Seems like there's a whole lotta fascists on this internet.
...where "fascist" is defined as: "anyone who disagrees with me".
Who has actually expressed or implied this definition of fascism?
Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”
941–950 of 1001 posts
Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”
#942Twitter is well within the rights to do this, but I have seen tweets from blue check marks essentially calling for violence and Twitter didn't remove them. So, does that mean Twitter actually -supports- those view points now? If Twitter is going to police people, it needs to be across the board. Otherwise it's just a weird censorship that is targeting one person and can easily be seen as political. Everyone is applau…
> If Twitter is going to police people, it needs to be across the board. Otherwise it's just a weird censorship that is targeting one person and can easily be seen as political. There is no such requirement. Twitter is well within its rights and ethically totally clear to "police" a sentiment from the President of the United States, while letting much more severe sentiments from egg accounts go un-policed. Moderation…
> ethically totally clear to "police" a sentiment from the President of the United States, while letting much more severe sentiments from egg accounts go un-policed
Debatable
Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”
#943But it’s okay for President Obama to call the Baltimore rioters “criminals and thugs”.
https://nypost.com/2015/04/28/obama-calls-baltimore-rioters-...
Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”
#944But it’s okay for President Obama to call the Baltimore rioters “criminals and thugs”. https://nypost.com/2015/04/28/obama-calls-baltimore-rioters-...
Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”
#945But it’s okay for President Obama to call the Baltimore rioters “criminals and thugs”. https://nypost.com/2015/04/28/obama-calls-baltimore-rioters-...
Enough.
Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”
#946You can make the case that humans often engage in threats to prevent violence.
Having seen a few people threaten each other, and not get into a physical fight. But to walk way. I would say it can be preferable to actual fists thrown. Words are not violence.
Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”
#947Amusingly it looks like Twitter's report system contradicts the hiding by saying there's nothing wrong with the tweet: https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1266452015493906435 President Trump has also clarified his remarks, which is a welcome move.
If I’m reading that correctly, it’s a completely misleading assertion by @WhiteHouse. It appears as though this is in response to the quote of the original that was also reported. Given that the quote is adding a comment on to the original text, their ruling makes sense to me.
That said, it looks like they’ve hidden it as well now. So maybe they see it as an attempt to circumvent the TOS and are treating it the same way.
Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”
#948Twitter policy: "We start from a position of assuming that people do not intend to violate our Rules. Unless a violation is so egregious that we must immediately suspend an account, we first try to educate people about our Rules and give them a chance to correct their behavior. We show the violator the offending Tweet(s), explain which Rule was broken, and require them to remove the content before they can Tweet agai…
Useful to know that this specific selective application of editorial bias by Twitter, was after Trump's executive order [1] on preventing online censorship of free speech.
>"... Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. .."
When a car manufacture represents their 18-wheeler fleet as a 'passenger cars' -- we understand that this is a lie and demand corrective action.
When twitter manufactures opinions and hides them as 'public forum discourse' -- we are supposed to be ok with that?
I would be ok if their manufactured opinions are displayed to paid subscribers only, who want to care what Jack Dorsey thinks about President Trump, obamagate or Brexit.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or...
Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”
#949Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would imagine that accounts of "important" people are handled personally rather than by automated algorithm. As Jack Dorsey points out in this[0] Joe Rogan podcast, the reported tweets by public or algorithm are manually checked at some point. Approx. 4000 employees of Twitter all around the world. Every day 100k (edit: 100M) tweets are sent. The reports of tweets that violate the platform policy are (reported by p…
Only 100k/day? That sounds quite low.
Twitter is mostly retweets, though.
Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”
#950Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every feasible interpretation? No way. That’s not gonna work. No one would be able to say anything. At best people would talk like ex Fed chair Greenspan. Undoable.
Yes, every feasible interpretation. That doesn't mean you can't say anything without multiple interpretations, but it _does_ mean that, if you are called on another interpretation of your words, then you spoke unclearly. You need to clarify your meaning and apologize if it was flagrant. Yes, that is a lot of overhead for communicating. That's what I believe we should expect of our elected leaders. Sadly, nearly half…
You think people are going to vote for that?