Angela Merkel and France Oppose Trump's Twitter Ban

[Guest]

Idk but as a european i also think this is kinda problematic, I apsolutely agree that he is responsible and everything but as a president he should have freedom of speech, and it should be up to the people if they believe him or not and not a ceo of some company. i thought the flagging of his comments and factchecking was a good middle ground but i totally get merkel that it is problematic that some ceo of some company can do this kind of very important decisions. if you allow it now you give them a bigger power than they should have. but honestly this is a very cotroversial topic and i also understand thats its a private company and all but still, freedom of speech above all.

[Eido 3,681]

The current French government team has a reaaalllyyy big ego and Bruno Lemaire should be the last person to open his mouth 

[Chromatislaps 34,854]

I think big tech interfering in political elections is problematic in itself... whether it be Facebook being a tool of manipulation of the 2016 elections in Trumps favor, or censoring Trump and his croneys on twitter. 

I think Merkel and Macron have a point, but on the other hand it is just very difficult to oppose someone with Trump's influence

[The Clown 539]

While I am 100% against Trump and I am happy that his vile message has finally been put to rest, I will say I'm very concearned for the precedent this sets.

Big social media platforms have shown they have the power to influence public discourse on a whim. Today, it's the insane conspiracy theorist. Can we be sure it won't be a sensible person with views just outside the Overton window next time? Somebody like, say, Bernie Sanders?

[uo111 5,282]

I can see why people would think this, and before trump I think I would have agreed.

But twitter has terms of service, they are simply and literally enforcing them. It wasn’t political at all, and so I can’t take issue with the ban. Actually, keeping him on the platform for so long was the only political thing going on.

[weed 78,937]

It's not like his presidency just started lmao he's silenced for approximately 5 minutes in the grand scheme of things

and even using the term "silenced," I shouldn't ... what's stopping him from posting on Facebook? or insta? or literally anything else? He has zero dominion over Twitter, rightfully so. 

[Fusel 1,111]

I agree in a way. I am a little disturbed every time American liberals cheer when big tech companies censor tweets or limit people's ability to post. One should think twice about what you are legitimizing. I see the argument for his ban. But you have to be absolutely wary of whose interests are being served here.

[SwissMonster 30,688]

2 hours ago, HosedDownGypsy said:

Idk but as a european i also think this is kinda problematic, I apsolutely agree that he is responsible and everything but as a president he should have freedom of speech, and it should be up to the people if they believe him or not and not a ceo of some company. i thought the flagging of his comments and factchecking was a good middle ground but i totally get merkel that it is problematic that some ceo of some company can do this kind of very important decisions. if you allow it now you give them a bigger power than they should have. but honestly this is a very cotroversial topic and i also understand thats its a private company and all but still, freedom of speech above all.

I kindly disagree. I do know what you mean BUT Twitter is a company with Terms of use and Trump is a User on Twitter, not the POTUS. The President has a own account which isn‘t blocked!

When you call to violence in any way it is against Twitter rules and a ban. There is no excuse for the President of the US.

Also people who think that they have freedom of speech on social media are delulu anyways. Calling for violence isn‘t freedom of speech tho

[Queen Bitch 10,513]

"The chancellor sees the complete closing down of the account of an elected president as problematic" gosh stop treating presidents and other politicians like they're better than the rest of us. They should never be above laws and simple terms and conditions on social media. 

I mean I can see why the Trump ban can be problematic and there are good arguments for and against it, but in the end, it's up to the company to decide, whether we agree with it or not. 

When someone complain about Trump getting banned, it reminds me of this

And the freedom of speech argument is also a bit iffy, because social media does not have an obligation to provide freedom of speech, because they're private companies. 
Social media aren't "neutral" platforms for user content. Social media sites are more like "publishers" who can "edit" the user content. And if you willingly sign up for those sites (or apps) and read terms and conditions and click 'accept' then you shouldn't complain when you get banned for breaking T&C. 

[Regina George 59,387]

France is a well known Russian collaborator and Germany is weirdly friendly with Russia nowadays.. Ofc they’d want him to spread and cause mess in USA over social media. 

[Regina George 59,387]

35 minutes ago, Fusel said:

I agree in a way. I am a little disturbed every time American liberals cheer when big tech companies censor tweets or limit people's ability to post. One should think twice about what you are legitimizing. I see the argument for his ban. But you have to be absolutely wary of whose interests are being served here.

Freedom of speech and opinion is one thing, and open hateful speech causing people to be hateful and to storm Capital is a whole another thing. They are not censoring free speech, they are censoring hateful and dangerous speech. Please learn the difference.