MAYBE it’s because I am not a twit that uses Twitter that I don’t understand the way Twitter lets some tweets through and blocks or warns about others including those from US President Donald Trump.
Like many, I have concerns about (un)social media and its ability to spread views too easily including many that I find offensive, racism for example, or wrong such as the vaccination opponents, or plain stupid as shown by those that think 5G or Bill Gates are involved in the spread of COVID-19.
The greatest value of a strong democracy is that it allows for a wide range of viewpoints, even those that are clearly wrong. From this logic I am confused by Twitter’s blocking or blurring of President Trump’s warning about the use of “serious force” if there is an autonomous zone set up in Washington D.C.
Although there is a warning that this tweet refers to “abusive behaviour” you can still proceed to the tweet and read it in full – it’s like a wet paint warning which will actually encourage people to touch the surface.
Surely if Twitter finds this inappropriate then it should remove it rather than the meek response this warning provides.
The problem with this is that people have the apparent right to make incorrect or offensive statements but there is little clarity as to what can actually be banned. Twitter is working on this but there is a long way to go and the basic problem is what is offensive to some may be the view supported by others.
It seems that President Trump, although not a great fan of Twitter, is a prolific user. He is a staunch defender of the freedom of speech as he said “We’re here today to defend free speech from one of the greatest dangers it has faced in American history” (May 28, 2020) when he signed an executive order, and yet he is apparently trying to stop his niece from writing a book about the family. It is easy to assume that the book will not be positive as steps are being made to ban it.
The First Amendment has much to say on press freedom – “…no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” and Presidents have sworn to “to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” I am confused.
Few countries, or even people, are perfect but most aspire to be the best they can be. Some don’t!
***
A real fake crowd
The Australian Football game has returned in front of a great crowd of appreciative fans, well actually a number of life-sized cardboard cut outs featuring fanatical fans at a cost of 20 dollars for them and placed around the ground.
Their voices are supplied by a series of sound clips from previous games, and as the first game using these fake voices ended in a draw the end of the match was met by silence.
They were also better behaved than the people they represented as they didn’t boo the umpires or cast doubt on their parentage. They were desperate to add some atmosphere to the game although it’s doubtful that it worked.
The idea of using fake bodies to fill spaces seems a bit silly although it may already be common, especially in political houses and a quick look at a collection of senators will confirm this.
The use of fake people is not that uncommon when you watch any recent TV series with a battle scene. There are other times when they could have been used including at President Trump’s inauguration ceremony. Students could use them to sit in class for them and unless they catch on fire the teachers won’t mind as a quiet student is a good student.
The other supporting argument for the cardboard people is that they make more sense than most politicians and they can’t tweet. (dfitzger@melbpc.org.au/PN)
