131–140 of 391 posts
The substack username "patriotone" is pretty revealing. Reeks of QAnon nonsense, the posts themselves contain some pretty obvious dog whistles too.
If it’s obvious, is it a dog whistle?
They also suspended Nancy Tracker [0], a twitter account tracking Nancy Pelosi's stock trades. Something else I noticed that I think has changed is the follower counts on suspended accounts, which is only available on the app. It may have always been hidden on the web. I get it, they're a private platform. But if they're acting on behalf of powerful state actors, how can we say that's not suppression on speech? The w…
Bunch of examples: https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1465833079952625664
I expect to see more of these accounts suspended in coming days.
There are plenty of reputable journalists closely following the trial including Julie K Brown, the Miami based reporter whose story broke the whole thing open a few years ago leading to these arrests: https://twitter.com/jkbjournalist Adam Klasfeld is another one I enjoy: https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports
By handwaving this away I take it you're ok with Twitter deciding who is "reputable" and a "journalist"? There's no evidence this account violated the Twitter TOS.
The substack username "patriotone" is pretty revealing. Reeks of QAnon nonsense, the posts themselves contain some pretty obvious dog whistles too.
I have personally reported this (and related "tracker" accounts) for disinformation multiple times, so for one, I am glad to see it suspended. Despite the innocent sounding name, it's not just "coverage of the trial" as you would expect. The "tracker" accounts have all signs of belonging to a Russian troll farm and pushing a hostile agenda, which has absolutely nothing to do with justice one way or another. I expect…
Is there a good case for why someone who doesn't use twitter would create an account and use it now? Trying to figure out what organic growth for them looks like.
Asian and African markets probably. For western nations it becomes a containment platform like Tumblr has been until it destroyed itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter isn't a public space. It is a privately owned platform.
The person you are responding to is suggesting that a virtual space designed for public congregation should perhaps be designated as a public space. It isn't that different from asking if a shopping mall is a public space and the courts have sometimes said "yes". See: https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2016/05/aa-shopping-cent...
One issue with “forcing” first amendment protections on a private party is compelling speech from that party (in this case Twitter). If Twitter is entitled to first amendment “protection” from the government then it can’t be compelled to “speak” on behalf of a user.
Prohibiting shopping centers from blocking first amendment activities recognized that there are only so many “publicly available” squares in “real life” where people can exercise their first amendment rights. This doesn’t exactly hold true on the internet. There are an “infinite” number of public squares.
Another way to look at this is how IP “theft” is thought of. If I steal your CD you can’t listen to the music on it - but if I copy the MP3 then no one has been “deprived” of the original. Similarly “anyone” can stand in the “public square” of the internet without depriving someone else of that same space and access - an argument that doesn’t work in real life.
If there are infinite public squares do you need to be given access to all of them? Do you want to be compelled to speak for someone else simply because you’ve become large enough?
As a US citizen I’d prefer that these issues with corporations be addressed via other means that deal with monopoly power, open standards, data privacy/portability and similar. The first amendment is a powerful sword but it’s not a solution to a “bad actor” at the scale of Twitter - break up the company if you don’t like what they’re doing but don’t force them to speak for other people.
> "artificially" amplifying information Isn't that the whole point of Twitter?
"artificial" is the key word -- it is referring to intentional manipulation rather than legitimate engagement.