Topic: Trump regrets not banning twitter as he hails Nigerian government for doing so (Read 716 times)

This is not a case of tweeter going around there system to check on posts to bring down but it depends on the users who make report on the post or posts. The posts have to be reported and not just a report but a series of report for tweeter to move to check the post. Tweeter has it rules and regulations for guide on people to post and if violated via report, then the rules will be applied. Also every other platforms including our noble forum (bitcointalk.org) has a button or a place where report is made poyor activated by clicking on it. For the forum here, this is an example

As about the Nigerian President post, it was reported severally by people who didn't like the idea in the post and tweeter has to do a check on the post and the rules has to be considered. Likewise every other media platforms, they have rules and regulations as guide to users.

If they want to ban Trump, then fine. They can ban him. But then the same yardstick must be applied to others. I have seen a lot of politicians in the Middle East and Asia making tweets, that can be interpreted as direct calls to genocide. But Twitter never bans them (as posted earlier, the tweet from Mahathir Mohammed is the perfect example). Now the Nigerian president got banned using the same excuse. My issue here is not that Trump or Buhari is banned by Twitter. My issue is that the same rule is not applied when Mahathir Mohammed makes a tweet supporting genocide.

Your statement is self-contradictory. It is Twitter which is acting against the freedom of speech by banning and flagging the accounts they don't like. The action from Nigerian government was warranted by the ban on the Twitter account of the president. You are arguing in favor of an entity, which has shown scant regard for freedom of speech. In the end, social media platforms need to obey the rules of the land in which they are operating. If they want to ban or flag someone, then it should be done as per the prevailing laws, and not as per their preference.

I sort of agree with you. I just think it is not "that" extreme, there are rights and wrongs in this world after all, but I do agree with you that nobody should support one side fully 100% without ever disagreeing on any point. I also think that "left" and "right" are way too broad of a term these days, like for example Biden is a big time right wing person to me, maaaaybe during this presidency he "may" have shown some left, but he declined to do even that, he literally won 2 seats on georgia by promising 2k dollar stimulus and gave 1.4k as soon as he became a president, to me that is not leftist AT ALL, or backed down on student debt cancellation or bombed another nation right away, I can go on but none of the things he promised which was a leftist thing end up happening.

Yet when you ask a republican he is a big time commie somehow. So, we can't just say everyone is wrong, so I disagree on that part, but I can say you should find something in everything, and disagree a bit with everything, nobody should %100 support a political ideology fully.

I think it's high time he realize that he is becoming unnoticed as a politician and a past president to one of the world leading country's.
Nigeria on the other hand is playing politics and hurting people with freedom of speech. I don't see a tangible reason why the presidency would want to ban a micro blogging platform because they deleted his messages. The rules were there when he registered on the platform, hence it must be duly followed regardless of his position b or sovereignty.

There is no Republican/Democrat divide in supporting most corrupt dictators. The most powerful dictator in the world right now is Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia and he enjoys unlimited support from the Democrats. And Twitter never takes any action against any of the dictators from the middle east region, because a large fraction of the company ownership is in the hands of Arabs.

Now coming to the argument that Twitter is a private business and they can ban anyone who they don't like. If they argue like this, then they have to take responsibility for all the tweets made on their platform. That is not the case and Twitter claims that it is just an intermediary. And the issue here is that, an intermediary can't ban people who they don't like.

Mr Trump is here again with his comments on country he had bullied many things without numbers, placing them on visa ban with his trivial reasons of protecting the country interest. Now he is here again congratulating the President of Nigeria for banning Twitter, now regretting of doing the same when he knows that he wouldn't be able to achieve such.

I believe not all country can tolerate democracy easily cause I see no reason why Twitter would have to ban the tweet of the leader of a country claiming that it's contrary to their rules of term. Twitter has bitten the tail of a lion and now, they are facing the consequences. We can not compare Africa with European countries that are more civilized with laws guiding and each and every steps of a lead without compromising the power that is given to them. Like we'll know that Africa will always be Africa.

While I am not sure that I agree with the banning of Donald Trump by both facebook and twitter, I will say that people should stop bitching about it who dont like it for the simple fact that these are private businesses that can do whatever they want and if you don't like it, then you don't have to be apart of the platform.  I do find it hilarious that Trump said something about this, being that Nigeria already has massive issues when it comes to freedom and equality.  Of course he doesn't mention any of that ( though Trump has been famous for lauding corrupt dictators/presidents).

Not only Trump, but most of the American politicians are dependent on social media platforms now (especially Twitter, Facebook and Instagram). Trump used his twitter account very efficiently during most of his term. But then, weeks before the election date, Twitter started flagging his posts as "manipulated media". This disrupted his campaign plans and many of his supporters believe that this cost them swing states such as Arizona, Wisconsin and Georgia. Also, both the mainstream media and the social media suppressed the news about Hunter Biden, which would have otherwise done great harm to Joe Biden's campaign.

anyone that say the left lies and the right tells the truth is a gaslighter.

btw anyone that says the right lies and the left tells the truth is a gaslighter.

If you side with the left you are a simple minded loser

and if you side with the right you are a simple minded loser.

the entire concept of liberals vs conservatives is a con designed to take your money.

