Haven't newspaper been cherry picking what to publish for years? How is this different than the top editor/president/ceo biasing writing or television?
ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook
31–40 of 208 posts
Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook
#32I don’t care what side your politics are. When corporations can so easily control the voice of the elected leader of a country (one who has genuine legitimate support or about half of the country), I become very scared for the future. Corporations should not have more power than the elected officials.
> When corporations can so easily control the voice of the elected leader of a country
They don't control his voice. They just control if their resources are used to magnify his voice.
The alternative is state-directed media where the leader directs what political messages must be relayed and private parties have no choice about whether to relay them. That's not only inconsistent with the First Amendment, it tends to work out badly.
Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook
#33Maybe it would help if someone on the internet condescendingly pointed out to them that the first amendment doesn't apply to private platforms. I mean I know that's not what they're talking about at all, but it's what always seems to happen in these discussions.
At what point do these massive corporations effectively become a government? They govern what you can say, think and buy.
Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook
#34To the people here who are happy about these companies banning Trump, his supporters, and their respective conspiracy theorists: you are nothing but useful idiots.
Beware. When it's your turn to be dissatisfied with their unchecked power, it'll be much too late.
Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're misunderstanding the ACLU's arguments here. They're fairly consistently pro free-speech, mostly regardless of what that means. There's not much handwringing from them about "bad" speech because they're OK with bad speech being out there. I don't think they're fans of Trump, as their statement makes clear, but they're worried about the precedent that banning him sets.
> they're OK with bad speech being out there Might be time for a bit more nuanced view: Facebook admits it was used to 'incite offline violence' in Myanmar https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934 Four dead in Bangladesh riot over offensive Facebook post https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/21/asia/riot-deaths-facebook-pos... A Genocide Incited on Facebook, With Posts From Myanmar’s Military https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1…
No. The ACLU was built on rejecting social harm arguments to free speech.
Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook
#36“Start your own Twitter then!” ... they do. “Google bans Parler, conservative Twitter. Apple gives them 24 hour notice to moderate more speech or be banned.”
Start your own Google then?
Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook
#37The man literally has a press office and a press staff. There are any number of outlets who will cling to his every word in order to praise or criticize it. I don't use twitter and seem to learn what is said. It is difficult to see what the problem is.
I don't do social media at all (well, HN and imgur) and unfortunately, still hear it all. Crap is all over the news, its here on HN...it's everywhere.
Also, I tend to think a lot of this has to do with avoiding wrongful death suits for not policing their platforms..
edit: formatting, don't post before coffee
Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook
#38“Start your own Twitter then!” ... they do. “Google bans Parler, conservative Twitter. Apple gives them 24 hour notice to moderate more speech or be banned.”
If you can't communicate without violent insurrectionist rhetoric, then you better do it in private. Platforms have valid civil liability concerns with or without Section 230.
Nobody banned "conservative twitter." They banned the people who have been whipping up the gullible and stupid with unfounded conspiracy theories and outright lies. Alternate realities are bad but tolerated until they lead to violence. Meghan McCain is still on twitter. Her husband, a Federalist founder, is still on twitter. There are plenty of conservatives who are still there.
Pretending that they banned a political philosophy is hilariously disingenuous.
Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook
#39I don’t care what side your politics are. When corporations can so easily control the voice of the elected leader of a country (one who has genuine legitimate support or about half of the country), I become very scared for the future. Corporations should not have more power than the elected officials.
> corporations can so easily control the voice of the elected leader of a country
I see this almost in reverse, that why on earth has the US Federal Government put a company like Twitter in this position? The Feds have their own communication apparatus and instead foisted onto Twitter the responsibility of being the primary communication channel of the president. He has other options but he fully embraced Twitter and despite profiting from it, it's also not entirely fair to them.
Same with the Russian disinformation. There is a ton of state sponsored fake Twitter bots that the Twitter staff is fighting constantly. Why is that on them? Shouldn't the Federal government be fighting that as part of protecting the country?
Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook
#40I don’t care what side your politics are. When corporations can so easily control the voice of the elected leader of a country (one who has genuine legitimate support or about half of the country), I become very scared for the future. Corporations should not have more power than the elected officials.
> When corporations can so easily control the voice of the elected leader of a country They don't control his voice. They just control if their resources are used to magnify his voice. The alternative is state-directed media where the leader directs what political messages must be relayed and private parties have no choice about whether to relay them. That's not only inconsistent with the First Amendment, it tends to…
Yes, that's what I just said. When corporations that are used by the general public for public communication are allowed to control the voice of elected officials, we have a serious problem.
A state controlled twitter is an interesting suggestion. I am not sure that's a better situation.