101–110 of 218 posts
I don't know who needs to hear this, but if a company suspends a member of the government who has a budget and staff for PR as a function of serving as a member of that government, then that person has not in any meaningful way been censored by the government. This is not the poster case for trying to prove tech has too much power. There's a long list of marginalized people suspended for no good reason who don't get…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In an ideal world, because they are now the public square effectively, they should be held to a different stricter standard. As well as other big tech companies (App Store, etc.)
Twitter is not the public square. They app stores are not the public square. No one takes that argument seriously because it's not serious. Is it censorship that most existing book publishers are highly unlikely to publish a book of your or my political opinions? Should a publisher, or anyone else, be compelled to promote speech they disagree with? Would you want someone to compel you to write or publish lies? Marjor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She made repetitive tweets that Omicron proves that vaccines don't work.
Since you are not posting your sources, it's hard to tell what claims of Marjorie Taylor Greene you are referring to. I recently stumbled upon a site that reports on covid data from Denmark. The rate of Omicron infection in both vaccinated and unvaccinated populations >15yo is the same. This corroborates with a recent DHH post surfacing similar Denmark data. There is a distinct uncomfortable possibility that the vacc…
What's with this gish gallop style response?
I don't know who needs to hear this, but if a company suspends a member of the government who has a budget and staff for PR as a function of serving as a member of that government, then that person has not in any meaningful way been censored by the government. This is not the poster case for trying to prove tech has too much power. There's a long list of marginalized people suspended for no good reason who don't get…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're saying no elected official should be bound by any laws, contracts or the terms of service of any organization, since doing so could be interpreted as "censorship?" That if anyone else had said what Marjorie Taylor Greene had said, they would be subject to action by Twitter under its own stated policies, but the rules just shouldn't apply to her?
> they would be subject to action by Twitter under its own stated policies When people say "hang the rich" on Twitter do you see them getting banned? Twitter specifically says they do not accept appeal to violence, but in reality they only censor the language they don't agree with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also Twitter has now demonstrated they are completely ignorant to the Streisand Effect. This won’t change minds. This will only harden viewpoints and invite political and regulatory scrutiny.
> Streisand Effect She is a Congressional Representative. This isn't about shutting her up. Its about Twitter coming out and saying that they agree that she's a loon. No one actually expects a member of Congress to be permanently shut up over something like this. -------- When '@dang' comes around here and deletes posts, its about pushing the discussion in the direction they want for this website. The _ONLY_ moderati…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most private sector businesses don't want to be in the business of helping spread deadly lies, though. And they're not required to be.
Twitter did not even say she lied, they just said that they (Twitter) considered it “misleading.” Not false, “misleading.”
I don't know who needs to hear this, but if a company suspends a member of the government who has a budget and staff for PR as a function of serving as a member of that government, then that person has not in any meaningful way been censored by the government. This is not the poster case for trying to prove tech has too much power. There's a long list of marginalized people suspended for no good reason who don't get…
How many times a year do you watch C-SPAN? How often do you browse the press release page for your local elected official, much less someone else's? Whatever you think of this particular Congresswoman, Twitter is one of the largest and most influential outreach platforms. It's like getting banned from radio in the 1940s and saying, "Who cares? There's still newsletters and speaking engagements." Getting banned from T…
edit to add: That said, she can say things on C-SPAN that would get the congressional account suspended too (see: Trump hopping accounts as they got suspended after the initial ban). And those things would be reported by people who can do so under the cover of reporting, so it's not like she has any less reach for the goofballery now.
- Censorship bad, the state should regulate social media to not censor
- It's a private company, they can do whatever they want
Used however it fits by either political side.
Are we better than this?