461–470 of 1001 posts
The problem with Twitter and Facebook is that the lines are getting blurry with regards to public vs private. Like it or not, a couple tech platforms are the de facto new town squares. Not saying I have any answers, just saying it's definitely not a clear issue anymore.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Supreme Court has ruled that it “does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict...the free flow of information and ideas.” See the case here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-44.ZO.html The full text: "The First Amendment's command that government not impede the freedom of speech does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private inte…
Twitter is expressing it's 1st amendment rights by labeling tweets. Twitter is not the government, Trump is. The situation is completely opposite what you make it.
People (such as yourself, and myself as it happens) will claim that this order violates the first amendment. However the Supreme Court has explicitly allowed such actions under very specific circumstances. One such circumstance was called out above.
So the question is: would the actions in this case constitute a step to prevent a private interest (ie Twitter) from restricting communication via control of a physical pathway?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is about the President being angry that Twitter fact checked him and using executive power to create a chilling effect against any platform doing so in the future. That is the impetus in this case, but that doesn't mean it doesn't border on questions we've been slowly grappling with for some time now, nor does it mean we have to ignore that question. > the basis for authoritarian laws meant to stamp out that m…
>I'm not sure it's authoritarian to remove their liability protections, is it? If the intent is to punish critics and suppress the speech of party opponents, then yes. Any authoritarian can justify their actions in abstract and general terms, but context matters. >nor does it mean we have to ignore that question. We don't have to ignore it, but we also don't have to accept an autocrat's temper tantrum by fiat as an a…
This is literally what Twitter has been doing. Trump's order puts an end to it.
> We don't have to ignore it, but we also don't have to accept an autocrat's temper tantrum by fiat as an answer.
Exactly why Twitter needs to be stripped of their 230 protections.
> The purpose of the First Amendment is to prevent the government from infringing freedom of speech - the President is attempting to use government power to infringe freedom of speech, to do exactly what the First Amendment was created to prevent.
This is the government upholding free speech. Twitter's policies and their selective enforcement of such run directly contrary to the underlying tenets of free speech. This holds Twitter accountable for their "un-American" practices.
Although it may be hard to see through the vitriolic debates currently raging, this will be a net win for the internet. This will encourage decentralisation in so far as there is now a soft power cap on these big tech companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not personally concerned with the rights of private businesses as much as I’m concerned about the unintended consequences of expanding government power. And yes, that is a new position for me. These past few years have been quite the education about the downsides of federal power as a liberal.
This probably has to do with the publisher vs platform debate. That means it is not about expanding government power but removing protections that the government granted to corporations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since when is protecting the private property rights of corporations a "left" issue? This is a constitutional issue, and the fact that any court ruling that GOP voters disagree with is now a "left" issue tells you everything you need to know about how far civil discourse in this country has fallen.
Because everything is tribalism now. You can call the right hypocrites for doing a 180 on corporate property rights and demanding a 21st century fairness doctrine.. but didn't the left do a 180 as well?
Some may want to break true monopolies maybe, but twitter?
Anyway i was convinced by a conservative that big media companies should be partially nationalized (for gov oversight), still i don't think twitter is a big enough natural monopoly to warrant that.
Regardless of ones views pertaining to the current president, does anyone feel comfortable with so called "fact checking"? I do not like anyone acting as the sole arbiter of truth, whether it be the president, the pope, or the random fellow screaming in the park. I prefer that corporations trust their users to make their own choices about what people say instead of making edits or including addendum's to peoples post…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is highly unlikely Trump could build a platform or co-opt one that has the reach of Twitter. Thought experiment: if instead of posting on Twitter, he sent an e-mail to a few thousand journalists? I never use or consume Twitter, but I see screen captures of things Twitter posts all the time. Granted: one big thing this approach misses is the back and forth. I gather Trump re-tweets quite a bit of stuff, and respo…
He can't control the narrative if he depends on what journalists choose to report (or not), and how the story will be editorialized. Twitter gives him direct access to his electorate, which is extremely valuable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of them disagree with this thankfully. But to be fair, I've seen a lot of supposed progressives on Twitter suddenly finding themselves very concerned with the rights of private businesses.
Uh... are "progressives" opposed to private businesses having rights?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which facts you choose can show bias. Let people supply sources in replies.
Is the free speech of Twitter to be abridged? Section 230 allows good-faith moderation. Whether or not you believe they should do it, current law and court rulings have come down on the side them being allowed to do it and maintain their safe-harbor status.