Impeachment of Trump and Inauguration of Biden (#120)

[Roussette]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4130520-On-our-way-to-Bidens-Inauguration-Trump-119?watched=1&msgid=103593277#103593277

So fast moving. Here we go again....

With reference to the previous discussion about whether someone is "observing" or "participating".

Man who claims to be a journalist arrested after filming Capitol breach, cheering on rioters
thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/534362-man-who-claims-to-be-a-journalist-arrested-after-filming-capitol

@JamieLeesCurtains

Steve Bannon holds those deeply worrying beliefs about the looming apocalyptic war, does he not? (Or chooses to pretend to.)

Yep. Fully paid up nazi too.

Trump has always been considerable more dangerous under the influence of Bannon.

I thought Bannon had been consigned to the history books and irrelevance though.

Looks like thr DC attorney general’s office wants to talk to Jr about the missuse of inaugural funds.

@DuncinToffee

Looks like thr DC attorney general’s office wants to talk to Jr about the missuse of inaugural funds.

There's going to be the need for a Trump Prison Wing at this rate.

Poor Ivanka. No women allowed.

For now, Trump is undecided on whether he will pen a letter to Biden to leave in the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office. Some of his advisers have encouraged him to think about continuing the tradition. Early in his presidency, Trump liked to show off to visitors the letter he received from President Barack Obama, which included the now-prescient line: "Regardless of the push and pull of daily politics, it's up to us to leave those instruments of our democracy at least as strong as we found them."

Isn't it revealing that it is impossible to imagine Trump producing a letter that Biden would want to show around? Except maybe for laughs.

Maybe he can draw a picture

And Ivanka can always identify as male...

I’m not sure whether this has been posted yet, but I thought it was interesting:

Angela Merkel attacks Twitter over Trump ban

www.ft.com/content/6146b352-6b40-48ef-b10b-a34ad585b91a

Having read the article I’m inclined to agree with her.

Utterly it's been discussed extensively upthread. Also that link is to a paywalled article, so not much use.

@pointythings oh, that’s odd - I’m not an FT subscriber but could read the whole thing!

@Utterlybutterly8

I’m not sure whether this has been posted yet, but I thought it was interesting:

Angela Merkel attacks Twitter over Trump ban

www.ft.com/content/6146b352-6b40-48ef-b10b-a34ad585b91a

Having read the article I’m inclined to agree with her.

I don't have a problem with the Twitter ban.

Twitter have a problem with the Twitter ban, because - by their own admission - they gave Trump a walk around the metal detectors of content for so long that they need to explain what was so different between 5th January and 6th January. That's for them to explain in the future.

I can't read Merkels thoughts, but if you are opposed to the ability of private companies to determine what legal content they can choose to host from whom (let's not pretend they are "unregulated" please) then you are effectively suggesting the state mandates whether they should be forced to host content they may disagree with. Making them effectively a state broadcaster.

And frankly we have enough of those - certainly in the UK - to float a battleship.

Private companies acting within the law should able to pick and choose their customers - that is an absolutely fundamental freedom. Remove it and you're basically another step closer to communism. So a lot of Americans who think Twitter are wrong are basically either stupid or stupid. My money is on stupid.

(Showing my working is that the number of Americans who tell you they detest communism is about 80*%, whereas the number that say they disagree with Twitter is about 50%. So that's 50% of Americans who say they detest communism, while supporting it.

*All figures made up just like Fox ...)

Private companies acting within the law should able to pick and choose their customers - that is an absolutely fundamental freedom. Remove it and you're basically another step closer to communism. So a lot of Americans who think Twitter are wrong are basically either stupid or stupid. My money is on stupid.

Angela Merkel certainly isn’t stupid though!

I can't read Merkels thoughts

Her comments have been widely quoted by various different news outlets, so easily searchable for anyone who’s interested (and can’t read the FT article)

I missed some of the discussion on twitter and Merkel's comments. I think that private companies absolutely can decide who they do/don't host (and reap the consequences if they piss off their customers).

But also the state put them in the position of needing to be the abiter of what the President of the United States can say by turning a blind eye/actively encouraging Trump's tweets.

There’s an interesting take on it by Alexei Nalvany too:

twitter.com/navalny/status/1347969772177264644?s=21

His point 10 is particularly worrying:

10. This precedent will be exploited by the enemies of freedom of speech around the world. In Russia as well. Every time when they need to silence someone, they will say: 'this is just common practice, even Trump got blocked on Twitter'.

