Trump, Twitter and violence
US President Donald Trump had been using the social media megaphone, Twitter, to declare war on others until very recently. He used that platform to issue warnings and veiled threats to his rivals and the perceived enemies of his country. Now, he has turned on Twitter itself, having taken on several mainstream media outfits.
On Friday, Twitter held that Trump’s tweet on the Minneapolis riots, violated its rules against the glorification of violence. It attached a warning to his tweet and blocked responses. Trump saw red. Opinion may be divided on Trump’s message in the controversial tweet, but Twitter’s line of reasoning, in our book, is convincing. Twitter is responsible for the content on its platform and, therefore, has to be careful.
Interestingly, the Twitter warning on Trump’s tweet came close on the heels on an executive order Trump signed to limit legal protection for social media companies from liability for content on their platforms. Trump’s order may have gone down well with the victims of sinister social media campaigns. Trump should realise that some of his tweets have also offended many, who flay Twitter for allowing them to be posted on its platform. The question is why Twitter did not remove Trump’s tweet if it violated its rules and policies.
Meanwhile, violent street protests, which erupted in Minneapolis following the death of a black man at the hands of four police officers, have spread to other parts of the country. The victim is seen in a video, lying on a road and struggling to breathe, with a police officer’s knee pressing his neck. This incident is reminiscent of the Los Angeles riots, which engulfed some parts of the US, in 1992, when four police officers who had brutally assaulted a black man, named Rodney King, were acquitted.
The Minneapolis police sought to defuse tension by interdicting the four officers involved in the incident, but the death of the victim has provoked the public beyond measure. Angry crowds set a police station on fire, yesterday.
The US is at the forefront of the developed world’s campaign for protecting democracy and human rights, in the world. It funds various human rights groups and defends them to the hilt internationally. But the sheer number of brutal police attacks on members of the black community has dented its human rights credentials badly. Shouldn’t the leading defenders of democracy and human rights put their own houses in order before pontificating to others?
Moneybags, windbags and bags of rice
The Consumer Affairs Authority (CAA) made a big show of its recent raids on several rice mills in Polonnaruwa. Some powerful millers, confronted by the CAA officers, agreed to sell their rice at the prices determined by the government. It was thought the CAA had tamed the Millers’ Mafia at long last. The public heaved a sigh of relief, thinking that rice would be freely available at affordable prices. Alas, about two days later, at a meeting with a handful of wealthy millers, the government undertook to increase the maximum retail prices.
Some millers of Marandagahamula, which used to be the rice hub of the country before the emergence of the politically backed Millers’ Mafia, have agreed to sell rice at the maximum retail prices. Appearing on television, they said they could ensure a steady supply of rice if they were provided with the same facilities as the big millers. When ordinary millers say they can sell their rice at lower prices and still earn profits, there is no reason why the government should raise the price ceiling.
The Millers’ Mafia always has the last laugh. What made the SLPP grandees grant the wishes of the big-time millers? This is the million-dollar question. The government decision may not have come as a surprise to those who are aware of secret deals between moneybags and windbags.
We hope that the head of the CAA will not lose his job for attempting to tame the big-time millers with political connections.
US President Donald Trump had been using the social media megaphone, Twitter, to declare war on others until very recently. He used that platform to issue warnings and veiled threats to his rivals and the perceived enemies of his country. Now, he has turned on Twitter itself, having taken on several mainstream media outfits.
On Friday, Twitter held that Trump’s tweet on the Minneapolis riots, violated its rules against the glorification of violence. It attached a warning to his tweet and blocked responses. Trump saw red. Opinion may be divided on Trump’s message in the controversial tweet, but Twitter’s line of reasoning, in our book, is convincing. Twitter is responsible for the content on its platform and, therefore, has to be careful.
Interestingly, the Twitter warning on Trump’s tweet came close on the heels on an executive order Trump signed to limit legal protection for social media companies from liability for content on their platforms. Trump’s order may have gone down well with the victims of sinister social media campaigns. Trump should realise that some of his tweets have also offended many, who flay Twitter for allowing them to be posted on its platform. The question is why Twitter did not remove Trump’s tweet if it violated its rules and policies.
Meanwhile, violent street protests, which erupted in Minneapolis following the death of a black man at the hands of four police officers, have spread to other parts of the country. The victim is seen in a video, lying on a road and struggling to breathe, with a police officer’s knee pressing his neck. This incident is reminiscent of the Los Angeles riots, which engulfed some parts of the US, in 1992, when four police officers who had brutally assaulted a black man, named Rodney King, were acquitted.
The Minneapolis police sought to defuse tension by interdicting the four officers involved in the incident, but the death of the victim has provoked the public beyond measure. Angry crowds set a police station on fire, yesterday.
The US is at the forefront of the developed world’s campaign for protecting democracy and human rights, in the world. It funds various human rights groups and defends them to the hilt internationally. But the sheer number of brutal police attacks on members of the black community has dented its human rights credentials badly. Shouldn’t the leading defenders of democracy and human rights put their own houses in order before pontificating to others?
Moneybags, windbags and bags of rice
The Consumer Affairs Authority (CAA) made a big show of its recent raids on several rice mills in Polonnaruwa. Some powerful millers, confronted by the CAA officers, agreed to sell their rice at the prices determined by the government. It was thought the CAA had tamed the Millers’ Mafia at long last. The public heaved a sigh of relief, thinking that rice would be freely available at affordable prices. Alas, about two days later, at a meeting with a handful of wealthy millers, the government undertook to increase the maximum retail prices.
Some millers of Marandagahamula, which used to be the rice hub of the country before the emergence of the politically backed Millers’ Mafia, have agreed to sell rice at the maximum retail prices. Appearing on television, they said they could ensure a steady supply of rice if they were provided with the same facilities as the big millers. When ordinary millers say they can sell their rice at lower prices and still earn profits, there is no reason why the government should raise the price ceiling.
The Millers’ Mafia always has the last laugh. What made the SLPP grandees grant the wishes of the big-time millers? This is the million-dollar question. The government decision may not have come as a surprise to those who are aware of secret deals between moneybags and windbags.
We hope that the head of the CAA will not lose his job for attempting to tame the big-time millers with political connections.
No comments:
Post a Comment