If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

The problem is for a President who has complained about "fake news" all through his Presidency it's a bit rich that he and his supporters are now relying on and propagating it so he can hold on to his job , either you want to stop "fake news" or you don't.
It's hypocritical to believe that "fake news" only comes from the side that doesn't support you.

a reply to: okrian

I bet you are still angry at the doctor who slapped your ass when you were born. Must be a cranky old cat lady.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I agree with your observation, for the most part.

Personally, I /don't/ give a flying f### what anyone says on the Internet, as I have no social media accounts. I follow no celebrities, politicians, nor anyone else.

But I think it's a very big mistake to de-platform folks based on politics.

Number one, things like this inevitably backfire in the sense that people who had no interest in hearing someone's words will now take interest in what is soooo horrible that it warranted deplatoforming. Curiosity of the fruit of the forbidden tree.

Number two, I predict a mass exodus off those platforms, even from people that don't care for Trump, simply on principle. If I had an account, I very well might deactivate it now purely on principle alone. For the umpteeth time, IDAF what Trump says or does, but the notion of kicking him off the platform because he's a loud mouth that says things I don't agree with is a concerning precedent for me.

Number three, after all of the MAGA crowd is evicted......whose next??? If you say you don't agree with identity politics are you gone too? What about if your criticize Biden or Harris?

Where is this going? Where does it end?

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened

Banning and censoring and silencing controversial conservative voices seems like a very ill-conceived plan, if you ask me. Rather than let people's words stand on their own, and be either accepted or rejected based on the legitimacy of their content, the Powers That Be have apparently decided that now is the opportune time to forcibly mute voices that present differing points of view and opinions that diverge from the scripted narrative promulgated by MSM and liberal orthodoxy.

I'm sure you remember a time when the online content of "news" organizations allowed comments on their articles from their readers. They don't do that anymore. As that CNN reporter let slip, they feel it is their job to tell you what your opinion is, not listen to yours. As long as CNN cooperates with the Federal government, they get the advertising dollars, and they get access to people and places a real news organization wouldn't get.

Now the target is social media. The opinions of the people must be controlled. If the Federal government or Corporate America want something, it's up to news and social media to convince the American people that they want it, too. Anyone who does not play ball is not getting the money.

Great post! The paragraphs above I quoted for their accuracy and significance.

The biggest threat to a thriving democratic society, IMO, is consolidation and control of information, and we are seeing that now at an accelerating pace. The banning of Parler from app platforms is just another indication of this. This is not consistent with democracy nor capitalism.

The press, in my opinion, needs some kind of industry-wide Black Swan event to knock sense into them and put them back on the path of objectivity. It is NOT DEBATABLE that most major newspaper/publications, cable "news" networks and other such information outlets are heavily slanted to the left, politically. This has been a rapidly and increasing trend I've noticed in the past 10 years or so.

The idea of the press as "the Fourth Estate" used to MEAN something in this country. It meant that they were the unofficial extra-governmental apparatus for helping the people put social "checks and balances" on politicians, from both sides. But now, it seems only one set of politicians is under the microscope.

I said it years ago when web properties started killing their own comment sections and either switching to Facebook, or retiring them all together, that this was ridiculous idea. It's like you said, there's no accountability to people writing the news now. If they want your opinion, they'll give it to you, would seem.

a reply to: gortex

Anyone that things Trump was given fair treatment by the press is delusional, sorry, and that is coming from an independent who's voted Democrat, Republican and in between. Trump made his bed sometimes with the press, but in no way was he given the same prepared, scripted questions and clear avoidance of uncomfortable subjects (sexual assault allegations, Ukraine quid pro quo, Hunter story) that Biden was given,

Trump's Tweets will stop being official news in 10 days or so.

I will agree what I THINK you mean in that social media isn't really supposed to be a news platform from the get go, but the gullible and weak minded in society are easily swayed, be it from inaccurate Tweets or from "news" organizations that are not objectively reporting facts but rather giving you the opinion they have, and they think you need to have.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Donald Trump isn’t being censored. He has a press room in his house where he can talk to America. Give statements and answer questions.

Spare me the victim mentality.

his has been removed from all the big platforms. 4 million have been removed from twitter in last few days. GAB has had a 750 percent increas in members and Parlar similar.

Google protected under 230 ordered Parler to censor of they would remove from stores. This has been done/ Parler will be deplarformed.

Funny how peeoples called trump a dictatorship. The dictator is the one that does the censoring. Here you are defending the digital dictatorship.

Looks to me like you are on the wrong side of history.

a reply to: HalWesten

Would you have been OK with Bin Laden using twitter to drive his extremists to violence?

At its base thats what it comes down to.

originally posted by: Jykan
a reply to: HalWesten

Would you have been OK with Bin Laden using twitter to drive his extremists to violence?

At its base thats what it comes down to.

That's a bit hyperbolic, don't you think?

This is the kind of politically extreme sentiment that is leading to such polarization.

So far as I know Trump hasn't advocated driving airliners into skyscrapers in US cities.