Trump versus Facebook

I think that Facebook has a right to choose who uses their platform.

The President can grizzle about who Facebook bans aas much as he likes, but hew shouldn’t be able to dictate to Facebook who they should allow to user their media platform.

Leave a comment

39 Comments

  1. Pink David

     /  5th May 2019

    The bit I find most amusing about this is the listing of Louis Farrakhan as ‘Far Right’.

    He’s been calling Jews cockroaches for decades, what changed now for Facebook to ban him?

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  5th May 2019

      Louis Farrakhan :hate speech, surely you can see this. Just because the news story or Trump says ‘far right’ doesnt mean they have got the nomenclature right

      Edgeler has got the first amendment twisted- it only applies the government shutting people up not Facebook shutting them up.
      There is no suggestion that it ‘applies to Facebook’ in the context he uses it. It never does. I often find he ‘muddies the waters ‘ like this.

      Reply
      • Pink David

         /  5th May 2019

        “Louis Farrakhan :hate speech”

        This has been Farrakhan’s game for decades. He has had a Facebook page for years. What changed?

        ” Just because the news story or Trump says ‘far right’ doesnt mean they have got the nomenclature right”

        Shocked I am. Fake News!

        Just for fun, can you point exactly where Trump called Farrakhan ‘Far Right’?

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  5th May 2019

          Its in the post under CNN.com- ” Trump tweets support for far right figures banned by facebook”. Thats why I said -‘news story or Trump doesnt mean they have the nomenclature right’

          Reply
    • Gezza

       /  5th May 2019

      Reply
      • The Consultant

         /  6th May 2019

        He probably just refuses to delete the tweet where he called for the hanging of his political opponents.

        Uh huh. Did anybody check out what Woods actually said?

        “If you try to kill the King, you best not miss’ #HangThemAll”

        I guess that last bit is “scary” and “incitement”, although in connection with a famous paraphrased quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson I would have thought it would be taken as hyperbole. Not if you’re “Parker Malloy” though.

        BTW – Twitter still has the Hamas account up and running. Here’s a cartoon from it so let’s test Pete George’s limits on “hate”, since we already know where the Twitter hypocrites stand…

        Reply
  2. Griff.

     /  5th May 2019

    Reply
    • Pink David

       /  5th May 2019

      I’m wondering how this has anything to do with the issue being discussed? It’s not the audience, the ‘people listening’, showing these people the door at all. It’s an editorial decision being made by a handful of people who control the site.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  5th May 2019

        The point is that they who control the site ARE some of the people listening – & they run the site, so they can show someone the door on that site.

        Reply
        • Pink David

           /  5th May 2019

          “point is that they who control the site ARE some of the people listening”

          They are not the audience now are they?

          “they run the site, so they can show someone the door on that site.”

          Yes. this is actually the point. But it’s also perfectly fair to question how they are running it and what basis they make these choices on. Which is why that cartoon is really rather lame.

          That becomes even more of an important point when it comes to something as ubiquitous as Twitter or Facebook. An example is the current UK EU elections, there are plenty of calls from one side to ban from Twitter their opponents.

          There is no clear answer here, and I think this is really just a game for Facebook etc. to get government to release them from the hole they have dug for themselves.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  5th May 2019

            If they weren’t an audience they wouldn’t know what to ban.

            They’re just not the wider audience some shitbags try to reach & influence.

            Twitter, itself, to me has turned into the most vacuuous jungle of brain farts, bs, & utter shite the world has probably ever seen. No wonder Trump likes it.

            One thing I do like about it is that Twitter feeds & comments loading crash both my browsers on my poor weeny old iPad2, so if I’m on that, I don’t even bother to check tweets out.

            Facebook’s a private company. They have had an onslaught against them for screeining hate material & are pulling it. That’s their prerogative. If you don’t like it, don’t use it.

            Can’t you just find some other competitor platform that screens that sort of shite if you want to see it?

            If Trumpistanados want to spit dummy & abandon fb, there’s nothing stopping them getting the Russians or Conservative businessmen or the NRA or someone to fund a start-up is there?

            Trump’s being a whiny bloody snowflake. Get the Saudis to fund a competitor or the Execs who’ve bought more shares in their companie to do it, or something.

