Yes, and that's a good point about the added value, Josh.  The stimulus package I mentioned had $600 for each American, unemployment extension and enhancements.  There was money for mass transit, and I believe there was money for vaccine distribution and alot of other needs that citizens have, and it took them 7 MONTHS to agree and pass it!  And this was an election year.  Meanwhile their miserable @$$e$ earlier in the year weren't sure they wanted to give us any more money because it would provide a "disincentive to work".  Meanwhile we were well over 200 days into the year, and they have only worked half of those days!   And they make a starting salary of174,000 plus benefits!  And they were making that while they were p*$$ing around trying to decide whether we needed/deserved anymore money.  Yes, when the rest of this last week comes out in the wash, and we get back to closer to normal, some of these people are definitely going to have to justify their existences, so to speak.

Angela Merkel attacks Twitter over Trump ban

Here is how the European Leaders are interpreting.  ( links at bottom)

The farmers were too busy fighting to see the fox had taken his first delicious step towards the henhouse.  

This is just providing the alternative view for balance.

They feel this is bigger than Trump.  This is a huge power grab by the 3 main tech companies. Lots of meetings of governments today looking at rapidly regulating and  decreasing their influence in Europe and the UK.    They have cut off your White House from your public.   Many believe  these companies are not interested in you, they are interested in controlling the politicians that make policies that affect them.   They say Trump was the useful tool they needed to take this 1st step.  It was always always about getting that first step in.  Is this them sending a clear message to all your representatives, don't dare mess with us, or we have the power to utterly destroy you.  You will be   "Trumped"  Who would stand up against them now ?

It is alarming to many of us in the UK  how easily you endorse these companies having that power.  Or maybe we are wrong, after all we dont live in your country,  and maybe they did this purely to protect the people from a military coup or something. Are they your heros?  Seriously would love to hear both sides.  

Anyway round up of Germany, France, UK, EU commission etc views and they arent too happy.

Angela Merkel attacks Twitter over Trump ban

German Chancellor Angela Merkel strongly objected to the decisions, saying on Monday that lawmakers should set the rules governing free speech and not private technology companies.

Angela Merkel, German chancellor, has sharply criticised Twitter’s decision to ban US president Donald Trump, calling it a “problematic” breach of the “fundamental right to free speech”.

Quote “free speech was a “fundamental right of vital importance” that could be restricted, “but only in accordance with the laws and within a framework defined by the legislator — not by the decision of the management of social media platforms”.

https://www.ft.com/content/6146b352-6b40-48ef-b10b-a34ad585b91a

France Shocked by Trump Ban

 France’s finance minister Bruno Le Maire. Mr Le Maire told France Inter on Monday that he was “shocked” by Twitter’s move. He added: “Digital regulation should not be done by the digital oligarchy itself . . . Regulation of the digital arena is a matter for the sovereign people, governments and the judiciary.”

Problematic Shocking And Perplexing: European Leaders Side With Trump Over Twitter Ban

Merkel, via a spokesperson Monday, said that Trump’s Twitter ban was “very problematic” and that the “fundamental right to freedom of opinion” should be determined by the rule of law and government, “not according to the decision of the management of social media platforms.”

Thierry Breton, the European Commissioner for Internal Market and a key figure in Europe’s efforts to regulate big tech, wrote  “the fact that a CEO can pull the plug on POTUS’s loudspeaker without any checks and balances is perplexing.”

Breton said it confirmed “the power of these platforms” and highlighted the shortcomings of Washington and other governments to regulate digital space, which he said is currently “reminiscent of the Wild West.” 

Bruno Le Maire, France’s finance minister, said France was “shocked” by Twitter’s decision to ban Trump, adding that “digital regulation should not be done by the digital oligarchy... (and) is a matter for the sovereign people, governments and the judiciary.”

Britain’s health secretary Matt Hancock said tech companies were now “taking editorial decisions,” adding that it is very clear that platforms are “choosing who should and shouldn’t have a voice on their platform.”  This would have consequences.

Manfred Weber, chairman of the EPP group at the European Parliament, concurred, telling Brussels Playbook: “The EU mustn’t let Facebook and Twitter decide what’s within the boundaries of the acceptable on their platforms.”

“We cannot leave it to American Big Tech companies to decide how we do and do not discuss, what can and cannot be said in a democratic discourse. We need a stricter regulatory approach,” Weber added

Twitter loses $5 billion in market value after Trump is permanently barred from the platform

Twitter tumbles as Trump ban puts social media in spotlight

 (Reuters) - Twitter Inc’s stock tumbled over 6% on Monday after its move to permanently suspend U.S. President Donald Trump’s widely-followed account spurred concern among investors over the future regulation of social networks.

https://fortune.com/2021/01/11/problematic-twitter-merkel-france-trump/

https://www.ft.com/content/6146b352-6b40-48ef-b10b-a34ad585b91a

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-11/merkel-sees-closing-trump-s-social-media-accounts-problematic

 https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/facebook-twitter-trump-ban-raises-questions-in-uk-and-europe.html

Yes, a whole debate needs to be had about the limits of free speech.  I agree that it has gone too far when (and only when) lives are lost, but that is another argument.