From what I've seen of Merkel's comments, her objections were not so much to the ban itself as to the ad hoc nature of it. She isn't advocating for a free speech free-for-all including permitting hate speech and the advocation of violence - she wants sensible, transparent international regulation. Which is fair enough, but very difficult to achieve.

Angela Merkel certainly isn’t stupid though!

And also not American ...

I am sure she has a much more rounded and nuanced view. However my point about a general principle stands. Private companies - especially in the UK and US - have certain rights. And one is to do business freely within the law. Which I seem to recall was very well established in the gay cake case.

If people believe that somehow Twitter (other shouty places are available) needs special regulation then it needs to be carefully laid out. Personally, I can't see it. As I said it's disingenuous to shout "unregulated" about Twitter as a dog-whistle to justify state interference. Twitter are regulated. As Sally Bercow and countless others have found out. Why Twitter are so regulated that the UK police can go around interrogating posters on their 100% legal tweets.

The real question is how much do Twitter do to police the content they host to ensure it complies with it's own guidelines ???????? And the answer to that is ^how much profit do we want to make ?"

Of course we could always make Twitter a public service - like gas, electricity and water, and require they have a universal service obligation. However there are plenty of people in the UK who haven't got mains gas, or electricity or water even with that regulation.

@pointythings

From what I've seen of Merkel's comments, her objections were not so much to the ban itself as to the ad hoc nature of it. She isn't advocating for a free speech free-for-all including permitting hate speech and the advocation of violence - she wants sensible, transparent international regulation. Which is fair enough, but very difficult to achieve.

Which was my point too ...

His point 10 is particularly worrying: [] 10. This precedent will be exploited by the enemies of freedom of speech around the world. In Russia as well. Every time when they need to silence someone, they will say: 'this is just common practice, even Trump got blocked on Twitter'.

Not really. Twitter blocked Trump. End of story. Nothing like Russia banning Trump on Twitter (for example).

Faber and Faber not publishing my magnum opus "Skidmarks of the stars - an illustrated discovery" is not censorship. Just a business decision. And possibly literary criticism.

Her Majesties Government (both of them) making the same decision is censorship.

However my point about a general principle stands. Private companies - especially in the UK and US - have certain rights. And one is to do business freely within the law.

I agree with the general principle, but social media is a relatively new type of private business that doesn’t fit neatly into the old model - hence the debate surrounding Trump’s ban and various other controversies.

www.euronews.com/2021/01/12/donald-trump-s-twitter-ban-is-problematic-says-angela-merkel

I don't think she says anything that hasn't been said on here

Or as pointythings says
From what I've seen of Merkel's comments, her objections were not so much to the ban itself as to the ad hoc nature of it. She isn't advocating for a free speech free-for-all including permitting hate speech and the advocation of violence - she wants sensible, transparent international regulation. Which is fair enough, but very difficult to achieve.

Private companies acting within the law should able to pick and choose their customers - that is an absolutely fundamental freedom.

The problem is that if the company is too big and there are no other choices, the state (and by extension the people) have delegated power to an unelected private company. Taken to extremes, that might not be communism, but it is an oligarchy.

People can express their wishes through the market, but only if market choice and competition reflects consumer demand.

@Utterlybutterly8

However my point about a general principle stands. Private companies - especially in the UK and US - have certain rights. And one is to do business freely within the law.

I agree with the general principle, but social media is a relatively new type of private business that doesn’t fit neatly into the old model - hence the debate surrounding Trump’s ban and various other controversies.

Ah well, maybe our governments could start doing something for the money they rob from us then ?

The "model" revolves entirely around marketing and advertising.

Also
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has defended his company's decision to ban President Donald Trump, while acknowledging that the move stems from its failure to promote "healthy" conversations and sets a "dangerous" precedent.

Full twitter thread
twitter.com/jack/status/1349510769268850690?s=21

I remember that it was mentioned in these threads how odd it was that Trump did manage not to get banned from Twitter, or why so many of his posts weren't deleted, for years, during his Presidency, even from his non-official non-WH account.
He's been violating Twitter rules for a long time. And that is more shocking than being banned now.

As I said it's disingenuous to shout "unregulated" about Twitter as a dog-whistle to justify state interference. Twitter are regulated. As Sally Bercow and countless others have found out. Why Twitter are so regulated that the UK police can go around interrogating posters on their 100% legal tweets.

I think one of the problems is that very large companies can dangle carrots in front of politicians - "please don't ask how much tax we pay - we will open a headquarters in your constituency!".

He's been violating Twitter rules for a long time. And that is more shocking than being banned now.

Agree - Jack Dorsey isn't some white knight riding in to save the people - he has been stoking the fires just as much as Fox News.