All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
It's a potentially troubling decision for just those reasons (and having never followed her at all, it's hard for me to judge this case), but there is surely a level of conduct beyond which they have to act ?
I agree, and that's why I'd like to understand the context.
Distasteful though it is "whiteoutwednesday" and threatening to post a picture of her arse, or trolling Rashford, doesn't quite do it for me.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
It's a potentially troubling decision for just those reasons (and having never followed her at all, it's hard for me to judge this case), but there is surely a level of conduct beyond which they have to act ?
I agree, and that's why I'd like to understand the context.
Distasteful though it is "whiteoutwednesday" and threatening to post a picture of her arse, or trolling Rashford, doesn't quite do it for me.
Didn't TSE post a photo of her arse from HuffPost down thread?
Yes and it is utterly irrelevant as we left the EU in January and rejoining would likely require the Euro and Schengen
Croatia joined the EU in 2013 and are not in the Euro or Schengen.
Croatia's EU membership obliges it to eventually join the eurozone
Eventually being the key word . There is no timeframe to have the Euro so you can just never do it. And you just put in tests that can never be passed .
Will we see any principled and courageous "I'm no fan of Hopkins but ..." contributions?
EDIT -
Sorry, did not check before posting. They are coming thick and fast!
Thick is a little unfair.
Oh well, if you insist.
- The Woke have come for Katie. All are Woke today.
I have always felt that Katie Hopkins' role, like Ann Coulter in the States, was, whether intentionally or semi-intentionally, to be as repulsive as possible and be a sort of gargoyle figure for the liberal left to point at and say 'all right wing people are like that'. As such, her passing from Twitter, whilst I'm sure it's a satisfying moment for many, is regrettable from a left wing Twitter perspective, and beneficial in the long term for right wing politics.
As others have observed, the social media companies removing the right wing trolls leave behind the sensibles and the left wing trolls.
How long before they also start losing the sensibles, and what does this 'community' look like to an outsider if not a place full of left wing trolls?
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
I think Starmer is to some extent benefitting from not being Corbyn. I'm tempted to say that Labour have jumped straight from Foot to Blair, but actually I think Starmer is quite left-wing. Alastair Campbell was correct to say that we need to wait and see what Starmer presents to the country. Plenty of time for that, but it will be interesting to see what sorts of things Starmer proposes.
I'd suggest Starmer slots in rather nicely as Kinnock.
I think your suggestion does not hold water. For whatever reason English voters prefer an English leader. Both Kinnock and Brown were derided in many instances because of this. John Smith less so and Blair was seen as English.
Also to become leader of the opposition in 5 years is impressive as is his backstory. We are also told that politicians who have never done anything else are out of touch. SKS has had an an impressive career outside of politics. He is a breath of fresh air in comparison to our current leader and the leader of the USA.
I think Brown it was a two way thing - there were people calling him 'Broon' and there were a lot of other people for whom his Scottishness was part of the 'prudence' 'dour' 'clunking fist' image for austere economic competence that he had in the early years.
This actually got me thinking. How many Scottish PMs have won elections?
Well, it depends of course on what you mean by Scottish. You could include Macmillan and Baldwin in that list if you wanted to stretch the criteria a bit. Blair, certainly. But I don’t think a Scottish PM sitting for a Scottish seat has won a general election since World War Two. In that time Home and Brown are the only two Scots I can think of anyway who meet that criteria. Smith of course almost certainly would have won an election had he not died.
Even before World War Two the picture isn’t rosy. MacDonald was Scottish of course, bat sat for Seaham in the only general election he won. Asquith by contrast sat for North East Fife, but was a Yorkshireman. Campbell-Bannerman meets the criteria, and Rosebery was a Scottish peer. Balfour was Scottish, but as PM sat for a seat in Manchester and as Leader of the Opposition for the City of London.
I’ve got to give this to Yorkcity, he seems to be right.
Cameron is a Scottish name is it not? I've no idea of David Cameron's precise family history.
It is indeed. This came up in the referendum campaign now you remind me
Built for an American grain merchant apparently. Remarkably, the modern roof looks even worse than the original mock crenellations must have done. Pithily described as looking “like a half built battleship”
Gavin Williamson is simply not good enough to be in the cabinet
He may have a good message but he shows no inspiration or ability to come over anything other than just reading a script put in front of him
Time to replace him Boris
He should go with Raab.
Keep Sunak, Patel and promote Truss.
Williamson being in the cabinet was the ultimate demonstration that loyalty matters more than ability. He stood up for Boris at the right time, so here's a shiny bauble.
Mrs Thatcher chose her cabinets, largely, on ability not loyalty. I wish Mr Johnson had the same self confidence.
They don't have the documents because they didn't make the order, yet the accusation is of a cover up? Jesus.
Another one who has been driven mad by Brexit. The original tweet will be all over social media.
James O'Brien has been mad - and an obnoxious twat - since long before Brexit. He matches Morgan for his offensive ignorance.
And part of what makes Britain great.
Oh I love the fact he gets to have his voice heard. That really is what makes this country great. A station that could have two people as offensive as O'Brien and Farage both working for it from completely opposite ends of the political spectrum has to be admired.
But it doesn't change O'Brien's fundamental nature.
How To Be Wrong... Again!!
It is incredible that someone who makes as many mistakes as JO'B wrote a book with that title.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Question, though.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
Yes yes yes but Twitter (and Facebook) are pretty much universal platforms. So the test for that should be high.
And I'd be careful about martyring her as well (which she'd love, and her fans on twitter would keep that flame alive forever) so I'd keep her inside the tent pissing out, with temporary bans and raps on the knuckles as required.
Unless she's done or said something truly reprehensible.
It is interesting that we are not seeing any uptick as a result of all these different examples. And yet in the US there seem to be definite and quite severe peaks as a result of the demonstrations over the last couple of weeks.
Their demonstrations have been on a much larger scale, surely.
The upticks are not happening in places which had demonstrations, but in places which have relaxed (or even completely removed) restrictions.
Looking at those states where the numbers are rising rapidly I would say that is correct.
There won't be a single cause but those trying to pin it on the demonstrations both here and in the USA are simply trying to make political capital out of it. Don't people remember all those photos of packed beaches parks and beauty spots during the good weather and VE weekend in particular?
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
Yes yes yes but Twitter (and Facebook) are pretty much universal platforms. So the test for that should be high.
And I'd be careful about martyring her as well (which she'd love, and her fans on twitter would keep that flame alive forever) so I'd keep her inside the tent pissing out, with temporary bans and raps on the knuckles as required.
Unless she's done or said something truly reprehensible.
The fact nobody seems to know what she's said that merited a permanent ban is quite odd. Normally when these things erupt its obvious.
Disappointed Kieran didn't address my "Personality" theory.
No LotO has become PM since IPSOS-MORI started their leader image ratings in 1978 without leading on personality, and Boris leads Starmer 64-30
As has been stated several times on here, when 2024 arrives, the last thing we might feel we need is a "character" running the show.
"This time it's different". I see.
Thing is, that's what people who wanted Brown and EdM in number 10 said too
On a separate post, I made the claim that in 1970 Wilson was more charismatic than Heath, in 1979 Callaghan was seen as more charismatic than Thatcher etc, etc.
I would also add we are four years away from a GE and perceptions and/or personnel could well change.
In a shoot out between Starmer and Raab/Sunak/Patel who is deemed the dullest?
Who are these people who deemed Cameron less of a personality than Brown and Milliband?
Besides which I am not sure it is the fantastic metric you claim.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
Yes yes yes but Twitter (and Facebook) are pretty much universal platforms. So the test for that should be high.
And I'd be careful about martyring her as well (which she'd love, and her fans on twitter would keep that flame alive forever) so I'd keep her inside the tent pissing out, with temporary bans and raps on the knuckles as required.
Unless she's done or said something truly reprehensible.
I'm very uneasy with that.
Essentially you're saying that - if you're successful - then the government gets to choose who should post on your website. You develop it. You pay for it. You bear the risk.
And the government gets to decide on the content, not you.
Yes and it is utterly irrelevant as we left the EU in January and rejoining would likely require the Euro and Schengen
Croatia joined the EU in 2013 and are not in the Euro or Schengen.
Croatia's EU membership obliges it to eventually join the eurozone
Same with Sweden's membership .. in theory.
I'd expect a rejoining UK to happily sign up to whatever Sweden did.
Only Denmark has an opt out, though I suspect both it and Sweden will ultimately be leaving the EU as the EU focuses increasingly around the eurozone and join Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and maybe ultimately the UK in EFTA
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
Yes yes yes but Twitter (and Facebook) are pretty much universal platforms. So the test for that should be high.
And I'd be careful about martyring her as well (which she'd love, and her fans on twitter would keep that flame alive forever) so I'd keep her inside the tent pissing out, with temporary bans and raps on the knuckles as required.
Unless she's done or said something truly reprehensible.
The fact nobody seems to know what she's said that merited a permanent ban is quite odd. Normally when these things erupt its obvious.
Is it kept quiet who complained, so she can't retaliate?
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
Yes yes yes but Twitter (and Facebook) are pretty much universal platforms. So the test for that should be high.
And I'd be careful about martyring her as well (which she'd love, and her fans on twitter would keep that flame alive forever) so I'd keep her inside the tent pissing out, with temporary bans and raps on the knuckles as required.
Unless she's done or said something truly reprehensible.
I'm very uneasy with that.
Essentially you're saying that - if you're successful - then the government gets to choose who should post on your website. You develop it. You pay for it. You bear the risk.
And the government gets to decide on the content, not you.
There's a name for that, I think.
No, I'm not saying that. And I don't know where you got the idea that the government gets to decide upon the content from.
Like it or not virtually everyone is on Facebook and Twitter. It's a key platform for public debate.
That gives it extra power but also extra duties and responsibilities.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
Yes yes yes but Twitter (and Facebook) are pretty much universal platforms. So the test for that should be high.
