981–990 of 1001 posts
Headline is a bit taking things out of context. He is basically saying they can either allow all free speech or cease to exist, I would tend to agree.
No speech was disallowed, so this would be much ado about nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the actual conservative pain point is that they (correctly) observe that freedom of association (i.e. businesses get to choose their customers) only seems to apply when it benefits progressives - contrast Google evicting milquetoast conservatives from Youtube with no legal repercussions versus that baker in Colorado getting sued a bunch of times for not wanting to bake gay, satanist, etc. themed cakes. There…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free speech for all political factions on major public forums is the cooperate-cooperate quadrant of the prisoner's dilemma. If forums controlled by the blue faction defect and start censoring the red faction, the red faction needs to threaten to retaliate in order to scare the blue faction into cooperating again. It's simple tit-for-tat. This is game theory 101. Surely, it's clear here that having the actual head of…
> The United States President has neither the authority nor power to start censoring Twitter on his own. Right now, Jack Dorsey has far more power over allowed public speech in America than Donald Trump. Exactly! This is American Civics 101. When you become President, you lose things because you have power. You and I have more legal authority to restrict speech than the President.
Readers beware: it's basically useless to argue either side of this position because the level of nuance, complexity, and convolution involved in such a discussion is beyond the limits of what a threaded comment board can accomplish.
And yet the argument must be had.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free speech for all political factions on major public forums is the cooperate-cooperate quadrant of the prisoner's dilemma. If forums controlled by the blue faction defect and start censoring the red faction, the red faction needs to threaten to retaliate in order to scare the blue faction into cooperating again. It's simple tit-for-tat. This is game theory 101. Surely, it's clear here that having the actual head of…
Why does the "red faction" control no forums? Doesn't that seem odd to you? There's no reason they couldn't. Why don't forums aligned with their values attract broad participation?
It's Twitter's web server, which is a private property of the for-profit company. They don't have a contract with the Trump that they distribute the expression of Trump without modification. So it's their right to express their idea on their web server.
If the Trump want to distribute a true unmodified expression to the public, he can easily do so by setting up his own web server.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One factor is that Trump says a lot of dumb things, and almost none of them are true. Instead he seems to say whatever outrageous thing that can get attention so he's the center of the news cycle. Once again, it worked. When he actually does something to silence twitter, I'll be upset too. But I'm not falling for the "big crazy talk ploy" again.
Hot off the press: > President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order aimed at social media companies on Thursday, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters Wednesday evening, a move that comes as the president and his allies have escalated their allegations that companies like Twitter and Facebook stifle GOP voices. https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/05/27/trump-executive...
Good luck with that (not). Today we have decentralized social networks specifically designed to combat that kind of censorship, and other problems with centralized control. For videos, see https://joinpeertube.org or https://libry.tv For micro-blogging, see https://joinmastodon.org For photos, see https://pixelfed.org For others, see https://fediverse.party/
Adding a link to a factual counter-argument is not censorship. Even adding a link to a non-factual, non-sensical rant is not censorship. You're actually suggesting that posting dissenting information is censorship?!? Black is white! Good is bad!