'Sway' podcast host Kara Swisher discusses Twitter, Facebook banning Trump | ABC News



On “This Week” Kara Swisher discusses the bans of President Donald Trump’s social media accounts. #ABCNews #ThisWeek #Sway #KaraSwisher #Twitter …

Related Posts

38 thoughts on “'Sway' podcast host Kara Swisher discusses Twitter, Facebook banning Trump | ABC News

  1. Trump should not be allowed to spread lies for free. Let him spend a few hundred million creating cloud space an developing a social network. Trump could call it "MySpace."

  2. Censorship cuts 2 ways. They became public companies when they asked for government protection under 230. This moron will change her opinion when the tide turns.
    Dangerous times

  3. "When you're tearing out a man's tougue. You're not proving he is a liar. You're only telling the world you fear what he might said." Quoted by GRM

  4. All these people that are scared that Twitter and other social media are kicking out Donald Trump are the same people that are scared that their hate speech is going to be taken away from them, that they cant pander their hate anymore, that they can't make money off people by spreading hate.

  5. This is ridiculous and garbage. whether you are a democrat or republican, the fact that tech companies get to dictate who is silenced and who isn't is absolutely dangerous. We are slowly drifting into the waters of communism.

  6. We will not have the riot at DC if Democrats didn’t stole the president election ! Democrats is the problem we have in our country !

  7. Kara Swisher supported Kathy Griffin on First Amendment grounds for her infamous photo holding up Donald Trump's severed head.
    Now she advocates banning the president from Twitter just for saying he won't be attending the inauguration.
    The only thing consistent about her is her hatred for Donald Trump, and probably all men in general.

  8. Let’s just leave social media to the teenagers and people who do nothing but gossip. Let’s have grown up conversations with grown ups in person. Stop making these companies so rich that they can ever think about doing these things. Stop giving them the power by using their sites all day!!!

  9. They are monopolies, that have and will destroy and or consume any competition. They must be heavily regulated, like the privately owned Utilities companies. They control a medium that is essential for communication, information and commerce. They have demonstrated that they are biased in the implementation of their policies. They are actively arbitrarily silencing individuals simple because they disagree with their view point. While allowing more egregious views a voice. All major media outlets have morphed into a mouth piece pushing a specific agenda. It’s not about hate or violence. If it were then the hate speech from the left would be silenced as well, but it’s not. It is celebrated and encouraged. Why is that not in-sighting violence? These are the tactics employed by dictatorships.

  10. It's fascist for private companies to work together, with Government, to shut down speech. It's literally the definition of fascism.

  11. Deleted my Twitter account the day before they banned Trump. It's nothing but a cesspool of hate. Social media and Mainstream media are about the same thing these days, with the exception that Mainstream media gets paid to be biased.

  12. If they are private companies and not public squares, they should be help responsible for what is posted. They should not be protected under section 230.

  13. Those are private companies and if they want to have their own space that supports free speech then they are welcome to go form their own company. Wait a minute.

  14. IMMINENT LAWLESS ACTION

    The Supreme Court held in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), that the government is powerless to punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action", such as riots.
    This means that Donald Trump's words used to incite the recent insurgent at the White house, according to Supreme Court precedent, IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE 1ST AMENDMENT!!! #DocumentedFacts

  15. Where are all the civil libertarians? Where's the ACLU? What happened to the real liberals in this country that stood for personal freedom and the rights of the common man counter balancing the power and interests of corporate America???

  16. Not sure whether the way to approach the Big Tech situation is through antitrust law. To me the real problem and the reason some of these tech companies have gotten so large is because they are skirting a fundamental right to privacy. They have found a way around the basic right to privacy through a specious legal justification. Just think if when you arrived at the door to Target you got stopped and asked if you would sign a blanket agreement allowing Target to track all of your movements, conversations, purchases, acquaintances, addresses, telephone numbers, income, and to deep data mine all forms of your communications. Would you sign that agreement in order to gain access to the store? Just because the tech companies have easy access to all your personal information does not provide them with a justification to collect and sell all that information to advertisers, marketing and research companies, or government and law enforcement agencies. Even if their economic existence depends on those sources of income, tech companies do not have a fundamental right to steal our privacy by forcing our agreement to relinquish our rights in order to gain access to their websites. Without this faulty presumption, there might already be more social media companies. If antitrust is really the question, why didn't Congress act 40 years ago to stop Walmart, Amazon, FedEx, etc. from taking jobs away from small businesses? The nature of our world has changed, but we need to reassess our personal rights to privacy in this newly emerging economy. The requirement for web companies to post a gatekeeper question asking our permission to plant cookies on our computers with a detailed 50-page legal document eliminating every possible defense of our privacy that no one has time to read is doing nothing to improve the world wide web.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *