Angela Merkel attacks Twitter over Trump ban

[mrjurrs]

No, she sees the facts quite right. She sees your constitution as problematic, it allows corporational tyranny. She is right with that.

How about this, when your Constitution gets to be 100 years old, Germany can begin to lecture America about our Constitution. Until yours survives a civil war, I'll take ours.

 

[joko104]

Think of Trump as a gay wedding cake Twitter doesn’t want to bake or endorse

No, think of Tweeter banning advertising selling gay wedding cakes after banning all gays as a matter of their corporate decision - while allowing messages calling for all gays and bakers who will sell to gays to be DOXed, stalked, harassed, banned from all social media, banned from political office and should be fired, plus organizing anti-gay protests via Twitter.

Think of you as someone who posts a picture of a wedding cake for gay couple - and Twitter bans because a 23 year old computer science grad in India doesn't like gays - or a computer algorithm picked up a word you used or quoted for which you are banned from Twitter, Facebook and Youtube - as is everyone you have been looking at or communicating with - all decided by computer algorithms on word choice. For example you condemn rightwing "terrorism" - and because you used the word 9 times you are banned from ever again communicating online with 90% of people in the world. It's not like they need you for any reason.

 

[joko104]

Don't break the rules and your account won't be cancelled.

The new Democrat slogan: "Submit to the authority of the white male mega rich plutocrats!"

 

[joko104]

This thread is another example of how life long Republicans have flushed their principles and values down the toilet, because they love Trump.

This thread demonstrates both how many life long Democrats truly submit and demand submission to the authority of the richest white people on earth and join with the rich male mega billionaires in pure hatred of free speech and free exchange of ideas. Rather, they demand everyone submit to the will and being controlled by white male billionaires. This includes that women and Black people must say - and only say - what white male billionaires allow and nothing else.

The Democratic Party has totally reverted to demanding rich white men control everything just like before the civil war. The Democratic Party also loves cheap slave labor products more than ever - frustrated that billionaire white men can only do this in foreign countries now.

Probably what the Democratic Party most loves about Big Tech companies is how they don't hire blacks and Latinos - other than to clean their toilets, wax the floor and mow the grass. They will explain how corporations can hire or not hire anyone they want to based upon any reason including race - just like they can ban anyone for any reason including race, sex, ethnicity or any other reasons because corporations can do anything they want. All they have to do is buy the ability to be able to engage in any discrimination they care to.

What most matters to the Democratic Party is that they are rich, white and male - and the Democratic Party has always insisted rich white men should run and control everything.

 

[Logophile]

Funny. So you’re telling me I can find a restaurant that doesn’t enforce the no shirt no shoes no service rule, because eating without my shirt and shoes in a public restaurant is my right and the restaurant industry is constitutionally prevented from 100% enforcing any rules upon how the people eat?

Again, you're trying to compare apples and oranges. Any restaurant is a small entity. You can pick and choose where you eat. On the beach, there's all kinds of fooderies where shirtless, shoeless people have a beer and a meal, if they so choose. But if there were only two or three restaurants in the entire world and they told you that you couldn't eat at any of them because you looked like you might be overweight and therefore, a liability risk, that's when the government needs to play the monopoly card. Thanks!!

 

[lwf]

The new Democrat slogan: "Submit to the authority of the white male mega rich plutocrats!"

New Republican slogan: "I am entitled to your privately run enterprise."

 

[joko104]

But it is illegal per se to fly them in political speeches or protests. So no, exceptions for movies do not change my point. Americans will argue that powerful companies are also the result of democratic decisions in the market.

Anyway, I just describe the difference between the German and the American model, and I do believe that the US model provides perhaps the most secure free speech in the world. But I am okay with the idea that we may have to reexamine certain interpretations of the 1A if we see failures of the current system to spread speech that incites violence.

No, but you do describe the Democratic Party's view that corporate monopolies should have complete regulatory authoritarian power to prohibit free speech, not the government. In the EU, the government decides what speech is dangerous, not rich white male mega billionaires as most Democrats demand for the USA.

