141–150 of 391 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Newspeak” is quite commonly used to describe corporate-speak. It gets the point across fairly well.
No I think that 'corporate-speak' is the term for that. And it clearly doesn't get the point across since there are any number of people posting that this in an incorrect use of the word. I think what is happening is that some people want to imply malice by misusing a word.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Twitter didn't suspend the account for not being reputable. They suspended the account for being part of a network that was artificially promoting tweets and content. You're arguing a point that Twitter never made
This is part of the reason why I detest Twitter's leadership. It's the tyranny of selectively enforcing the rules and hiding behind it. If someone tells me the same dozen or so twitter handles that always manage to chime in at the top of just about every trending social topic are authentic, I simply won't believe them. Why aren't these banned?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter isn't a public space. It is a privately owned platform.
I'm pretty confident that if a suitable case made it to the supreme court, social media like Twitter would be deemed a de facto public square under the US Constitution. Hopefully then people would apply a little more critical thought, rather than just parroting private vs public. It's clear that at a certain scale, a private space becomes de facto public one, similar to anti-trust legislation breaking up perfectly va…
Any case law to that effect?
> user "the account was “artificially” amplifying information". That is newspeak pure and simple.
I don't think you really understand what newspeak[0] is supposed to be. From wikipedia (or a reading of the book) "Newspeak is a controlled language of simplified grammar and restricted vocabulary designed to limit the individual's ability to think and articulate "subversive" concepts such as personal identity, self-expression and free will." What you are reacting to is a technical term that Twitter uses to describe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> user "the account was “artificially” amplifying information". Where does it say the information was false in that sentence? The newspeak worked. and to go from "artificially" to bots and fake accounts... OK, maybe. But how do you know? Not because they told you in that sentence, that's for sure.
> newspeak You guys keep using that word, but I don't think you know what it means. Twitter is a private company. Newspeak was a language developed by the government in Orwell's 1984. VERY different contexts here. For the record - what Twitter communicated is not clear and potentially deceptive, but this response wasn't written by some Twitter PR person. Some support person pressed a button and a canned twitter respo…
Why, in your view, would it be incorrect to apply the term to the actions of these private/publicly traded companies?
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…
I’m glad it’s gone, that pivot was hard and weird since the Pelosis stopped daytrading
The system can easily be gamed and there is something about the immediacy of it that tends to inflame people. Which I suspect is why there are so many people trying to game them in the first place.
As a whole I don't think we are really mentally and emotionally prepared for this kind of communication.
There is a Substack associated with the suspended twitter account [0]. They have made a recent post about the suspension of said account and all of the users other twitter accounts [1]. It states that twitter told the user "the account was “artificially” amplifying information". [0] https://patriotone.substack.com [1] https://patriotone.substack.com/p/twitter-suspension
So they were banned for using sock puppets to popularize their tweets?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter isn't a public space. It is a privately owned platform.
It's quite an interesting question. There are lots of privately owned 'public' spaces in meatspace, and the function of a space (a place where people get together in public) and its ownership (municipal, commons, private) don't always overlap. Which doesn't necessarily mean that Twitter should be treated as a town square, because it's clearly something different to that. Similar sorts of concerns about the centrality…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_ ...
Eh, that's a bit overused and tends to fall into the "slipper slope" fallacy territory a lot of the time it's rolled out. I'm withholding judgement on this one as there seems to be some indication the account was using using sock puppets to make them more popular. If that's true (and it might not be) that would lower the temperature on this ban to a standard TOS violation of a well-known policy.
Yeah, and the "that's a 'slippery slope' fallacy" rebuttal is often addressing something that is an actual slippery slope a lot of the time it's rolled out. Pointing out a slippery slope by itself isn't proof that the thing in question isn't real or isn't bad. Slippery slopes are real, and are quite often bad.