Watched the Harry Potter 20 reunion. Am I being unreasonable to find it appalling that Jo Rowling was excluded from it?
I thought it pretty shocking over the last year that those who entirely owe their riches and their success to Rowling have been so quick to step up and attack her.
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
Yes. I’m defending the principle of free elections. I don’t know who MTG is and don’t really give a shit.
This is not interfering with 'free elections'. The companies have rules - sensible rules, by the sound of it - and are hopefully applying those rules uniformly. If they applied them very unevenly you may have more of a point; but it's up to you to provide evidence of that in this discussion.
It is. Twitter is a key part of a former POTUS’s election technique. They have made the decision to ban him. How anyone can claim that is not going to impact on the election result I don’t know.
So, if it is going to impact, you are really comfortable with giving a private company that power?
Absolutely - as long as the rules are fairly implemented to all. If Trump did make Twitter a key part of his election technique, he should have looked at their rules and operated within them. If he got banned having broken those rules, then it's his own fault.
Those people who got censored or suspended for discussing lab leak as a hypothesis on Twitter and Facebook, for a year, what rule were they breaking?
'Conservative candidate Valérie Pécresse also objected to the position of the EU flag: "Preside over Europe yes, erase French identity no!", she tweeted'
@Charles its not like you to advocate for some to be above the rules
I’m saying it’s not up to a private company to interfere in a democracy.
If trump or Majorie wotsit break the law then prosecute them.
She's a Qanon loon, Charles, isn't she?
I’ve genuinely no idea
You keep saying that sort of thing like it's a point in your favour.
I’m answering someone’s question.
That’s the thing about principles. They don’t change just because it’s difficult to like someone you are defending
Yes, yawn, the "I hate what you say but will defend to the death..." gambit. This woman was putting out shouting fire in a crowded theatre level nonsense about covid being harmless to under 65s.
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
The same principle applies to private sector rules as much as it does to the law.
The media sector has always had different rules because of the intersection with the public sphere.
If the BBC, ITV and Sky plus Facebook and Twitter decided to ban any mention or broadcast of Kier Starmer would that be right? I say not.
If Starmer was consistently calling for kids to get kitchen knives and try balancing them on their heads, yes. But it would be up to those individual organisations to decide to no-platform the views. However, Starmer is such a public figure that they might be best just pointing and laughing. The anti-vaxxers who promote vax conspiracy theories are bordering on evil - as Wakefield was (and is) with MMR.
This is related to the Gerry Adams debacle in the 1970s/80s, which was by government mandate.
The issue is this Congresswoman who has just been banned plus Trump.
A random loon doesn’t matter. A credible candidate for elected office does
Hang-on... Twitter have a very clear policy regarding misinformation about Covid-19. Taylor Greene knows what those rules are, has consistently ignored them, has received several short-term bans but still carried on.
It would be no different to OGH banning me if I persistently broke the rules of this site.
Except
A) you are not running for office AFAIK PB is not a major source of political news and information for a material number of voters
Neither OGH nor twitter is any more obliged to give a platform to those who are "running for office" any more than the Daily Telegraph has to give air time to the Socialist Workers Party.
Nope. Twitter and Facebook (and the rest) are entirely different to any media outlet that we have seen, by orders of magnitude and dimension. The Daily Telegraph is not used and read by 5 billion people, the Daily Mirror is not the major media platform for every western politician alive. Nor has any previous media outfit had the instantaneous, aggressive, addictive quality of social media, which has so clearly coarsened our politics and increased its nastiness
You cannot simultaneously bemoan the rise of Trump and the growing threat to American democracy (as you rightly do) then say Oh social media can do what it likes. Trump used Twitter's unseemly power to fuel his bollocks, and even if he is now banned on a Twitter-whim other demagogues (of left and right and any religion) will do the same.
Social media needs to be reined in, taxed properly, and regulated; the giants are like the oil companies of the early 20th century (times a thousand): horrible monopolies/cartels with way too much power. The US government needs to stand up to Twitter and Zuckerberg the way it stood up to Standard Oil
Remember that Facebook and Twitter prohibited discussion of the lab leak theory for a year, and came quite close to successfully censoring forever the most plausible explanation of a plague that has killed 20 million people. This is Double Plus UnGood
I agree that Big Social shouldn't be able do what it likes. It should do its utmost to keep poison like Trump off its platforms. And if it won't do that job voluntarily, the govt needs to step in and make it.
Indeed.
It will be a vital part of my unDicatorship of Britain - keeping unBritish things off Social Media....
Rather like my legislation to protect the sanctity and purity of the Courts.
Watched the Harry Potter 20 reunion. Am I being unreasonable to find it appalling that Jo Rowling was excluded from it?
I thought it pretty shocking over the last year that those who entirely owe their riches and their success to Rowling have been so quick to step up and attack her.
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
Yes. I’m defending the principle of free elections. I don’t know who MTG is and don’t really give a shit.
Not knowing or giving a shit really doesn't really strengthen your position, does it? She has been allowed to keep her official account on which she tweets electorally relevant material anyway; she used the private account to share lethal misinformation about the danger of covid. Are you saying that if she had used it to advocate paedophilia, say, it would be sacrosanct?
If she breaks the law (or incites breaking the law) prosecute her.
If she advocates something unpleasant without crossing the legal line then let the electorate be her judge
If Twitter breaks the law (or incites breaking the law) prosecute it.
If it marginalises people from its platform in a way you don't approve of without crossing the legal line then let its customers be its judge.
I’ve said before it should be regulated like a utility (as should banks). For good or I’ll (mainly ill IMHO) social media has a massive influence on democratic outcomes
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
Yes. I’m defending the principle of free elections. I don’t know who MTG is and don’t really give a shit.
This is not interfering with 'free elections'. The companies have rules - sensible rules, by the sound of it - and are hopefully applying those rules uniformly. If they applied them very unevenly you may have more of a point; but it's up to you to provide evidence of that in this discussion.
It is. Twitter is a key part of a former POTUS’s election technique. They have made the decision to ban him. How anyone can claim that is not going to impact on the election result I don’t know.
So, if it is going to impact, you are really comfortable with giving a private company that power?
Absolutely - as long as the rules are fairly implemented to all. If Trump did make Twitter a key part of his election technique, he should have looked at their rules and operated within them. If he got banned having broken those rules, then it's his own fault.
Those people who got censored or suspended for discussing lab leak as a hypothesis on Twitter and Facebook, for a year, what rule were they breaking?
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
Yes. I’m defending the principle of free elections. I don’t know who MTG is and don’t really give a shit.
This is not interfering with 'free elections'. The companies have rules - sensible rules, by the sound of it - and are hopefully applying those rules uniformly. If they applied them very unevenly you may have more of a point; but it's up to you to provide evidence of that in this discussion.
It is. Twitter is a key part of a former POTUS’s election technique. They have made the decision to ban him. How anyone can claim that is not going to impact on the election result I don’t know.