And I'd be careful about martyring her as well (which she'd love, and her fans on twitter would keep that flame alive forever) so I'd keep her inside the tent pissing out, with temporary bans and raps on the knuckles as required.
Unless she's done or said something truly reprehensible.
Never understood the appeal of Hopkins.
Wasn’t she just some dimwit Apprentice reject that got a bit gobby?
Does she have any ‘fans’ as such? I recall her calling for a ban on geographical children’s names, then being reminded her own daughter is called India.
Sam Coates (Sky) making a huge case for private schools though I am not sure he realises it
Private schools?
My nose twitches and I look up.
He was saying how throughout lockdown private schools have continued their tuition through zoom etc and their students have benefitted by this while the state schools have not
I don’t think that’s quite true. I have been teaching online a lot, for example. And I know of a state school on the Derbyshire border that swears by zoom teaching.
What I can say for definite is it would be a bloody sight easier to teach a titchy private sector class on Teams or Zoom or Google Meet than a state school class of 30+. My largest class is 34 and it’s damn near impossible to teach them online.
I have no doubt you are correct but Coates really did not qualify his statement as you have done
To an extent, he is right. For all the reasons I give upthread private schools that ride this storm out - many will not - will be far better placed to resume teaching next term. If exams go ahead, we’ll be looking at quite a gulf between private and state - more than usual.
Worse still might be the gaps within state schools. Academically, I'm sure mine will be fine. Even if I'm not a great primary teacher (I'm not), I've been able to do 1:2 work with them, which is way easier than 1:30. But I fear for some of their classmates.
Still very glad that one of them is now back part-time.
Disappointed Kieran didn't address my "Personality" theory.
No LotO has become PM since IPSOS-MORI started their leader image ratings in 1978 without leading on personality, and Boris leads Starmer 64-30
As has been stated several times on here, when 2024 arrives, the last thing we might feel we need is a "character" running the show.
"This time it's different". I see.
Thing is, that's what people who wanted Brown and EdM in number 10 said too
On a separate post, I made the claim that in 1970 Wilson was more charismatic than Heath, in 1979 Callaghan was seen as more charismatic than Thatcher etc, etc.
I would also add we are four years away from a GE and perceptions and/or personnel could well change.
In a shoot out between Starmer and Raab/Sunak/Patel who is deemed the dullest?
Callaghan wasn't seen as more charismatic than Thatcher according to IPSOS-MORI (if you take "Has got a lot of personality" to be a suitable question in that respect)
Yes, if Boris isn't the incumbent, it will change as no other politician, except maybe Farage, comes close to his level of "Personality" according to the IPSOS ratings. That's why I thought Starmer was a good lay to be next PM, as Boris will beat him, or if Boris is replaced he won't be the next PM, even if he won the next GE
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
Yes yes yes but Twitter (and Facebook) are pretty much universal platforms. So the test for that should be high.
And I'd be careful about martyring her as well (which she'd love, and her fans on twitter would keep that flame alive forever) so I'd keep her inside the tent pissing out, with temporary bans and raps on the knuckles as required.
Unless she's done or said something truly reprehensible.
The fact nobody seems to know what she's said that merited a permanent ban is quite odd. Normally when these things erupt its obvious.
Indeed. That's what I'm asking.
If I was being really cynical (moi?) I might say they've wanted to ban her for a while but now think the politics are such that they can get away with it, in the same way Facebook have now started censoring Trump.
For clarity: I am *not* a fan of Hopkins or Trump.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
Yes yes yes but Twitter (and Facebook) are pretty much universal platforms. So the test for that should be high.
And I'd be careful about martyring her as well (which she'd love, and her fans on twitter would keep that flame alive forever) so I'd keep her inside the tent pissing out, with temporary bans and raps on the knuckles as required.
Unless she's done or said something truly reprehensible.
I'm very uneasy with that.
Essentially you're saying that - if you're successful - then the government gets to choose who should post on your website. You develop it. You pay for it. You bear the risk.
And the government gets to decide on the content, not you.
There's a name for that, I think.
No, I'm not saying that. And I don't know where you got the idea that the government gets to decide upon the content from.
Like it or not virtually everyone is on Facebook and Twitter. It's a key platform for public debate.
That gives it extra power but also extra duties and responsibilities.
I’ve never been on Facebook and never will be. We had this last night with Trumpton’s red triangle ad. Absolutely bizarre debate.
Any company can and should be able to choose its clients. Would you argue otherwise?
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Question, though.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
I agree with you in principle but I think Twitter is an effective Uber monopoly (even though it faces nominal competition) and therefore needs nominal internal regulation that takes account of external concerns.
We haven't seen market challenges like this before, but they're there in the digital space. And very very important.
Aren't these the people who voted in 2016, don't normally vote in Westminster elections because "they're all the same" or because the BNP aren't standing in their constituency, but turned out to "get Brexit done"? The question is what does Cummings dangle in front of them next time. Hanging?
That was my immediate thought. The Brexit referendum brought out lots of habitual non-voters, I suspect they came out again to "Get Brexit Done". The hard part will be getting them out next time when they can't be terrorised with the prospect of Corbyn either.
Gavin Williamson is simply not good enough to be in the cabinet
He may have a good message but he shows no inspiration or ability to come over anything other than just reading a script put in front of him
Time to replace him Boris
He should go with Raab.
Keep Sunak, Patel and promote Truss.
Williamson being in the cabinet was the ultimate demonstration that loyalty matters more than ability. He stood up for Boris at the right time, so here's a shiny bauble.
Mrs Thatcher chose her cabinets, largely, on ability not loyalty. I wish Mr Johnson had the same self confidence.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
Yes yes yes but Twitter (and Facebook) are pretty much universal platforms. So the test for that should be high.
And I'd be careful about martyring her as well (which she'd love, and her fans on twitter would keep that flame alive forever) so I'd keep her inside the tent pissing out, with temporary bans and raps on the knuckles as required.
Unless she's done or said something truly reprehensible.
The fact nobody seems to know what she's said that merited a permanent ban is quite odd. Normally when these things erupt its obvious.
Indeed. That's what I'm asking.
If I was being really cynical (moi?) I might say they've wanted to ban her for a while but now think the politics are such that they can get away with it, in the same way Facebook have now started censoring Trump.
For clarity: I am *not* a fan of Hopkins or Trump.
It’s up to Twitter who it chooses as its clients. Similarly, it’s up to Facebook. If it doesn’t want this idiot as a client, fair enough. Neither would I. Would you?
This ‘debate’ is one of the most bizarre of all time on PB, in a very strong field of bizarreness.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
Yes yes yes but Twitter (and Facebook) are pretty much universal platforms. So the test for that should be high.
And I'd be careful about martyring her as well (which she'd love, and her fans on twitter would keep that flame alive forever) so I'd keep her inside the tent pissing out, with temporary bans and raps on the knuckles as required.
Unless she's done or said something truly reprehensible.
I'm very uneasy with that.
Essentially you're saying that - if you're successful - then the government gets to choose who should post on your website. You develop it. You pay for it. You bear the risk.
And the government gets to decide on the content, not you.
There's a name for that, I think.
No, I'm not saying that. And I don't know where you got the idea that the government gets to decide upon the content from.
Like it or not virtually everyone is on Facebook and Twitter. It's a key platform for public debate.
That gives it extra power but also extra duties and responsibilities.
You allow OGH to decide who posts to PB. His site. (His dollar.) His rules.
Why should it be different for Facebook and Twitter? They aren't performing a charitable service (just as Fox News isn't), it's a commercial operation who's duty is to its shareholders.
It does not, and should not, have any other obligations except as enacted by law and as apply to all sites. (I.e. around child pornography, promotion of violence, etc.)
The fact that Facebook has more users (for now) than Politicalbetting does not mean it should be subject to different rules.
Gavin Williamson is simply not good enough to be in the cabinet
He may have a good message but he shows no inspiration or ability to come over anything other than just reading a script put in front of him
Time to replace him Boris
He should go with Raab.
Keep Sunak, Patel and promote Truss.
Williamson being in the cabinet was the ultimate demonstration that loyalty matters more than ability. He stood up for Boris at the right time, so here's a shiny bauble.
Mrs Thatcher chose her cabinets, largely, on ability not loyalty. I wish Mr Johnson had the same self confidence.
Long-term I agree with you, though short-term I think it was reasonable to get a Cabinet aligned on how to deal with Brexit following on from May's shambolic performance.
There is a tendency for one government to over-correct the flaws of its predecessor. May's divisions and lack of authority was an utter disaster and I think Boris has over-corrected that. Next year the other side of transition there should be a reshuffle to get rid of dross like Williamson and Raab.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
Yes yes yes but Twitter (and Facebook) are pretty much universal platforms. So the test for that should be high.
And I'd be careful about martyring her as well (which she'd love, and her fans on twitter would keep that flame alive forever) so I'd keep her inside the tent pissing out, with temporary bans and raps on the knuckles as required.
Unless she's done or said something truly reprehensible.
The fact nobody seems to know what she's said that merited a permanent ban is quite odd. Normally when these things erupt its obvious.
Indeed. That's what I'm asking.
If I was being really cynical (moi?) I might say they've wanted to ban her for a while but now think the politics are such that they can get away with it, in the same way Facebook have now started censoring Trump.
For clarity: I am *not* a fan of Hopkins or Trump.
Disappointed Kieran didn't address my "Personality" theory.
No LotO has become PM since IPSOS-MORI started their leader image ratings in 1978 without leading on personality, and Boris leads Starmer 64-30
As has been stated several times on here, when 2024 arrives, the last thing we might feel we need is a "character" running the show.
"This time it's different". I see.
Thing is, that's what people who wanted Brown and EdM in number 10 said too
On a separate post, I made the claim that in 1970 Wilson was more charismatic than Heath, in 1979 Callaghan was seen as more charismatic than Thatcher etc, etc.
I would also add we are four years away from a GE and perceptions and/or personnel could well change.
In a shoot out between Starmer and Raab/Sunak/Patel who is deemed the dullest?
