Purges on social media sites

quadrapiper

Clanker
I heard a mention on R4 that FB was being blamed for the election of Trump - bad thing. IIRC BamBam was praised for using social media to get elected - good thing.
The distinction between those two cases, I think, is in the nature of the support. Noting that you'll always get supporters of a campaign posting and otherwise supporting a candidate, I think the difference is that Obama's campaign, and its (formally or functionally) associated supporters ran a basically above-board, clean, and identifiable effort to get him elected, where the Trump-supporting online presence, official and otherwise, was markedly obnoxious in ways that should have led to a more enthusiastic wielding of the FB and Twitter banhammer.
 
Some bitchy ****** purged me for a while... I just built couple of new guns with my extra 30 minutes a day.
 
The distinction between those two cases, I think, is in the nature of the support. Noting that you'll always get supporters of a campaign posting and otherwise supporting a candidate, I think the difference is that Obama's campaign, and its (formally or functionally) associated supporters ran a basically above-board, clean, and identifiable effort to get him elected, where the Trump-supporting online presence, official and otherwise, was markedly obnoxious in ways that should have led to a more enthusiastic wielding of the FB and Twitter banhammer.
Why, it's almost as if President Trump was carried to victory on the shoulders of "a basket of deplorables".
 
Last edited:
The distinction between those two cases, I think, is in the nature of the support. Noting that you'll always get supporters of a campaign posting and otherwise supporting a candidate, I think the difference is that Obama's campaign, and its (formally or functionally) associated supporters ran a basically above-board, clean, and identifiable effort to get him elected, where the Trump-supporting online presence, official and otherwise, was markedly obnoxious in ways that should have led to a more enthusiastic wielding of the FB and Twitter banhammer.
That might be a case of rose tinted glasses. It is true that Obama ran a very different campaign to first get elected, that was a key selling point for him, however when he ran for re-election he was all up for sticking the knife in.
 

Bob65

War Hero
I think the difference is that Obama's campaign, and its (formally or functionally) associated supporters ran a basically above-board, clean, and identifiable effort to get him elected


Above-board in the sense that their Chief Operating Officer was an active campaigner and fundraiser for him and for Hillary. Of course she's entitled to her opinions, but there's no question over who Facebook "wanted" to win, in 2012 or 2016.
 
I can, because am not female
And because I returned from Afghanstan intact
There's no I in team, but there is in Afghanistan. Remind me which Herrick you were on and where you served. It might surprise you, but some of the people on this site have served in Afghanistan, often more than once.
 
It is most definitely a free speech issue - platforms like Facebook and YouTube are shielded from legal action in return for allowing free speech (within their stated T&Cs) and operating in an impartial and apolitical way that DOES NOT reflect any political views held by the owners. Its that simple - if they want x they must do y. If they want to reflect the politics of their owners then then they lose their legal protection and face the same consequences as somewhere like ARRSE does for any libellous or slanderous content which they host. The big SM platforms are milking x but blatently refusing to do y.
What makes Arrse and Facebook/YouTube different about having Terms & Conditions?

Do you really believe that Arrse is different with regard to libel/slander - just because of T&Cs?
 
There is also an important link between media control and the rise of the XRW. Both sides know that if you want to win you need to control the message.
I don't think there is a rise of the XRW, what you're maybe seeing is an understandable move to the right by the "silent majority" who are sick to the back teeth of having the XLW agenda howled at them day and night. Case in point, the countryside is now apparently racist, f**k off!
 

Daxx

MIA
Book Reviewer
This is a weird thread. I might stay.

ENTERTAIN ME.
 

It's a long read but it is by no means as black-and-white as you think it is.
To repeat. There is no requirement in any legislation that states that a privately owned and run website has to allow free speech. They can publish what they wish and delete what they wish. It really is that simple.
In addition you’ve quoted legislation of no relevance to the UK.
 

Bob65

War Hero
To repeat. There is no requirement in any legislation that states that a privately owned and run website has to allow free speech. They can publish what they wish and delete what they wish. It really is that simple.
In addition you’ve quoted legislation of no relevance to the UK.
I quoted it as it's the law where Facebook, Twitter and so on are domiciled. The influence of the UK on this is irrelevant - we can't even manage to tax them.
 

Latest Threads

Top