Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account • Hacker News Board

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#151

Post by mindslight » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 6:39 PM UTC

gpu_explorer wrote: post #149

mindslight wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are painfully wrong on the definition of censorship. Censorship is the act of a third party intermediary controlling the content of speech, no matter who that third party is. For example, Merriam-Webster defines "censor" as "a person who supervises conduct and morals". They go on to use the word "official, which you might think implies bona fide government. But they define "official" as "one who holds or is inves…

> Furthermore, immediately referencing the Bill of Rights to call Twitter's activities "freedom of expression" is wantonly destructive to any sort of discussion. It's absolutely appropriate to reference the Bill of Rights. As a collection of individuals, Twitter is legally entitled to both freedom of expression and freedom of association. That said, Twitter also has every right to ban Marjorie Taylor Green for breach…

Taking your definitions and continuing on with them, there is nothing that distinguishes "US Government" from a private company with whom you're contracting with, whereby it can do all of those internal-facing "exceptional" things you listed. Roughly - your parents were under contract with the company when you were a minor, you assented to the contract when you became of age, and you can terminate the contract at any time by leaving their premises and paying the cancellation fee.

Furthermore by your simplistic definition, the US Government is also just "a collection of individuals". And while that collection has (conceptually) agreed to be bound by the Bill of Rights, there are clearly greater concepts at play than what has been legally defined - the US Bill of Rights does not have a monopoly on the definition of natural rights!

But talking in this framework is ultimately unproductive - it hinders making judgements on the actual details of the relationships, "contractual" or otherwise. And so discussions of individual freedom must necessarily focus on overall qualitative behavior and not simply condoning anything conforming to some axiomatic framework.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#152

Post by logicalmonster » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 6:42 PM UTC

jdavis703 wrote: post #140

logicalmonster wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imperfect data is still useful for understanding the world, is it not? To use your example: I'm not completely sure that Shotspotter reports are 100% accurate, but I'd be hesitant to move to a neighborhood that was reported to have a steady burst of gunshots, wouldn't you? In fact, speaking on data, couldn't we say that almost all data is imperfect to some extent? Isn't this especially true of Covid-related data?

ShotSpotter is notoriously inaccurate… It can pick up fireworks and engine backfires. If you happen to live by say a motorcycle club, ShotSpotter might make your block seem far more dangerous than it actually is.

Your comment is interesting and informative but doesn't really answer the question.

Knowing that some data is imperfect, can it still be a useful data point for understanding the world? Is it unreasonable to use ShotSpotter as a tool in your toolbox for understanding the world just because we believe it to be imperfect?

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#153

Post by gpu_explorer » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 6:42 PM UTC

saurik wrote: post #67

gpu_explorer wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter isn't the government. Twitter isn't the government. Twitter isn't the government. Like it or not, they have a perfect right to terminate her account for any legal reason, including breach of contract. For the record, Twitter doesn't even need a "reason" as long as they don't terminate her for an illegal reason. This might be difficult to understand, but it's not censorship.

Just because Twitter has the right to do something doesn't make it right for them to do it. And that they have the right to do it also doesn't mean that people shouldn't be angry at them for having done it, or use their right to call them out for it. Twitter shouldn't be doing this stuff. You totally can defend their right to do it while damning their actually doing it... but that isn't what you are doing as the pers…

You mean the "right" to ban Marjorie Taylor Green for breach of contract? Marjorie Taylor Green breached a written agreement she entered into with Twitter. Provided their terms of service aren't illegal, Twitter certainly should be able to enforce them.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#154

Post by rektide » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 6:52 PM UTC

neartheplain wrote: post #105

mkr-hn wrote: post #69

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…

> It's like getting banned from radio in the 1940s

It'd be like getting banned from one station, perhaps. Radio? To my knowledge the FCC has never banned anyone from the airwaves.

This pretense that the big social networks are so big that politicians must be granted access is just poisonous beyond belief to what the internet is. No one is stopping MTG from setting up countless points of her own presence, or sharing links to MTG-related media on Twitter.

Alas, that getting banned from one of the big networks is a crude, de-facto facsimile to a truth is quite the sad sign of the state of affairs. That we have become so very centralized, that our primary way of connecting is via such heavily centralized pillars that hold up so very much of the online experience is nothing short of a travesty. I mainly try to calm myself by reminding myself how recent all this is, how new. And assuring myself of their inability to create new & visionary ways of connecting; the big networks are beholden to their experience as massified, consumerized, common experiences. Their own impermissiveness, their own slowly closing, setting ever more fast in concrete rules & expectations bring hope that the frontier & more open communications might rise again.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#155

Post by finite_jest » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 6:52 PM UTC

mkr-hn wrote: post #69

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…

TBH, I think that is a bit of a trite diversion/straw man. I don't think anyone is arguing this is an act by the government. However, censorship is not always something government does [1]. This certainly _is_ an act of corporate political censorship.