Callaghan wasn't seen as more charismatic than Thatcher according to IPSOS-MORI (if you take "Has got a lot of personality" to be a suitable question in that respect)
Yes, if Boris isn't the incumbent, it will change as no other politician, except maybe Farage, comes close to his level of "Personality" according to the IPSOS ratings. That's why I thought Starmer was a good lay to be next PM, as Boris will beat him, or if Boris is replaced he won't be the next PM, even if he won the next GE
Disappointed Kieran didn't address my "Personality" theory.
No LotO has become PM since IPSOS-MORI started their leader image ratings in 1978 without leading on personality, and Boris leads Starmer 64-30
As has been stated several times on here, when 2024 arrives, the last thing we might feel we need is a "character" running the show.
"This time it's different". I see.
Thing is, that's what people who wanted Brown and EdM in number 10 said too
On a separate post, I made the claim that in 1970 Wilson was more charismatic than Heath, in 1979 Callaghan was seen as more charismatic than Thatcher etc, etc.
I would also add we are four years away from a GE and perceptions and/or personnel could well change.
In a shoot out between Starmer and Raab/Sunak/Patel who is deemed the dullest?
Callaghan wasn't seen as more charismatic than Thatcher according to IPSOS-MORI (if you take "Has got a lot of personality" to be a suitable question in that respect)
Yes, if Boris isn't the incumbent, it will change as no other politician, except maybe Farage, comes close to his level of "Personality" according to the IPSOS ratings. That's why I thought Starmer was a good lay to be next PM, as Boris will beat him, or if Boris is replaced he won't be the next PM, even if he won the next GE
Starmer is a good lay as next PM because Johnson might not make it all the way till the next election and the only way he can become next PM is for a general election to happen
Also worth mentioning the Shadow Cabinet, which, although vastly improved since the dismal Corbyn rag-bag, still looks lightweight and doesn't look like a government-in-waiting. The interview with Ed Balls on WATO today was a stark reminder that Labour used to have some serious Shad Cab figures.
To be fair, with experience and more exposure the frontbench team will no doubt improve. Nonetheless, Starmer could do with making a few forensic cuts. I'd suggest ditching RL-B would be a good start.
I think that's fair comment. But I also think that with exposure the front bench team will be seen to be stronger than their Tory counterparts within a couple of years. Interestingly one who has had exposure recently, David Lammy, has in my opinion surpassed expectations, being very sensible on BLM issues including statues - a voice of reason.
R L-B had to be given a job as runner-up for the leadership, really. Given that she is up against the nonentity Gavin Williamson, if she doesn't outperform him I would expect Starmer to dispense with her services after a year or so.
Lammy is an out and out racist. He doesn't even deserve to be in Parliament let alone in the Shadow Cabinet.
You've written this before about Lammy (I ignored it then), and I think it's a shameful slur. Do you know him? Do you really think the people of Tottenham would continue to elect him (76% in 2019) if he were a racist, or are you saying that they too are racist, or are they just blind to their MP's racism?
He explicitly said the job of leading the Grenfell enquiry should not go to someone who was white.
If anyone said that a position should not go to someone because they were black they would be guilty of discrimination and probably out of a job.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Question, though.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
The whole issue is a conundrum. On the one hand, minimal government interference in private business is an obvious good for libertarians. However, for one of the premier communications platforms on the planet to either be dominated by or to exclude one side of politics is also an obvious evil for libertarians and many others.
You may well be right about why Gab etc. have failed to take off, but I suspect the main reason is the natural incuriousness produced by an overwhelmingly dominant option - people don't necessarily use Google because they have objectively assessed that it's the best search engine, but because its brand dominance is near-total, to the extent that the verb for 'to use a search engine to look up x' is 'to Google'.
Like you, I have no issue with private clubs having their own rules about membership. But the difference is that Twitter isn't the O&C, it has a massive global reach and impact. This is where I sympathize with some American libertarian lefties, who argue that media platforms of that scale have now replaced the traditional public arenas for discourse, and that access to them has become a social necessity. They should therefore be treated to some extent in law as public utilities and regulated as such - in the case of the US, that would mean applying 1st Amendment protections.
It's an intractable issue, but essentially some compromise is going to have to be reached unless we're prepared to accept a virtual monoculture on these platforms in the near future.
Yes and it is utterly irrelevant as we left the EU in January and rejoining would likely require the Euro and Schengen
It's not entirely irrelevant, we have a Brexit government and whether we were right to leave will still be very much a live issue at the GE. This government needs people to broadly believe that leaving the EU was a good thing. Leaving the EU was their USP.
Will we see any principled and courageous "I'm no fan of Hopkins but ..." contributions?
EDIT -
Sorry, did not check before posting. They are coming thick and fast!
Thick is a little unfair.
Oh well, if you insist.
- The Woke have come for Katie. All are Woke today.
I have always felt that Katie Hopkins' role, like Ann Coulter in the States, was, whether intentionally or semi-intentionally, to be as repulsive as possible and be a sort of gargoyle figure for the liberal left to point at and say 'all right wing people are like that'. As such, her passing from Twitter, whilst I'm sure it's a satisfying moment for many, is regrettable from a left wing Twitter perspective, and beneficial in the long term for right wing politics.
For me that's overthinking it.
I see a person whipping up hate and prejudice for money - it's her career.
Doubt she believes the grosser stuff she comes out with. Which imo is an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one.
It's an unabashed good that her platform and her reach have been curtailed.
It is amusing to see them still conducting these polls as if 'remaining' is an option. We are already out.
If they were being honest the question they should be asking is 'Stay Out' vs 'Rejoin'.
The problem with that kind of question is that it implies our present state of transition can be maintained. There's no longer a status quo.
There was no status quo before however much the Remainers tried to pretend there was.
But the point is that it is a binary issue just as it was before. But the question is no longer one of Remain/Leave but one of Stay Out/Rejoin.
It's true that no vote can freeze history, but we now have an explicitly temporary status in a way that would certainly not have been the case after a Remain vote. 'Stay' implies keeping what we have, which now can only be done by agreeing a permanent BINO deal.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Question, though.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
The whole issue is a conundrum. On the one hand, minimal government interference in private business is an obvious good for libertarians. However, for one of the premier communications platforms on the planet to either be dominated by or to exclude one side of politics is also an obvious evil for libertarians and many others.
You may well be right about why Gab etc. have failed to take off, but I suspect the main reason is the natural incuriousness produced by an overwhelmingly dominant option - people don't necessarily use Google because they have objectively assessed that it's the best search engine, but because its brand dominance is near-total, to the extent that the verb for 'to use a search engine to look up x' is 'to Google'.
Like you, I have no issue with private clubs having their own rules about membership. But the difference is that Twitter isn't the O&C, it has a massive global reach and impact. This is where I sympathize with some American libertarian lefties, who argue that media platforms of that scale have now replaced the traditional public arenas for discourse, and that access to them has become a social necessity. They should therefore be treated to some extent in law as public utilities and regulated as such - in the case of the US, that would mean applying 1st Amendment protections.
It's an intractable issue, but essentially some compromise is going to have to be reached unless we're prepared to accept a virtual monoculture on these platforms in the near future.
Completely disagreed. Twitter is one platform of many, its far from unique. Its not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination.
The importance of Twitter is grossly exaggerated. Its full of self-important blow hards.
I can't find comparable figures for the UK from a quick Google but in the USA only 22% of American adults use Twitter - and the majority of them don't use it frequently.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
Yes yes yes but Twitter (and Facebook) are pretty much universal platforms. So the test for that should be high.
And I'd be careful about martyring her as well (which she'd love, and her fans on twitter would keep that flame alive forever) so I'd keep her inside the tent pissing out, with temporary bans and raps on the knuckles as required.
Unless she's done or said something truly reprehensible.
Never understood the appeal of Hopkins.
Wasn’t she just some dimwit Apprentice reject that got a bit gobby?
Does she have any ‘fans’ as such? I recall her calling for a ban on geographical children’s names, then being reminded her own daughter is called India.
She seems like a bit of an idiot.
I think she is worse than an idiot. Some of her comments come dangerously close to the 'shouting fire in a cinema' category.
Disappointed Kieran didn't address my "Personality" theory.
No LotO has become PM since IPSOS-MORI started their leader image ratings in 1978 without leading on personality, and Boris leads Starmer 64-30
As has been stated several times on here, when 2024 arrives, the last thing we might feel we need is a "character" running the show.
"This time it's different". I see.
Thing is, that's what people who wanted Brown and EdM in number 10 said too
On a separate post, I made the claim that in 1970 Wilson was more charismatic than Heath, in 1979 Callaghan was seen as more charismatic than Thatcher etc, etc.
I would also add we are four years away from a GE and perceptions and/or personnel could well change.
In a shoot out between Starmer and Raab/Sunak/Patel who is deemed the dullest?
Callaghan wasn't seen as more charismatic than Thatcher according to IPSOS-MORI (if you take "Has got a lot of personality" to be a suitable question in that respect)
Yes, if Boris isn't the incumbent, it will change as no other politician, except maybe Farage, comes close to his level of "Personality" according to the IPSOS ratings. That's why I thought Starmer was a good lay to be next PM, as Boris will beat him, or if Boris is replaced he won't be the next PM, even if he won the next GE
I personally don't think it a very good metric. Boris could still be the leader, bouncing around like Tigger on steroids but if the economy is shot away Starmer wins.
He will and it might work despite it being blindingly obvious that this is all worse with him leading it.
"Dont like whats happening on my watch? Vote for me, because I can sort it out, even if I havent done this term." shouldnt be an election winner, but bizarrely might be,
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Trump and Brexit are the only 2 instances that really conform to your theory and we are about to get a judgement on the former very shortly.
It is amusing to see them still conducting these polls as if 'remaining' is an option. We are already out.
If they were being honest the question they should be asking is 'Stay Out' vs 'Rejoin'.
The problem with that kind of question is that it implies our present state of transition can be maintained. There's no longer a status quo.
There was no status quo before however much the Remainers tried to pretend there was.
