181–190 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The just consequence should be that they should be considered publishers, rather than the republishers. And thus lose their 230 protection from civil litigation.
Isn’t the entire point of 230 to allow platforms to be moderated without being treated as publishers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The NY Post editor is Sohrab A h mari, and his account https://twitter.com/SohrabAhmari remains unsuspended.
Sohrab is a conspiracy theorist nutball who fled a religious dictatorship in Iran and now openly advocates for a Christian monarchy for the US.
Let's be honest, the only people screaming for censorship are firmly on the left. Controlling "disinformation" is a dog whistle for censorship, hoping that average citizens don't realize what they're really after. We all know who is going to be the moderators in flagging "disinformation" and we all know which ideology they overwhelmingly favor. I'd sooner trust a pyromaniac as fire chief of my local county than I wou…
If I was a Twitter or Facebook investor, I have one question: What did you expect was going to happen? Honestly. Did nobody have the foresight at Facebook or Twitter to think that this wouldn't blow up? Did nobody think, just once, that this might invite regulatory action or be in news headlines? And if honestly nobody thought this might happen, I'd want the entire management and "safety" team replaced for having no…
They probably have been doing this for a while, and this was just the first time they got called out for it. Regulatory action has been in the works for some time. Whether or not it goes through depends only on politics. The mainstream media already doesn't like them for eating their lunch. Twitter has nothing to lose by doing this. It will damage Facebook's brand identity as being a "free speech" platform, but that'…
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJAQ2QB6WVQ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-CugJieq2I
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that Cohen when you say Trump’s lawyer? Do you have a source for that out of interest? It smells a bit like that National Review article Cohen planted about Cruz’s dad killing JFK or something in 2016.
I'm referring to Giuliani, who is the New York Post's source for these alleged emails and photos, acting as a supposed intermediary for a repair shop employee. Giuliani has been tasked for two years with digging up dirt on Biden, and every single story he has pushed has in my view, been outright fabricated agenda pushing based on narratives spun by dubious third parties.
Just step back a little and consider the alternatives here. NYP is pretty obviously smearing for a major civil event here, a civil event that has the potential of causing serious harm to the second largest democracy in the world. If the social media companies would just allow this smearing to go unhindered, they are basically saying: “We don’t care if bad actors use our platform to undermine our democracy,” which is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a newspaper collaborating with the president's personal lawyer The President is still allowed to tweet almost anything he wants, so this is still very selective censorship.
Evidently Twitter feels that gives him special privileges, but they've been flagging his posts as possible misinformation for months. Clearly they're trying to find a way to navigate a difficult situation. I think they should be erring toward better control of disinformation, certainly not being more laissez-faire about a problem that is destroying the world.
Maybe Twitter should just shut down for a month. That's my point, there's so much untruth on Twitter, even specifically related to politics and the election, that it's just impossible to intelligently "curate" the platform. There's no apparent principle in what they allow and what they don't.
> certainly not being more laissez-faire about a problem that is destroying the world.
It wasn't a story about climate change, or nuclear proliferation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It likely is BS, but not definitely. Even some of the points in the TPM article aren't very strong (I'm sorry, but journalists mocking the story isn't a point.) But, even if it is, it's not the role of Facebook to decide it is or isn't, when it is not verify-ably false. Instead they should just elevate critics of the article/scoop like the article you linked.
Extraordinary times calls for extraordinary actions. The coming US election is no small deal, and we have seen in past elections how bad actors have been using social media to undermine democracy (including but not limited to influencing elections). You really can’t blame Twitter and Facebook here for taking the more radical step against an obvious smear campaign that blatantly fails the smell test. I’m sure if this…
If I was a Twitter or Facebook investor, I have one question: What did you expect was going to happen? Honestly. Did nobody have the foresight at Facebook or Twitter to think that this wouldn't blow up? Did nobody think, just once, that this might invite regulatory action or be in news headlines? And if honestly nobody thought this might happen, I'd want the entire management and "safety" team replaced for having no…
National Review is a conservative wing-nut website trying to turn this non-story into fuel for their censorship culture war.
If I was a Twitter or Facebook investor, I have one question: What did you expect was going to happen? Honestly. Did nobody have the foresight at Facebook or Twitter to think that this wouldn't blow up? Did nobody think, just once, that this might invite regulatory action or be in news headlines? And if honestly nobody thought this might happen, I'd want the entire management and "safety" team replaced for having no…