And if they can easily get away with censoring people who "get to whine about it on C-SPAN", it is certain that you and I and the rest of the plebeians have absolutely no recourse. That is not OK.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#156

Post by rpdillon » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 6:56 PM UTC

aDfbrtVt wrote: post #76

The post that got her suspended claimed “extremely high amounts of Covid vaccine deaths.” per the NYT article. I was unable to find a screenshot of the original tweet, seems to have been deleted. A cursory look at the raw VAERS data from the CDC[1] shows: Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. (...) During this time,…

I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, but wanted to nitpick a bit to point out that there is no 'fire in a crowded theater' exemption to protected speech. Your point that not all speech is protected is, of course, correct.

https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#157

Post by dragontamer » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 7:00 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #133

dragontamer wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well nothing is preventing them from implementing such features if they want to. There's nothing preventing you from implementing your own social network with those rules. Hacker News is a forum for business ideas and web-based technologies after all, built around an angel fund / venture capital slant. But I'm trying to tell you that you'll end up relying upon user-based moderation for many cases: including simple…

I am not sure what you think you're arguing with. I responded to your statement that 'The _ONLY_ moderating action internet citizens have is moderation [...]'; I'm just pointing out that while that is true for twitter users at present, Twitter could experiment with other approaches if they felt like it. I'm not saying they must or they should, just that nothing prevents them. I responded in handwavey terms because yo…

> It worked to some extent on NNTP

And arguably not, because a huge number of NNTP servers were in fact, moderated. Especially as spam and warez started to appear on servers owned by public institutions (universities and the like), a huge chunk of USENET split into the alt.* unmoderated groups, and the other, centrally moderated groups.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#158

Post by anigbrowl » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 7:23 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #157

anigbrowl wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure what you think you're arguing with. I responded to your statement that 'The _ONLY_ moderating action internet citizens have is moderation [...]'; I'm just pointing out that while that is true for twitter users at present, Twitter could experiment with other approaches if they felt like it. I'm not saying they must or they should, just that nothing prevents them. I responded in handwavey terms because yo…

> It worked to some extent on NNTP And arguably not, because a huge number of NNTP servers were in fact, moderated. Especially as spam and warez started to appear on servers owned by public institutions (universities and the like), a huge chunk of USENET split into the alt.* unmoderated groups, and the other, centrally moderated groups.

alt.* would be the 'some extent' to which it worked. I don't have time for any more of this relentless contrarianism, enjoy your day. Or don't.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#159

Post by aDfbrtVt » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 7:35 PM UTC

rpdillon wrote: post #156

aDfbrtVt wrote: post #76

The post that got her suspended claimed “extremely high amounts of Covid vaccine deaths.” per the NYT article. I was unable to find a screenshot of the original tweet, seems to have been deleted. A cursory look at the raw VAERS data from the CDC[1] shows: Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. (...) During this time,…

I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, but wanted to nitpick a bit to point out that there is no 'fire in a crowded theater' exemption to protected speech. Your point that not all speech is protected is, of course, correct. https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

Thanks for the link, it is always a pleasure to learn from Ken White. The right to free speech (fortunately) seems to have evolved significantly since World War I! It would appear that the modern test to determine first amendment exemption is Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action and was established in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 [1][2].

* Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action. *

From that quote, I think it is pretty clear that the posts from Marjorie Greene would not pass the test and are thus eligible for first amendment protection (if Twitter was a government entity).

Caveat: Not an American, just a curious neighbour to the north.

[1] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/970/incitement-to-i... [2] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/189/brandenburg-v-o...

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#160

Post by jdavis703 » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 7:48 PM UTC

logicalmonster wrote: post #152

jdavis703 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ShotSpotter is notoriously inaccurate… It can pick up fireworks and engine backfires. If you happen to live by say a motorcycle club, ShotSpotter might make your block seem far more dangerous than it actually is.

Your comment is interesting and informative but doesn't really answer the question. Knowing that some data is imperfect, can it still be a useful data point for understanding the world? Is it unreasonable to use ShotSpotter as a tool in your toolbox for understanding the world just because we believe it to be imperfect?

No data source is perfect. In the absence of other data, it’s reasonable to use the least imperfect data source. But for example police will confirm ShotSpotter by locating shell casings, witness statements or EMS/hospital reports, so it’s better to look at aggravated assault and homicide data from the police to draw conclusions.

Likewise for VAERS it makes more sense to look at the abundant amounts of analyzed information, or else provide a critique for why existing analysis was wrong. Presenting low-quality data without caveats or explanation to disprove higher-quality information seems to fall within the realm of misinformation.