371–380 of 596 posts
I personally have no problem with platforms choosing to squelch lies. If they over-step their authority then the market will correct them, right?
What if the shoe were on the other foot?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think delaying the story until it could be somewhat verified is reasonable. I actually read it minutes after it was posted on the NY Post and my first thought was that it sounded like it shouldn’t have been published. I literally thought they’d retract it. I think the internet is breaking into various niche groups. I fully expect there soon to be completely partisan social networks. That’s probably the best way to…
Well, ok, but can you find any other instance of a story that could have used some verification being suppressed by Twitter and Facebook at the same time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fox News has been suppressing the truth for 20 years now and where are the complaints about that?
What Fox News was since Ailes took over, CNN and MSNBC have become. That's something to be really worried about. For a long time, I read the NYT and watched CNN. I never felt the need to check in and see what Fox was saying until the last 2-3 years. Now I do, because I don't trust that I'm getting the whole story.
The actual story is the election of a monstrous moron to a post where his actions can materially negatively effect the future survival of civilization as we know it. His reelection would be likely to be the end of democracy as we know it as he corrupts the entire apparatus of government on which undoing the damage he has done depends. Unable to win fairly we have seen unprecedented voter suppression and an entirely e…
Right, so you scapegoat your opponents so everything evil becomes justifiable.
How is this applicable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter's objection was that the New York Post article contained hacked or illegally obtained material (personal intimate photos, etc.). Publishing those materials is a legal grey area.
No, if if the content is true and in the public interest, there is really no question about the legality of publishing it in the US: it is 100% constitutionally protected. Twitter’s initial justification for removing the “hacked” material is completely at odds with their past decisions to leave up hacked/illegally obtained materials like the Snowden docs, Trump tax returns, Panama papers, etc. Of course they have sin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yikes, I never really paid attention to how creepy and inappropriate he was with little girls and young women.
Just remember: Just like with DT this is also pulled out of context. I don't like any of them and won't (and can't) vote for any of them so I have no dog in the fight. That website shouldn't have been blocked, whoever did it should probably been charged with election meddling but it doesn't change my view of Biden. As for the videos I think many of them shows him (clumsily) trying to comfort people. Again - I'm also…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter's objection was that the New York Post article contained hacked or illegally obtained material (personal intimate photos, etc.). Publishing those materials is a legal grey area. I don't think Twitter ever said that article was Russian disinformation.
Trump's taxes were illegally obtained (hacked or leaked.) For all we know, the Chinese may have given it to the NYT, as the NYT never bothered to tell us how they got their hands onto them. But Twitter did nothing about them. If Twitter was honest, every time the figure $750 appeared in a Tweet it should be blocked. If you feel my statement above is absurd, that just shows how normalized the double standard has becom…
The rule is they blocked links to hacked content. They did not block reporting on either issue. Any discussion of Hunter Biden or the hacked content is allowed on Twitter. You just can't link to the actual hacked content.
The NYT has not released Trump's tax returns. They only released an article discussing some of what they found. The New York Post included actual stolen content in their article.
Blocking all tweets mentioning $750 would be like blocking all tweets mentioning Hunter Biden.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ISPs are private companies, too. Should they be suppressing political information as well?
For one, ISPs aren’t social media companies. If my ISP censors information, then effectively I have no way to access that information, particularly in cases when there’s no other ISP in my area. A social media platform banning certain content is different. Just as we have alt right media sources such as Breitbart, nothing is preventing you from starting your own social media platform, with whatever content you want o…
On one hand yes, but on the other, does that also apply to other services? Can I open a shop only for people only and claim that if you don't like it, go somewhere else? How about other categories, protected or otherwise? As a society, we already agree that there are some freedoms that private businesses are denied, and for good reasons, because when taken to the extremes, you end up with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nur_f%C3%BCr_Deutsche.
> A social media platform banning certain content is different. Just as we have alt right media sources such as Breitbart, nothing is preventing you from starting your own social media platform, with whatever content you want or don’t want.
Not really - you can start your own media outlet and selectively run the stories you want, that's fine. But if you just regurgitate user-generated content, IMO you better be really careful about applying your own rules consistently and in a transparent manner.
> Both the government and private companies can censor stuff. But private companies are a little bit scarier. They have no constitution to answer to. They’re not elected. They have no constituents or voters. All of the protections we’ve built up to protect against government tyranny don’t exist for corporate tyranny. - Aaron Swartz