331–340 of 373 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a point of view, and a pretty cynical one. I would like to point out that regarding moderation, tech companies have been asking for guidelines and new laws for a decade now. Ageing lawmakers have been unable to provide them and we start to see shy initiatives from the EU regarding privacy laws but roughly most of the water in which tech companies operate are still no mans lands. All that make me think that eve…
Aren't these glamorous tech companies supposed to be employing from the pool of the highest echelons of intellectualism? How is it that they have such exceedingly large valuations but they can't manage to deploy a rationale by which to manage their user-based content?
I can't seem to find the case for treating some users one way, and some users another. Also can't determine how a 'leader' will be concisely defined and vetted.
Recognized head of state? Quick - who's the recognized head of Taiwan?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She is still an elected member of congress, and from what I hear - a rather popular one, regardless of her "tinfoil hatery". Opposition parties should _never_ have the power to just expel people they don't like from the opposing side. I'm sure it's purely coincidence she is locked from her twitter account on the same day that congress will be voting on a resolution on whether or not to expel her.
Shes has only been removed from twitter for spreading false information. Her free speech has not been violated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems pretty odd you have such a disdain for populism, but I'm guessing you believe in democracy. If most people prefer to participate that way and vote as such, are you saying that the people are wrong? Because the whole point of democracy is letting the people decide for themselves what they want. If you think democracy is fundamentally flawed though, then I guess your point makes more sense.
I genuinely don't want to take this to a negative place. So, please understand, I'm answering your question as best I can, and with positive intent. I believe populism can be quite bad, which is part of why the founding fathers designed a representative democracy, rather than a direct democracy. They were all well schooled in Greek and Roman history, and were afraid of the demagogues of Athens, and of other Greek cit…
I must say Twitter is handling this masterfully. They already censored the president of the United States, oft-called the most powerful person in the world. The die is cast. Soliciting opinions now adds a layer of plausible deniability without changing things. What could be the outcome? Will a cohort of COVID-deniers convince Twitter that everyone is entitled to an opinion, leading to the great unbanning of Donald Tr…
Ex president. Trump has to live by the same rules as the rest of the hoi polloi.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't these glamorous tech companies supposed to be employing from the pool of the highest echelons of intellectualism? How is it that they have such exceedingly large valuations but they can't manage to deploy a rationale by which to manage their user-based content?
Most tech company leaders achieved their positions through luck and hard work, not by being intellectuals.
I don't really have much of an opinion on how twitter should approach world leaders. I'm more interested in the approach of world leaders to twitter. As far as I'm concerned, people receiving salaries from the taxpayer shouldn't be spending their time writing free copy for twitter. They should be communicating with the public via government operated websites, or press conferences covered by multiple media organizatio…
Ultimately the problem is that Twitter et al is the new de facto public square. Politicians want to go where the people are, not to publish to an RSS feed that some single digit percentage of their audience (which will skew elite) will ever access. Note also that there are other, broader consequences: Twitter operates the public square restriction from free speech provisions like the US First Amendment—it can regulat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about we all admit that this is a simplistic position that flies in the face of centuries of case law trying to work out exactly what "free speech" means and how it squares with people's other fundamental, inalienable rights, because in real life it's not, in fact, obvious?
Simple doesn't mean simplistic. I'd like a platform that removes illegal speech, nothing else. Such a platform should be legal.
> platform that removes illegal speech
What constitutes "illegal speech" vs "legal speech"? Clearly, freedom of speech does not give you the right to illegal speech. This is what centuries of case law and legislation have attempted to resolve - what is illegal vs what is not.
EDIT: Heck, all law is like this. I could say "I want murder to be prevented, nothing else" but what if someone kills someone else in self-defence? When is that self-defence?
There are no clear answers.