 

[joko104]

Funny. So you’re telling me I can find a restaurant that doesn’t enforce the no shirt no shoes no service rule, because eating without my shirt and shoes in a public restaurant is my right and the restaurant industry is constitutionally prevented from 100% enforcing any rules upon how the people eat?

You might be right that it would be too dangerous for you to be able to say or read anything that doesn't have rich white male mega billionaires Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg permission. Maybe it is best for you and everyone if they control what you may say, read and see for your own good. You do admit they are vastly wiser about what you should say and read so should exercise total control over this for you. Only you know you best. Maybe you do need to be entirely controlled for everything you may and may not say or read for the protection of everyone and to protect you from yourself.

Tell us more about yourself so we know why freedom of speech, expression and thought is TOO dangerous to allow you to have without the supervisory control of Dorsey and Zuckerberg. Maybe I'll agree with you that you are truly as potentially dangerous as you claim you are.

 

[Chagos]

So, it was illegal to print more books.

In the sense that it is also illegal to download music today without the consent of whoever holds the right to it, yes.

The publishing company holding the rights to "Mein Kampf" was forbidden by the Allies in 1945 and the rights to the book passed on to the federal state of Bavaria 7 years later. On ther powe of holding those rights, Bavaria refused to allow additional printing and distribution of the same.

Nothing to do with Berlin or (prior to that) Bonn.

Such rights (by German law) expire 70 years after the death of the (any) author, which explains the "unlock" now.

And I judge by your silence that it is also illegal to fly nazi symbols.

Unrelated to the issue of publishing rights above, but yes.

When flown In pursuit of political goals or in venues of such nature (any rallyes obviously covered by both instances).

I understand the German position. Instead of having tweeter making decisions to deplatfom people who promote problematic speech (according to tweeter's evaluation), the government should set the rules to define what type of speech is considered dangerous or not. But this rationale does not change the fact that the government in Germany wants to regulate the speech.

The result you outline being, of course, a by-product of the intent at the bottom of the criticism voiced (by Merkel), which, more pertinently, addresses that Twitter (in this case) makes decisions by its own laws that are intransparent to just about anyone else. In that process showing to be uncaring about the laws of the country and heaving itself outside of those.

In the end, the US First Amendment model provides a stronger protection of the speech from the government. The German model provides a stronger protection of the speech from corporate decisions.

I'll readily go along with that in the manner that you state it, yet beyond it the issue is more complex.

In fact the German government holds that neither regulation nor protection of speech should be left to (any) corporate decision.

 

[joko104]

New Republican slogan: "I am entitled to your privately run enterprise."

Never ever pretend to be a liberal in any sense again. Liberals NEVER worshipped corporations.

Keep going and state you demand that the EPA, OSHA, FDA, USDA, Dept of Agriculture and EEOC all should be eliminated because of your belief that white male billionaires have a right to do anything they want. The government has no power or right whatsoever over "privately run enterprise." That is your claim, isn't it?

 

[lwf]

Never ever pretend to be a liberal in any sense again. Liberals NEVER worshipped corporations.

Keep going and state you demand that the EPA, OSHA, FDA, USDA, Dept of Agriculture and EEOC all should be eliminated because of your belief that white male billionaires have a right to do anything they want. The government has no power or right whatsoever over "privately run enterprise." That is your claim, isn't it?

So you are now saying that liberals do not worship corporations? I'm confused. Is it liberals or conservative that worship corporations? And is it liberals or conservatives who are anti-plutocrat?

Or do liberals simply do both? If it's bad, then it's liberal, regardless of the context or any contradictions?

 

[joko104]

Prior to WW2, the world had fragmented into very different authoritarian governments - nearly all establishing authoritarian control over all information and press/news outlets.