But the point is that it is a binary issue just as it was before. But the question is no longer one of Remain/Leave but one of Stay Out/Rejoin.
It's true that no vote can freeze history, but we now have an explicitly temporary status in a way that would certainly not have been the case after a Remain vote. 'Stay' implies keeping what we have, which now can only be done by agreeing a permanent BINO deal.
Nope that is utterly misleading. Legally we are outside the EU. That has many consequences.
We cannot, for example, be part of the Customs Union because that is, by treaty, exclusively for EU members.
So as I say the question should be one of Rejoin or Stay Out. Remain is not an option because to Remain you have to actually be in something.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Trump and Brexit are the only 2 instances that really conform to your theory and we are about to get a judgement on the former very shortly.
GE2019. You couldn't move on Twitter for red roses, Labour smears, and 'long lines in London'. For all the good it did them
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
Yes yes yes but Twitter (and Facebook) are pretty much universal platforms. So the test for that should be high.
And I'd be careful about martyring her as well (which she'd love, and her fans on twitter would keep that flame alive forever) so I'd keep her inside the tent pissing out, with temporary bans and raps on the knuckles as required.
Unless she's done or said something truly reprehensible.
Never understood the appeal of Hopkins.
Wasn’t she just some dimwit Apprentice reject that got a bit gobby?
Does she have any ‘fans’ as such? I recall her calling for a ban on geographical children’s names, then being reminded her own daughter is called India.
He will and it might work despite it being blindingly obvious that this is all worse with him leading it.
"Dont like whats happening on my watch? Vote for me, because I can sort it out, even if I havent done this term." shouldnt be an election winner, but bizarrely might be,
A couple of weeks ago he was almost explicitly saying, "Don't like what's happening on my watch? Blame the last guy because he's the reason I got elected."
Yes and it is utterly irrelevant as we left the EU in January and rejoining would likely require the Euro and Schengen
Croatia joined the EU in 2013 and are not in the Euro or Schengen.
Croatia's EU membership obliges it to eventually join the eurozone
Eventually being the key word . There is no timeframe to have the Euro so you can just never do it. And you just put in tests that can never be passed .
That's not true anymore. The EU eventually insists on a timeline and realistic tests. They learned from the Swedish and British lessons.
Will we see any principled and courageous "I'm no fan of Hopkins but ..." contributions?
EDIT -
Sorry, did not check before posting. They are coming thick and fast!
Thick is a little unfair.
Oh well, if you insist.
- The Woke have come for Katie. All are Woke today.
I have always felt that Katie Hopkins' role, like Ann Coulter in the States, was, whether intentionally or semi-intentionally, to be as repulsive as possible and be a sort of gargoyle figure for the liberal left to point at and say 'all right wing people are like that'. As such, her passing from Twitter, whilst I'm sure it's a satisfying moment for many, is regrettable from a left wing Twitter perspective, and beneficial in the long term for right wing politics.
For me that's overthinking it.
I see a person whipping up hate and prejudice for money - it's her career.
Doubt she believes the grosser stuff she comes out with. Which imo is an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one.
It's an unabashed good that her platform and her reach have been curtailed.
Yes of course, the curtailment of free speech is always an unabashed good...
Did her tweets jump out of the screen and bite the reader? Or did readers have the option to block her or scroll past if they didn't want to read them, y'know, like adults do?
It is amusing to see them still conducting these polls as if 'remaining' is an option. We are already out.
If they were being honest the question they should be asking is 'Stay Out' vs 'Rejoin'.
The problem with that kind of question is that it implies our present state of transition can be maintained. There's no longer a status quo.
There was no status quo before however much the Remainers tried to pretend there was.
But the point is that it is a binary issue just as it was before. But the question is no longer one of Remain/Leave but one of Stay Out/Rejoin.
It's true that no vote can freeze history, but we now have an explicitly temporary status in a way that would certainly not have been the case after a Remain vote. 'Stay' implies keeping what we have, which now can only be done by agreeing a permanent BINO deal.
Nope that is utterly misleading. Legally we are outside the EU. That has many consequences.
We cannot, for example, be part of the Customs Union because that is, by treaty, exclusively for EU members.
So as I say the question should be one of Rejoin or Stay Out. Remain is not an option because to Remain you have to actually be in something.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Question, though.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
The whole issue is a conundrum. On the one hand, minimal government interference in private business is an obvious good for libertarians. However, for one of the premier communications platforms on the planet to either be dominated by or to exclude one side of politics is also an obvious evil for libertarians and many others.
You may well be right about why Gab etc. have failed to take off, but I suspect the main reason is the natural incuriousness produced by an overwhelmingly dominant option - people don't necessarily use Google because they have objectively assessed that it's the best search engine, but because its brand dominance is near-total, to the extent that the verb for 'to use a search engine to look up x' is 'to Google'.
Like you, I have no issue with private clubs having their own rules about membership. But the difference is that Twitter isn't the O&C, it has a massive global reach and impact. This is where I sympathize with some American libertarian lefties, who argue that media platforms of that scale have now replaced the traditional public arenas for discourse, and that access to them has become a social necessity. They should therefore be treated to some extent in law as public utilities and regulated as such - in the case of the US, that would mean applying 1st Amendment protections.
It's an intractable issue, but essentially some compromise is going to have to be reached unless we're prepared to accept a virtual monoculture on these platforms in the near future.
It's worth remembering that things change, and often change very quickly.
Internet Explorer was the dominant web browser, to the extent that the EU was really worried about it. (And mandated some stupid browser selection thing.)
Then suddenly it wasn't (and it wasn't anything to do with the EU). Google built a better product with Chrome and people switched.
Right now, Google is losing share in browsers to Brave, and in search to both DuckDuckGo and - somewhat unbelievably - Bing.
Young people don't use Facebook or Twitter. They use Snapchat and TikTok. Facebook and Twitter are for old people.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Question, though.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
The whole issue is a conundrum. On the one hand, minimal government interference in private business is an obvious good for libertarians. However, for one of the premier communications platforms on the planet to either be dominated by or to exclude one side of politics is also an obvious evil for libertarians and many others.
You may well be right about why Gab etc. have failed to take off, but I suspect the main reason is the natural incuriousness produced by an overwhelmingly dominant option - people don't necessarily use Google because they have objectively assessed that it's the best search engine, but because its brand dominance is near-total, to the extent that the verb for 'to use a search engine to look up x' is 'to Google'.
Like you, I have no issue with private clubs having their own rules about membership. But the difference is that Twitter isn't the O&C, it has a massive global reach and impact. This is where I sympathize with some American libertarian lefties, who argue that media platforms of that scale have now replaced the traditional public arenas for discourse, and that access to them has become a social necessity. They should therefore be treated to some extent in law as public utilities and regulated as such - in the case of the US, that would mean applying 1st Amendment protections.
It's an intractable issue, but essentially some compromise is going to have to be reached unless we're prepared to accept a virtual monoculture on these platforms in the near future.
Completely disagreed. Twitter is one platform of many, its far from unique. Its not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination.
The importance of Twitter is grossly exaggerated. Its full of self-important blow hards.
I can't find comparable figures for the UK from a quick Google but in the USA only 22% of American adults use Twitter - and the majority of them don't use it frequently.
Americans spend far, far more time watching Fox News than being on Twitter. Given how important it is, shouldn't the government stop Fox News from silencing liberals???
Also worth mentioning the Shadow Cabinet, which, although vastly improved since the dismal Corbyn rag-bag, still looks lightweight and doesn't look like a government-in-waiting. The interview with Ed Balls on WATO today was a stark reminder that Labour used to have some serious Shad Cab figures.
To be fair, with experience and more exposure the frontbench team will no doubt improve. Nonetheless, Starmer could do with making a few forensic cuts. I'd suggest ditching RL-B would be a good start.
I think that's fair comment. But I also think that with exposure the front bench team will be seen to be stronger than their Tory counterparts within a couple of years. Interestingly one who has had exposure recently, David Lammy, has in my opinion surpassed expectations, being very sensible on BLM issues including statues - a voice of reason.
R L-B had to be given a job as runner-up for the leadership, really. Given that she is up against the nonentity Gavin Williamson, if she doesn't outperform him I would expect Starmer to dispense with her services after a year or so.
Lammy is an out and out racist. He doesn't even deserve to be in Parliament let alone in the Shadow Cabinet.
You've written this before about Lammy (I ignored it then), and I think it's a shameful slur. Do you know him? Do you really think the people of Tottenham would continue to elect him (76% in 2019) if he were a racist, or are you saying that they too are racist, or are they just blind to their MP's racism?
He explicitly said the job of leading the Grenfell enquiry should not go to someone who was white.
If anyone said that a position should not go to someone because they were black they would be guilty of discrimination and probably out of a job.
In which case the next statues to be attacked might not be Clive or Lincoln, they could be Mandela or Martin Luther King
Complete bastards. Of course they want to stir up more trouble and cause more riots.
Which is why the original toppling, of Colston in Bristol, should absolutely have been stopped, however righteous the cause. These things need to be done legally and peacefully
We are now in a vicious spiral of tit-for-tat
It certainly wasn't the "original toppling". A statue of General Wickham in Richmond, Virginia, was toppled the previous day and there may well have been others.
Also, thank goodness you're not a Police commander. A heavy handed response would certainly have provoked a major riot and probably have placed officers and others in serious danger. It would've been crazy policing.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Question, though.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
The whole issue is a conundrum. On the one hand, minimal government interference in private business is an obvious good for libertarians. However, for one of the premier communications platforms on the planet to either be dominated by or to exclude one side of politics is also an obvious evil for libertarians and many others.
You may well be right about why Gab etc. have failed to take off, but I suspect the main reason is the natural incuriousness produced by an overwhelmingly dominant option - people don't necessarily use Google because they have objectively assessed that it's the best search engine, but because its brand dominance is near-total, to the extent that the verb for 'to use a search engine to look up x' is 'to Google'.