            And for god’s sake, stop whining, Pinky.

            Reply
            • Pink David

               /  5th May 2019

              “If they weren’t an audience they wouldn’t know what to ban.”

              Is an editor of a newspaper t’he audience’?

              ‘And for god’s sake, stop whining, Pinky.”

              I think there is an important issue here. If you wish to demean that with a ‘stop whining’ comment, that just tells me your part of the problem.

            • Gezza

               /  5th May 2019

              Don’t newspaper owners & editors exercise control of content published in their papers, though? Don’t they therefore determine what the paper’s audience sees? And doesn’t? Should they so choose? Does Fox News & CNN?

              If you wish to demean that with a ‘stop whining’ comment, that just tells me your part of the problem.
              I don’t even like Facebook. I think it’s become a totally untrustworthy, rubbished-app-filled monstrosity. If it got stripped back down to its original concept I’d like it more.

              I don’t really see a problem with what it’s doing. The only problem I have now is you’re not only whining about facebook, you’ve started whining about me.

              I’m pulling ya leg, Pinky. It’s a wind up.

            • duperez

               /  5th May 2019

              It’s a bit of a pity that Donald Trump’s otherwise engaged. If he weren’t a tad occupied he could put his vast entrepreneurial expertise and vast wealth to work and create his own forum where people could have a platform.

      • Duker

         /  5th May 2019

        The cartoon covers multiple ‘communities’, facebook is just one.
        Newspapers for years edited letters or banned certain writers, talkback does the same to its callers- prescreening them for cranks , obnoxious types and those with nothing worthwhile to say ( the ranters). Its always a few making the decisions

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  5th May 2019

          Newspapers etc have to, of course, for reasons of space if nothing else.

          They also don’t want monomaniac bores clogging the letters pages and turning readers off.

          Reply
      • Griff.

         /  5th May 2019

        Umm Pinky Dave
        It says.
        “or host you while you share it ”
        FB is not required to host political ideas it finds distasteful.
        Is your rwnj hurts stopping you from understanding what you read ?
        What is it with Daves anyway ?
        We have about four Daves on here all of whom lean towards the right wing gibbering end of the spectrum.

        Reply
    • Sunny

       /  5th May 2019

      It all comes down to if you think Facebook/twitter is a publisher. Is Facebook an editor selecting your articles for publication. Or is Facebook more like telecom or NZ post or the town square simply providing the services to deliver your communications to friends, family and public that you choose. The monopolistic scale of Facebook means that banning someone significantly impacts their right to a public voice in their communities.
      Offensive comments or ignorant opinions should be dealt with by debate .

      Reply
    • Sean

       /  6th May 2019

      So then free speech, Not in your theoretical version but according to technical reality of social media, can be censored by socially degenerate leftist billionaires with a penchant for perverting law and social custom and we are left without legal recourse???
      In other words, not only do corporations (fake people) have constitutionally protected rights but (real people) do not because vain philosophers and legal and political scholars and commentators who suck the fat tits of those same corporate elites say so. Now I m not arguing the letter of the law, after all King George had a legal right to undermine His kingdom in North America, and so it go. It’s not wise to silence a majority! This doesn’t end well for anyone, every garment rolled in blood, trees of liberty being watered from time to time and all that junk! decision time))) chose your move wisely, there may be more at stake than you envision.

      Reply
  3. Gezza

     /  5th May 2019

    Who IS James Woods? 😳

    Reply
    • MaureenW

       /  5th May 2019

      James Wood is an actor – quite a good one. He’s a conservative voice and supporter of the current administration.
      I’ve seen a few of his tweets, none of which I’d class as being rude or obnoxious.

      Reply
      • David

         /  5th May 2019

        Some of his tweets are hilarious

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  5th May 2019

          Did Trump have another brain fart? Or is somebody feeding him stuff that they know will set him off like a firecracker without checking the situation out first, or what?

          Reply
      • Patzcuaro

         /  5th May 2019

        Is he out of work, he seems to have plenty of time for social media.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  5th May 2019

          You would think the same about Trump -is he out of work , plenty of time for social media.
          Better said is that Trump is president but doesnt do much work for that job, and plenty of time for golf too

          Reply
          • Pink David

             /  5th May 2019

            “Better said is that Trump is president but doesnt do much work for that job, and plenty of time for golf too”

            I’m curious, if a post on Twitter is not part of the job of President, what exactly should he do during the day?