So, if it is going to impact, you are really comfortable with giving a private company that power?
Absolutely - as long as the rules are fairly implemented to all. If Trump did make Twitter a key part of his election technique, he should have looked at their rules and operated within them. If he got banned having broken those rules, then it's his own fault.
So if the rules were “no Republican Party candidate can have an account” you’d be ok with that?
'Conservative candidate Valérie Pécresse also objected to the position of the EU flag: "Preside over Europe yes, erase French identity no!", she tweeted'
You're obsessed with France and the EU. It's a bit weird if I'm honest.
Hardly, this is the main news in France this evening, the removal of the Tricolour from the Arc de Triomphe and its replacement by the EU flag. All the main rightwing candidates, the far right Le Pen, Zemmour and the centre right Pecresse condemned it and the government was forced to back down and replace it.
The French presidential election is the biggest political event this year and this is supposed to be a politicalbetting site. More absurd is your questioning why there should be any mention of it on here!
Watched the Harry Potter 20 reunion. Am I being unreasonable to find it appalling that Jo Rowling was excluded from it?
I thought it pretty shocking over the last year that those who entirely owe their riches and their success to Rowling have been so quick to step up and attack her.
Pathetic bunch of weirdo losers.
Yes, but we're not talking about fans of Radiohead...
Watched the Harry Potter 20 reunion. Am I being unreasonable to find it appalling that Jo Rowling was excluded from it?
I thought it pretty shocking over the last year that those who entirely owe their riches and their success to Rowling have been so quick to step up and attack her.
Pathetic bunch of weirdo losers.
Yes, but we're not talking about fans of Radiohead...
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
Yes. I’m defending the principle of free elections. I don’t know who MTG is and don’t really give a shit.
This is not interfering with 'free elections'. The companies have rules - sensible rules, by the sound of it - and are hopefully applying those rules uniformly. If they applied them very unevenly you may have more of a point; but it's up to you to provide evidence of that in this discussion.
It is. Twitter is a key part of a former POTUS’s election technique. They have made the decision to ban him. How anyone can claim that is not going to impact on the election result I don’t know.
So, if it is going to impact, you are really comfortable with giving a private company that power?
Absolutely - as long as the rules are fairly implemented to all. If Trump did make Twitter a key part of his election technique, he should have looked at their rules and operated within them. If he got banned having broken those rules, then it's his own fault.
So if the rules were “no Republican Party candidate can have an account” you’d be ok with that?
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
Yes. I’m defending the principle of free elections. I don’t know who MTG is and don’t really give a shit.
This is not interfering with 'free elections'. The companies have rules - sensible rules, by the sound of it - and are hopefully applying those rules uniformly. If they applied them very unevenly you may have more of a point; but it's up to you to provide evidence of that in this discussion.
It is. Twitter is a key part of a former POTUS’s election technique. They have made the decision to ban him. How anyone can claim that is not going to impact on the election result I don’t know.
So, if it is going to impact, you are really comfortable with giving a private company that power?
Absolutely - as long as the rules are fairly implemented to all. If Trump did make Twitter a key part of his election technique, he should have looked at their rules and operated within them. If he got banned having broken those rules, then it's his own fault.
So if the rules were “no Republican Party candidate can have an account” you’d be ok with that?
They'd have to defend that rule, as it is a very different thing. But that isn't the rule, and apparently she still has a Twitter account.
'Conservative candidate Valérie Pécresse also objected to the position of the EU flag: "Preside over Europe yes, erase French identity no!", she tweeted'
You're obsessed with France and the EU. It's a bit weird if I'm honest.
Hardly, this is the main news in France this evening, the removal of the Tricolour from the Arc de Triomphe and its replacement by the EU flag. All the main rightwing candidates, the far right Le Pen, Zemmour and the centre right Pecresse condemned it and the government was forced to back down and replace it.
The French presidential election is the biggest political event this year and this is supposed to be a politicalbetting site. More absurd is your questioning why there should be any mention of it on here!
"main news in France this evening" you what? It isn't even on the front page of lefigaro.fr.
Watched the Harry Potter 20 reunion. Am I being unreasonable to find it appalling that Jo Rowling was excluded from it?
There is a certain irony that she wrote a book series satirising intolerance, division and exclusion and has ended up being accused of intolerance, division and exclusion...
Watched the Harry Potter 20 reunion. Am I being unreasonable to find it appalling that Jo Rowling was excluded from it?
Didn't he choose not to take part?
Never interrupt PB in one of its spasms of confected outrage.
'An invitation was extended to Rowling to participate, but her team determined the archived comments from the writer were adequate, EW has learned.'
Hilariously, I seem to have misgendered JK. I guess I didn't hit the S key hard enough. Yes, so I was right, Rowling didn't want to join. It's deeply wrong that she has no platformed the person who has done so much to enrich her. If I were Rowling, I'd remind Rowling that Rowling wouldn't be where Rowling is today had it not been for Rowling.
I actually thought it was deliberate! Quite amusingly so..
Watched the Harry Potter 20 reunion. Am I being unreasonable to find it appalling that Jo Rowling was excluded from it?
There is a certain irony that she wrote a book series satirising intolerance, division and exclusion and has ended up being accused of intolerance, division and exclusion...
Watched the Harry Potter 20 reunion. Am I being unreasonable to find it appalling that Jo Rowling was excluded from it?
I thought it pretty shocking over the last year that those who entirely owe their riches and their success to Rowling have been so quick to step up and attack her.
Pathetic bunch of weirdo losers.
Yes, but we're not talking about fans of Radiohead...
You really are determined to be banned!
Yes, I love good music and bands. It's just that Radiohead are not a good banned.
“There is an attempt to make out that the worst is over. But, I think he is finished, in my view. I think there is a complete turnaround in how he has been perceived. He was seen as this amiable rascal, but now he is seen as a callous and sinister cheat."
'Conservative candidate Valérie Pécresse also objected to the position of the EU flag: "Preside over Europe yes, erase French identity no!", she tweeted'
You're obsessed with France and the EU. It's a bit weird if I'm honest.
Hardly, this is the main news in France this evening, the removal of the Tricolour from the Arc de Triomphe and its replacement by the EU flag. All the main rightwing candidates, the far right Le Pen, Zemmour and the centre right Pecresse condemned it and the government was forced to back down and replace it.
The French presidential election is the biggest political event this year and this is supposed to be a politicalbetting site. More absurd is your questioning why there should be any mention of it on here!
"main news in France this evening" you what? It isn't even on the front page of lefigaro.fr.
'Conservative candidate Valérie Pécresse also objected to the position of the EU flag: "Preside over Europe yes, erase French identity no!", she tweeted'
You're obsessed with France and the EU. It's a bit weird if I'm honest.
