Klem Wrote:Munchie,
Interestingly, other world luminaries who have criticised Trump in the past are concerned about Big Tech controlling the conversation as well.
German Chancellor Merkel labels Trump's ban as "problematic".
Alexei Navalny (Russian Putin critic and recent poisoning victim) likens it to state sponsored censorship - he would know.
Hancock (UK Health Minister) likens it to an editorial decision. The medium is deciding what can and cannot be said.
Ironically, Zuckerberg is on record saying the President would be given a lot of leeway on Twitter because his views are important. Not anymore.
Other global illuminaries are stupid idiots comparing it to censorship (as is anyone in general).
Private companies don't have to do business with people they don't want to.
For an analogy: Trump is a gay wedding cake and the other companies are Christian Bakeries. This is a recent legal case about a company being sued because they wouldn't do business with a client because of religion.
Also in this case, Trump and his supporters interfered with the electoral process, have issued death threats, stole, vandalized, trespassed, defecated in the Capitol building, organized the kidnapping of a governor, interfered in a federal election (again) and killed a police officer (because they respect law and order).
So for the portion of America that doesn't think that erecting a scaffold on the Capitol building steps is patriotic or issuing multiple threats of further violence should be enabled based on hollow election fraud theories, its pretty much common sense not to enable further actions on their platforms.
As for Zuckerberg, Facebook's business model is engagement. This is done by sending people into the cesspool algorithms determine is suitable for them, irregardless of how vile it is. Keep them engaged and coming back, and collect all the data you can to sell to marketing and other companies.