If you shout far-right propaganda in the street, that is your right, even if I utterly disagree with you.  But twitter and facebook are privately owned; if you shout far-right propaganda on my lawn, I have every right to ask - no, tell - you to leave - and I would - with considerable relish!*  These companies have a contract which their users must sign up to, so they are well within their rights here.

When it comes to the power and influence of twitter, facebook and all the rest, they ARE way too powerful and influential, but that is a problem for monopolies comissions and a gaggle of quangoes, not a question of censorship.  The malicious lies will continue elsewhere.

*When BNP canvassers pushed their newsletter through my door, I chased them down the street and threw it back at them.  I don't remember what I said exactly, but something on the lines of: "Keep your Nazi propaganda off of my property!"   I am not going to deny anyone that right.

DJ-If facebook, twitter etc is used for criminal activities-armed uprising etc.-a judge can shut down the account. Maybe there should be more legal action possible against misuse of "social" media...(and punishment for those that misuse it..)

Right or wrong.  Who's to say?  I think back to the bakery owner who won the right to refuse making a wedding cake for a gay couple.  Granted it was for religious reasons, but a smarter mind than mine has to figure out the ethical boundaries of a business' right to refuse service.  

Sorry, Andy;  the link does not work.

To continue the whole debate about free speech.  "Deplatforming" has been applied frequently within the USA as a way of dealing with terrorist threats from outside the country.  This is the first time (that I am aware of) it has been used against "domestic" threats - not to mention against a POTUS.  

Amazing how, when the hate is promulgated by a foreigner, or persons of colour, deplatforming goes unnoticed, but when the platform had been used by far-right extremists within the country, it is suddenly an infringement of free speech.

Trump still has a platform but he's choosing not to use it. He still has the White House Press Office at his disposal. He can release statements at any time, and he can organise press conferences. He's choosing not to because he likes being uncensored, and the kind of bollocks he's been releasing on Twitter will be judged and publicly criticized by his peers if he releases it through his more formal channels. 

When I studied tort law we learned that a shopkeeper is only issuing you with "an invitation to treat" (known as an invitation to bargain in the US). In other words, I advertise my wares for sale in my shop window and they have a price attached. You come in and say "I'd like to buy that pie priced at $5" and I sell it to you if I want to. I don't have to. I can refuse to do so without giving you a reason. I'm not obligated by law to sell it to even if it has a price attached. I sell at my discretion. Twitter and Facebook have that same right of discretion.

It's vital under law that they retain that right or else they cease to be free traders but instead become "employed" by some other authority. You can't have it both ways. You can't have a free market economy and remove the invitation to treat.

WitchMisspelled wrote: Right or wrong.  Who's to say?  I think back to the bakery owner who won the right to refuse making a wedding cake for a gay couple.  Granted it was for religious reasons, but a smarter mind than mine has to figure out the ethical boundaries of a business' right to refuse service.

Yep.......

And the rednecks  who would support the cake makers would agree they have the right to refuse service,but Twitter can't ban them dumb fecks....

Sign "I agree" when you join any social media site and Yoh have to stick by the rules.......

You can't move the goal posts when you dislike those rules..... mind we are talking about people who want to overturn an election....

and a person who always wants his own way.....aka Chump.....

The US won't know if the new variant starts spreading.  Unlike other countries, we don't do the type of testing necessary to find it.  

True, Ohio researchers say they’ve identified two new Covid strains, but that does not mean they can track them.

Identifying the strains requires a few brilliant researchers.  The USA has an elegant sufficiency of them.

The other requires millions of reliable testing stations and kits.   OOPS!

Many is not enough.

For some people "many" might mean over a dozen.  The USA has over 300 million people.  

I can't find a federal list of test centres, despite the vast need for coordination across the union.  But, for example, in Washington States's North Central region (incorporating Okanoghan, Chelan, Douglas and Grant Counties) all together had just 14 testing stations.  That covers around half a million people.  It is nowhere near enough.

There may be areas doing much better.  But a virus only needs one loophole to exploit.  Washington alone is a Swiss Cheese.

https://www.doh.wa.gov/Emergencies/COVID19/TestingforCOVID19/TestingLocations

300 million will take 3 years to vaccinate all

ABC News: Indonesia is preparing to vaccinate up to 180 million people against COVID-19 in 15 months.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-13/indonesia-starts-rolling-out-jabs-of-chinas-covid-19-vaccine/13051430

That is an hypocrasy practiced by all sides.  EVERYONE censors their output to some extent.

The question is not: "Do they censor their information? " but: "Why do they censor their information and how much? "

Drawing the line at terrorism, acts of violence and planning them, seems about right to me.  Press oversight for honesty makes the grade too, but press oversight for insult, blasphemy and obscenity is probably a step too far.

I personally get offended when a movement, party, group or individual gets upset at honest content or censorship which is not evenly applied.  For instance: "You can't silence or deplatform my people - even when they incite violence - but you can silence or deplatform the other side."  Yet (to varying degrees) we are all guilty.