Hardly, this is the main news in France this evening, the removal of the Tricolour from the Arc de Triomphe and its replacement by the EU flag. All the main rightwing candidates, the far right Le Pen, Zemmour and the centre right Pecresse condemned it and the government was forced to back down and replace it.
The French presidential election is the biggest political event this year and this is supposed to be a politicalbetting site. More absurd is your questioning why there should be any mention of it on here!
"main news in France this evening" you what? It isn't even on the front page of lefigaro.fr.
COVID has addled you. It's only "main news" if it is on Twitter apparently. There isn't an alternative source of news. Do keep up!
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
The same principle applies to private sector rules as much as it does to the law.
The media sector has always had different rules because of the intersection with the public sphere.
If the BBC, ITV and Sky plus Facebook and Twitter decided to ban any mention or broadcast of Kier Starmer would that be right? I say not.
If Starmer was consistently calling for kids to get kitchen knives and try balancing them on their heads, yes. But it would be up to those individual organisations to decide to no-platform the views. However, Starmer is such a public figure that they might be best just pointing and laughing. The anti-vaxxers who promote vax conspiracy theories are bordering on evil - as Wakefield was (and is) with MMR.
This is related to the Gerry Adams debacle in the 1970s/80s, which was by government mandate.
The issue is this Congresswoman who has just been banned plus Trump.
A random loon doesn’t matter. A credible candidate for elected office does
Hang-on... Twitter have a very clear policy regarding misinformation about Covid-19. Taylor Greene knows what those rules are, has consistently ignored them, has received several short-term bans but still carried on.
It would be no different to OGH banning me if I persistently broke the rules of this site.
Except
A) you are not running for office AFAIK PB is not a major source of political news and information for a material number of voters
Neither OGH nor twitter is any more obliged to give a platform to those who are "running for office" any more than the Daily Telegraph has to give air time to the Socialist Workers Party.
Nope. Twitter and Facebook (and the rest) are entirely different to any media outlet that we have seen, by orders of magnitude and dimension. The Daily Telegraph is not used and read by 5 billion people, the Daily Mirror is not the major media platform for every western politician alive. Nor has any previous media outfit had the instantaneous, aggressive, addictive quality of social media, which has so clearly coarsened our politics and increased its nastiness
You cannot simultaneously bemoan the rise of Trump and the growing threat to American democracy (as you rightly do) then say Oh social media can do what it likes. Trump used Twitter's unseemly power to fuel his bollocks, and even if he is now banned on a Twitter-whim other demagogues (of left and right and any religion) will do the same.
Social media needs to be reined in, taxed properly, and regulated; the giants are like the oil companies of the early 20th century (times a thousand): horrible monopolies/cartels with way too much power. The US government needs to stand up to Twitter and Zuckerberg the way it stood up to Standard Oil
Remember that Facebook and Twitter prohibited discussion of the lab leak theory for a year, and came quite close to successfully censoring forever the most plausible explanation of a plague that has killed 20 million people. This is Double Plus UnGood
I agree that Big Social shouldn't be able do what it likes. It should do its utmost to keep poison like Trump off its platforms. And if it won't do that job voluntarily, the govt needs to step in and make it.
i think you're joking or at least I hope you are. Government censorship is a giant leap beyond a private organisation deplatforming someone.
Exaggerating and emoting rather than joking. I'd like to see less poison & lies out there and I'm open to ways in which this can be accomplished. Eg regulation, legal jeopardy, whatever. I know it's difficult and I know it's complex but I'm not inclined to rule it out on a 'slippery slope' free speech argument. That doesn't resonate massively with me on this topic. The bigger imperative is less poison & lies. I think that's more important than a slightly raised risk of us trending to totalitarianism. This is how I both feel and see it.
'Conservative candidate Valérie Pécresse also objected to the position of the EU flag: "Preside over Europe yes, erase French identity no!", she tweeted'
You're obsessed with France and the EU. It's a bit weird if I'm honest.
Hardly, this is the main news in France this evening, the removal of the Tricolour from the Arc de Triomphe and its replacement by the EU flag. All the main rightwing candidates, the far right Le Pen, Zemmour and the centre right Pecresse condemned it and the government was forced to back down and replace it.
The French presidential election is the biggest political event this year and this is supposed to be a politicalbetting site. More absurd is your questioning why there should be any mention of it on here!
"main news in France this evening" you what? It isn't even on the front page of lefigaro.fr.
'Conservative candidate Valérie Pécresse also objected to the position of the EU flag: "Preside over Europe yes, erase French identity no!", she tweeted'
You're obsessed with France and the EU. It's a bit weird if I'm honest.
Hardly, this is the main news in France this evening, the removal of the Tricolour from the Arc de Triomphe and its replacement by the EU flag. All the main rightwing candidates, the far right Le Pen, Zemmour and the centre right Pecresse condemned it and the government was forced to back down and replace it.
The French presidential election is the biggest political event this year and this is supposed to be a politicalbetting site. More absurd is your questioning why there should be any mention of it on here!
"main news in France this evening" you what? It isn't even on the front page of lefigaro.fr.
'Conservative candidate Valérie Pécresse also objected to the position of the EU flag: "Preside over Europe yes, erase French identity no!", she tweeted'
You're obsessed with France and the EU. It's a bit weird if I'm honest.
Hardly, this is the main news in France this evening, the removal of the Tricolour from the Arc de Triomphe and its replacement by the EU flag. All the main rightwing candidates, the far right Le Pen, Zemmour and the centre right Pecresse condemned it and the government was forced to back down and replace it.
The French presidential election is the biggest political event this year and this is supposed to be a politicalbetting site. More absurd is your questioning why there should be any mention of it on here!
"main news in France this evening" you what? It isn't even on the front page of lefigaro.fr.
'Conservative candidate Valérie Pécresse also objected to the position of the EU flag: "Preside over Europe yes, erase French identity no!", she tweeted'
You're obsessed with France and the EU. It's a bit weird if I'm honest.
Hardly, this is the main news in France this evening, the removal of the Tricolour from the Arc de Triomphe and its replacement by the EU flag. All the main rightwing candidates, the far right Le Pen, Zemmour and the centre right Pecresse condemned it and the government was forced to back down and replace it.
The French presidential election is the biggest political event this year and this is supposed to be a politicalbetting site. More absurd is your questioning why there should be any mention of it on here!
"main news in France this evening" you what? It isn't even on the front page of lefigaro.fr.
and its a tiny sub-story on lemonde.
"main news in France this evening" christ.
Le Monde and Le Figaro's combined circulation is less than 1 million, Le Pen, Zemmour and Pecresse's tweets about the issue have gone to far more than that amongst their combined 2.9million twitter followers.
'Conservative candidate Valérie Pécresse also objected to the position of the EU flag: "Preside over Europe yes, erase French identity no!", she tweeted'
You're obsessed with France and the EU. It's a bit weird if I'm honest.
