Agreed…the hypocrisy of these decisions grows increasingly outrageous each day. For example, the reasoning behind the banning of Donald Trump from Twitter was that his rhetoric was “dangerous,” in that it may have encouraged/not discouraged the January 6 riot. On Tuesday (March 1), a Russian official threatened actual war over the economic sanctions the world is taking against his country [1]. His account is still active and the tweet is still up.
Exactly. Lets assume Trump was completely the leader of January 6th and giving direct orders to go into the building and those people were his army. The only death by violence was one person and on a causality on his side. In Ukraine literally thousands are dying. There are people who literally attempted assassinations getting bail and keeping their online accounts.
It is reasonable to say that Donald Trump caused the January 6 insurrection. The bigger issue for platform owners is that the insurrection represents catastrophic risk to them, and it is within their power to prevent it.
The social media platforms can't prevent if Russia goes to war with NATO. Censoring the russian official won't do anything.
Jan 6th didn't "cause" catastrophic risk. Events like jan 6th present huge potential risks.
If the insurrection had been successful the best case scenario would be economic collapse and possibly civil war in the country where these platforms are based out of. It is likely that many states would reject the sovereignty of the federal government if it didn't honor the outcome of the election, and from there things would quickly spiral out of control.
The potential outcome from the end of democracy in the us would entail catastrophic risk for the companies based here.
War being threatened by a nuclear power like Russia carries with it the “catastrophic risk” of the end of the world, with billions of people dead. Even if one were to wholeheartedly believe that the hyperbole in your comment was an entirely plausible outcome of January 6, the Russian tweet is far more dangerous than anything related to the Capital riot.
It’s outrageously hypocritical that the Russian official’s account is alive today. They didn’t even slap a warning label on his tweet.
They couldn’t control January 6 either. Literally the only people charged with sedition - those who had a plan - were part of an extremist organization that coordinated in person.
The Jan 6 insurrection were organized almost entirely on social media, not the news. The news was barely talking about a "stop the steal" rally in dc on Jan 6 before it happened.
Much of it was organized on social media, and many those who participated it used the platforms to live stream and tell more people to come and participate, too.
Either all of social media should be white supremacist, holocaust denying 4 Chan, or it is those platforms' responsibility to enforce thought-crime intervention.
So instead of doing that we should just make the whole internet 4chan?
No it won't, not in meaningful numbers. Most people don't want that kind of garbage in their feeds. If they did 4chan would be more popular than Twitter.
Most people don't want to have disgusting, antidemocratic viewpoints forced on them by social
media. They want to not see that stuff.
No. What the hell is wrong with all this absolutism. As I mentioned elsewhere, these platforms should have moderation guidelines from the outset that they adhere to. Now they play political games instead.
If a platform is too large to be moderated effectively, there needs to be a discussion about what happens next, which indeed is either free-for-all, clear moderation policy or opaque random and easily biased decisions.
My boomer parents are now asking me about 4chan because of the censorship (someone in the mainstream was talking about it last year.) People are looking and they'll get sucked into this stuff.
[1] https://twitter.com/medvedevrussiae/status/14986197503347507...