Like you, I have no issue with private clubs having their own rules about membership. But the difference is that Twitter isn't the O&C, it has a massive global reach and impact. This is where I sympathize with some American libertarian lefties, who argue that media platforms of that scale have now replaced the traditional public arenas for discourse, and that access to them has become a social necessity. They should therefore be treated to some extent in law as public utilities and regulated as such - in the case of the US, that would mean applying 1st Amendment protections.
It's an intractable issue, but essentially some compromise is going to have to be reached unless we're prepared to accept a virtual monoculture on these platforms in the near future.
It's worth remembering that things change, and often change very quickly.
Internet Explorer was the dominant web browser, to the extent that the EU was really worried about it. (And mandated some stupid browser selection thing.)
Then suddenly it wasn't (and it wasn't anything to do with the EU). Google built a better product with Chrome and people switched.
Right now, Google is losing share in browsers to Brave, and in search to both DuckDuckGo and - somewhat unbelievably - Bing.
Young people don't use Facebook or Twitter. They use Snapchat and TikTok. Facebook and Twitter are for old people.
The government should not be interfering.
This kind of tech is a challenge to traditional thinking about competition because apparent monopolies tend to be unstable and short-lived.
I spent half of the 1990s trying to persuade people at my school to switch from Microsoft Windows to Apple Macintosh without success. It was a big surprise when Apple products suddenly became popular about 10 years later because I'd grown accustomed to thinking it would never happen.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Question, though.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
The whole issue is a conundrum. On the one hand, minimal government interference in private business is an obvious good for libertarians. However, for one of the premier communications platforms on the planet to either be dominated by or to exclude one side of politics is also an obvious evil for libertarians and many others.
You may well be right about why Gab etc. have failed to take off, but I suspect the main reason is the natural incuriousness produced by an overwhelmingly dominant option - people don't necessarily use Google because they have objectively assessed that it's the best search engine, but because its brand dominance is near-total, to the extent that the verb for 'to use a search engine to look up x' is 'to Google'.
Like you, I have no issue with private clubs having their own rules about membership. But the difference is that Twitter isn't the O&C, it has a massive global reach and impact. This is where I sympathize with some American libertarian lefties, who argue that media platforms of that scale have now replaced the traditional public arenas for discourse, and that access to them has become a social necessity. They should therefore be treated to some extent in law as public utilities and regulated as such - in the case of the US, that would mean applying 1st Amendment protections.
It's an intractable issue, but essentially some compromise is going to have to be reached unless we're prepared to accept a virtual monoculture on these platforms in the near future.
It's worth remembering that things change, and often change very quickly.
Internet Explorer was the dominant web browser, to the extent that the EU was really worried about it. (And mandated some stupid browser selection thing.)
Then suddenly it wasn't (and it wasn't anything to do with the EU). Google built a better product with Chrome and people switched.
Right now, Google is losing share in browsers to Brave, and in search to both DuckDuckGo and - somewhat unbelievably - Bing.
Young people don't use Facebook or Twitter. They use Snapchat and TikTok. Facebook and Twitter are for old people.
The government should not be interfering.
Only a tiny handful of my friends still use Facebook. So it’s not just the young deserting it
It used to be near universal.
I’m surprised this marked decline hasn’t really shown through in ostensible userbase or FB shares yet
Do you ever wonder if, perhaps, your personal anecdote isn't actually representative of the whole world? Amazing, I know, but bear with me.
There is extensive data on this and, while investors do worry about the aging user base, daily impressions have in actual fact continued to grow, albeit far more slowly than in the past.
Also worth mentioning the Shadow Cabinet, which, although vastly improved since the dismal Corbyn rag-bag, still looks lightweight and doesn't look like a government-in-waiting. The interview with Ed Balls on WATO today was a stark reminder that Labour used to have some serious Shad Cab figures.
To be fair, with experience and more exposure the frontbench team will no doubt improve. Nonetheless, Starmer could do with making a few forensic cuts. I'd suggest ditching RL-B would be a good start.
I think that's fair comment. But I also think that with exposure the front bench team will be seen to be stronger than their Tory counterparts within a couple of years. Interestingly one who has had exposure recently, David Lammy, has in my opinion surpassed expectations, being very sensible on BLM issues including statues - a voice of reason.
R L-B had to be given a job as runner-up for the leadership, really. Given that she is up against the nonentity Gavin Williamson, if she doesn't outperform him I would expect Starmer to dispense with her services after a year or so.
Lammy is an out and out racist. He doesn't even deserve to be in Parliament let alone in the Shadow Cabinet.
You've written this before about Lammy (I ignored it then), and I think it's a shameful slur. Do you know him? Do you really think the people of Tottenham would continue to elect him (76% in 2019) if he were a racist, or are you saying that they too are racist, or are they just blind to their MP's racism?
He explicitly said the job of leading the Grenfell enquiry should not go to someone who was white.
If anyone said that a position should not go to someone because they were black they would be guilty of discrimination and probably out of a job.
What is the difference?
That is infantile.
It is in no way infantile. If anyone were to say someone should be denied a job because they were black you would be all over it. And rightly so. But apparently it is okay for Lammy to say exactly the same thing about whites.
If you believe that you are a hypocrite and are part of the problem.
In which case the next statues to be attacked might not be Clive or Lincoln, they could be Mandela or Martin Luther King
Complete bastards. Of course they want to stir up more trouble and cause more riots.
Which is why the original toppling, of Colston in Bristol, should absolutely have been stopped, however righteous the cause. These things need to be done legally and peacefully
We are now in a vicious spiral of tit-for-tat
It certainly wasn't the "original toppling". A statue of General Wickham in Richmond, Virginia, was toppled the previous day and there may well have been others.
Also, thank goodness you're not a Police commander. A heavy handed response would certainly have provoked a major riot and probably have placed officers and others in serious danger. It would've been crazy policing.
He is talking about the UK. We are not the 51st State.
I didn't know anything about Val Deming, but she seems like a good pick for the Biden VP slot: a black career police officer with a very humble background, who drives Harleys and comes from the key state of Florida.
Also worth mentioning the Shadow Cabinet, which, although vastly improved since the dismal Corbyn rag-bag, still looks lightweight and doesn't look like a government-in-waiting. The interview with Ed Balls on WATO today was a stark reminder that Labour used to have some serious Shad Cab figures.
To be fair, with experience and more exposure the frontbench team will no doubt improve. Nonetheless, Starmer could do with making a few forensic cuts. I'd suggest ditching RL-B would be a good start.
A decade ago Ed Balls was someone viewed with widespread derision.
It is amusing to see them still conducting these polls as if 'remaining' is an option. We are already out.
If they were being honest the question they should be asking is 'Stay Out' vs 'Rejoin'.
The problem with that kind of question is that it implies our present state of transition can be maintained. There's no longer a status quo.
There was no status quo before however much the Remainers tried to pretend there was.
But the point is that it is a binary issue just as it was before. But the question is no longer one of Remain/Leave but one of Stay Out/Rejoin.
It's true that no vote can freeze history, but we now have an explicitly temporary status in a way that would certainly not have been the case after a Remain vote. 'Stay' implies keeping what we have, which now can only be done by agreeing a permanent BINO deal.
Nope that is utterly misleading. Legally we are outside the EU. That has many consequences.
We cannot, for example, be part of the Customs Union because that is, by treaty, exclusively for EU members.
So as I say the question should be one of Rejoin or Stay Out. Remain is not an option because to Remain you have to actually be in something.
We are currently in the customs union.
Only until the end of the year. We are not allowed to stay in whatever the final deal.
We have had this discussion before and you have argued exactly the same thing as I am saying. We can be in 'a' customs union. We cannot be in 'the' Customs Union
It is amusing to see them still conducting these polls as if 'remaining' is an option. We are already out.
If they were being honest the question they should be asking is 'Stay Out' vs 'Rejoin'.
The problem with that kind of question is that it implies our present state of transition can be maintained. There's no longer a status quo.
There was no status quo before however much the Remainers tried to pretend there was.
But the point is that it is a binary issue just as it was before. But the question is no longer one of Remain/Leave but one of Stay Out/Rejoin.
It's true that no vote can freeze history, but we now have an explicitly temporary status in a way that would certainly not have been the case after a Remain vote. 'Stay' implies keeping what we have, which now can only be done by agreeing a permanent BINO deal.
Nope that is utterly misleading. Legally we are outside the EU. That has many consequences.
We cannot, for example, be part of the Customs Union because that is, by treaty, exclusively for EU members.
So as I say the question should be one of Rejoin or Stay Out. Remain is not an option because to Remain you have to actually be in something.
We are currently in the customs union.
Only until the end of the year. We are not allowed to stay in whatever the final deal.
We have had this discussion before and you have argued exactly the same thing as I am saying. We can be in 'a' customs union. We cannot be in 'the' Customs Union
So we can't 'stay' with our current status, and your suggested question is just as misleading as the one you object to.
Also worth mentioning the Shadow Cabinet, which, although vastly improved since the dismal Corbyn rag-bag, still looks lightweight and doesn't look like a government-in-waiting. The interview with Ed Balls on WATO today was a stark reminder that Labour used to have some serious Shad Cab figures.
To be fair, with experience and more exposure the frontbench team will no doubt improve. Nonetheless, Starmer could do with making a few forensic cuts. I'd suggest ditching RL-B would be a good start.
A decade ago Ed Balls was someone viewed with widespread derision.
It is amusing to see them still conducting these polls as if 'remaining' is an option. We are already out.
If they were being honest the question they should be asking is 'Stay Out' vs 'Rejoin'.
The problem with that kind of question is that it implies our present state of transition can be maintained. There's no longer a status quo.
There was no status quo before however much the Remainers tried to pretend there was.
But the point is that it is a binary issue just as it was before. But the question is no longer one of Remain/Leave but one of Stay Out/Rejoin.
It's true that no vote can freeze history, but we now have an explicitly temporary status in a way that would certainly not have been the case after a Remain vote. 'Stay' implies keeping what we have, which now can only be done by agreeing a permanent BINO deal.