Hardly, this is the main news in France this evening, the removal of the Tricolour from the Arc de Triomphe and its replacement by the EU flag. All the main rightwing candidates, the far right Le Pen, Zemmour and the centre right Pecresse condemned it and the government was forced to back down and replace it.
The French presidential election is the biggest political event this year and this is supposed to be a politicalbetting site. More absurd is your questioning why there should be any mention of it on here!
"main news in France this evening" you what? It isn't even on the front page of lefigaro.fr.
and its a tiny sub-story on lemonde.
"main news in France this evening" christ.
Le Monde and Le Figaro's combined circulation is less than 1 million, Le Pen, Zemmour and Pecresse's tweets about the issue have gone to far more than that amongst their combined 2.9million twitter followers
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
Yes. I’m defending the principle of free elections. I don’t know who MTG is and don’t really give a shit.
This is not interfering with 'free elections'. The companies have rules - sensible rules, by the sound of it - and are hopefully applying those rules uniformly. If they applied them very unevenly you may have more of a point; but it's up to you to provide evidence of that in this discussion.
It is. Twitter is a key part of a former POTUS’s election technique. They have made the decision to ban him. How anyone can claim that is not going to impact on the election result I don’t know.
So, if it is going to impact, you are really comfortable with giving a private company that power?
Absolutely - as long as the rules are fairly implemented to all. If Trump did make Twitter a key part of his election technique, he should have looked at their rules and operated within them. If he got banned having broken those rules, then it's his own fault.
Those people who got censored or suspended for discussing lab leak as a hypothesis on Twitter and Facebook, for a year, what rule were they breaking?
Was it the rule that This Upsets China?
Or some other rule? Do tell
Can I have more details please?
Here. Tho quite why I have to spoon feed you this news is beyond me
"Facebook issued two statements in the past week relating to its treatment of “misinformation” — and they couldn’t have been more different.
The first was a single paragraph updating their policy on stories speculating that Covid-19 is a man-made virus — after almost every major media outlet, and yesterday even the British and American security services, finally confirmed that it is a feasible possibility.
“In light of ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and in consultation with public health experts,” a Facebook spokesman said, “we will no longer remove the claim that COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured from our apps.”"
'Conservative candidate Valérie Pécresse also objected to the position of the EU flag: "Preside over Europe yes, erase French identity no!", she tweeted'
You're obsessed with France and the EU. It's a bit weird if I'm honest.
Hardly, this is the main news in France this evening, the removal of the Tricolour from the Arc de Triomphe and its replacement by the EU flag. All the main rightwing candidates, the far right Le Pen, Zemmour and the centre right Pecresse condemned it and the government was forced to back down and replace it.
The French presidential election is the biggest political event this year and this is supposed to be a politicalbetting site. More absurd is your questioning why there should be any mention of it on here!
"main news in France this evening" you what? It isn't even on the front page of lefigaro.fr.
and its a tiny sub-story on lemonde.
"main news in France this evening" christ.
Le Monde and Le Figaro's combined circulation is less than 1 million, Le Pen, Zemmour and Pecresse's tweets about the issue have gone to far more than that amongst their combined 2.9million twitter followers
'Conservative candidate Valérie Pécresse also objected to the position of the EU flag: "Preside over Europe yes, erase French identity no!", she tweeted'
You're obsessed with France and the EU. It's a bit weird if I'm honest.
Hardly, this is the main news in France this evening, the removal of the Tricolour from the Arc de Triomphe and its replacement by the EU flag. All the main rightwing candidates, the far right Le Pen, Zemmour and the centre right Pecresse condemned it and the government was forced to back down and replace it.
The French presidential election is the biggest political event this year and this is supposed to be a politicalbetting site. More absurd is your questioning why there should be any mention of it on here!
"main news in France this evening" you what? It isn't even on the front page of lefigaro.fr.
and its a tiny sub-story on lemonde.
"main news in France this evening" christ.
Le Monde and Le Figaro's combined circulation is less than 1 million, Le Pen, Zemmour and Pecresse's tweets about the issue have gone to far more than that amongst their combined 2.9million twitter followers
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
The same principle applies to private sector rules as much as it does to the law.
The media sector has always had different rules because of the intersection with the public sphere.
If the BBC, ITV and Sky plus Facebook and Twitter decided to ban any mention or broadcast of Kier Starmer would that be right? I say not.
If Starmer was consistently calling for kids to get kitchen knives and try balancing them on their heads, yes. But it would be up to those individual organisations to decide to no-platform the views. However, Starmer is such a public figure that they might be best just pointing and laughing. The anti-vaxxers who promote vax conspiracy theories are bordering on evil - as Wakefield was (and is) with MMR.
This is related to the Gerry Adams debacle in the 1970s/80s, which was by government mandate.
The issue is this Congresswoman who has just been banned plus Trump.
A random loon doesn’t matter. A credible candidate for elected office does
Hang-on... Twitter have a very clear policy regarding misinformation about Covid-19. Taylor Greene knows what those rules are, has consistently ignored them, has received several short-term bans but still carried on.
It would be no different to OGH banning me if I persistently broke the rules of this site.
Except
A) you are not running for office AFAIK PB is not a major source of political news and information for a material number of voters
Neither OGH nor twitter is any more obliged to give a platform to those who are "running for office" any more than the Daily Telegraph has to give air time to the Socialist Workers Party.
Nope. Twitter and Facebook (and the rest) are entirely different to any media outlet that we have seen, by orders of magnitude and dimension. The Daily Telegraph is not used and read by 5 billion people, the Daily Mirror is not the major media platform for every western politician alive. Nor has any previous media outfit had the instantaneous, aggressive, addictive quality of social media, which has so clearly coarsened our politics and increased its nastiness
You cannot simultaneously bemoan the rise of Trump and the growing threat to American democracy (as you rightly do) then say Oh social media can do what it likes. Trump used Twitter's unseemly power to fuel his bollocks, and even if he is now banned on a Twitter-whim other demagogues (of left and right and any religion) will do the same.
Social media needs to be reined in, taxed properly, and regulated; the giants are like the oil companies of the early 20th century (times a thousand): horrible monopolies/cartels with way too much power. The US government needs to stand up to Twitter and Zuckerberg the way it stood up to Standard Oil
Remember that Facebook and Twitter prohibited discussion of the lab leak theory for a year, and came quite close to successfully censoring forever the most plausible explanation of a plague that has killed 20 million people. This is Double Plus UnGood
I agree that Big Social shouldn't be able do what it likes. It should do its utmost to keep poison like Trump off its platforms. And if it won't do that job voluntarily, the govt needs to step in and make it.
i think you're joking or at least I hope you are. Government censorship is a giant leap beyond a private organisation deplatforming someone.
