451–460 of 763 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or on the side that Twitter thinks is the good side.
We are on the right side of history - progress always is. People like me are much more trustworthy because we're not motivated by greed, but for the desire for a better world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 'Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for wh…
That doesn't explain what "agreements" you think twitter is "breaking". There's a lot of disinformation about 230 floating around, but as the EFF page points out, it's a broad protection. It isn't at all contingent on them behaving like a common carrier.
Example for Twitter editorializing and cancelling https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1804a02d-a015...
Ammending S230 Bezos/WashPo
'...new legislation would target Section 230, a decades-old portion of law that spares social media sites from being held liable for the posts, photos and videos uploaded to their sites by their users. The proposal would pave the way for steep sanctions on major online platforms if they don’t act to remove a range of illicit content, from child exploitation to terrorism, according to Justice Department officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity Wednesday.
The agency also seeks to force tech giants to be more transparent about their content-moderation decisions and more consistent in their enforcement of them, according to a report the department released Wednesday. The move might offer the U.S. government a new avenue to probe and punish companies over allegations of political bias'.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/17/doj-bar...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. And yet ever five seconds I'm bombarded by someone telling me to vote. I guess they don't care if people without critical thinking skills vote.
It's my opinion that getting everyone to vote is the best option - there is a whole big chunk of the electorate that's quite uninformed but any attempt to narrow down the pool of eligible voters seems quite likely to fall into authoritarianism to me. We've got a lot of historical evidence about what happens if you let only people of certain skin colors, gender or wealth vote and all of those approaches were eventuall…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yikes - I've found Zerohedge to be scarily accurate over time! Depends on your political allegiances I suppose but my mother taught me when i was kid to always read the financial press - 'follow the money to find out what the b@stards are thinking' was her old line. (she used to work for the UK tory party in the '50's, despised them). ZH is what many city of London and wall street minions read live on their bloomberg…
> scarily accurate As the saying goes, Zerohedge has predicted 28 of the last 4 recessions. They have a consistently bearish bias (which rarely seems to play out), and ties to the Russian state, which brings into question the motivations behind their criticisms of the US (not that I'm the biggest fan myself). All of that said, ZH introduced me to a lot of economic literature and concepts I likely wouldn't have been e…
I wonder if that's actually true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should check out the NYTimes' coverage of every rumor in Sarah Palin's family right after she was picked as the VP running mate in 2008.
A few months ago there was non-stop coverage of the president purportedly saying very mean things about soldiers. This was from an anonymous source. Even Bolton who is no fan of the president said that it didn't happen. It got 24/7 playtime by the media. Now on the other day the NYPost has a narrative, with physical evidence, corrobrated by actual non-anonymous people alleging very bad things about a presidential can…
The Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven, but more and more often, it seems that they release primary sources of information (especially videos) much earlier than other news outlets will, if the other news outlets do so at all. There have been multiple times when I've seen an insane video of something happening spreading around Twitter or WorldStar or some other "raw video" agg…
I'm curious what your thoughts are on the NY Times pushing false information that led to the second Iraq War? Should they get penalized on Twitter after pushing a narrative that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths? From the NY Times itself ( https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-th... ) "But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the "time to publication" a useful metric, when the cost is accuracy? Once something incorrect is published, it has a lot more weight than a retraction/correction.
Tabloids aren’t new. Ever checked out the headlines in print at a grocery store check-out? If the NYPost want to be The Publication Who Cried Wolf and everything that comes with that reputation, let them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter is not a utility. It is not common infrastructure. The Internet is, and I would not be okay with Internet access being terminated over political disagreements. But individual services? Sure, why not? For those who argue that Twitter is a de facto common platform, well these decisions are moving them away from that role. The more they exercise their own prerogatives in removing content, the more they're no lon…
Twitter is an infrastructure on top of which thousands of services are run. It's a notification service, it's a messaging server, it's an authentication/identify verification service, it's a news dissemination and discussion service, etc. But that actually doesn't even damage the argument: would it be okay if Google decided that they didn't like NyPost's politics, so they disabled the functionality of all of their ne…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously fake? The Biden camp hasn’t disputed the authenticity of the materials. How is it “obviously” fake? Especially since most of the media refuses to investigate it — even if to establish that it isn’t fake? The media had no problem running with the very obviously fake Steele Dossier that claimed Trump got a golden shower on a hotel bed Obama once slept in. There was zero corroboration or legitimacy for that, b…
John Paul "Mac" Isaac is not even remotely trustworthy and nothing about the story is plausible. According to a Daily Beast interview, Isaac “switched back and forth” between saying that he contacted the FBI and saying the FBI contacted him. He also claimed that the FBI asked him for help in accessing the drive, though he didn’t indicate that the drive was encrypted or protected in any way. There’s are several huge m…
What about the actual contents of the laptop? The emails, text messages, photos, and videos?
Nobody from the Biden camp has come out and denied the authenticity of the emails or the text messages that have been published. Why not?
In fact, you have one of Hunter Biden's former business associates who has come out and confirmed the authenticity of some of the materials.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well.. that would be a breach of contract (providing NYP paid their utility bills) and they could be sued. With Twitter et al, their service is free and "you are the product", so.. they can ban you whenever with no recourse at all.
Exactly. The NYPost (or basically any news outlet and their readers) became dependent on Twitter on their own choice (or on their own laziness), and one of the consequences of being dependent on an external platform for your traffic is that you are subject to their contract. If you don't like the rules, you find or build another platform (and put in the money and effort to make it work). This is basically the NYPost…
I'm curious what exactly you think they could have done to not end up here. I'm not aware of Twitter even offering a paid service that they could use, and network effects mean that failing to publish on Twitter just means that fewer people will see your stuff.