21–30 of 68 posts
The first amendment right to free speech doesn't compel any company (whether publicly traded stock or privately owned) to give you a free publishing platform.
This Biden story was unlikely to cost him the election. But censoring it is going to be prime fuel for the right leading into the election and is a much bigger story than what was censored. This was a stupendously naive move.
Spin is trying to show the blocking of the fake news article as something Biden was a part of. Obviously, Biden himself had no say or knowledge of the ridiculous article being blocked. Also, this articles headline is inaccurate. Facebook and Twitter are private organizations and have a right to not allow certain things without it being censorship. Restaurants can keep out people known to defecate on the floors, Twitt…
Wikipedia directly and immediately contradicts you: “Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies.”
I strongly disagree. This thread breaks down the ridiculous nature of the claim and makes clear why the spread of (likely purposeful) misinformation in the lead up to one of the most impactful elections in US history. https://twitter.com/dantoujours/status/1316844679783223297?s...
This Biden story was unlikely to cost him the election. But censoring it is going to be prime fuel for the right leading into the election and is a much bigger story than what was censored. This was a stupendously naive move.
I strongly disagree. This thread breaks down the ridiculous nature of the claim and makes clear why the spread of (likely purposeful) misinformation in the lead up to one of the most impactful elections in US history. https://twitter.com/dantoujours/status/1316844679783223297?s...
"The claims in that news publication were totally fake and deserve to be censored -- here, check out this Twitter user who has the real truth!"
In other words, when debunking an article as true/false, I think extra rigor needs to be put into the debunking -- you can't debunk an unreliable source with yet another unreliable source... (unless this guy is like a NYT editor and I just don't realize it)
I strongly disagree. This thread breaks down the ridiculous nature of the claim and makes clear why the spread of (likely purposeful) misinformation in the lead up to one of the most impactful elections in US history. https://twitter.com/dantoujours/status/1316844679783223297?s...
I strongly disagree. This thread breaks down the ridiculous nature of the claim and makes clear why the spread of (likely purposeful) misinformation in the lead up to one of the most impactful elections in US history. https://twitter.com/dantoujours/status/1316844679783223297?s...
I strongly disagree. This thread breaks down the ridiculous nature of the claim and makes clear why the spread of (likely purposeful) misinformation in the lead up to one of the most impactful elections in US history. https://twitter.com/dantoujours/status/1316844679783223297?s...
Could you link to it?
Have you seen some of the emails yourself?
The emails I've seen look authentic & reveal major corruption.
e.g. https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/emails-reveal-how-hunter-biden...
On the contrary, twitter & FB would never suppress such a story about trump.
> Would anyone encounter difficultly understanding why such a decree would constitute dangerous corporate censorship? Would Democrats respond to such a policy by simply shrugging it off on the radical libertarian ground that private corporations have the right to do whatever they want? To ask that question is to answer it.
I would! I don't know why The Intercept thinks Democrats are undoubtedly hypocrites.
Facebook, Twitter, and Google are more than welcome, as private corporations, to legally make that decision. If they want to do it, I will not try to use the government to compel them to do otherwise.
However, if they do it, they will lose a sizable fraction of their user base and their employees, all of whom are also welcome, as private individuals, to legally make that decision. I certainly will not try to use the government to compel the employees to stay.
The market will respond. Is there a reason that The Intercept thinks that heavy-handed government regulation is required to solve something the market can quite clearly solve?
(I do think that breaking up these companies on monopoly grounds is perfectly reasonable, and that is the market-believing, American solution to this problem - not regulating the incumbents and keeping them incumbent. They do talk about this, and I agree with that portion of the article. And then they go off into repeating the Republican talking points about finding things in Section 230 that are literally not there in Section 230.)
I strongly disagree. This thread breaks down the ridiculous nature of the claim and makes clear why the spread of (likely purposeful) misinformation in the lead up to one of the most impactful elections in US history. https://twitter.com/dantoujours/status/1316844679783223297?s...
There are gaps in the story that need to be investigated, but who the heck are Facebook and Twitter to make that call minutes/hours after the story broke?? This is not some weird obscure conspiracy story.
The other thing here is the double standard. So many hacked information has been freely circulating, from wikileaks to Trump's tax records. Why now, why so suddenly? Really hard to deny political bias.
I'm pro free speech, I think everyone should err on letting information flow. But whatever you do, if you use a double standard you'll have no reasonable argument to save you.