How can Twitter have a
when their mission is this?
Surely this so-called ‘hate speech’ is included in Twitter’s statement ‘that everyone has a voice, and a right to use it’ on Twitter.
More speech is the answer to ‘hate speech’ which remains undefined so far as I can see.
But nevertheless Twitter silences other voices … and they do it in a way that invites fear of the person silenced. Trump was silenced supposedly because he posed a risk of further incitement to violence, but he’s now had that trumped up charge thrown out so there’s no there there. Wasn’t it lovely to see video clips during that sham trial of all the (Blue Tick) democrats inciting violence?
Surely even for you and your attention to formal policy prescriptions, policies should support the mission? Policies are ways to implement the mission. They shouldn’t just be something totally unrelated tacked on somewhere as an afterthought.
Perhaps Twitter’s sanctimonious hypocrisy has gone over your head?
I wouldn’t say the charges against former President Trump were thrown out, but that is really off topic.
The bottom line is, Twitter is private property, they can ban any person at any time, for any reason they wish, just like John Konrad can do on this forum.
Are really in favor of the government telling Twitter, IMDB, John Konrad, or any other private organization who they must do business with?
Trump being found not guilty at trial is actually significant and not off-topic because Twitter banned him on the same accusation, inciting violence’ that he was legally found not guilty.
I don’t dispute that Twitter is a private company, but if it chooses to be an edited publisher the protections of being a platform and not liable for content should go as well. There’s also the issue that Twitter and others have become utilities in essence and are used by governments and officials for all sorts of communication with clients or the public. If that is the case and the service is considered a public good it could be incumbent on it to allow all members of the public to participate with only illegal content banned.
I’ve previously made the distinction of sites like this for specific members and for a stated purpose rather than the more widespread aims of Twitter and Facebook.
Finally, I note you make no comment on my charge of hypocrisy above. Can Twitter really have a mission to promote free speech yet a subordinate policy of banning speech most free speech advocates would be in favour of? I’d love to hear your views.
There is no “free market” that is just a silly notion. “Free speech” ? Even in the USA which claims to have freedom of speech there are limits. The best known example is shouting fire in a crowded theatre which causes people to be trampled on the way to the exits.
I agree the internet as a means of transmitting information should be regulated as a public utility. But regulation of speech thru the internet then becomes the purview of the private or corporate providers of the platform. Should they wish to risk becoming afoul of laws preventing insurrection or violence is up to them. I have seen some pretty disgusting billboards on the side of interstate highways in my life but they changed or influenced no one I personally know. I found them humorous, I mean who would spend that kind of money to put BS by an interstate highway? The internet is just a highway we can drive down. One can look at the occasional BS or admire the scenery and meet different people, cultures and countries along our journey.
Not free speech, free expression. The same language is used elsewhere.
For example here: (first google hit)
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Facebook, Twitter, etc., are big (and growing) monopolies (or near monopolies) that deploy the type of monopolistic power that the broadcast TV and radio networks use to back in the 1940s to 1990s.
As someone who does not belong toTwitter or Facebook, I can tell you that it is sometimes impossible to communicate with some people, even some businesses, without it. I sometimes have to enlist the aid of kids on social media to facilitate necessary communications. These services resemble public utilities.
The Internet was created by the US Government. It is public property, just as the airwaves are public property.
The FCC regulates broadcasting. The FCC imposes many rules on broadcasters, including equal time for opposing opinion views.
While I generally prefer less government regulation, in the case of Twitter, Facebook, and similar big tech communication and information monopolies on the public internet, they must be regulated and held accountable.
So…
OJ Simpson has a right to be on a forum about battered women, because he was " he was legally found not guilty."?
Seriously?
OK then, but not so much
Nothing in section 230 says that, it doesn’t matter if Twitter chooses to edit post on it’s sight or not, they are still protected by the First Amendment, and yes, it’s Twitter’s 1St Amendment rights we are discussing, not Trump’s.
Twitter has the right to promote any view they wish, and prevent any view from being advocated for on their sight.
I make no mention, because that’s completely irrelevant, Twitter can be as hypocritical as they wish, that’s their right.
If you take your emotions out of the discussion, and view the issues objectively, I suspect that you’re opinion my change.
You may have objected to the above statement, so try saying this out loud, "President Biden, Speaker Pelosi, and Senate Majority Schumer, have the authority to tell Twitter, Gab, or any other private company who they may, or may not, write posts on their sight?
Is that what you really think?
It’s hard to imagine that you could possibly be more wrong. Nothing was “thrown out”. The republican senators that voted to acquit, did so based on a pretextual cop out where the Constitution’s meaning was deliberately misstated. Law reviews speak to the subject, and the ones that argue tRump’s position are clearly of the devil’s advocate variety. Perhaps you missed McConnell’s two-faced evisceration of tRump immediately following the verdict.