Nope that is utterly misleading. Legally we are outside the EU. That has many consequences.
We cannot, for example, be part of the Customs Union because that is, by treaty, exclusively for EU members.
So as I say the question should be one of Rejoin or Stay Out. Remain is not an option because to Remain you have to actually be in something.
We are currently in the customs union.
Only until the end of the year. We are not allowed to stay in whatever the final deal.
We have had this discussion before and you have argued exactly the same thing as I am saying. We can be in 'a' customs union. We cannot be in 'the' Customs Union
So we can't 'stay' with our current status, and your suggested question is just as misleading as the one you object to.
No one said anything about staying in the current arrangement. We are talking about staying out.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
Yes yes yes but Twitter (and Facebook) are pretty much universal platforms. So the test for that should be high.
And I'd be careful about martyring her as well (which she'd love, and her fans on twitter would keep that flame alive forever) so I'd keep her inside the tent pissing out, with temporary bans and raps on the knuckles as required.
Unless she's done or said something truly reprehensible.
Never understood the appeal of Hopkins.
Wasn’t she just some dimwit Apprentice reject that got a bit gobby?
Does she have any ‘fans’ as such? I recall her calling for a ban on geographical children’s names, then being reminded her own daughter is called India.
She seems like a bit of an idiot.
I think she is worse than an idiot. Some of her comments come dangerously close to the 'shouting fire in a cinema' category.
Absolutely. She is no idiot. Purveyor of Hate for money and publicity. There is no massive "draw the line" or "slippery slope" concern here. It's Twitter stopping the misuse of their platform. As they should. I hope they do more of it.
Also worth mentioning the Shadow Cabinet, which, although vastly improved since the dismal Corbyn rag-bag, still looks lightweight and doesn't look like a government-in-waiting. The interview with Ed Balls on WATO today was a stark reminder that Labour used to have some serious Shad Cab figures.
To be fair, with experience and more exposure the frontbench team will no doubt improve. Nonetheless, Starmer could do with making a few forensic cuts. I'd suggest ditching RL-B would be a good start.
I think that's fair comment. But I also think that with exposure the front bench team will be seen to be stronger than their Tory counterparts within a couple of years. Interestingly one who has had exposure recently, David Lammy, has in my opinion surpassed expectations, being very sensible on BLM issues including statues - a voice of reason.
R L-B had to be given a job as runner-up for the leadership, really. Given that she is up against the nonentity Gavin Williamson, if she doesn't outperform him I would expect Starmer to dispense with her services after a year or so.
Lammy is an out and out racist. He doesn't even deserve to be in Parliament let alone in the Shadow Cabinet.
You've written this before about Lammy (I ignored it then), and I think it's a shameful slur. Do you know him? Do you really think the people of Tottenham would continue to elect him (76% in 2019) if he were a racist, or are you saying that they too are racist, or are they just blind to their MP's racism?
He explicitly said the job of leading the Grenfell enquiry should not go to someone who was white.
If anyone said that a position should not go to someone because they were black they would be guilty of discrimination and probably out of a job.
What is the difference?
His argument was that for the enquiry to have credibility with the local community it should be lead by somebody representative of that community. Like you, I don't really agree with him on that.
But it's a stretch to argue that this one piece of evidence shows that he is a racist, when there is a vast amount of evidence to the contrary.
Similarly, I don't regard the PM as a racist because of individual comments he has made in the past that many regarded as racist. But presumably you would argue he is a racist.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Question, though.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
The whole issue is a conundrum. On the one hand, minimal government interference in private business is an obvious good for libertarians. However, for one of the premier communications platforms on the planet to either be dominated by or to exclude one side of politics is also an obvious evil for libertarians and many others.
You may well be right about why Gab etc. have failed to take off, but I suspect the main reason is the natural incuriousness produced by an overwhelmingly dominant option - people don't necessarily use Google because they have objectively assessed that it's the best search engine, but because its brand dominance is near-total, to the extent that the verb for 'to use a search engine to look up x' is 'to Google'.
Like you, I have no issue with private clubs having their own rules about membership. But the difference is that Twitter isn't the O&C, it has a massive global reach and impact. This is where I sympathize with some American libertarian lefties, who argue that media platforms of that scale have now replaced the traditional public arenas for discourse, and that access to them has become a social necessity. They should therefore be treated to some extent in law as public utilities and regulated as such - in the case of the US, that would mean applying 1st Amendment protections.
It's an intractable issue, but essentially some compromise is going to have to be reached unless we're prepared to accept a virtual monoculture on these platforms in the near future.
It's worth remembering that things change, and often change very quickly.
Internet Explorer was the dominant web browser, to the extent that the EU was really worried about it. (And mandated some stupid browser selection thing.)
Then suddenly it wasn't (and it wasn't anything to do with the EU). Google built a better product with Chrome and people switched.
Right now, Google is losing share in browsers to Brave, and in search to both DuckDuckGo and - somewhat unbelievably - Bing.
Young people don't use Facebook or Twitter. They use Snapchat and TikTok. Facebook and Twitter are for old people.
The government should not be interfering.
But the corporate culture and politics of all these different companies is going to be rather similar, won't it? So you'll end up having the same spectrum of permitted centre > centre-left > hard left voices on Twitter / Snapchat / TikTok / WhatWhat / HelpHowDoesThisWork etc. Any flavour of ice-cream you like, as long as it's carbon-neutral, vegan, anti-imperialist vanilla.
I have a pet theory that doctrinaire libertarianism - attractive though I find it in theory - inherently trends towards its own destruction, because it gives free reign to voices and forces that are fundamentally hostile to it. I'm afraid something similar will eventually happen in the social media space - libertarianism for the platform owners, left-wing authoritarianism for the platform users.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Question, though.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
The whole issue is a conundrum. On the one hand, minimal government interference in private business is an obvious good for libertarians. However, for one of the premier communications platforms on the planet to either be dominated by or to exclude one side of politics is also an obvious evil for libertarians and many others.
You may well be right about why Gab etc. have failed to take off, but I suspect the main reason is the natural incuriousness produced by an overwhelmingly dominant option - people don't necessarily use Google because they have objectively assessed that it's the best search engine, but because its brand dominance is near-total, to the extent that the verb for 'to use a search engine to look up x' is 'to Google'.
Like you, I have no issue with private clubs having their own rules about membership. But the difference is that Twitter isn't the O&C, it has a massive global reach and impact. This is where I sympathize with some American libertarian lefties, who argue that media platforms of that scale have now replaced the traditional public arenas for discourse, and that access to them has become a social necessity. They should therefore be treated to some extent in law as public utilities and regulated as such - in the case of the US, that would mean applying 1st Amendment protections.
It's an intractable issue, but essentially some compromise is going to have to be reached unless we're prepared to accept a virtual monoculture on these platforms in the near future.
It's worth remembering that things change, and often change very quickly.
Internet Explorer was the dominant web browser, to the extent that the EU was really worried about it. (And mandated some stupid browser selection thing.)
Then suddenly it wasn't (and it wasn't anything to do with the EU). Google built a better product with Chrome and people switched.
Right now, Google is losing share in browsers to Brave, and in search to both DuckDuckGo and - somewhat unbelievably - Bing.
Young people don't use Facebook or Twitter. They use Snapchat and TikTok. Facebook and Twitter are for old people.
The government should not be interfering.
Only a tiny handful of my friends still use Facebook. So it’s not just the young deserting it
It used to be near universal.
I’m surprised this marked decline hasn’t really shown through in ostensible userbase or FB shares yet
Do you ever wonder if, perhaps, your personal anecdote isn't actually representative of the whole world? Amazing, I know, but bear with me.
There is extensive data on this and, while investors do worry about the aging user base, daily impressions have in actual fact continued to grow, albeit far more slowly than in the past.
This accords with my personal anecdote. People I know now use Facebook PASSIVELY. There is less interaction, fewer posts.
My friends are a smart tech savvy bunch so they might be pioneers here
As for my 24 year old wife and her friends, none of them go near Facebook. I think it is in trouble in the medium term, tho they also own WhatsApp and Instagram of course
I find this Facebook is "for old people" stuff f*cking weird.
I first signed up in 2006, when I was 24. It was cutting edge stuff.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Question, though.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
The whole issue is a conundrum. On the one hand, minimal government interference in private business is an obvious good for libertarians. However, for one of the premier communications platforms on the planet to either be dominated by or to exclude one side of politics is also an obvious evil for libertarians and many others.
You may well be right about why Gab etc. have failed to take off, but I suspect the main reason is the natural incuriousness produced by an overwhelmingly dominant option - people don't necessarily use Google because they have objectively assessed that it's the best search engine, but because its brand dominance is near-total, to the extent that the verb for 'to use a search engine to look up x' is 'to Google'.
Like you, I have no issue with private clubs having their own rules about membership. But the difference is that Twitter isn't the O&C, it has a massive global reach and impact. This is where I sympathize with some American libertarian lefties, who argue that media platforms of that scale have now replaced the traditional public arenas for discourse, and that access to them has become a social necessity. They should therefore be treated to some extent in law as public utilities and regulated as such - in the case of the US, that would mean applying 1st Amendment protections.
It's an intractable issue, but essentially some compromise is going to have to be reached unless we're prepared to accept a virtual monoculture on these platforms in the near future.
It's worth remembering that things change, and often change very quickly.
Internet Explorer was the dominant web browser, to the extent that the EU was really worried about it. (And mandated some stupid browser selection thing.)
Then suddenly it wasn't (and it wasn't anything to do with the EU). Google built a better product with Chrome and people switched.
Right now, Google is losing share in browsers to Brave, and in search to both DuckDuckGo and - somewhat unbelievably - Bing.
Young people don't use Facebook or Twitter. They use Snapchat and TikTok. Facebook and Twitter are for old people.
The government should not be interfering.
But the corporate culture and politics of all these different companies is going to be rather similar, won't it? So you'll end up having the same spectrum of permitted centre > centre-left > hard left voices on Twitter / Snapchat / TikTok / WhatWhat / HelpHowDoesThisWork etc. Any flavour of ice-cream you like, as long as it's carbon-neutral, vegan, anti-imperialist vanilla.
