[flagged]
Authoritarian is when a sitting president CANNOT be banned, just because he is the presidennt.
I have nothing backwards and your wordplay is overly simplistic and wrong, to be polite about it.
If people disagree with Twitter they can leave the platform for another one or shareholders can act and have the firm change course. Trump still daily says whatever he wants on other platforms without the government censoring him.
Right here, this ends our discussion.
But also the partisan support for the ban, on partisan grounds, from Congress and the government agency integrated Media. Which is government interference with the ability to speak via that channel.
All of this "should be able to do what they want" is a nonexistent reality. It's fantasy.
The Terms of Service, itself, was crafted under agency pressure. Though, this is a minor detail compared to the more ham fisted integration.
You can be willfully or otherwise oblivious. However, no one owes that type of conversation much engagement. It's your job to become aware of the facts and broken norms surrounding the event if you want to have further discussion.
How about Twitter having a preexisting, clear Terms of Service that ALL users must abide by?
Don't forget that Twitter was at the time and remains a private venue that was not and is not a government run organization or application. The Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that private businesses have the right to refuse service to whomever they wish for whatever reason. The 1st amendment covers what one can say in public, but explicitly does not cover private repercussions for said speech, ONLY government repercussions. Twitter is not public, and was not public. Private businesses and entities can and do control speech on their platforms and premises all the time, and have numerous laws protecting their right to do so.
How about this one:
User: Hi, I'd like to sign up for an account.
Twitter: Sure, you're able to do so. Here are the rules we've established for our platform. By signing up, you're agreeing to our rules.
User: OK, I agree. deliberately breaks rules
Twitter: You can't do that. We are warning you. This is a private business, and you agreed to our terms. Your actions are in violation of the terms you agreed to.
User: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah muh free speech deliberately breaks rules again
Twitter: We're not joking. You can't post that sort of thing. It's against our rules. Do it one more time and we will be forced to ban you.
User: deliberately breaks rules again
Twitter: we are fully within our rights to ban you, and we're doing so.
User: waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah political persecution waaaaaaaaaaaaaah I'm going to sue you!
It has nothing to do with who the user is or was. Private businesses have full legal right to exercise control over their platforms. You break the rules, you are banned, simple as that.
Everyone citing "Freedom" here is ignorant of the facts and are going to be unhappy and surprised with how this matter is eventually settled by investigative bodies and courts.
Your suggestion that the almost the entire media is controlled by the Democratic party or all very favourable to them is also very conspiratorial - it's extremely easy to find a massive amount of media that is comically critical of both parties at all times regardless of which one is in power at the time. Contrast this with actual authoritarian governments like China and Russia.
Please. Give us all a break. There's nothing conspiratorial about noting that the Media favors the Democratic Party. You're gaslighting, and moreover your effort is pointless. Fully half of the electorate knows this to be true, and that isn't going to change in our lifetime. They know it to be true because it has had terrible consequences.
It was the Media that both lent the political cover required for the Russiagate fiasco to continue for four years, effectively hamstringing an entire administration in spite of it going nowhere.
In addition, the entire nation witnesses, over and over again, that the media incites riots or demands prosecution of riots at their singular Will. Against the Will of Police. Against the Will of local governments and citizens. The Media incited and covered for nine months of domestic terrorist riots prior to the 2020 election, leading to the murder of almost thirty people. Essentially directing and covering for brownshirt terrorists for nine months before an election. The entire nation was terrorized for that extended period. To cover it up, they then demanded the strictest prosecutions of mimic rioters that were misbehaving for three hours, or even just trespassing with what they thought was tacit permission. The difference between the 9 month and 3 hour rioters? Media narrative and demands.
You can test out your spine on this matter, however ridiculous, but don't think that you'll get away with such assertions in this conversation.
Trump in particular was limit testing constantly, and eventually it became clear that he crossed too many lines. We also have the benefit of being able to look back and see that all of his attempts at proving the elections were rigged have failed in the courts.
But yes, government representatives are different than the rest of us as they are the public voices of their constituents. Silencing them is the same as silencing their mass of voters. Which, again, is deeply antidemocratic.
Today, too many people believe in the unresolvable paradox that democracy only exists when their views are spoken to and when they win. Continuing with the paradox: at the same time, they believe that those who are too much of a "threat to democracy" to speak (or win) have to keep believing in the system or democracy is also at risk.
Censorship "in defense of democracy" has rendered the national discussion to be ridiculous, on its face.
It is almost essential for the protection of free speech that private entities can and do ban people for content that isn't illegal.
When you've only got two categories of speech, (1) legal speech that is allowed everywhere and (2) illegal speech that is banned everywhere, there is going to be a lot of pressure by the majority to expand #2 to cover speech that is currently not illegal but that the majority things is repugnant.
By allowing private entities to ban speech that they don't want to have on their platform even if it is legal speech we have a third category between #1 and #2. That reduces the pressure to expand #2.
Trump, through policy on Truth Social, disagrees with this statement.
> Anything less promotes partisan abuse of censorship mechanisms, which harms democracy.
So just to be clear, you are claiming that Trump, through policy on Truth Social, is harming democracy with this policy.
> First amendment law provides an adequate guideline, as enforced everywhere else and as defined by the Supreme Court.
First Amendment does not apply to the individual.
> But yes, government representatives are different than the rest of us as they are the public voices of their constituents.
And in that regard, they use that voice to speak within the chambers of congress. That have no extra rights above and beyond that guarantee they can use my personal resources to spread their word.
> Silencing them
Trump was not silenced. The claim that he was silenced is 100% false, and a lie.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Canter_and_Martha_Sie...
But to engage in the nonexistent autistic premise, just because I guess. It's illegal to show pornography to users under 18 years of age. Pornography can be easily blocked on that premise, utilizing a blanket ban and no opt in. 90%+ of users would be fine with that.
That problem is easily solved by making more content illegal. ;p