014
550
280
505
It's not that easy IMHO. Imagine for a second there was one dominating TV station with 90%+ market share, like Twitter and Facebook dominate their segment. And now that TV station refuses to air someone's press conference or statements, because of its CEO decision. I'm with Angela Merkel on this one. Hate speech or inciting violence by members of a government should be subject to prosecution under the respective law of the country, including the possibility to de-platform that person, but it should not be the decision of that platform's CEO.

But there is no dominating TV station. His words would be broadcast on TV and in print around the world instantly. As someone so old to have a Friendster account, social media is not an end all be all. Again, he is the President of the United States. He has a whole wing and gaggle of people paid to report everything he says. He just has to do it in person now, just now when he's taking a dump at 3am
 

Bitch Pudding

Member
Oct 3, 2014
8,208
335
570
Germany
But there is no dominating TV station. His words would be broadcast on TV and in print around the world instantly. As someone so old to have a Friendster account, social media is not an end all be all. Again, he is the President of the United States. He has a whole wing and gaggle of people paid to report everything he says. He just has to do it in person now, just now when he's taking a dump at 3am

Yes, but this is 2021, and Twitter has developed into the go-to platform to reach and inform your followers instantly across the globe. And yes, it is the fucking President of the United States we are talking about. No CEO should have the power zu muzzle him when he feels like it. There should be standards in place to deal with that, as in: legal standards defined by the legislature, not terms of services of a company. The later may apply of course for "normal" users, but not for an elected representative of a country.

I for one support that Trump was banned on Twitter for what he did last week btw., it's just that I don't agree with the way it happened.
 
Last edited:

Poop!

Member
Nov 21, 2014
550
280
505
Yes, but this is 2021, and Twitter has developed into the go-to platform to reach and inform your followers instantly across the globe. And yes, it is the fucking President of the United States we are talking about. No CEO should have the power zu muzzle him when he feels like it. There should be standards in place to deal with that, as in: legal standards defined by the legislature, not terms of services of a company. The later may apply of course for "normal" users, but not for an elected representative of a country.

I for one support that Trump was banned on Twitter for what he did last week btw., it's just that I don't agree with the way it happened.

So you are in favor of the government dictating how a private business is allowed to run? That's a slippery slope.
 

Bitmap Frogs

Mr. Community
Dec 26, 2008
11,292
5,545
1,550
Spain
These so called "free" countries in the EU always have strangely strict speech laws which is the fundamental difference between them and the US.

Yeah this is something that's not widely known, but for example in Germany you do NOT have a constitutional right to parade a swastika or negate the holocaust.
 

Kamina

Golden Boy
Jun 2, 2013
7,541
6,316
905
34
Austria
Yeah this is something that's not widely known, but for example in Germany you do NOT have a constitutional right to parade a swastika or negate the holocaust.
Yeah, thats because after the 2nd world war the Natinal Socialistic German Wokers Party (NSDAP), was officially outlawed in Germany and Austria, including any symbolism, paroles, and gestures aligned with it. Using any of those is called “reactivation” and punishable.

We generally do have free speech, however, we consider free to not mean “say what you want whenever you want” but more like ”speak plainly, but be aware that you are also accountable”. Online harassment illegal.
Platforms that allow peoples opinions to be posted are also accountable for what they host, unlike Twitter and Facebook in the US.
 
Last edited:

rorepmE

Member
Jan 20, 2019
1,008
1,964
430
Republic of Val Verde
People seems to have overlooked the fact that Trump was banned for giving a speech on a REAL physical platform in real life. So in effect they banned him for something he did outside of their platform. How did that violate their TOS?

Their TOS doesn't mean shit and is there for legal liability. Despite immunity from lawsuits you can still get sued. It's like states that have at-will employment. The employer will STILL state a reason and look for a reason to terminate an employee despite the letter of the law stating employment is entirely at-will.
 

Rktk

Member
Jun 7, 2009
2,141
89
890
I see Merkel's comments as more a criticism of the US, that Trump would not have been able to incite a mob in a country like Germany where it would have been cracked down on. Merkel's view is the law should protect the country, it shouldn't be up to Twitter to decide.
 

BlueAlpaca

Member
Feb 6, 2018
323
458
360
That's because, while they too are changing under the influence of the new identity politics, "deplatforming" Left coming from the US, they are still the a larger extent the Old Left, which believed in freedom of speech and was wary of Billionaires and giant corporations.

LOL There is no 'old left' that believed in freedom of speech. Unless you think Castro and Lenin were champions of free of speech. Totalitarians are anti-freedom, that includes ones who constantly congratulate themselves for loving freedom and justice and whatever. Anything the left pretends to be, the reality is the opposite. They're orcs who believe themselves to be elves.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

rorepmE

Member
Jan 20, 2019
1,008
1,964
430
Republic of Val Verde
I see Merkel's comments as more a criticism of the US, that Trump would not have been able to incite a mob in a country like Germany where it would have been cracked down on. Merkel's view is the law should protect the country, it shouldn't be up to Twitter to decide.

Right, it's about power and who gets to control it. The EU just doesn't like it when one person with unchecked, un-democratic can do that. It sets a bad precedence for Government. Has nothing to do with principles or freeze peach or any of that non-sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrAspirino and Rktk

darkazcura

Member
Jul 21, 2012
2,259
11
580
I think this is a bit of a misrepresentation of what Merkel was going for. She seems to be saying that the government should be the one deciding, not the social media companies. She’s basically talking about hate speech laws, which most here would be against, I’m sure.

A quote from the Forbes article:

On Monday, a spokesperson for Merkel, Steffen Seibert, said that it wasn't up to social media CEOs to regulate freedom of speech, but to lawmakers. “This fundamental right can be intervened in, but according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators — not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms,” Seibert told reporters in Berlin.

The bolded pretty much says it all.

I see Merkel's comments as more a criticism of the US, that Trump would not have been able to incite a mob in a country like Germany where it would have been cracked down on. Merkel's view is the law should protect the country, it shouldn't be up to Twitter to decide.

Yeah, this. Merkel isn’t against blocking hate speech and the like. She just thinks the government should decide, but because of the first amendment that is an impossibility here.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rktk

Halo is Dead

Member
May 20, 2018
7,080
12,806
780
Yeah this is something that's not widely known, but for example in Germany you do NOT have a constitutional right to parade a swastika or negate the holocaust.
I think the situation with Germany is pretty unique. I do commend them for not wanting to repeat such a tragedy. You can still talk shit to their gov but not be a Nazi.
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: Bitmap Frogs

Raven117

Member
Oct 5, 2015
6,155
2,687
565
This is an antitrust issue, not a freedom of speech issue.

But regardless of how one slices it, we have to figure out really what social media is and regulate it accordingly as the newest and most powerful tool of communication mankind has ever known. (And it being controlled by just a handful of people).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alx

Clear

Deer/Dur
Feb 2, 2009
12,034
6,629
1,365
To the rest of the world its a sovereignty issue.

If these US based media companies can unilaterally deplatform a sitting US president, who's to stop them doing the same thing to anyone else, anywhere?
Without pushback its a mandate for these companies to interfere with the democratic process of any nation where their service has significant penetration.

Frankly, it has to be stopped.
 
Dec 13, 2013
3,027
6
495
Under german law, many things Trump wrote on Twitter would have been punishable and rabble-rousing.

So the problem for Merkel was not that Twitter banned Trump, but that a private company like Twitter has too much power.

Merkels political party and other thinks there should be EU and worldwide laws that deal with people like Trump in social media more immediately and force companies like Twitter to react faster. Trump should have been banned much earlier.
 
Last edited: