[BlanketLogic]

That is a non-sequitur right? Twitter , Google and Apple via their app stores, and now stripe are refusing to doing business not with a political party. They are refusing to doing business with people who have committed alleged(?) crimes.

The _actions_ by a group of people are resulting in these bans. Not the group's affiliation. Am I missing something here?

[rndgermandude]

In the case of Stripe cutting off the Trump campaign, I guess you could make the argument that Trump (and therefore his campaign) are indeed alleged to have committed crimes. Then again, Trump is still the sitting president and therefore the effective head of his party (even tho, thankfully, at least some of his party are now abandoning him). I wonder what would happen if the Trump campaign switched to RNC-operated stripe accounts, with the RNC's blessing...

As for Google + Apple + Amazon (+ probably every other cloud provider and virtually every other hosting company) cutting off Parler or refusing their business in the first place: Parler was accused of not moderating "enough". This in itself is not yet criminal, given section 230 (which in this context ironically Trump wanted gone so bad he tried to hold the military budget hostage over it), and the definition of "enough moderation" was kept vague enough by Apple and Google and Amazon that Parler couldn't possibly ever comply if they wanted to.

The same argument about under-moderation can be made against facebook, e.g. when they aided - or even enabled - the Rohingya genocide, which saw thousands of people killed and hundreds of thousands of people displaced. Even the UN directly pointed fingers at facebook. Facebook admitted to their role[1], but came up with a bunch of lame excuses like that they do not really have any content moderators that understand the language.

People dug up quite a number of screenshots (anecdotal evidence) of abhorrent things written on Parler to justify them getting punished. But I found that not really convincing to single out Parler like that. If I went digging on Twitter or Facebook, or could see what people tell each other in Whatapp of Telegram groups, I would find the exact same things. I have reported things on twitter in the past, like people making extremely thinly-veiled death threats or inciting violence, and twitter's response has been sluggish and often in favor of the people talking about "nooses" and "you'll get what's coming to you" in the same sentence.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebo...

[sam_goody]

I dunno.

BLM may claim not to be responsible for the horrendous roiots and crime that has been committed in its name across America.

Trump may claim that he is not responsible for the tiny (in proportion) riots that happened in DC.

(IMO, they are both responsible, thus making BLM the one with more blood on its hands. But nobody asked me.)

BLM may claim that it is in their rights to fight law and order if it causes harm to individuals.

Trump may claim it is in his right to complain about law and order when (in his opinion) it was not lawful.

(IMO, this is a finer line. He certainly can legally complain. Riots are over the line for either right or left)

Stripe processes payments for BLM, and Twitter allows their posts, etc. So IMO the line they walk is fine and biased.

[hairofadog]

One of the many issues I have with the arguments equating the Black Lives Matter protests to the Trump protests last week is that people tend to want to compare this one single Trump event to all protests nationwide over a period of months. If we’re doing an apples-to-apples comparison, here’s the Black Lives Matter DC protest: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/06/06/large-...

...or, conversely, we should compare damage and lives lost during Black Lives Matter protests to all damage and lives lost by Trump-supporting white supremacists.

[nmfisher]

My point was more that “just because losing access to Facebook/Twitter means nothing to you, doesn’t mean it means nothing to someone else”.

But to more directly address your point, I ask you - what crime has Trump been convicted of?

[igetspam]

The private entities are not the justice department. They are not the judiciary. They are not lawyers and they are not juries. They do not require criminal conviction before taking action. Your question is irellevant.

But to give you a partial answer anyway: Many criminals are never convicted. Many _known_ criminals are never convicted, due to lack of undeniable proof. Some criminals are convicted on lesser crimes, just to get them off the streets. There's plenty of evidence to support the position that Trump is a criminal. He may never be convicted but not because he's innocent.

[nmfisher]

The question is not “what legal power does Twitter have”. I’m not saying they legally can’t kick him off their platform.

The discussion is whether they should be able to kick someone off their platform who has been convicted of no crime, because of how integral they have become to the political process.

[Grimm1]

Yes, because you don't have to be convicted of a crime to have done something wrong and regardless it doesn't matter. Twitter can kick someone off for whatever reason they want. That's something currently protected in our law.

[kolinko]

On the other hand, there is a legal concept called Common Carriage - private companies that have monopoly are not allowed to refuse service to anyone unless mandated by courts.

If it was a power company shutting off electricity to Facebok, Twitter and AWS, because they disagree with their business practices, we would have an outrage right now about how undemocratic it is.

(And I say this with all my distaste for Trumpism)

[notadev]

Kind of unrelated to the point of your post -- what does it mean when any discussion about current events/politics requires every poster to affirm they do not support a particular political candidate. I don't have an answer myself, I'm just wondering if it's considered somethinf like self-censorship or if there's something else to it. Either way, it kinda feels weird to me.

[enkid]

Twitter is not a monopoly. There are plenty of media companies, social or not, that he could use to carry his message. He has a freaking press office.

[Grimm1]

Maybe these are monopolies, and if they are we shouldn't be granting them special status to entrench them further. We should be looking to open them up and break them apart.

[zepto]

Perhaps they’ll become less integral to the process.

[asdff]

Integral for whom, though? Not a huge number of people are involved in political twitter:

https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/23/just-6-of-u-s-adults-on-tw...