Exaggerating and emoting rather than joking. I'd like to see less poison & lies out there and I'm open to ways in which this can be accomplished. Eg regulation, legal jeopardy, whatever. I know it's difficult and I know it's complex but I'm not inclined to rule it out on a 'slippery slope' free speech argument. That doesn't resonate massively with me on this topic. The bigger imperative is less poison & lies. I think that's more important than a slightly raised risk of us trending to totalitarianism. This is how I both feel and see it.
Anything the government can do, imagine it in the control of the worst possible person.
How many people want free speech to be controlled by the current majority in Parliament?
Watched the Harry Potter 20 reunion. Am I being unreasonable to find it appalling that Jo Rowling was excluded from it?
Didn't he choose not to take part?
Never interrupt PB in one of its spasms of confected outrage.
'An invitation was extended to Rowling to participate, but her team determined the archived comments from the writer were adequate, EW has learned.'
You've gone and done facts again. People's feelings will be hurt.
Not a terribly strong point, because whether her absence was voluntary or not she'd have been there but for her heretical belief that "chicks with dicks" is an empty set.
Which is bonkers in itself, but even more bonkers when its negation becomes the central tenet of parties which we thought stood for sensible things like an inhdependent Scotland or the protection of the environment.
Thanks to tlg for the articles. I think I'd broadly agree on this article, where I think the broad thrust is that there is evidence that, overall, people are having fewer children than they would like due at least in part to economic factors and, since the fertility rate is well below the replacement level, we could take steps to make it easier for people to have more children (at a younger age), without that leading to an unsustainable increase in the population, thus increasing the sum total happiness of the country.
I'm surprised, though, at his conclusion that politicians are unlikely to take up this cause at all. Although the Conservatives have taken anti-natalist steps in recent years - such as the tax credits two child limit - the rhetoric of helping "hard-working families" is still de rigeur for British politicians, and the Tories also took a limited step towards his suggested tax change with the married couples allowance.
Also, given the toxicity of immigration, politicians will find that they will need to find ways to boost the birth rate if they want to engineer a gentle demographic transition, rather than an abrupt one. Providing tax breaks to British families will win more votes than increasing the immigration rate.
I would much rather see politicians make some attempt to counter the toxicity surrounding immigration. If, as seems obvious to me (though I know others do not agree) there are too many people in the world, then moving some of those people from where they are surplus mouths to where they can be full, contributing citizens, seems a far better way to do things than simply trying to artificially boost birth rates. In the end the economics of the demographic timebomb in first world countries is a glorified ponzi scheme that must eventually fail. That is what we need to be addressing rather than perpetuating it by trying to get people to have more kids.
I do realise mine is not generally a popular view but I think it is one that should at least be explored.
Hang on, does this scan. I thought the "ponzi scheme" argument was we should STOP relying on immigration to support our economy. How can you be buying into this and at the same time arguing for more immigration from poor to rich countries?
There can be more than one ponzi scheme. And I would have thought it obvious that I have never supported the arguments against free migration. All those arguments are, in my opinion, either straight forward false (migrants costing us more than they bring in) or they are based on a partial representation of the truth (migrants do not solve the demographic timebomb but more births will).
Since it is the latter we are arguing, all I am saying is that there is no difference in my mind between bringing in immigrants and encouraging more births to solve the demographic timebomb. Actually that is not true. Since a proportion of those immigrants might want to go back to their country of origin in the future and so not be a drain on our systems in old age, in fact immigration is a better way to deal with the issues of work force vs an aging population rather than just increasing birth rates.
But I am also looking at it more globally. This world does not need more people. We have more than enough already. Now the best way to deal with that is to bring all the countries of the world up to western living standards as we know this results in a drop in birth rate. But in the meantime it seems eminently sensible to me to allow (not force) people in areas of high/rising population to move to areas of low/falling population if they want to as a means of improving the lot in both areas.
Ah right. So you've kind of stripped the 'ponzi scheme' analogy of its subtle underlying xenophobia. Nice one. Ok, it does now scan. Thought you weren't one to write closely consecutive contradictions but I did have to check.
Anyways. I'd love to see a complete ban on any and all private companies involvement in any election whatsoever. It'd be a way of keeping the Tories' nonsense out.
The Tories are very limited, but they're not a private company.
More a cabal of grey economy private enterprises. If there is a grift to engage with there appears to be a Government Minister close at hand to ensure it is done properly.
Anyway, isn't the main creative force behind the Harry Potter books JRR Tolkien?
IMO Jill Murphy and 'the Worst Witch' series. If you read them, the similarities are manyfold - and I don't think Rowling ever acknowledged that. Murphy to her credit, was cool about it. The thing that seemed to annoy her most was people assuming she had copied Rowling...
She still has her official congressional Twitter account.
It was just her rule breaking conspiracy theory nut job account that was banned.
She is still on Twitter.
And Trump?
Does Trump still hold an elected position? Is he standing for election at the current time?
He is very likely to be a candidate for high office. Fundamentally Twitter is putting its thumb on the scale of democracy.
(Snip)
BUT HE IS NOT A CANDIDATE AT THE MOMENT.
How many people should Twitter et al treat differently because they *may* be a candidate sometime in the future?
He is a former POTUS and highly likely to be a leading candidate in future. He is currently a major player on the US political scene.
(And declaring your candidacy has an impact on ability to fund raise - don’t know exactly what but it’s why people often delay the official announcement)
Anyway, isn't the main creative force behind the Harry Potter books JRR Tolkien?
No. Nothing in common at all. The genesis is CS Lewis, Voyage of the Dawn Treader.
Yay for me as a trendspotter: my eldest son was born pretty much the day the first book was published, and my eccentric aunt gave us a (I weep to say this) hardback copy of the first print run of the first edition, because she had read a rave review in the Spectator and thought we should read it to him. The book is lost, but when I read it at the time I thought: wtf is this snobbish 1950s crap about fantasy boarding school life, who ever thought publishing this was a good idea?
'Conservative candidate Valérie Pécresse also objected to the position of the EU flag: "Preside over Europe yes, erase French identity no!", she tweeted'
'Conservative candidate Valérie Pécresse also objected to the position of the EU flag: "Preside over Europe yes, erase French identity no!", she tweeted'
You're obsessed with France and the EU. It's a bit weird if I'm honest.
Hardly, this is the main news in France this evening, the removal of the Tricolour from the Arc de Triomphe and its replacement by the EU flag. All the main rightwing candidates, the far right Le Pen, Zemmour and the centre right Pecresse condemned it and the government was forced to back down and replace it.
The French presidential election is the biggest political event this year and this is supposed to be a politicalbetting site. More absurd is your questioning why there should be any mention of it on here!
"main news in France this evening" you what? It isn't even on the front page of lefigaro.fr.
and its a tiny sub-story on lemonde.
"main news in France this evening" christ.
Le Monde and Le Figaro's combined circulation is less than 1 million, Le Pen, Zemmour and Pecresse's tweets about the issue have gone to far more than that amongst their combined 2.9million twitter followers
Right. But far from "main news in France this evening". Main news on frother twitter maybe.