            Reply
        • Pink David

           /  5th May 2019

          ‘Is he out of work,’

          The other phrase for this is ‘very wealthy’.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  5th May 2019

            Out of work actors are ‘resting’. This word is always used of them, they are supposedly resting between one play and the next.

            Reply
      • Blazer

         /  6th May 2019

        don’t tell me ..you’d like to ‘do’ him too.

        Reply
  4. John Ansell is another one complaining about the banning of Alex Jones. In 2005 ad man Ansell was at the heart of National’s general election campaign, which almost brought Don Brash to power. Today Ansell’s promoting neo-Nazi Max Igan’s claim that the Christchurch terror attacks were a false flag operation: https://www.facebook.com/john.ansell.33/posts/10157568068474883 Was he always this unhinged, or have things gotten worse?

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  5th May 2019

      The National ads were quite tame, Iwi/Kiwi PPTA/ABC and so on. Labour schools PPTA, National ABC.

      He seems to have become unhinged after that; ACT got rid of him after he made some ads that he must have known would never be acceptable and that they wouldn’f consider using. Nobody would. When they realised his own views, that was it as far as I remember. Don’t call us, we’ll call you.

      Reply
  5. Alan Wilkinson

     /  5th May 2019

    The issue with FB is whether it ranks as a monopoly and requires regulation. Similarly Google and Twitter. The best solution is competition.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  5th May 2019

      Its dominant position – it isnt a monoply- may require regulation of its commercial activities , not who it lets use its platform.

      Reply
    • Pink David

       /  5th May 2019

      “The issue with FB is whether it ranks as a monopoly and requires regulation. ”

      Facebook actually wants to be regulated, this is part of the game to get there.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  5th May 2019

        I occasionally use Messenger.

        My experience with Neighbourly has made me very wary of all such online contact organisations.

        Reply
      • Duker

         /  5th May 2019

        FB wants to be regulated? Those who know Zuckerberg say he doesn’t operate like that

        Reply
  6. Sean

     /  6th May 2019

    So free speech protects the citizens from government censorship , great.
    Who protects the people from censorship by power monetarily powerful elites? The free market, which is to say those same rich elites! This is obviously asinine, because we’ve already figured out that free markets don’t work all that well!

    Reply
  7. The Consultant

     /  6th May 2019

    Ah – and this was of course only the beginning. Let’s see what the…

    It’s just that the people listening think you’re an asshole…
    …. and they’re showing you the door

    .. crowd think of the following. Google has decided to censor the Claremont Institute who are purveyors of thoughtful right-wing analysis and hardly “extremist”. Claremont has published the following news:

    The Claremont Institute has launched a campaign to engage our fellow citizens in discussion and debate about what it means to be an American.

    As part of that effort, we have begun to point out the increasingly existential danger of identity politics and political correctness to our republic. As if to prove our point, Google has judged our argument as wrongthink that should be forbidden.

    They are now punishing us for our political thought by refusing to let us advertise to our own readers.

    We wanted to show adverts for our May 11 40th Anniversary Gala, at which we’re honoring Sec. of State Mike Pompeo, to readers of our own online publication, American Mind.

    But Google refuses to allow us to do so. (If you’re interested, buy tickets here: claremont.org/gala—Monday is the deadline!)

    Google had a look at my essay launching our new campaign for a unifying Americanism, “Defend America—Defeat Multiculturalism,” decided it in violation of their policy on “race and ethnicity in personalized advertising,” and shut down our advert efforts to American Mind readers.

    We weren’t “advertising” anything in the essay, of course, but the relevant section of their policy lists as examples of violations: “racially or ethnically oriented publications, racially or ethnically oriented universities, racial or ethnic dating.”

    Somebody must have decided we were offering “racially or ethnically oriented pubs.” This is news to us. @ClaremontInst has spent 40 yrs teaching all who are willing to listen that the meaning of the proposition that all humans are created equal is America’s central principle.

    Fine with me. Time for some Teddy Roosevelt style crackdowns on monopolies. Google better hope it hasn’t totally pissed off the Left and the Democrats too.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s