721–730 of 1001 posts
So I have a question about this. Does free speech apply to platforms like Facebook and Twitter? I would have thought that a website owner has a choice about the content of their website, even if that content is user generated. Surely they could remove any tweet they wanted and not be sued?
But in general, you might be right (I am not sure).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s possible to have bias without editorialising, as far as I know Twitter only hides, deletes or bans. It doesn’t edit, the fact checking is appending.
How is appending not editing. If I append a statement to the end of your comment that contradicts your earlier point without your permission, how is that not editorial?
Hi, I think you're wrong. Here's the proof: I haven't edited your comment, but by replying I have just appended a statement to it without your permission.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If most of the mistakes happen in one direction, then I would argue that there's some other mechanism at work than just "mistakes". Update: data https://quillette.com/2019/02/12/it-isnt-your-imagination-tw... Update: admission https://www.vox.com/2018/9/14/17857622/twitter-liberal-emplo...
Maybe conservative america needs to appeal to people smart enough to start their own tech companies, so they can compete in the free market to do things the way they like.
People are wondering "How far does this go? How can Twitter say this is not cool, but allow something like violent movies or games? Where's the line?" The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens for looting, that's the line.
So I have a question about this. Does free speech apply to platforms like Facebook and Twitter? I would have thought that a website owner has a choice about the content of their website, even if that content is user generated. Surely they could remove any tweet they wanted and not be sued?
Anyone can be sued for any reason. It is extremely unlikely a suit against Twitter for moderation will succeed. In theory they have the legal ability to remove all GOP politicians, knitters, or fast food companies from their platform.
The newest Executive Order about Section 230 means the FTC can enforce anytime Twitter doesn’t follow their own stated policies. So Twitter will just adjust their policies to give themselves more latitude. Even this is legally murky and will take years to be resolved in court.
So I have a question about this. Does free speech apply to platforms like Facebook and Twitter? I would have thought that a website owner has a choice about the content of their website, even if that content is user generated. Surely they could remove any tweet they wanted and not be sued?
It depends. And the problem that people have is that social media companies want to be both publishers and platforms. For example, T-Mobile is a platform. They aren't responsible for anything you say when on the phone, using their network. CNN is a publisher. They are responsible for anything that gets posted on their website, and can get sued accordingly. Social media companies want to choose what is posted on their…
When you have billions of users wanting to post content you can hardly be a publisher in any traditional sense; nor will the gov./society/users let you be a platform.
People are wondering "How far does this go? How can Twitter say this is not cool, but allow something like violent movies or games? Where's the line?" The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens for looting, that's the line.
It is literally the president’s job to command the military. If he gives a warning that looting will lead to shooting, it is not glorifying violence. It is a statement of fact. And looting always leads to shooting, regardless of who is saying it.
Next, the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments to the United States constitution. Telling armed forces to shoot unarmed people because they happen to be looting (e.g. when there is no imminent threat to life) is summary execution and unconstitutional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Radicalism and inciting to violence should be bubbled not amplified.
But then the people who are open to such things stay exposed, while detaching from anyone else, thus ensuring that they spiral ever further into their own viewpoint. That's how you create radicals.
Remember trolls wreaking havoc on forums? Didn’t they have the right for free speech too and nobody complained when rules were added to try to contain them?
So I have a question about this. Does free speech apply to platforms like Facebook and Twitter? I would have thought that a website owner has a choice about the content of their website, even if that content is user generated. Surely they could remove any tweet they wanted and not be sued?