My thought for the day:
Is the mainstream media not falling directly into the Streisand Effect?
The harder you try to remove content from the internet, the faster it spreads. This occurs because the act of trying to remove said content draws attention to it, which encourages others to repeat the message, in order to spite you.
Trump was about to fade into obscurity, and now his mere *absence* online is paradoxically, the BIGGEST news story that will NEVER DIE.
You also really don't want to kill a martyr.
Twitter was Trump's platform -- he came alive on it, he used it VERY effectively as a medium for spreading his message.
Not only have the progressives lost their villain in the banning of Trump, the Trumpists are now given the moral high ground, and justification for escalating tactics.
The more I think about it the more bafflingly boneheaded this move seems.
Another problem (this one pertaining to pts raised by John Stuart Mill):
If you BAN someone you don't like from public discourse, you have no pulpit from which to denounce them.
Trump functioned as a sort of bookmark for lefties. He was the "bridge too far" which necessitated their sweeping cultural revolution.
If he's banished from the realm, though, what is the next phase of the narrative? Does peace reign over the land, after some minor changes to prevent "that" from happening again?
J. S. Mill actually raises the spectre of censorship... not from the state, or by media, but rather by the "court of public opinion."
His point is that people feel social pressure to refrain from saying things that are publicly untoward. He regarded this as a BAD thing, because BAD ideas are allowed to "hide" when not allowed in the public square.
In other words, as a LIBERAL, Mill would rather have illiberal ideas expressed openly -- so that they can be challenged, and proven wrong!
It strikes me that today's "liberals" in the progressive wing of the D party have no real confidence in liberalism.
They don't actually believe that their ideas will stand up to scrutiny, or perhaps that they do not have the rhetorical means of supporting them in public.
Hence, censorship via the "court of public opinion" -- make it "untoward" to express Trumpist ideas, and the Trumpians will be DQ'd so that progressives can win by default.
This is what we've seen since '16.
Also interesting to observe social media dynamics.
Banning Trump is essentially like when a teenager "unfriends" someone on Facebook because they don't like them. The act of removing them on Facebook, of blocking them, is itself a perverse attempt to ERASE that person's existence.
It's sort of the equivalent of throwing out someone's photo. Symbolically, you are trying to erase them from your mind, from the world, undo them, pretend that they never happened.
@deathpanels oh, the barbra effect is great. I mean the streisand effect. I'll add it to my short list.
@deathpanels Today's "liberals" haven't espoused liberalism for the last 10-15 years at least. After all, classical liberalism was the product of the white privilege of a bunch of pale stale males, therefore it's tainted with the original sin of whiteness and must be discarded in favor of "social justice". Which is another term that has taken on a totally different meaning from its original, and is now just an euphemism for woke fascism.
@deathpanels Too many people deifying Trumps worth and actions. The larger issues are the intentional misdirection away from the fascist train heading this way and focusing on ideological sterilization using systems already in place. The means of comm need to be replaced and isolation of those support systems is needed. This will likely turn into a digital guerilla war before shooting starts.
@deathpanels I was thinking the same thing with Andy Ngo and Powell Book banning his Books on ANTIFa. Best advertising they can give him.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!