6 ms·

You have it the other way around. Authoritarian is when a sitting president CANNOT be banned, just because he is the presidennt.

mrangle 2y ago
When a sitting President is banned for political speech and at the behest of partisan narrative, that's anti-democratic authoritarianism. Sorry, "anti-authoritarianism" doesn't mean that unelected people with the power to ban have equal democratic mandate with an elected president. In terms of possessing a democratically acceptable ability to restrict a communication channel widely treated as The Commons. Those who banned him were given full political cover, if not a mandate, by POTUS's political opponents and an unelected hostile media. Without which there would have been too much "norm" respecting political pressure to accomplish. I have nothing backwards and your wordplay is overly simplistic and wrong, to be polite about it.
- coolbreezetft24 2y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by banned or censorship, but Twitter isn't the government and I'm not sure how this example is "anti-democratic authoritarianism". Seems like they should be allowed to ban people from their platform who violate the terms of service. There are tons of platform/content providers that don't allow specific types of content even though it is legal. 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.
  - mrangle 2y ago
    What I mean is the undeniable integration of government agencies with Twitter Trust and Safety, at the time. 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.
    - frumper 2y ago
      Trump was the head of the government agencies at the time he was banned from Twitter. You're going to have to go down some strange rabbit holes to find the logic to work that out. It's perfectly reasonable that the people running Twitter didn't agree with Trump's politics and picked a reason to ban him.
      - robador 2y ago
        And as a private company they had the right to do so. Freedom!
      - NickC25 2y ago
        Strange rabbit holes? 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.

mrangle 2y ago

When a sitting President is banned for political speech and at the behest of partisan narrative, that's anti-democratic authoritarianism. Sorry, "anti-authoritarianism" doesn't mean that unelected people with the power to ban have equal democratic mandate with an elected president. In terms of possessing a democratically acceptable ability to restrict a communication channel widely treated as The Commons. Those who banned him were given full political cover, if not a mandate, by POTUS's political opponents and an unelected hostile media. Without which there would have been too much "norm" respecting political pressure to accomplish. I have nothing backwards and your wordplay is overly simplistic and wrong, to be polite about it.

coolbreezetft24 2y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by banned or censorship, but Twitter isn't the government and I'm not sure how this example is "anti-democratic authoritarianism". Seems like they should be allowed to ban people from their platform who violate the terms of service. There are tons of platform/content providers that don't allow specific types of content even though it is legal. 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.
- mrangle 2y ago
  What I mean is the undeniable integration of government agencies with Twitter Trust and Safety, at the time. 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.
  - frumper 2y ago
    Trump was the head of the government agencies at the time he was banned from Twitter. You're going to have to go down some strange rabbit holes to find the logic to work that out. It's perfectly reasonable that the people running Twitter didn't agree with Trump's politics and picked a reason to ban him.
    - robador 2y ago
      And as a private company they had the right to do so. Freedom!
    - NickC25 2y ago
      Strange rabbit holes? 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.