Your single saving grace. It was a sham trial. But due to partisan politics and loathsome self-interest. Not because of the merits of the case. tRump is being burned at the stake in the court of public opinion.
The next trials will have far more equitable results. State of New York, State of Georgia, SDNY. The cloak of protection for tRump’s fraudulent tax returns will be yanked off later this month. Real judges. Real juries. Real judgments. Real consequences.
No they don’t, the fairness doctrine was abolished in 1987
…and subsequently “found guilty” in the civil case. Which is quite likely to make up a large portion of tRump’s legacy going forward.
Or even criminal cases, which could still happen
…WILL happen.
Twitter is an efficient way to skim the news. Aside from some ads most of what you see is posts from accounts you choose to follow. I follow some local newspapers, some journalist, the NWS, NHC and a few others who comment on the news. It’s a good way to get perspective you’d otherwise miss.
I never post anything so I don’t get involved in any back and forth.
Mark Zuckerburg reportedly said: “anyone that trusts me with their data is a fool.” I believe him, and thank him for telling the truth.
Facebook sells data about everyone that uses it: posts read, posts made, and much more, to anyone with money to buy it. Facebook even collects data about people like me that don’t use it; they sell that too.
Facebook bought WhatsApp and changed the privacy rules so that Facebook could sell WhatsApp user data. 500 million people left WhatsApp for other messenger platforms.
I don’t know much about Twitter, but assume they are the same.
People need to demand government regulation of big tech before it’s too late, if it isn’t already.
It also lets you interact with serious and knowledgeable people. Most if not all of the heavy politicos are represented.
What’s the difference? They mean the same.
Did I ever say everyone has a ‘right’ to be on platforms? Nooooooo, never.
But I would like those platforms to stop banning people simply for having the wrong politics. They say they are for free expression/speech/whatever. Then they shut it down even for political candidates, or a duly elected president. That’s not good.
I’m no expert on US law but my searching has backed what I say. The relevant passage is "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” We can argue back and forth and never agree but simply put, I favour treating monopoly or near-monopoly big tech companies differently because of their size and reach. Either they allow more legal political content or they lose protections of 230. You seem to be happy that speech is being censored perhaps because those being censored are those you think need censoring.
Sure they can, but it would help us all if these companies had an understandable and clearly articulated mission and the policies to produce that result. The Hunter Biden laptop stuff wasn’t covered by any Twitter policy. One was quickly invented about hacked material - a blatant lie. It was detrimental to the election of Joe so it had to go despite its uncontested truth. So at the flick of a switch, an entire news outlet was off the system and disappeared.
I’m not suggesting the politicians should have the authority over what may or may not be posted, but it is increasingly obvious that some regulation changes are desirable and you shouldn’t be happy that big tech can cancel you at a whim either.
Not guilty is the same as thrown out. Get over it. He’s now the most acquitted president in history. The process was a disgusting political stitch-up (I agree) but it is the agreed process. How do you know the basis of republican senators votes? Some of those idiots wouldn’t know if their arse was on fire. But no mention of the motives of the inadequate majority? And I didn’t miss “McConnell’s two-faced evisceration” and immediately ignored it. You blokes elected him, not me.
Good. Leave it at that. But …
It seems you expect ‘real judges’ blah blah blah to deliver ‘real judgements’. I would have expected that no matter what. Is Trump the only target for such laudatory standards?
I’m told a substantial number of the voter fraud cases are about to be heard by real judges too. Some have already been won. I’m sure you’re keen for the real judgements.
Finally, I sure hope you Americans resolve your free speech issues for the benefit of the free world. You have the best chance to do so as the rest of the world seems to have also forgotten the most basic principles of western civilisation and gradually succumb to encroachment by nasty, divisive identity politics. I’m aghast at the casual dismissal of its importance on this site as a minor non-issue, hardly worth talking about.
Just out of curiosity, what is it about Trump that you find so attractive?
Exactly, Twitter, FB, Parler, GAB, GCaptain, whatever is free to ban any person they wish for any reason they wish, end of story.
Which imposes no duty of any platform to provide service to any person, so that Twitter, FB, Parler, GAB, GCaptain, whatever is free to ban any person they wish for any reason they wish, end of story.
You’re entitled to that opinion, Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg don’t share that opinion, and their opinions on the subject matter, yours or mine don’t
That’s not current U.S. law, and any such law would be a violation of the first amendment rights of those corporations
Speech is not being censored any of the people kicked off Twitter, FB, Parler, GAB, GCaptain, or what have you, are free to give their opinions, on any platfor that wishes to allow them to do so.
No truer words were ever spoken.
No. It’s not. Juries don’t find people innocent. They find them not guilty. In this case, by an unethical exercise of jury nullification. Get over it. Quit while your 600 points behind.