[HN Gopher] Ron Paul blocked from posting on Facebook
___________________________________________________________________
Ron Paul blocked from posting on Facebook
Author : eruleman
Score : 48 points
Date : 2021-01-11 18:36 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| waynesonfire wrote:
| why was he blocked?
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| Sedition
| the_drunkard wrote:
| > Sedition
|
| objecting to a state's election process and /or electoral
| votes is not sedition. in fact, it's been done by Democratic
| senators after the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections. this is
| part of the democratic process.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/opinion/democrat-
| republic...
| viro wrote:
| during an active insurrection it is. or did you miss the
| planned attacks on the 17th
| tastygreenapple wrote:
| wasn't there an active insurrection in 2016 as well? The
| Obama admin was trying to entrap members of the Trump
| team and people rioted during the inaguration.
| the_drunkard wrote:
| > during an active insurrection it is. or did you miss
| the planned attacks on the 17th
|
| sorry, but participating in the democratic process is not
| sedition.
|
| and i would hope we never allow mobs to dictate our
| participation in the democratic process. whether it
| involves tallying (or objecting to) electoral votes or
| confirming a supreme court justice.
| metalliqaz wrote:
| People don't seem to understand how close we are to an
| unrecoverable fall into fascism.
|
| This is not cultural censorship. Facebook is finally waking up to
| the reality that lies about our elections are well on their way
| to starting a civil war. With that display on the 6th, that
| rhetoric is now over the line. They let it go, right up until the
| consequences (as heinous as they are predictable) were clear.
| admiralspoo wrote:
| Google and Facebook already have documented ability to rig
| elections, e.g.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_manipulation_eff...
|
| Politicians, including the incoming regime, are at their mercy
| and ought to be careful not to step on any toes.
| metalliqaz wrote:
| They don't seem to be shy about criticizing big tech at all.
| the_drunkard wrote:
| > lies about our elections
|
| for the past 4 years the media spun a narrative of Russian
| collusion, one that largely proved to be false and filled with
| fabricated stories.
|
| Nanci Pelosi tweet May 2017: Our election was hijacked. There
| is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy &
| #FollowTheFacts.
|
| https://twitter.com/speakerpelosi/status/864522009048494080?...
| ChrisLomont wrote:
| >the media spun a narrative of Russian collusion
|
| No, the media spun the narrative of Russian interference,
| with possible collusion, something that turned out to be true
| (interference) and collusion was left uncertain (Muller
| stated quite clearly that if he could show Trump didn't
| collude, then Mueller would have said so, but that he was not
| going to say so).
|
| "'The president was not exculpated for the acts that he
| allegedly committed,' Mueller told the House judiciary
| committee, adding that Trump could theoretically be indicted
| after he leaves office." [1]
|
| Then the Trump DOJ didn't release the summary of the report,
| but their edited version, leaving plenty out, in order to get
| people like you to write what you just did. Mueller was so
| outraged at how the DOJ spun the report, that he immediately
| did a press conference about it, an unprecedented step.
|
| Here is Mueller's letter to Barr on exactly this [2].
|
| Once Trump is out of office, and several years have gone by
| without charges, then maybe you can claim these concerns were
| false, but they most certainly were not fabrications or lies.
|
| [1] https://www.politico.eu/article/mueller-refutes-trumps-
| no-co...
|
| [2] https://www.npr.org/2019/05/01/719004457/read-muellers-
| lette...
| the_drunkard wrote:
| > but they most certainly were not fabrications or lies.
|
| i'd strongly beg to differ. fake news was at its peak
| during the first two years of "Russia-gate" with networks
| reporting on hearsay and drawing wild conclusions
| irrespective of hard evidence. journalistic integrity was
| thrown to the wind.
|
| it seemed as if every week a "we got him" story broke only
| to fizzle as it turned out to be false.
|
| the linked article below offers some examples of these fake
| news stories about Trump. and I do recognize that the
| second quote is written by Barr, not Mueller.
|
| https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-
| mill...
| hehehaha wrote:
| You mean the investigation that the Trump administration
| actively obstructed?
| Marinus wrote:
| What does your comment have to do with Ron Paul?
| CivBase wrote:
| Can you point to any instance where _Ron Paul_ lied about our
| elections? Genuine question. I don 't follow Ron Paul, but that
| seems out of character from what I've seen of him many years
| ago.
| m463 wrote:
| My take is that Ron Paul is probably one of the most
| reasonable people in politics.
|
| What's ironic is that people thought he was crazy when he
| said it would be possible to abolish the IRS, even though he
| had all the history and facts to back it up.
| metalliqaz wrote:
| I don't follow him either, but it is almost certain that the
| movement of "stolen election" talk from allowed to verboten
| is what caused his page to be suspended. I don't have access
| to his previous facebook content, so I can't search it.
| _red wrote:
| The corporate party (ie mainstream D's and R's + MSM + BigTech)
| seems completely desperate.
|
| Perhaps its just the quality of blackmail the CCP has on them....
| Kattywumpus wrote:
| We really need a better vocabulary for talking about this sort of
| thing than the 20th century terms of fascism, communism, and
| liberalism. I don't have the words yet, but we need to start
| inventing them.
|
| We are in a new era, and our disasters won't look like theirs.