Germany went the route of corporate-fascist totalitarian authoritarianism and elimination of free speech.
Russia went the route of communist totalitarian authoritarianism and elimination of free speech.
Japan went the route of a militaristic monarchy totalitarianism authoritarianism and elimination of free speech.
Europe and the USA went the route of plutocratic capitalistic democracy of the plutocrats mixed with socialism without restraint on free speech.

The Democratic Party's progressives demand the way Germany went in the 1930s - and now is the antithesis of liberalism. Rich white men now are their secular authoritarians they insist may and should control and restrain all free speech contrary to the permission of the richest white men in the history of earth - even far more than the richest slave owning plantation owners who in that era were the richest white men in America - and of course Democrats.

The Democratic Party always reverts to rich white men should control everyone and everything by virtue of their wealth. Most Democrats on this forum furiously demand that the richest white men on earth to regulate, police and restrain free speech and exchange of ideals to the point of controlling who may be publicly speak at all.

 

[Jonsa]

So you're advocating to get rid of the first amendment?

not even remotely. I see you do not have an understanding of the first amendment nor the difference between a government and a corporation.

 

[Jonsa]

If Twitter didnt want to protect peoples 1st amendment rights it should'nt have opened up a platform to the public.

specious nonsense. your knowledge appears rather superficial at best. It appears you don't even know that Twitters Terms of Service is a contract that by entering into the user (twitter product) AGREES to adhere to those terms. Failure to do so has consequences spelled out in that contract.

Now, please explain this first amendment issue in this context, because there isn't one.

 

[chuckiechan]

In America, Twitter banned Trump.

In America, he first amendment right to free speech only applies to government, aka, state actors. Twitter banning Trump has absolutely nothing to do with "the fundamental right to free speech" because twitter is not a state actor.

Therefore, Twitter did not violate the fundamental right to free speech by banning Trump, and nothing about the way Germany likes to do things changes that.

Today, Yes.

 

[Kushinator]

Funny. So you’re telling me I can find a restaurant that doesn’t enforce the no shirt no shoes no service rule, because eating without my shirt and shoes in a public restaurant is my right and the restaurant industry is constitutionally prevented from 100% enforcing any rules upon how the people eat?

Most municipalities prevent staff from being topless when they are making and serving food/drinks. The rules apply to guests as well if proper distance between patrons cannot be maintained.

 

[Rostocker]

I have no problem with twitters ban. Trump broke some of twitters rules he agreed to when he signed up. All this other stuff is irrelevant. You try to break some of DP's rules and see what happens to you. Suspended or banned. Twitter is a private company, hence they can set their own rules and govern over their own platform basically as they see fit. Twitter isn't a government controlled entity. Hence the 1st amendment doesn't apply to a private enterprise.

If Trump wants to communicate with the public, like every other president before him, he can hold a press conference and it will be broadcast live. Trump's problem with that is there will be followup questions which he can't control. On twitter he could control everything he said with no questions asked. I just don't see this as a 1st amendment or free speech issue. There were rules Trump and everyone else on twitter that they had to follow. Break them, much like here on DP, you get banned.

In Germany we dont allow private companies to dictate us. Twitter is forced here to follow our laws.

 

[Rostocker]

The courts have sided with businesses ability to conduct business on their own behalf, just so long as it is doing so legally. In the U.S., we cannot create laws (realistically, as the fire in a crowded building example holds) to change the legality of business, on the basis of speech, to suit a political end.

As stated by another poster, under the guise of our constitution, we have not had the misfortune to fall under prey of dictatorships.

You fall under one right now, the tyranny of a few big tech corporations

 

[Rostocker]

How about this, when your Constitution gets to be 100 years old, Germany can begin to lecture America about our Constitution. Until yours survives a civil war, I'll take ours.

Freedom of,speech. We can lecture you any day

 

[mrjurrs]

Freedom of,speech. We can lecture you any day

There has been no restriction of anyone's free speech. In America, we are protected from the government infringing on our freedoms. We have however, bent over to allow corporations to pretty much do as they please.

