31–40 of 131 posts
Why is Twitter always last to do the right thing? It’s almost like being a publicly traded company robbed them of their last shred of humanity.
"do the right thing" is difficult when you are suppressing free speech on a platform that's supposed to be all about it.
Why is Twitter always last to do the right thing? It’s almost like being a publicly traded company robbed them of their last shred of humanity.
"do the right thing" is difficult when you are suppressing free speech on a platform that's supposed to be all about it.
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-condu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"do the right thing" is difficult when you are suppressing free speech on a platform that's supposed to be all about it.
Alex Jones is free to express his speech on his own website as much as he pleases. "Free Speech" is not about forcing a company to host content they don't like. That would be against Twitter's freedoms. Alex Jones will still be heard by his audience.
Anyone know what videos or tweets were 'abusive'? Twitter didn't say which ones they were. Twitter needs to be more transparent about this stuff. Especially when banning one of the most influential conspiracy theorist in the world. Not to mention a vague and/or arbitrary banning policy is always a bad idea.
Does anyone still actually think that Alex Jones isn't a character or persona being put on by an actor, like Colbert's Colbert Report character? Not that this excuses anything he says or does of course (though apparently what he said here wasn't a big deal at all)... but how anyone can think Jones acts the way he does on-camera after the cameras are turned off and nobody is looking is beyond me. His lawyer essentiall…
Anyone know what videos or tweets were 'abusive'? Twitter didn't say which ones they were. Twitter needs to be more transparent about this stuff. Especially when banning one of the most influential conspiracy theorist in the world. Not to mention a vague and/or arbitrary banning policy is always a bad idea.
Yeah, that doesn't help Alex Jones' cause at all, does it? It also seems quite arbitrary when there are plenty of very abusive people on the other end of the spectrum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"do the right thing" is difficult when you are suppressing free speech on a platform that's supposed to be all about it.
Alex Jones is free to express his speech on his own website as much as he pleases. "Free Speech" is not about forcing a company to host content they don't like. That would be against Twitter's freedoms. Alex Jones will still be heard by his audience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter isn’t going to broadcast or link to tweets that were bad enough to merit a ban, for obvious reasons- they’re banning it precisely to avoid having that content be propagated any further.
This is circular reasoning, and it conveniently excuses any abuses or hypocrisy by the company by disappearing the evidence and not allowing anyone else to judge for themselves. From an outside observer, there is no way to distinguish between the claim that the ban is for "good reasons", or that the ban is a result of bias on the part of the company.
Perhaps this is fine in situations where the banned entity is a malicious actor, but it presumes a zero false-positive rate. My opinion is, if even one person is wrongly punished without recourse (other than rolling the dice with social media) then the whole system is unjust and should be reworked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter isn’t going to broadcast or link to tweets that were bad enough to merit a ban, for obvious reasons- they’re banning it precisely to avoid having that content be propagated any further.
This is circular reasoning, and it conveniently excuses any abuses or hypocrisy by the company by disappearing the evidence and not allowing anyone else to judge for themselves. From an outside observer, there is no way to distinguish between the claim that the ban is for "good reasons", or that the ban is a result of bias on the part of the company.