If Pecresse gets to the runoff and uses issues like this to get Le Pen and Zemmour supporters behind her, she will likely beat Macron
What's that got to do with whether this is the "main news in France this evening"?
The elitist Parisian media may be trying to ignore it but it has even made the frontpage of the BBC news and is uniting the right and rightwing social media in France and if the right unites in the spring it will likely beat Macron in the runoff
'Conservative candidate Valérie Pécresse also objected to the position of the EU flag: "Preside over Europe yes, erase French identity no!", she tweeted'
You're obsessed with France and the EU. It's a bit weird if I'm honest.
Hardly, this is the main news in France this evening, the removal of the Tricolour from the Arc de Triomphe and its replacement by the EU flag. All the main rightwing candidates, the far right Le Pen, Zemmour and the centre right Pecresse condemned it and the government was forced to back down and replace it.
The French presidential election is the biggest political event this year and this is supposed to be a politicalbetting site. More absurd is your questioning why there should be any mention of it on here!
"main news in France this evening" you what? It isn't even on the front page of lefigaro.fr.
and its a tiny sub-story on lemonde.
"main news in France this evening" christ.
Le Monde and Le Figaro's combined circulation is less than 1 million, Le Pen, Zemmour and Pecresse's tweets about the issue have gone to far more than that amongst their combined 2.9million twitter followers
Right. But far from "main news in France this evening". Main news on frother twitter maybe.
If Pecresse gets to the runoff and uses issues like this to get Le Pen and Zemmour supporters behind her, she will likely beat Macron
What's that got to do with whether this is the "main news in France this evening"?
The elitist Parisian media may be trying to ignore it but it has even made the frontpage of the BBC news and is uniting the right and rightwing social media in France and if the right unites in the spring it will likely beat Macron in the runoff
You really can't handle being called out for being wrong, can you?
She still has her official congressional Twitter account.
It was just her rule breaking conspiracy theory nut job account that was banned.
She is still on Twitter.
And Trump?
Does Trump still hold an elected position? Is he standing for election at the current time?
He is very likely to be a candidate for high office. Fundamentally Twitter is putting its thumb on the scale of democracy.
(Snip)
BUT HE IS NOT A CANDIDATE AT THE MOMENT.
How many people should Twitter et al treat differently because they *may* be a candidate sometime in the future?
He is a former POTUS and highly likely to be a leading candidate in future. He is currently a major player on the US political scene.
(And declaring your candidacy has an impact on ability to fund raise - don’t know exactly what but it’s why people often delay the official announcement)
You are being faintly ridiculous. In fact, we can probably delete the 'faintly'.
This 'lady' has said some bad things, and a company has decided she should not say them on their platform and deleted her account. She has kept her official account. Trump said some atrocious things on their platform, and they deleted his account.
Anyway, isn't the main creative force behind the Harry Potter books JRR Tolkien?
No. Nothing in common at all. The genesis is CS Lewis, Voyage of the Dawn Treader.
Yay for me as a trendspotter: my eldest son was born pretty much the day the first book was published, and my eccentric aunt gave us a (I weep to say this) hardback copy of the first print run of the first edition, because she had read a rave review in the Spectator and thought we should read it to him. The book is lost, but when I read it at the time I thought: wtf is this snobbish 1950s crap about fantasy boarding school life, who ever thought publishing this was a good idea?
I'm kind of amazed the early books got published. They're trash. But someone wiser than me saw something in it, because the later books are really very good. Derivative and imperfect, but still very good.
Watched the Harry Potter 20 reunion. Am I being unreasonable to find it appalling that Jo Rowling was excluded from it?
Didn't he choose not to take part?
Never interrupt PB in one of its spasms of confected outrage.
'An invitation was extended to Rowling to participate, but her team determined the archived comments from the writer were adequate, EW has learned.'
You've gone and done facts again. People's feelings will be hurt.
Not a terribly strong point, because whether her absence was voluntary or not she'd have been there but for her heretical belief that "chicks with dicks" is an empty set.
Which is bonkers in itself, but even more bonkers when its negation becomes the central tenet of parties which we thought stood for sensible things like an inhdependent Scotland or the protection of the environment.
I really REALLY doubt that the Harry Potter people made a serious attempt to invite J K Rowling to the anniversary, not after every single major actor involved has denounced her and unpersoned her for her views
And, even if they did sorta kinda invite her by whispering down the phone at 4am, did they expect her to say Yes to an invite saying "We think you are a hideous Nazi transphobe, please come to our party, we hate you"?
How awkward would the photos be? Who would be even photographed with her? Would she have to sit in a dark corner of trans-hating shame?
'Conservative candidate Valérie Pécresse also objected to the position of the EU flag: "Preside over Europe yes, erase French identity no!", she tweeted'
You're obsessed with France and the EU. It's a bit weird if I'm honest.
Hardly, this is the main news in France this evening, the removal of the Tricolour from the Arc de Triomphe and its replacement by the EU flag. All the main rightwing candidates, the far right Le Pen, Zemmour and the centre right Pecresse condemned it and the government was forced to back down and replace it.
The French presidential election is the biggest political event this year and this is supposed to be a politicalbetting site. More absurd is your questioning why there should be any mention of it on here!
"main news in France this evening" you what? It isn't even on the front page of lefigaro.fr.
and its a tiny sub-story on lemonde.
"main news in France this evening" christ.
Le Monde and Le Figaro's combined circulation is less than 1 million, Le Pen, Zemmour and Pecresse's tweets about the issue have gone to far more than that amongst their combined 2.9million twitter followers
Right. But far from "main news in France this evening". Main news on frother twitter maybe.
If Pecresse gets to the runoff and uses issues like this to get Le Pen and Zemmour supporters behind her, she will likely beat Macron
What's that got to do with whether this is the "main news in France this evening"?
The elitist Parisian media may be trying to ignore it but it has even made the frontpage of the BBC news and is uniting the right and rightwing social media in France and if the right unites in the spring it will likely beat Macron in the runoff
You really can't handle being called out for being wrong, can you?
I am not wrong, for the average Frenchman outside central Paris this will be the main news tonight
'Conservative candidate Valérie Pécresse also objected to the position of the EU flag: "Preside over Europe yes, erase French identity no!", she tweeted'
You're obsessed with France and the EU. It's a bit weird if I'm honest.
Hardly, this is the main news in France this evening, the removal of the Tricolour from the Arc de Triomphe and its replacement by the EU flag. All the main rightwing candidates, the far right Le Pen, Zemmour and the centre right Pecresse condemned it and the government was forced to back down and replace it.
The French presidential election is the biggest political event this year and this is supposed to be a politicalbetting site. More absurd is your questioning why there should be any mention of it on here!
"main news in France this evening" you what? It isn't even on the front page of lefigaro.fr.
and its a tiny sub-story on lemonde.