 

[Chagos]

There has been no restriction of anyone's free speech. In America, we are protected from the government infringing on our freedoms. We have however, bent over to allow corporations to pretty much do as they please.

And there you have it

 

[Callen]

I think what is abundantly clear is that the entire issue of internet content and social media needs to be looked at closely and laws developed that ensure fair and open access while not tolerating inciteful , hateful language

 

[Kushinator]

You fall under one right now, the tyranny of a few big tech corporations

Big tech is right to proceed with caution. Calling their adherence to US law tyranny is laughable at best.

 

[MaryP]

Merkel is Trumps main antagonist on the international stage for the last 4 years, so nobody can suspect her to just side with him for any sympathy.


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

Angela Merkel, German chancellor, has sharply criticised Twitter’s decision to ban US president Donald Trump, calling it a “problematic” breach of the “fundamental right to free speech”. Twitter suspended Mr Trump’s account last week in the aftermath of the riots at the Capitol Building, citing “repeated and severe” violations of its civic integrity policies. Facebook has taken similar action. But Ms Merkel said through her spokesman that the US government should follow Germany’s lead in adopting laws that restrict online incitement, rather than leaving it up to platforms such as Twitter and Facebook to make up their own rules. The intervention highlights a key area of disagreement between the US and Europe on how to regulate social media platforms. The EU wants to give regulators more powers to force internet platforms such as Facebook or Twitter to remove illegal content. In the US, technology companies have traditionally been left to themselves to police their own sites, though momentum is gathering behind political moves to curtail their regulatory freedoms. Several members of Congress are working on bills which would limit the legal protections social media companies have from being sued for third-party content posted on their sites. Others are pushing for a new federal data privacy bill that could mirror the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation. Twitter’s share price fell more than 7 per cent on Monday to about $48, as investors were spooked by the renewed debate into the prospect of tighter social media regulation. Ms Merkel’s spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said free speech was a “fundamental right of vital importance” that could be restricted, “but only in accordance with the laws and within a framework defined by the legislator — not by the decision of the management of social media platforms”. He said for that reason the chancellor found it “problematic” that Mr Trump’s accounts had been indefinitely suspended.

Did anyone ask Mrs. Merkel if her government would have banned Trump in this case?

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

Merkel is Trumps main antagonist on the international stage for the last 4 years, so nobody can suspect her to just side with him for any sympathy.


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

Angela Merkel, German chancellor, has sharply criticised Twitter’s decision to ban US president Donald Trump, calling it a “problematic” breach of the “fundamental right to free speech”. Twitter suspended Mr Trump’s account last week in the aftermath of the riots at the Capitol Building, citing “repeated and severe” violations of its civic integrity policies. Facebook has taken similar action. But Ms Merkel said through her spokesman that the US government should follow Germany’s lead in adopting laws that restrict online incitement, rather than leaving it up to platforms such as Twitter and Facebook to make up their own rules. The intervention highlights a key area of disagreement between the US and Europe on how to regulate social media platforms. The EU wants to give regulators more powers to force internet platforms such as Facebook or Twitter to remove illegal content. In the US, technology companies have traditionally been left to themselves to police their own sites, though momentum is gathering behind political moves to curtail their regulatory freedoms. Several members of Congress are working on bills which would limit the legal protections social media companies have from being sued for third-party content posted on their sites. Others are pushing for a new federal data privacy bill that could mirror the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation. Twitter’s share price fell more than 7 per cent on Monday to about $48, as investors were spooked by the renewed debate into the prospect of tighter social media regulation. Ms Merkel’s spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said free speech was a “fundamental right of vital importance” that could be restricted, “but only in accordance with the laws and within a framework defined by the legislator — not by the decision of the management of social media platforms”. He said for that reason the chancellor found it “problematic” that Mr Trump’s accounts had been indefinitely suspended.

People who have actually experience Communism know what this is all about and what freedom of speech and expression really means.