Cake
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
    • Well that’s something to host a party for. Oh wait we’re in the middle of a pandemic. Well that’ll keep me smiling for the next year.

    • Trump related platforms are being shut down all over the place.

      The largest Pro Trump section of Reddit has been closed
      Shopify has 'de-platformed' all Trump campaign stores
      Discord closed down a discussion channel associated with thedonald.win
      Google has apparently removed the Parler app from it's Play Store
      Apple has threatened to remove Parler from it's store if appropriate moderation is not introduced in the next 24 hours

      Quite a few pro trump channels have been removed from Youtube, Twitter and other places as well.

    • What's hypocritical is them doing it in the last days, (they have courage now) but think what could have been saved if this was done at least a year ago. All those lives lost to the virus. They rode the wave of soap opera, drama and scandal, as long as it was convenient. The decision wasn't based on moral ethics. It never will be.

    • Exactly! It is good that it finally happens, but overall it is too little, too late. In that regard, it is very similar to administration officials resigning less than 14 days before they're going to lose their jobs, anyway.

      They may no longer be responsible for what happens from now on - but that doesn't mean that they're magically no longer complicit in what happened throughout the last four years.

    • Frankly, I think it should be considered that no elected official be allowed to post on social media.

      That's why we pay for spokespersons, and it only causes this extremist demagoguery to flourish.

    • Thusly 'social media for profit' was, is, and will ever be complicit part (at great profit!) in all the bad things distributed and amplified and magnified on the web until a better approach can be devised. Ironically that 230 law was exactly about that! Why does running a red light while driving carry solid penalties, yet spreading a more or less 'official' lie, instigation, or twisted intention opinions about critical facts of society and state, continues to be tolerated.

    • I understand your frustration but people should be allowed to say what they want to a certain extent. We need to educationally inoculate the population as much as possible. Social media is so new we haven’t created safe guards. Also what’s to be done with Fox News opinion mouth pieces? There’s no easy solution here. Also have to end Gerry meandering. Biden wins the popular vote by about 7,000,000 but is just under 40,000 votes from losing??? Republicans have been rigging the system more and more and are leading even though they lose. Can’t have a democracy for long if that keeps up.

    • It has nothing to do with restricting speech. Elected officials shouldn't communicate without thought or consequences, which is exactly what they do now because of social media. We have more communication restrictions on CEOs like Elon Musk than we do on elected officials and it needs to be fixed.

    • I think he's wrong on all counts.

      Trump won in 2016 because the media took this person's approach, and gave Trump billions of dollars worth of advertising for free, and equal treatment of the truth and his lies. And gave time and amplification of foreign interference.

      It has to stop.

    • Frankly, I think it should be considered that no elected official be allowed to post on social media.

      The problem is that this is not really a practical solution - partly because who should make that a binding rule in the first place?

      As long as you have sane people in power, you might get this rule implemented but won't really need it. As soon as you get lunatics in power, all bets are off anyway - and obviously, even if this had been some sort of official rule, President Orange would have thrown it out of the window, just like so many other rules and norms.

      In this specific case, the sane thing would have been not to expect a sociopath to behave, but to moderate the personal account @realDxxxxxTxxxx just like any other personal account, and if anything give special treatment to @POTUS, an account that did not amass trolls and bots for a decade and will be taken away as soon as there's a new POTUS.

      What that "special treatment" really should look like is worth a separate discussion - but it probably wouldn't include being able to state all the falsehoods and get away with it (and later erase them? For some reason there's currently no posts on https://twitter.com/potus, but according to the media gallery this account did post something before).

    • I don’t agree. When I started Cake, Reddit was teetering in collapse and I went to have coffee with the former CEO, who basically got fired for banning some subreddits. All those people went to Voat, the argument went, which now had major traction.

      But Voat got so ugly over the years, it was shut down a couple weeks ago. When you deplatfirm someone vile like Alex Jones, you really cut down on their influence.

    • Yes it mean you can do exactly that. The typical liftie mentally; "if I'm not affected by censorship then it's ok". What if it was opposite? And if you are pro-censorship why not just move to China, North Korea etc?

    • Yes it mean you can do exactly that.

      Sure, yell "Fire" in a theatre all day long, if you think that this is the best thing to spend your time with. "Free speech" doesn't mean that there won't be any consequences for you, though.

      For what it's worth, "free speech" as defined by your first amendment doesn't even apply here.

    • To be fair, they could post about their cats, but not state affairs, in official positions. But there are enough proxies as it is already, to spew further damaging misinformation and pure hate incite so the pandora box cannot be closed. Damage is already done. Personally I have complete disregard about any 'official's messaging' being posted on social media. It's totally wrong, and lacks responsibility. That is in fact what attracts them to use it, there's no accountability for posting incendiary calls for agression on a 'paid by advertisement' quasi-free service.

    • disqus should cut services from any site that doesn't moderate its comments for threats of violence and incitement. Sites like thegatewaypundit are rife with these threats from extremists.

    • Governmental censorship is not the same as a person or a company deciding to not provide a service to someone.

      Are you opposed to landlords evicting someone for violating their lease?

      Are you opposed to a restaurant refusing to allow customers to come in without any shirt on?

      The first amendment does not give someone from a different religion than yours the right to enter the church building that you attend and preach anything that they want to preach in the name of "free speech."

      The freedom of speech ONLY refers to a governmental entity not being allowed to criminalize, penalize, or legislate against what a person wants to say.

      It does not mean that Fox News must allow AOC to come on their station Nor does it mean that Twitter must allow Trump to tweet on their platform.

      If you don't know what "freedom of speech" is, then how can you discuss it?

    • I really don’t see much accountability regardless of where they say it these days. They just find a news station that agrees with them or supports them even if they’re lying through their teeth and the station knows it.