"main news in France this evening" christ.
Le Monde and Le Figaro's combined circulation is less than 1 million, Le Pen, Zemmour and Pecresse's tweets about the issue have gone to far more than that amongst their combined 2.9million twitter followers
Right. But far from "main news in France this evening". Main news on frother twitter maybe.
If Pecresse gets to the runoff and uses issues like this to get Le Pen and Zemmour supporters behind her, she will likely beat Macron
What's that got to do with whether this is the "main news in France this evening"?
The elitist Parisian media may be trying to ignore it but it has even made the frontpage of the BBC news and is uniting the right and rightwing social media in France and if the right unites in the spring it will likely beat Macron in the runoff
You really can't handle being called out for being wrong, can you?
I am not wrong, for the average Frenchman outside central Paris this will be the main news tonight
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
Yes. I’m defending the principle of free elections. I don’t know who MTG is and don’t really give a shit.
This is not interfering with 'free elections'. The companies have rules - sensible rules, by the sound of it - and are hopefully applying those rules uniformly. If they applied them very unevenly you may have more of a point; but it's up to you to provide evidence of that in this discussion.
It is. Twitter is a key part of a former POTUS’s election technique. They have made the decision to ban him. How anyone can claim that is not going to impact on the election result I don’t know.
So, if it is going to impact, you are really comfortable with giving a private company that power?
Absolutely - as long as the rules are fairly implemented to all. If Trump did make Twitter a key part of his election technique, he should have looked at their rules and operated within them. If he got banned having broken those rules, then it's his own fault.
Those people who got censored or suspended for discussing lab leak as a hypothesis on Twitter and Facebook, for a year, what rule were they breaking?
Was it the rule that This Upsets China?
Or some other rule? Do tell
Can I have more details please?
Here. Tho quite why I have to spoon feed you this news is beyond me
"Facebook issued two statements in the past week relating to its treatment of “misinformation” — and they couldn’t have been more different.
The first was a single paragraph updating their policy on stories speculating that Covid-19 is a man-made virus — after almost every major media outlet, and yesterday even the British and American security services, finally confirmed that it is a feasible possibility.
“In light of ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and in consultation with public health experts,” a Facebook spokesman said, “we will no longer remove the claim that COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured from our apps.”"
Thanks, I'll have a look at it when I've put the little 'un to bed.
But a word to the wise; there is nothing wrong with asking for links, if someone apparently knows more on a subject than you do.
You sound a bit like a drunken man in a gutter: "I claim the world is run by a cartel of hungry mice." "Oh, that's interesting. Can I know more?" "NO! How dare you aske me for more information, you fetid bag of ball-cheese!"
'Conservative candidate Valérie Pécresse also objected to the position of the EU flag: "Preside over Europe yes, erase French identity no!", she tweeted'
Anyway, isn't the main creative force behind the Harry Potter books JRR Tolkien?
No. Nothing in common at all. The genesis is CS Lewis, Voyage of the Dawn Treader.
Yay for me as a trendspotter: my eldest son was born pretty much the day the first book was published, and my eccentric aunt gave us a (I weep to say this) hardback copy of the first print run of the first edition, because she had read a rave review in the Spectator and thought we should read it to him. The book is lost, but when I read it at the time I thought: wtf is this snobbish 1950s crap about fantasy boarding school life, who ever thought publishing this was a good idea?
I'm kind of amazed the early books got published. They're trash. But someone wiser than me saw something in it, because the later books are really very good. Derivative and imperfect, but still very good.
A bit like the Chronicles of Narnia then.
Oh, is that so? I've only read TLTWATW, and had no wish to continue. At what point should I expect something tolerable to emerge?
I loved those books as a kid, despite (or because of?) the symbology. I'm hoping the little 'un likes them as well.
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
The same principle applies to private sector rules as much as it does to the law.
The media sector has always had different rules because of the intersection with the public sphere.
If the BBC, ITV and Sky plus Facebook and Twitter decided to ban any mention or broadcast of Kier Starmer would that be right? I say not.
If Starmer was consistently calling for kids to get kitchen knives and try balancing them on their heads, yes. But it would be up to those individual organisations to decide to no-platform the views. However, Starmer is such a public figure that they might be best just pointing and laughing. The anti-vaxxers who promote vax conspiracy theories are bordering on evil - as Wakefield was (and is) with MMR.
This is related to the Gerry Adams debacle in the 1970s/80s, which was by government mandate.
The issue is this Congresswoman who has just been banned plus Trump.
A random loon doesn’t matter. A credible candidate for elected office does
Hang-on... Twitter have a very clear policy regarding misinformation about Covid-19. Taylor Greene knows what those rules are, has consistently ignored them, has received several short-term bans but still carried on.
It would be no different to OGH banning me if I persistently broke the rules of this site.
Except
A) you are not running for office AFAIK PB is not a major source of political news and information for a material number of voters
Neither OGH nor twitter is any more obliged to give a platform to those who are "running for office" any more than the Daily Telegraph has to give air time to the Socialist Workers Party.
Nope. Twitter and Facebook (and the rest) are entirely different to any media outlet that we have seen, by orders of magnitude and dimension. The Daily Telegraph is not used and read by 5 billion people, the Daily Mirror is not the major media platform for every western politician alive. Nor has any previous media outfit had the instantaneous, aggressive, addictive quality of social media, which has so clearly coarsened our politics and increased its nastiness
You cannot simultaneously bemoan the rise of Trump and the growing threat to American democracy (as you rightly do) then say Oh social media can do what it likes. Trump used Twitter's unseemly power to fuel his bollocks, and even if he is now banned on a Twitter-whim other demagogues (of left and right and any religion) will do the same.
Social media needs to be reined in, taxed properly, and regulated; the giants are like the oil companies of the early 20th century (times a thousand): horrible monopolies/cartels with way too much power. The US government needs to stand up to Twitter and Zuckerberg the way it stood up to Standard Oil
Remember that Facebook and Twitter prohibited discussion of the lab leak theory for a year, and came quite close to successfully censoring forever the most plausible explanation of a plague that has killed 20 million people. This is Double Plus UnGood
I agree that Big Social shouldn't be able do what it likes. It should do its utmost to keep poison like Trump off its platforms. And if it won't do that job voluntarily, the govt needs to step in and make it.
i think you're joking or at least I hope you are. Government censorship is a giant leap beyond a private organisation deplatforming someone.
Exaggerating and emoting rather than joking. I'd like to see less poison & lies out there and I'm open to ways in which this can be accomplished. Eg regulation, legal jeopardy, whatever. I know it's difficult and I know it's complex but I'm not inclined to rule it out on a 'slippery slope' free speech argument. That doesn't resonate massively with me on this topic. The bigger imperative is less poison & lies. I think that's more important than a slightly raised risk of us trending to totalitarianism. This is how I both feel and see it.