I have a pet theory that doctrinaire libertarianism - attractive though I find it in theory - inherently trends towards its own destruction, because it gives free reign to voices and forces that are fundamentally hostile to it. I'm afraid something similar will eventually happen in the social media space - libertarianism for the platform owners, left-wing authoritarianism for the platform users.
If you're bluest Blue everything appears to be shades of Red.
In which case the next statues to be attacked might not be Clive or Lincoln, they could be Mandela or Martin Luther King
Exactly what happens once groups, however worthy, stop operating by the rule of law. The people you oppose most imitate your tactics and you cannot rely on the appeal to the rule of law to uphold your view against theirs.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Question, though.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
The whole issue is a conundrum. On the one hand, minimal government interference in private business is an obvious good for libertarians. However, for one of the premier communications platforms on the planet to either be dominated by or to exclude one side of politics is also an obvious evil for libertarians and many others.
You may well be right about why Gab etc. have failed to take off, but I suspect the main reason is the natural incuriousness produced by an overwhelmingly dominant option - people don't necessarily use Google because they have objectively assessed that it's the best search engine, but because its brand dominance is near-total, to the extent that the verb for 'to use a search engine to look up x' is 'to Google'.
Like you, I have no issue with private clubs having their own rules about membership. But the difference is that Twitter isn't the O&C, it has a massive global reach and impact. This is where I sympathize with some American libertarian lefties, who argue that media platforms of that scale have now replaced the traditional public arenas for discourse, and that access to them has become a social necessity. They should therefore be treated to some extent in law as public utilities and regulated as such - in the case of the US, that would mean applying 1st Amendment protections.
It's an intractable issue, but essentially some compromise is going to have to be reached unless we're prepared to accept a virtual monoculture on these platforms in the near future.
It's worth remembering that things change, and often change very quickly.
Internet Explorer was the dominant web browser, to the extent that the EU was really worried about it. (And mandated some stupid browser selection thing.)
Then suddenly it wasn't (and it wasn't anything to do with the EU). Google built a better product with Chrome and people switched.
Right now, Google is losing share in browsers to Brave, and in search to both DuckDuckGo and - somewhat unbelievably - Bing.
Young people don't use Facebook or Twitter. They use Snapchat and TikTok. Facebook and Twitter are for old people.
The government should not be interfering.
But the corporate culture and politics of all these different companies is going to be rather similar, won't it? So you'll end up having the same spectrum of permitted centre > centre-left > hard left voices on Twitter / Snapchat / TikTok / WhatWhat / HelpHowDoesThisWork etc. Any flavour of ice-cream you like, as long as it's carbon-neutral, vegan, anti-imperialist vanilla.
I have a pet theory that doctrinaire libertarianism - attractive though I find it in theory - inherently trends towards its own destruction, because it gives free reign to voices and forces that are fundamentally hostile to it. I'm afraid something similar will eventually happen in the social media space - libertarianism for the platform owners, left-wing authoritarianism for the platform users.
If you're bluest Blue everything appears to be shades of Red.
... applies in reverse too. Also in the US where the colors (sic) are the opposite of the UK.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Question, though.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
The whole issue is a conundrum. On the one hand, minimal government interference in private business is an obvious good for libertarians. However, for one of the premier communications platforms on the planet to either be dominated by or to exclude one side of politics is also an obvious evil for libertarians and many others.
You may well be right about why Gab etc. have failed to take off, but I suspect the main reason is the natural incuriousness produced by an overwhelmingly dominant option - people don't necessarily use Google because they have objectively assessed that it's the best search engine, but because its brand dominance is near-total, to the extent that the verb for 'to use a search engine to look up x' is 'to Google'.
Like you, I have no issue with private clubs having their own rules about membership. But the difference is that Twitter isn't the O&C, it has a massive global reach and impact. This is where I sympathize with some American libertarian lefties, who argue that media platforms of that scale have now replaced the traditional public arenas for discourse, and that access to them has become a social necessity. They should therefore be treated to some extent in law as public utilities and regulated as such - in the case of the US, that would mean applying 1st Amendment protections.
It's an intractable issue, but essentially some compromise is going to have to be reached unless we're prepared to accept a virtual monoculture on these platforms in the near future.
It's worth remembering that things change, and often change very quickly.
Internet Explorer was the dominant web browser, to the extent that the EU was really worried about it. (And mandated some stupid browser selection thing.)
Then suddenly it wasn't (and it wasn't anything to do with the EU). Google built a better product with Chrome and people switched.
Right now, Google is losing share in browsers to Brave, and in search to both DuckDuckGo and - somewhat unbelievably - Bing.
Young people don't use Facebook or Twitter. They use Snapchat and TikTok. Facebook and Twitter are for old people.
The government should not be interfering.
But the corporate culture and politics of all these different companies is going to be rather similar, won't it? So you'll end up having the same spectrum of permitted centre > centre-left > hard left voices on Twitter / Snapchat / TikTok / WhatWhat / HelpHowDoesThisWork etc. Any flavour of ice-cream you like, as long as it's carbon-neutral, vegan, anti-imperialist vanilla.
I have a pet theory that doctrinaire libertarianism - attractive though I find it in theory - inherently trends towards its own destruction, because it gives free reign to voices and forces that are fundamentally hostile to it. I'm afraid something similar will eventually happen in the social media space - libertarianism for the platform owners, left-wing authoritarianism for the platform users.
It is weird to find that the same people who cheerlead the country being divided by educated urbanites vs elderly rural think its unfair high tech media which is run by educated urbanites doesnt support the elderly rural view.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Question, though.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
The whole issue is a conundrum. On the one hand, minimal government interference in private business is an obvious good for libertarians. However, for one of the premier communications platforms on the planet to either be dominated by or to exclude one side of politics is also an obvious evil for libertarians and many others.
You may well be right about why Gab etc. have failed to take off, but I suspect the main reason is the natural incuriousness produced by an overwhelmingly dominant option - people don't necessarily use Google because they have objectively assessed that it's the best search engine, but because its brand dominance is near-total, to the extent that the verb for 'to use a search engine to look up x' is 'to Google'.
Like you, I have no issue with private clubs having their own rules about membership. But the difference is that Twitter isn't the O&C, it has a massive global reach and impact. This is where I sympathize with some American libertarian lefties, who argue that media platforms of that scale have now replaced the traditional public arenas for discourse, and that access to them has become a social necessity. They should therefore be treated to some extent in law as public utilities and regulated as such - in the case of the US, that would mean applying 1st Amendment protections.
It's an intractable issue, but essentially some compromise is going to have to be reached unless we're prepared to accept a virtual monoculture on these platforms in the near future.
It's worth remembering that things change, and often change very quickly.
Internet Explorer was the dominant web browser, to the extent that the EU was really worried about it. (And mandated some stupid browser selection thing.)
Then suddenly it wasn't (and it wasn't anything to do with the EU). Google built a better product with Chrome and people switched.
Right now, Google is losing share in browsers to Brave, and in search to both DuckDuckGo and - somewhat unbelievably - Bing.
Young people don't use Facebook or Twitter. They use Snapchat and TikTok. Facebook and Twitter are for old people.
The government should not be interfering.
Only a tiny handful of my friends still use Facebook. So it’s not just the young deserting it
It used to be near universal.
I’m surprised this marked decline hasn’t really shown through in ostensible userbase or FB shares yet
Do you ever wonder if, perhaps, your personal anecdote isn't actually representative of the whole world? Amazing, I know, but bear with me.
There is extensive data on this and, while investors do worry about the aging user base, daily impressions have in actual fact continued to grow, albeit far more slowly than in the past.
This accords with my personal anecdote. People I know now use Facebook PASSIVELY. There is less interaction, fewer posts.
My friends are a smart tech savvy bunch so they might be pioneers here
As for my 24 year old wife and her friends, none of them go near Facebook. I think it is in trouble in the medium term, tho they also own WhatsApp and Instagram of course
I find this Facebook is "for old people" stuff f*cking weird.
I first signed up in 2006, when I was 24. It was cutting edge stuff.
I'm now.. um, 38.
Old?
Fuck off.
Same age, I turned 38 this week and I'm sorry to say we are a generation older now than the young people of today. When I was 18 MSN Messenger was cool - how is that going now?
TikTok is the cool app of the day, I can't be bothered with it.
In which case the next statues to be attacked might not be Clive or Lincoln, they could be Mandela or Martin Luther King
Complete bastards. Of course they want to stir up more trouble and cause more riots.
Which is why the original toppling, of Colston in Bristol, should absolutely have been stopped, however righteous the cause. These things need to be done legally and peacefully
We are now in a vicious spiral of tit-for-tat
Hardly tit for tat.
Rather a clear illustration of the yawning gap in class between fash and anti.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Question, though.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
The whole issue is a conundrum. On the one hand, minimal government interference in private business is an obvious good for libertarians. However, for one of the premier communications platforms on the planet to either be dominated by or to exclude one side of politics is also an obvious evil for libertarians and many others.
You may well be right about why Gab etc. have failed to take off, but I suspect the main reason is the natural incuriousness produced by an overwhelmingly dominant option - people don't necessarily use Google because they have objectively assessed that it's the best search engine, but because its brand dominance is near-total, to the extent that the verb for 'to use a search engine to look up x' is 'to Google'.
Like you, I have no issue with private clubs having their own rules about membership. But the difference is that Twitter isn't the O&C, it has a massive global reach and impact. This is where I sympathize with some American libertarian lefties, who argue that media platforms of that scale have now replaced the traditional public arenas for discourse, and that access to them has become a social necessity. They should therefore be treated to some extent in law as public utilities and regulated as such - in the case of the US, that would mean applying 1st Amendment protections.
It's an intractable issue, but essentially some compromise is going to have to be reached unless we're prepared to accept a virtual monoculture on these platforms in the near future.
It's worth remembering that things change, and often change very quickly.
