Twitter Plans ‘Hate Speech’ Crackdown After Backlash From Upset Employees

[r3volution 3.0]

1. These are private enterprises. You are entirely free to not use them. Use them on their conditions, or don't. Stop bitching.

2. If you are dumb enough to use these advertising-data-gathering-services, and don't like the result, tough titty.

3. Read a book, jackass.

 

[timosman]

1. These are private enterprises. You are entirely free to not use them. Use them on their conditions, or don't. Stop bitching.

2. If you are dumb enough to use these advertising-data-gathering-services, and don't like the result, tough titty.

3. Read a book, jackass.

4. Invite somebody to your shelter under a bridge.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

4. Invite somebody to your shelter under a bridge.

I'll have you know, I have thousands of facebook friends bra...

Course, I never met any of them....

 

[Madison320]

1. These are private enterprises. You are entirely free to not use them. Use them on their conditions, or don't. Stop bitching.

2. If you are dumb enough to use these advertising-data-gathering-services, and don't like the result, tough titty.

3. Read a book, jackass.

But they're private enterprises being threatened by the government. Have you seen the video of the congressional hearing where Facebook is threatened? By the way Ron Paul was censored recently as well. Facebook is not the problem, government is. I seriously doubt Facebook would voluntarily do that much censoring.

I'm hoping that some of the people being censored will sue the government for 1st amendment violations.


30 second mark shows congressional threats:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2vVc4abqKI

 

[Madison320]

The idea is that the social media giants have escaped legal liability for the content of their platform by saying that they don't exercise editorial restrictions over their content. They have guidelines and rules, but that's it.

So a newspaper can be sued for slander if one of their writers slanders someone, but your niece can't sue facebook because your your grandma slandered her on facebook.

If you have a case like Sarah Jeong from the NYT who tweets out racist tweets against white people and doesn't get banned, her tweets don't get deleted, etc.. and then you have Candace Owens who makes the same tweets but replaces "white" with "black" and then gets banned, even though she specified she was just making the same tweets Jeong did (Candace Owens is black) and we have enough of these cases (we do) then we can surmise that these companies are banning people for their political content as opposed to banning them for breaking the rules. Thus they are maintaining editorial control over the content and under current law the courts would say they would be liable for what users post.. This makes owning a social media company untenable.

Now, should it be that way? Probably not.. But what that means is that if I started a social media company with a clear conservative bias, my company could be sued if we maintained editorial control over the content. So it's important to treat these big leftist companies the way you would treat their smaller competition until the laws are changed.

That's a good point however do you really think Facebook decided to implement "guidelines" on their own? We've already seen videos of Facebook being dragged in front of congress and threatened to take down "bad" content.

 

[AuH20]

1. These are private enterprises. You are entirely free to not use them. Use them on their conditions, or don't. Stop bitching.

2. If you are dumb enough to use these advertising-data-gathering-services, and don't like the result, tough titty.

3. Read a book, jackass.

A judge ruled that Twitter was a public domain. So which it is?

 

[timosman]

A judge ruled that Twitter was a public domain. So which it is?

It all depends on what matter is currently at hand. You are clearly not flexible enough to hold an executive position.

 

[dannno]

That's a good point however do you really think Facebook decided to implement "guidelines" on their own? We've already seen videos of Facebook being dragged in front of congress and threatened to take down "bad" content.

That would sorta make this a first amendment issue again then wouldn't it?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

In addition to what Brian said, there is this legal argument at 1:45

I’ve heard the public forum vs. “editorial control” in the form of censorship argument before. Not sure that it holds water though.

A media outlet certainly controls what it’s writer’s publish. But do they control or edit what people put in the comments section?

Likewise, a platform like Twitter does not create the content, it is all created by the users. Banning someone for something that is against the law is a pretty common and basic usage rule. Does that equal “editorial control”? It doesn’t seem like it.

Let’s go further. Suppose the platform is called “Democrats Unite”, and the content is created by users. Now suppose that Republicans go there and post press releases from all GOP members of Congress, and other assorted GOP politicians. Should that be allowed? Is it ”editorial control” to not only ban those who advocate illegal activities, but also ban those who are from the “competition”?

The biggest problem is that Twitter has never called itself “The Leftist Ideology Echo Chamber”. If they had done that from the beginning, would there be an issue right now? Instead, Twitter explicitly called itself an open public forum, and with that as the premise, fully took over that market niche. Nearly every politician, pundit, musician, business, celebrity, tv personality and newscaster created and promoted an account on the open, “free speech” Twitter platform.

Now they seem to have decided that they want to be “The Leftist Ideology Echo Chamber”. This is the root issue at hand. Should they do that? Is this a violation of any law? Should this be a violation of law?