Anything the government can do, imagine it in the control of the worst possible person.
How many people want free speech to be controlled by the current majority in Parliament?
Cute but I'm unmoved. The thought of passports being issued by Giles Coren scares me but doesn't make me wish to take that power away from government.
So I'm going to file with "the most terrifying words in the English language ... I'm from the government and I'm here to help".
Anyway, isn't the main creative force behind the Harry Potter books JRR Tolkien?
No. Nothing in common at all. The genesis is CS Lewis, Voyage of the Dawn Treader.
Yay for me as a trendspotter: my eldest son was born pretty much the day the first book was published, and my eccentric aunt gave us a (I weep to say this) hardback copy of the first print run of the first edition, because she had read a rave review in the Spectator and thought we should read it to him. The book is lost, but when I read it at the time I thought: wtf is this snobbish 1950s crap about fantasy boarding school life, who ever thought publishing this was a good idea?
I'm kind of amazed the early books got published. They're trash. But someone wiser than me saw something in it, because the later books are really very good. Derivative and imperfect, but still very good.
A bit like the Chronicles of Narnia then.
Oh, is that so? I've only read TLTWATW, and had no wish to continue. At what point should I expect something tolerable to emerge?
I am reading them with my eldest right now. The third one (Voyages of the Dawn Treader) is much better written. The fourth is showing promise.
Anyway, isn't the main creative force behind the Harry Potter books JRR Tolkien?
No. Nothing in common at all. The genesis is CS Lewis, Voyage of the Dawn Treader.
Yay for me as a trendspotter: my eldest son was born pretty much the day the first book was published, and my eccentric aunt gave us a (I weep to say this) hardback copy of the first print run of the first edition, because she had read a rave review in the Spectator and thought we should read it to him. The book is lost, but when I read it at the time I thought: wtf is this snobbish 1950s crap about fantasy boarding school life, who ever thought publishing this was a good idea?
I'm kind of amazed the early books got published. They're trash. But someone wiser than me saw something in it, because the later books are really very good. Derivative and imperfect, but still very good.
A bit like the Chronicles of Narnia then.
Why do you say that? I would have thought LWW and PC were at least as good as the rest. TMN and SC are the weakest. HAHB is an oddity but I like it.
Comments
That’s the thing about principles. They don’t change just because it’s difficult to like someone you are defending
Was it the rule that This Upsets China?
Or some other rule? Do tell
At the risk of sounding like a superannuated judge what’s “the Squad”?
It will be a vital part of my unDicatorship of Britain - keeping unBritish things off Social Media....
Rather like my legislation to protect the sanctity and purity of the Courts.
'An invitation was extended to Rowling to participate, but her team determined the archived comments from the writer were adequate, EW has learned.'
She still has her official congressional Twitter account.
It was just her rule breaking conspiracy theory nut job account that was banned.
She is still on Twitter.
The French presidential election is the biggest political event this year and this is supposed to be a politicalbetting site. More absurd is your questioning why there should be any mention of it on here!
“There is an attempt to make out that the worst is over. But, I think he is finished, in my view. I think there is a complete turnaround in how he has been perceived. He was seen as this amiable rascal, but now he is seen as a callous and sinister cheat."
@MSmithsonPB: Who'll come out best from 2022 - Prince Andrew or Boris Johnson?
Personally if you ask me both Randy Andy and Boris Johnson are paying the price for the bollocks they spouted in November 2019.
https://www.leparisien.fr/paris-75/le-drapeau-europeen-sous-larc-de-triomphe-a-ete-enleve-02-01-2022-NKZD34GTNBAPDDJYFYBD2ZNYQ4.php
It's only "main news" if it is on Twitter apparently.
There isn't an alternative source of news.
Do keep up!
I'll need to double check but i am fairly certain Twitter have said if he is a candidate he will get an account back.
He is a sheThey were born without a penis. Did you not know that, or is that your point?"main news in France this evening" christ.
"main news in France this evening" in your dreams maybe.
It is also now on the main BBC news website.
https://twitter.com/MLP_officiel/status/1477565635211235331?s=20
https://twitter.com/ZemmourEric/status/1477603794615689217?s=20
https://twitter.com/vpecresse/status/1477007885867618305?s=20
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59852577
Like Nick Griffin, the way to destroy Trump is to defeat him
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1231880/most-visited-news-websites-france/
"Facebook issued two statements in the past week relating to its treatment of “misinformation” — and they couldn’t have been more different.
The first was a single paragraph updating their policy on stories speculating that Covid-19 is a man-made virus — after almost every major media outlet, and yesterday even the British and American security services, finally confirmed that it is a feasible possibility.
“In light of ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and in consultation with public health experts,” a Facebook spokesman said, “we will no longer remove the claim that COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured from our apps.”"
https://unherd.com/2021/05/how-facebook-censored-the-lab-leak-theory/
How many people should Twitter et al treat differently because they *may* be a candidate sometime in the future?
How many people want free speech to be controlled by the current majority in Parliament?
Which is bonkers in itself, but even more bonkers when its negation becomes the central tenet of parties which we thought stood for sensible things like an inhdependent Scotland or the protection of the environment.
But then I don’t think our police should investigate people for being rude and offensive on Twitter. Twitter should police Twitter.
(And declaring your candidacy has an impact on ability to fund raise - don’t know exactly what but it’s why people often delay the official announcement)
From tiny acorns....
Yay for me as a trendspotter: my eldest son was born pretty much the day the first book was published, and my eccentric aunt gave us a (I weep to say this) hardback copy of the first print run of the first edition, because she had read a rave review in the Spectator and thought we should read it to him. The book is lost, but when I read it at the time I thought: wtf is this snobbish 1950s crap about fantasy boarding school life, who ever thought publishing this was a good idea?
This 'lady' has said some bad things, and a company has decided she should not say them on their platform and deleted her account. She has kept her official account. Trump said some atrocious things on their platform, and they deleted his account.
He does not have an 'official' account.
And, even if they did sorta kinda invite her by whispering down the phone at 4am, did they expect her to say Yes to an invite saying "We think you are a hideous Nazi transphobe, please come to our party, we hate you"?
How awkward would the photos be? Who would be even photographed with her? Would she have to sit in a dark corner of trans-hating shame?
What nonsense
But a word to the wise; there is nothing wrong with asking for links, if someone apparently knows more on a subject than you do.
You sound a bit like a drunken man in a gutter:
"I claim the world is run by a cartel of hungry mice."
"Oh, that's interesting. Can I know more?"
"NO! How dare you aske me for more information, you fetid bag of ball-cheese!"
Then we have -
Douche Bank
Debit Suisse
Royal Bank of Shit
Moron Stanley
JP Moron
etc etc...
So I'm going to file with "the most terrifying words in the English language ... I'm from the government and I'm here to help".
Revolving bow tie chuckle pipe.