| People who shrug away this kind of censorship with the magic
| words "private company" are in a dangerous form of denial.
| trianglem wrote:
| Not really, the literal definition of fascism is a far right
| authoritarian group and it defines the trump administration
| well.
| julioneander wrote:
| I wonder where did you get that definition from?
| metalliqaz wrote:
| ... you say, as the OP links to a fully accessible social media
| post by Ron Paul.
|
| From Techdirt: Moderation is a
| platform/service owner or operator saying "we don't do that
| here". Personal discretion is an individual telling themselves
| "I won't do that here". Editorial discretion is an editor
| saying "we won't print that here", either to themselves or to a
| writer. Censorship is someone saying "you won't do that
| anywhere" alongside threats or actions meant to suppress
| speech.
| Kattywumpus wrote:
| As I pointed out above, this is really 20th century thinking.
| Social media allows for a kind of mob behavior that has shown
| itself antithetical to the kind of market liberalism most of
| our current assumptions are based on.
|
| Or did you not notice that Parler and its hundreds of
| thousands of users had literally been systematically erased
| from the internet yesterday by hounding their service
| providers?
|
| It's bizarre to see the liberal left I grew up with now
| defending a kind of insane market fundamentalism and
| corporate control of the commons of free speech without even
| blinking at the contradiction. I think that liberal left I
| grew up with is dead.
|
| We need a name for what it has become, and where they are
| taking us.
| [deleted]
| wallawe wrote:
| For anyone who thought this was just about the recent events, you
| now know have your answer. It is undoubtedly a political war
| going on, driven by leftists at Big Tech.
| RoyTyrell wrote:
| Where's your proof of that? Do you think Zuckerberg is a
| zealous leftist?
| sarcasmatwork wrote:
| Free speech in the form of non-violent speech is not free on
| the various platforms as they say they are.
|
| This is mostly targeted at users with a larger following...
|
| As as example if you have a diff opinion, or say something
| then you might get suspended or banned. Even so when others
| on the platform are more violent, and encouraging violent
| acts. Look at twitter accounts of Iran, China, and all the
| accounts for antifa for example. They use twitter to cause
| and incite violence, yet they remain.
|
| A few come to mind phrases come to mind that may get you
| banned on FB/Twitter: "#Hydroxychloroquine
| is a safe drug. "Eric Ciaramella"
| michannne wrote:
| It boils down to this. Left or right is irrelevant, these
| companies will remove you if you say something they don't
| want you to say, there's no additional complexity that
| needs to be analyzed. Any judgement that one needs to make
| on how to feel about the censoring they do can be made on
| that simple rule alone. I'm amazed the discussions about
| censorship have been muddied to this extent where even the
| past relationships of people have been scrutinized to
| determine if they were deserving enough of a ban. None of
| that matters - did you say something they did not want
| specifically _you_ (the individual) to say at this time?
| Then they will decide to ban/suspend/remove you. Now how
| you feel about that is how you feel but there's no reason
| to even think "Well they let this person say this!",
| because these companies are not in the business of free
| speech. They can turn on a dime tomorrow and start banning
| Antifa members left and right and it still wouldn't change
| their bottom line.
| wallawe wrote:
| It's a continuation of what we've seen by big tech over the
| past several months and years.
|
| You've got Kathy Griffin tweeting photos a decapitated Trump
| head
| (https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1323893513226870786)
| which gets no penalty or ban. This isn't glorifying violence?
|
| Yet, people on the right are being banned daily without
| explanation for things much less egregious.
|
| EDIT: if you disagree, maybe try having a conversation
| instead of downvoting.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| Kathy Griffin was suspended from Twitter for that, please
| find a better example.
| wallawe wrote:
| This is from November 4, 2020 right after the election.
| She might have been suspended originally in 2017, but
| wasn't this time and furthermore wasn't banned for
| repeated breaking of the rules. You can click on the link
| and still see the tweet.
|
| Imagine if Trump had tweeted a photo of any Democrat's
| decapitated head, do you think the reaction would have
| been the same?
| netsharc wrote:
| Huh, but don't you see the difference, one of the
| president, the other just a semi-obnoxious C-class
| celeb...
| wallawe wrote:
| No, the twitter rules don't make caveats for different
| positions in society. They are blanket rules that should
| apply to everyone equally but are not. That's the entire
| point I'm making.
| justin66 wrote:
| > No, the twitter rules don't make caveats for different
| positions in society.
|
| They do, though. (or rather, they _did..._ I honestly
| have no idea what state their rules are in today, but
| they 've changed some things) It's the only reason Trump
| was allowed to stay on Twitter as long as he was, and
| Twitter were transparent about that. [1]
|
| https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/world-
| lea...
| aeternum wrote:
| We can all choose to stop using facebook, instagram, and
| whatsapp and their power evaporates.
|
| In contrast we cannot choose to stop using the US
| government. Would you really prefer to have the US
| government decide what can and cannot be censored?
| trianglem wrote:
| Trump has received many warnings. Kathy Griffin was forced
| to delete those and she complied and hasn't erred since.
| wrycoder wrote:
| She re-posted the image in a tweet on 06Jan. Twitter
| deleted it because it violated their rules.
| filoeleven wrote:
| See wallawe's link above. That was on Nov 4 and is still
| live.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-11 22:03 UTC)