Trump's YouTube Account Suspended
wsj.com
wsj.com
Hypothetically, if they shoot someone dead on the steps, and then disarm themselves so they aren't a threat anymore, then the police must still allow them to go into Congress to finish their debate. Congress itself can self police, but it's immune to being controlled by the executive branch (i.e. the police).
If you could just arrest Congressmen on their way to the chambers, then you would see in a close vote that some Congressmen will never make it to the chambers because the police "found" something on them (or a police dog smelled weed on them).
These Congress men and woman were legally able to do this. It was and is illegal to stop an elected Congress person from entering chambers.
I also am unaware of any clear and present danger from the representatives, did I miss something? Do you have a link to the threats? (Not a polarized story, but the real threats)
I can't find any such law?
> I also am unaware of any clear and present danger from the representatives, did I miss something
Yeah you've been missing something all right
"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."[1]
[1] https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcri...
Edit-there’s talk of making it a 5,000$ fine per incidence on the news.
The ironic thing is that despite all of the hysteria about him as the "orange hitler," he was completely toothless as president. It was bizarre to watch him tweet complaining about people and things that he himself could change, as though he were not president, but just some dude on twitter.
Now he's not even that.
Literally inciting an insurrection and siege of the Capitol is absolutely nothing?
Using twitter/youtube is the same as stating that we will put all information for our citizens in <SomeRandomNewspaper>.
Of course then it's unclear why some elected official couldn't have their own private account anywhere on the web, and it's really hard to tell what's job related and what is not for somebody who is ranking high enough.
One way or another, as it's been for ages, money rules the world and with quick technological advances corporations are ending up with more of it than governments. I just can't quite figure out China in that viewpoint of mine.
Now either the Democrats+Tech cabal decide to tilt all the way to make America another China, or they loose their hold completely.
In either case, America is lost. Now there is no going back.
Back home the receding snow will most likely spring a war. With America lost, India will fight alone.
The stage for the third decade is set. America has chosen to step back. India will not have an option.
Oh no wait, it would be taken down by the hosting company.
But he could just host his own servers and build his own infrastructure?
But it would be banned by his domain provider.
But he could register with ICANN and become a registrar?
Perhaps, but he still wouldn't be able to monetize the platform because Visa / MasterCard would ban him from accepting payments.
But he could build his own payment infrastructure?
Maybe there's a slim chance if you're fortunate enough to be Donald Trump, but even that would be challenging now banks are refusing to do business with him too.
-----
I'm not a fan of Trump but anyone still giving the "it's only Alex Jones" defence is being extremely naive at this point. If you own a company today and have the wrong political opinions you should be aware that these companies can and will crush you. This isn't about Trump or what he said, this is about whether or not it should be practically impossible to run a business if your politics doesn't align with a handful of monopolies in the US.
Does an individual or company need Twitter / Facebook / YouTube, probably not. Should someone have a right to critical web services? Maybe... It's kind of hard to start a business without them in 2021. Should someone have a right to take card payments in 2021? Yeah, personally I think there is no question here.
When someone high profile like Trump gets deplatformed I often see people say, "well they could always use [x] service instead", but has been proven by Parler to be a ban argument. It's basically impossible to create a successful alt platform when you can't accept payments or find a hosting company. The conversation we're having about Twitter and YouTube is just a distraction from the real problem which is a lack of competition. If there was competition companies like Twitter wouldn't be so quick to kick people from their platform when they see platforms like Parler rapidly growing in response to Twitter's censorship. But the free market clearly isn't working here and regulation is needed. We have no choice and so these companies can force us to stay within their lines or face insurmountable consequences. And there is no forgiveness. Once you're gone, you're gone. One mistake and you're out.
They built their own browser, media, host their own servers, working on a phone, etc
My concern is when IPs or DNS is blocked. There are distributed DNS solutions, but they aren’t there yet.
I personally bought a pinephone this last week and plan to try and stabilize it enough to hand to family members. Possibly I’ll even start selling tech support for it.
I’m not by any means a supporter of either political establishment either. But I believe we can’t have a two tiered system. If corporations are going to exert power over the population, it can be combated.
My concern, is what happens when they get in government. Remember, Trump banned lobbying his administration.
https://time.com/4652703/president-trump-lobbying-ban/
Biden’s adding them to his staff now. That could be a good thing (know the industry, etc). But it could also be used as a governmental hammer on alternatives.
At that point you have fascism.
It is like car manufacturers or oil companies sabotaging alternative energy companies.
Nope. We don't have to live with violent insurrections. We don't have to live with sieges of government buildings. All speech is not created equal: there is such a thing as hate speech and speech that inspires violence, and that is distinct from a youtube channel about legos or makeup or video games. They are different things, and people and platforms can decide to say no.
I'm seeing this pattern of hysterical hand-wringing that deplatforming or "canceling" terrorists is somehow a bad thing because it means that—what? now a platform can do what they want with their platform in accordance with their own terms of service? There's this nonsensical and baseless extrapolation that now that platform will just suddenly decide to "censor"—what? who? What exactly are you worried about?
People have been "censoring" and "canceling" each other for as long as there have been human cultures, because there are limits to what a culture will accept, and few cultures are so ideologically pure that they'll accept angry armed mobs storming capitols because "we should debate them". People who are flipping out about YouTube/Twitter/FB/etc limiting the speech of violence-inducing criminals live in a fantasy world where they've never come close to being the target of that speech, and know they never will: they can sit comfortably at home in front of their computers and blithely evangelize about how America is doomed and now America is China and wah wah wah wah because it's trying to do what it's always done, and what it exists for, which is protect its own citzens.
Your concern with violence is fake, as that and the platforms that it lived on, existed way before 6th of January. Parlor was allowed to thrive for years, nobody had problems with it before that. But magically, Amazon is a saint now.
The general problem is that everyone thinks that the ban button and "cancellation" fixes problems. It doesn't. What transpired with these platforms is purely based on political interest and nothing else. This political interest can and will change with next elections and the platforms will follow suit - are you OK with that?
The way i personally see it from afar, no side was innocent and definitely no one scored a win. But social networks messed up the most and will pay the most. Even European leaders expressed more concern with the powers and lack of control over social networks than with a bunch of whatever-you-call-them that took advantage of the laughably weak security force of Capitol (especially considering the event of the day).
I guess ultimately his videos are still there, and that's the real point of decentralization. But perhaps the main issue isn't so much about using Youtube/Twitter, but exclusively using them. I can understand "going where the people are" to bring a message, but don't only post there.
And if the latter, only losing politicians, or politicians still actively running for office?
Not having access to social networks would obviously be a huge disadvantage for a candidate. Arguably this precedent could in practice give the big tech co's something like a soft-veto on any political candidate.
It's not just that YouTube and Twitter think Trump is mean.
Personally I doubt it; I think in things like this, the slopes really are slippery.
Time will tell.
It's interesting to consider the perspective of Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny:
> We have seen many examples in Russian and China of private companies becoming the state's best friends and the enablers when it comes to censorship.
(He was talking about the Twitter ban specifically there, but it holds as a general principle.)