Add to that the fact that the industry as a whole seems to be working to prevent competition, exemplified by Microsoft threatened to close down Twitter’s right wing competition “Gab”.

How involved is government? At that point, the applicability of the First Amendment does come into play.

 

[Madison320]

That would sorta make this a first amendment issue again then wouldn't it?

Of course. My point is that the complex argument Molyneux was making was unnecessary. Congress openly threatened Facebook to shutdown certain sites. Boom. That's a violation of the 1st. End of story.

 

[Madison320]

Now they seem to have decided that they want to be “The Leftist Ideology Echo Chamber”. This is the root issue at hand. Should they do that? Is this a violation of any law? Should this be a violation of law?

Add to that the fact that the industry as a whole seems to be working to prevent competition, exemplified by Microsoft threatened to close down Twitter’s right wing competition “Gab”.

How involved is government? At that point, the applicability of the First Amendment does come into play.

It would be a helluva stretch to think that all of those sites suddenly overnight decided to become leftist ideology echo chambers. They almost certainly started banning sites as a direct result of the public threats made by congress.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

It would be a helluva stretch to think that all of those sites suddenly overnight decided to become leftist ideology echo chambers. They almost certainly started banning sites as a direct result of the public threats made by congress.

Certainly government has something to do with this, probably in more ways than the public threats. The Atlantic Council, who is telling Facebook who to ban, is funded by governments and consists of ex-government officials.

But if you pay attention to public statements by Twitter employees, and see some of the undercover video, there is no doubt that there are many SJW leftist types who do want to censor. The various departments at these companies dedicated to moderation and censorship didn’t spring up over night. And it isn’t freedom loving individuals that are hired and drawn towards those departments.

In the Molyneux video, his hypothesis is that the timing is directly related to upcoming elections. Maybe. Note that it is freedom caucus and anti-war types that are being effected by some of these bans. If Mitch McConnell and Chucky Schumer could agree on anything, it would be their desire to go after those groups. MIC approved.

 

[timosman]

But if you pay attention to public statements by Twitter employees, and see some of the undercover video, there is no doubt that there are many SJW leftist types who do want to censor. The various departments at these companies dedicated to moderation and censorship didn’t spring up over night. And it isn’t freedom loving individuals that are hired and drawn towards those departments.

Freedom loving individuals are not promoted within these companies ranks. Heavy SJW ideology on the other hand puts you on a fast track to career advancement so anybody able to figure out what's going on lines up on the SJW side in great numbers. The libertarians are portrayed as sore losers, unable to function in a modern workplace, as they lack the necessary flexibility to know when to abandon their principles and engage in heavy ass kissing as any normal person would.

 

[tod evans]

Gosh!

Wonder if I can profit by being butt-hurt when these fine city-folk refer to me or mine as backwoods, hillbillies, yokels etc....

It's not worth the headache and I could care less about their opinions of me or mine....

 

[DamianTV]

So now disobeying corporate policy and making a reasonable objection is Hate Speech? Just the way the title is phrased, but we know how corporations are... Hopefully they figure out the only people they are hurting is themselves.

 

[timosman]

So now disobeying corporate policy and making a reasonable objection is Hate Speech? Just the way the title is phrased, but we know how corporations are... Hopefully they figure out the only people they are hurting is themselves.

Look, dude. You were not hired to disobey our policies. It is true they keep on changing every few years and often do not make sense, but ...... this is not something you should be worrying about. And by the way, why the fuck are you so attached to the stupid policy anyway? Can't you just pretend like everybody else? It is going to be good for you, trust me.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

A judge ruled that Twitter was a public domain. So which it is?

The judge is a bolshevik, obviously.

Twitter is no more a "public domain" than my back porch is.

...where, I might add, Alex Jones is also not welcome.

 

[TheCount]

But do they control or edit what people put in the comments section?

Yes. They control the distribution of all of the information on their site. Sites have gotten in varying levels of legal trouble while attempting to claim that they were only hosting content and not producing it. Torrents, revenge porn, threats of violence, etc.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Yes. They control the distribution of all of the information on their site. Sites have gotten in varying levels of legal trouble while attempting to claim that they were only hosting content and not producing it. Torrents, revenge porn, threats of violence, etc.

They probably have. Is it fair? What can we all agree upon as being the standard?

So for a comments section, forum or social networking app, the only way for it to be completely controlled for "legal" jeopardy is to manually OK every single post. Is that realistic? How long would it take? How much money would it cost? Who would make the decisions? Would such a platform even be able to compete against some "rouge" platform that allowed real time and open usage?

If someone were to post a blatantly illegal comment on the New York Times website, would they be liable for that?

 

[TheCount]

They probably have. Is it fair? What can we all agree upon as being the standard?

If a newspaper allowed its readers to pay to print death threats or solicit murders in the classified section, do you think that they should be liable for that content?