Right wing people will always play the victim because that is the base of the right wing propaganda in the past 2000+ years, it will never change. It is the mexicans that steal our job!! (while the capitalist right win business owner hires the Mexican, Mexican is not stealing it), it is the "they are teaching our children lies!!" while science (literally proven data backed science) is the subject, it is the "they are stealing our elections!!!!" while literally every right wing state is making it much much much harder to vote.

Basically without right wing people claiming these huge companies are leftist, what are they left with? They would have to accept that media and big companies are all in their favor and yet they still do not hold congress and senate and presidency basically no branch with all that money and power grab they are doing. Have you ever seen a democrat state making it harder for republicans to vote? Yet republicans are making it harder for democrats to vote in every state they run yet they still lose.

I think you like that idea because of your username

Pharma is a business, one of the most huge business. There are a lot of medicines for depression, pain management, for sleep, to calm down, etc and somehow, all of them are mentally and/or physically addictive. There are non-addictive alternatives but they are always under research and not approved. Without addiction, pharma companies wouldn't be able to sell as much products as they sell right now.
So, why I said that... Pharma companies prefer to create a new one and sell it in high price in order to gain more profit.
Btw as far as I know, medics can prescribe any medicine off-label for various reasons. And there are a lot of doctors that always treat their patients without following the protocol.
I know a lot of doctors who were giving away antibiotics to their patients while it was prohibited according to their protocol and as most of them claim (that I know), the protocol was shit and if they followed it, a lot more people would die with covid.

Zuckerberg's political donations are a much more convincing indication of what his political beliefs are than shutting down a bunch of malicious groups that are breaking the Facebook TOS and spreading vaccine and election misinformation.  Any reasonable person would expect malicious groups formed to purposefully misinform to be banned.  But you have no answer to the fact that Zuckerberg gives more money to republicans than democrats, and there's no possible way to spin that as an ultra-leftist.  You can't reason with people who want to believe in the delusion.

Trump has a point. I have been saying the same thing too. He should have banned Twitter and jailed Jack Dorsey for acting against the will of the U.S. people but he couldn't even make Pence to follow his orders so it is fair to say he chickened out.

At least Nigeria has the balls to ban that shit hole.

The beauty of socialism is that a lot of people support it, as long as it doesn't affect them. Bezos support higher taxes for the middle class and other leftist initiatives, but when it comes to his own business he would like to keep socialism at an arms distance. The same can be said about taxation as well. Bezos support high taxes, but using various loopholes, both him and his company (Amazon) have paid tax at a rate which is much lower than the others. Zuckerberg's political leanings are very clear, and you just need to take the list of group and individual pages banned by Facebook before the POTUS elections of 2020.

Nothing announces you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about like trying to claim Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos are ultra-leftist, lmao.  I mean, Zuckerberg is such an obvious leftist, Facebook's political action committeehas given more money to republicans than democrats in every election cycle since 2012. What a classic ultra-leftist move to give more money to the party that is the exact opposite of what you supposedly believe in!  And who can forget Bezos' ultra-leftist power move of seeking to minimize union efforts at all costs at Amazon?

You take the clown makeup off before posting your deranged conspiracy nonsense, or nah?

Whenever some company gets almost complete monopoly in any sector, it starts to behave arrogantly and the case with Twitter is no different from the case with other corporates such as Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Facebook and Tesla. The Nigerian government is encouraging users to register for Koo, but looking at the number of users, I am sure that this app can never compete with Twitter. Koo is an Indian app, that was founded just one year ago. So I would say that it is too early to judge them. But from what I have seen so far, Koo is miles behind Twitter.

Sums it up pretty well, twitter acts as a publisher when they begin to censor certain tweets that don't even conform to their own rules. If you even remotely suggest that sex biology exists, and that men and women cannot transition to the other sex, you'll be removed from the platform, meanwhile death threats against police or anyone right wing are completely fine. I'm inclined to say screw the platform and move somewhere else, but there isn't a solid alternative.

If we are going to follow that logic then twitter also has to follow the laws and regulations of each country and if they do not then be subject to a ban, which is by the way exactly what happened, twitter and other social media platforms are playing a dangerous game, yes they are powerful but they are centralized entities, the only way to survive if you are going against the most powerful centralized entities of the world is to be decentralized, and they are not so I will not be surprised if in the future social media platforms receive incredibly heavy regulations or are outright banned and replaced by other social media platforms.

Why exactly? Why can't they "decide" who should win? First of all they do not decide, they just let people write and do not let some of them write, that is all they do and nothing more which is totally under their own rules because it is a company and they can allow one person to write and the other not to write just with the basis of "I do not want to" and they can do it, they do not need any more reason than that, just if they dislike a guy just ban him that's it. Why? Because they are a company and they can just decline to offer someone their services, just like how you can decline to work with someone, simple as that, any shop owner in all of USA could decline to give you a product, it is allowed.

About the political stuff, we have fox news constantly pumping lies about politics EVERY HOUR, literally saying batshit crazy lies and when they were sued they literally defended themselves with "we are not news channel, we are entertainment, nobody sane would believe we are a news channel", so they literally act as news channels but claim they are not in order to be able to tell lies, according to Fox News, their "news" is literally like SNL news, a stand up to make people laugh, that's their defense.

If republicans can use fox news that way without any crimes broken, I am sorry but I hope twitter bans EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN, that's how this game should be played, either make it all fair, or screw them all.