Internet Explorer was the dominant web browser, to the extent that the EU was really worried about it. (And mandated some stupid browser selection thing.)
Then suddenly it wasn't (and it wasn't anything to do with the EU). Google built a better product with Chrome and people switched.
Right now, Google is losing share in browsers to Brave, and in search to both DuckDuckGo and - somewhat unbelievably - Bing.
Young people don't use Facebook or Twitter. They use Snapchat and TikTok. Facebook and Twitter are for old people.
The government should not be interfering.
Only a tiny handful of my friends still use Facebook. So it’s not just the young deserting it
It used to be near universal.
I’m surprised this marked decline hasn’t really shown through in ostensible userbase or FB shares yet
Do you ever wonder if, perhaps, your personal anecdote isn't actually representative of the whole world? Amazing, I know, but bear with me.
There is extensive data on this and, while investors do worry about the aging user base, daily impressions have in actual fact continued to grow, albeit far more slowly than in the past.
This accords with my personal anecdote. People I know now use Facebook PASSIVELY. There is less interaction, fewer posts.
My friends are a smart tech savvy bunch so they might be pioneers here
As for my 24 year old wife and her friends, none of them go near Facebook. I think it is in trouble in the medium term, tho they also own WhatsApp and Instagram of course
I find this Facebook is "for old people" stuff f*cking weird.
I first signed up in 2006, when I was 24. It was cutting edge stuff.
I'm now.. um, 38.
Old?
Fuck off.
I was told a few years ago that the average facebook user was 39. I suspect that has gone up now.
Insta is my go to for social media now. FB is good for politics, and advertising (seriously cheap). When all my aunts joined, it somehow lost its patina....
Comments
Distasteful though it is "whiteoutwednesday" and threatening to post a picture of her arse, or trolling Rashford, doesn't quite do it for me.
I like to think I have done a little to bridge the party divide today
How long before they also start losing the sensibles, and what does this 'community' look like to an outsider if not a place full of left wing trolls?
#ruth4FM
#jackson4FM
#notoindyref2
#snpcivilwar
Mrs Thatcher chose her cabinets, largely, on ability not loyalty. I wish Mr Johnson had the same self confidence.
Same as Sweden is obliged to ditch the Crowns. But it ain't gonna happen.
Thing is, that's what people who wanted Brown and EdM in number 10 said too
(But it will make zero difference to the epidemic)
I'd expect a rejoining UK to happily sign up to whatever Sweden did.
It is incredible that someone who makes as many mistakes as JO'B wrote a book with that title.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
And I'd be careful about martyring her as well (which she'd love, and her fans on twitter would keep that flame alive forever) so I'd keep her inside the tent pissing out, with temporary bans and raps on the knuckles as required.
Unless she's done or said something truly reprehensible.
There won't be a single cause but those trying to pin it on the demonstrations both here and in the USA are simply trying to make political capital out of it. Don't people remember all those photos of packed beaches parks and beauty spots during the good weather and VE weekend in particular?
I would also add we are four years away from a GE and perceptions and/or personnel could well change.
In a shoot out between Starmer and Raab/Sunak/Patel who is deemed the dullest?
Who are these people who deemed Cameron less of a personality than Brown and Milliband?
Besides which I am not sure it is the fantastic metric you claim.
Essentially you're saying that - if you're successful - then the government gets to choose who should post on your website. You develop it. You pay for it. You bear the risk.
And the government gets to decide on the content, not you.
There's a name for that, I think.
Like it or not virtually everyone is on Facebook and Twitter. It's a key platform for public debate.
That gives it extra power but also extra duties and responsibilities.
Wasn’t she just some dimwit Apprentice reject that got a bit gobby?
Does she have any ‘fans’ as such? I recall her calling for a ban on geographical children’s names, then being reminded her own daughter is called India.
She seems like a bit of an idiot.
Still very glad that one of them is now back part-time.
Yes, if Boris isn't the incumbent, it will change as no other politician, except maybe Farage, comes close to his level of "Personality" according to the IPSOS ratings. That's why I thought Starmer was a good lay to be next PM, as Boris will beat him, or if Boris is replaced he won't be the next PM, even if he won the next GE
If I was being really cynical (moi?) I might say they've wanted to ban her for a while but now think the politics are such that they can get away with it, in the same way Facebook have now started censoring Trump.
For clarity: I am *not* a fan of Hopkins or Trump.
Any company can and should be able to choose its clients. Would you argue otherwise?
We haven't seen market challenges like this before, but they're there in the digital space. And very very important.
This ‘debate’ is one of the most bizarre of all time on PB, in a very strong field of bizarreness.
Why should it be different for Facebook and Twitter? They aren't performing a charitable service (just as Fox News isn't), it's a commercial operation who's duty is to its shareholders.
It does not, and should not, have any other obligations except as enacted by law and as apply to all sites. (I.e. around child pornography, promotion of violence, etc.)
The fact that Facebook has more users (for now) than Politicalbetting does not mean it should be subject to different rules.
There is a tendency for one government to over-correct the flaws of its predecessor. May's divisions and lack of authority was an utter disaster and I think Boris has over-corrected that. Next year the other side of transition there should be a reshuffle to get rid of dross like Williamson and Raab.
If they were being honest the question they should be asking is 'Stay Out' vs 'Rejoin'.
How do you explain Attlee at GE1945?
I think there's been attempts in the past to get an anti-flag burning amendment through but its never gotten anywhere.
If anyone said that a position should not go to someone because they were black they would be guilty of discrimination and probably out of a job.
What is the difference?
You may well be right about why Gab etc. have failed to take off, but I suspect the main reason is the natural incuriousness produced by an overwhelmingly dominant option - people don't necessarily use Google because they have objectively assessed that it's the best search engine, but because its brand dominance is near-total, to the extent that the verb for 'to use a search engine to look up x' is 'to Google'.
Like you, I have no issue with private clubs having their own rules about membership. But the difference is that Twitter isn't the O&C, it has a massive global reach and impact. This is where I sympathize with some American libertarian lefties, who argue that media platforms of that scale have now replaced the traditional public arenas for discourse, and that access to them has become a social necessity. They should therefore be treated to some extent in law as public utilities and regulated as such - in the case of the US, that would mean applying 1st Amendment protections.
It's an intractable issue, but essentially some compromise is going to have to be reached unless we're prepared to accept a virtual monoculture on these platforms in the near future.
Trump will try and say it is him or anarchy
But the point is that it is a binary issue just as it was before. But the question is no longer one of Remain/Leave but one of Stay Out/Rejoin.
It's not entirely irrelevant, we have a Brexit government and whether we were right to leave will still be very much a live issue at the GE. This government needs people to broadly believe that leaving the EU was a good thing. Leaving the EU was their USP.
I see a person whipping up hate and prejudice for money - it's her career.
Doubt she believes the grosser stuff she comes out with. Which imo is an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one.
It's an unabashed good that her platform and her reach have been curtailed.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1274036133211627520?s=20
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1271770310581387265?s=20
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1271090055600320514?s=20
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1274003884286099462?s=20
The importance of Twitter is grossly exaggerated. Its full of self-important blow hards.
I can't find comparable figures for the UK from a quick Google but in the USA only 22% of American adults use Twitter - and the majority of them don't use it frequently.
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 43% (+2)
LAB: 38% (-1)
LDEM: 8% (-1)
GRN: 4% (-)
via
@RedfieldWilton, 18 Jun / Chgs. w/ 11 Jun"
"Dont like whats happening on my watch? Vote for me, because I can sort it out, even if I havent done this term." shouldnt be an election winner, but bizarrely might be,
We cannot, for example, be part of the Customs Union because that is, by treaty, exclusively for EU members.
So as I say the question should be one of Rejoin or Stay Out. Remain is not an option because to Remain you have to actually be in something.
Did her tweets jump out of the screen and bite the reader? Or did readers have the option to block her or scroll past if they didn't want to read them, y'know, like adults do?
Internet Explorer was the dominant web browser, to the extent that the EU was really worried about it. (And mandated some stupid browser selection thing.)
Then suddenly it wasn't (and it wasn't anything to do with the EU). Google built a better product with Chrome and people switched.
Right now, Google is losing share in browsers to Brave, and in search to both DuckDuckGo and - somewhat unbelievably - Bing.
Young people don't use Facebook or Twitter. They use Snapchat and TikTok. Facebook and Twitter are for old people.
The government should not be interfering.
Also, thank goodness you're not a Police commander. A heavy handed response would certainly have provoked a major riot and probably have placed officers and others in serious danger. It would've been crazy policing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSANTRnEBgg
There is extensive data on this and, while investors do worry about the aging user base, daily impressions have in actual fact continued to grow, albeit far more slowly than in the past.
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1274021805909585924?s=20
If you believe that you are a hypocrite and are part of the problem.
https://twitter.com/CGasparino/status/1273965231182667778
We have had this discussion before and you have argued exactly the same thing as I am saying. We can be in 'a' customs union. We cannot be in 'the' Customs Union
Absence makes the heart grow fonder.
But it's a stretch to argue that this one piece of evidence shows that he is a racist, when there is a vast amount of evidence to the contrary.
Similarly, I don't regard the PM as a racist because of individual comments he has made in the past that many regarded as racist. But presumably you would argue he is a racist.
I have a pet theory that doctrinaire libertarianism - attractive though I find it in theory - inherently trends towards its own destruction, because it gives free reign to voices and forces that are fundamentally hostile to it. I'm afraid something similar will eventually happen in the social media space - libertarianism for the platform owners, left-wing authoritarianism for the platform users.
I first signed up in 2006, when I was 24. It was cutting edge stuff.
I'm now.. um, 38.
Old?
Fuck off.
Also in the US where the colors (sic) are the opposite of the UK.
TikTok is the cool app of the day, I can't be bothered with it.
Rather a clear illustration of the yawning gap in class between fash and anti.
Insta is my go to for social media now. FB is good for politics, and advertising (seriously cheap). When all my aunts joined, it somehow lost its patina....