601–610 of 1001 posts
Sometimes I wonder why Twitter doesn't just ban his account like they would any other troll on the internet.
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…
If you act as a conduit for certain types of speech, you're liable for that speech. There's some merit to that position, but things like adding a fact check (which you might or might not agree with) do not incur any sort of civil or criminal liability. You make good points, but we should also engage with the reality that the president and his supporters are demanding a quality of representation/protection for their p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
The talk is about rolling back special privileges that platforms get. Privileges that you and I don't have. If you publish something illegal then you bear the consequences. If a user on Twitter does it then Twitter doesn't bear the consequences, but the user does instead. Doesn't this mean it's the user that's expressing speech rather than Twitter?
So let's look at today. You have a tweet from a conservative group that "concludes" that the only way forward for America is violent action, up to and including murder of political opponents. "The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat".
To me, it seems that there is a plausible argument to be made that this group is inciting violence.
And then Trump re-tweeted it, with the additional commentary, "Thanks, Cowboys of America!".
If we want to compare "consequences of speech and platforms", then on one hand we have hand-wringing about "Twitter _annotated_ a tweet with links to resources about the substance of that tweet", versus "group hints at violent oppression of political opponents, and is given the thumbs up by political leader".
I was going to say "I know which one I find more problematic", but lest someone attempt a slippery slope retort, I'll be more clear: I find only one of these actions at all problematic (and it's not annotation of tweets).
What's surprising is how often I encounter fellow Americans mistakenly asserting the first amendment extends beyond government and into the private sector. It's like they've never even been to a movie theater where they need to shut the hell up or leave. And here we have a US president signing an executive order in response to being moderated on a web site after years of arguably excessive tolerance of his b.s. I'm n…
And in fact, Twitter’s civil leadership policy has been allowing such users (including Trump) extra leeway.
The fact that Trump is mad about this shows that what he’s concerned about isn’t his own freedoms of speech are being impinged on, but that his freedom from accountability in discourse might be threatened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not at all, they're directly at odds in this case. The President using presidential authority to restrict what twitter can say on their own platform is directly violating the first amendment to restrict twitter's free expression. You can argue that twitter is also restricting others' free expression, but that is their right, while the government preventing twitter from doing so is a 1A violation.
If I own Google and refuse to index and show in search results anything from Huffington Post, CNN, Washington Post is that okay? It is not! Technically, Google is a private entity and can do whatever it wants. Once a company becomes too big like Twitter, Google, Facebook, they have a moral obligation to stay neutral. Interesting how opinions expressing a viewpoint that differs from the hive mind gets down-voted.
This happens. Frequently.
Replace "Huff post et al" with "Tiananmen Square" and search while inside China.
Specific to the US, the 1st amendment prevents the restriction of speech by government, which in some cases overlaps into private enterprise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not at all, they're directly at odds in this case. The President using presidential authority to restrict what twitter can say on their own platform is directly violating the first amendment to restrict twitter's free expression. You can argue that twitter is also restricting others' free expression, but that is their right, while the government preventing twitter from doing so is a 1A violation.
If I own Google and refuse to index and show in search results anything from Huffington Post, CNN, Washington Post is that okay? It is not! Technically, Google is a private entity and can do whatever it wants. Once a company becomes too big like Twitter, Google, Facebook, they have a moral obligation to stay neutral. Interesting how opinions expressing a viewpoint that differs from the hive mind gets down-voted.
numerous examples when google removes apps from their appstore.
even numerous examples when they are abusing search and prioritise their own products instead of competitors.
same for amazon.
corporate interests are not moral, dont forget that.
Oh my goodness is he a big dumb stupid moron. At the risk of this being downvoted to oblivion, why doesn't he think that Twitter, a privately run company, has the right to fact-check claims made on their site? Even if there were some secret evil liberal agenda on Twitter, which there absolutely is not, why aren't they allowed to do that exactly? Is he planning on holding Fox News to the same standard and make them pu…
The order does not say that they don't have the right to fact check. It simply says that they don't have the right to fact check and enjoy section 230 immunity.
They still enjoy immunity with respect to user-posted content, because that is part of the explicit language of the statute and a Presidential Order can't override statutory language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Social media are the broadcasters of this age. I see no reason why they should be exempt from the same rules and regulations as old school broadcasters.
The legacy OTA broadcasters were granted exclusive licenses to large chunks of a scarce natural resource (RF spectrum). Their public service obligations are essentially their payments on those licenses. Cable channels are under no obligation to carry news programming, for example, and are allowed to swear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not at all, they're directly at odds in this case. The President using presidential authority to restrict what twitter can say on their own platform is directly violating the first amendment to restrict twitter's free expression. You can argue that twitter is also restricting others' free expression, but that is their right, while the government preventing twitter from doing so is a 1A violation.
If I own Google and refuse to index and show in search results anything from Huffington Post, CNN, Washington Post is that okay? It is not! Technically, Google is a private entity and can do whatever it wants. Once a company becomes too big like Twitter, Google, Facebook, they have a moral obligation to stay neutral. Interesting how opinions expressing a viewpoint that differs from the hive mind gets down-voted.
Twitter responded to a message from authority by adding their own, dissenting message, not censoring the first message.
I guess this kind of double-speak is what we can expect now.