If You're Reporting On Trump's Supposed Plans For 'Anti-Conservative Bias' Panel, Shouldn't You Mention The 1st Amendment?
from the just-saying dept
Over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal reported that "President Trump is considering establishing a panel to review complaints of anti-conservative bias on social media." That story is likely behind a paywall, though Fox News (natch) reposted most of it and lots of tech news sites wrote up their own versions of the report.
The basis is exactly what you think it is. A bunch of Trump supporters have been falsely insisting that social media companies are unfairly "biased" against conservatives. There is exactly zero evidence to date to support this. There are a few anecdotes of whiny assholes, who violated terms of service, losing service, and a few anecdotes of just not very good content moderation (though, those seem to fall pretty broadly across the political spectrum). There is no indication that any of the moderation activity is unfairly targeting conservatives or even that there is any "bias" at all. I'm sure some people will rush to the comments here with one of two reactions: they will either call me "blind" and complain that I'm simply not looking around (though they will present no actual evidence) or they will cite a few meaningless anecdotes, ignoring that a few anecdotes on platforms that have to make literally millions of moderation choices, is not evidence of bias.
But, more importantly: the government can't do anything even if they were biased. And this is where all of the reporting I've seen so far falls down. Most clearly, the government simply cannot force platforms to moderate in a certain way. That would violate the 1st Amendment. So even if a panel is formed, it couldn't actually do anything to change things, beyond just being an annoying pest. But, it seems like the media should be making this clear. Any panel cannot force internet companies to treat political viewpoints in some different manner. That's a blatant 1st Amendment problem.
Separately, even the formation of the panel may very well present a 1st Amendment problem on its own, because it is clearly the government using its will to try to pressure private companies into treating certain political viewpoints differently. Remember what Judge Posner wrote in Dart v. Backpage, in which he dinged a sheriff, Thomas Dart, for merely sending a letter that was vaguely threatening to the free speech rights of an internet platform: " Some public officials doubtless disapprove of bars, or pets and therefore pet supplies, or yard sales, or lawyers,... or men dating men or women dating women—but... it would be a clear abuse of power for public officials to try to eliminate them not by expressing an opinion but by threatening ... third parties, with legal or other coercive governmental action."
Just because government officials are upset with 1st Amendment protected speech choices of the companies, that does not mean they can do something that is obviously a threat of coercive action.
Anyone -- including the Wall Street Journal -- reporting on this stuff owes it to their readers to make that clear. Tragically, so far none of the reports I've seen have done so.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1st amendment, anti-conservative bias, bias, cda 230, donald trump, intimidation, section 230, social media
Companies: facebook, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I guess the WSJ figured that if the Trump administration plans to ignore the constitution, well, why shouldn’t they.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Uh, perhaps you haven't got the memo, but the Trump administration does not consider itself bound by the Constitution. They are still arguing in court that Trump should not be legally accountable if he chooses to shoot someone on 5th Avenue. And so far, the Supreme Court has not gotten itself to say the government should be accountable to any court for anything.
Which essentially ends the Bill of Rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
late to the game
Trump is late to the game -- anybody remember the FCC "Fairness Doctrine" ?
(which existed from 1949 to 2011, in various forms)
FCC required private radio and television broadcasters to present 'fair and balanced' coverage of controversial issues transmitted to their communities, including by devoting 'equal airtime' to opposing points of view.
The 1st Amendment proved no obstacle to this long term Federal intervention.
The FCC does not quite yet control ISP's as regulated utilities, but many people are very eager for that to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: late to the game
Didn't the conservatives get that law removed because they did not like it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: late to the game
Yes, they hate it when they're forced to insert pesky facts, since they always seem to contradict their narrative..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: late to the game
And what has that got to do with social media? Despite what many think, social media is not a utility, but rather competing services reached over a utility. You suggestion makes as much sense as saying phone company regulation can control people conversations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: late to the game
Trump is late to the game -- anybody remember the FCC "Fairness Doctrine" ?
First off, most conservatives I know kept screaming about how the Fairness Doctrine was unconstitutional, so it's hilarious to see them now claiming this legitimizes this new nonsense.
But also, no, the Fairness Doctrine was not an application of this issue. The Fairness Doctrine ONLY applied to US GOV'T OWNED SPECTRUM that it was handing out to private companies. Part of the deal the private companies got, in exchange for FREE PUBLIC SPECTRUM, was that they had to have balanced programing.
None of that applies to the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: late to the game
The Fairness Doctrine was totally unconstitutional, as are any government efforts to control free speech.
Fairnes Doctrine successfully infringed upon free speech, which is exactly the basic issue under discussion here.
Hypocrisy (conservative or liberal) in politics is also routine, but just a side issue.
Alleged Federal government "ownership" of the "Spectrum" does not negate the 1st Amendment.
There was no "deal" between private broadcasters and the government -- the government unilaterally imposed its rules,
Note also that the Federal Government unconstitutionally "seized" control of the usable radio frequency spectrum in 1912.
The Federal Government has long controlled wired telephone communications though they don't "own" all that copper wire and fiberoptics.
The Feds could one day simply declare that all wired/wireless internet communications and content are now under FCC regulatory control, similar to existing radio/TV regulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: late to the game
"which is exactly the basic issue under discussion here. "
It may be the discussion you want (conservatives being censored), but I imagine many will try to show you why the fairness doctrine issues are not at all like the claimed censoring of conservatives on the internet. I doubt you will listen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: late to the game
"Note also that the Federal Government unconstitutionally "seized" control of the usable radio frequency spectrum in 1912"
What happens to an in demand limited resource?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: late to the game
"The Federal Government has long controlled wired telephone communications though they don't "own" all that copper wire and fiberoptics"
Considering the massive tax advantages provided to that industry ..... how is this even relevant to the discussion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: late to the game
"The Feds could one day simply declare that"
And Captain Crazy Pants can one day simply declare he is The Chosen One.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big #1.
Lets look at this abit strangely..
Lets gather all the reports of bias, Stack them in a pile, and Never note that they Dont list the names. They make it seem as if its 1 BIG location doing it all the time, and has done it Many times.
And there are things the gov. CAN DO.. Like charging them TAXES. After they dropped all the Corp taxes, and those for the rich, they need money from somewhere..
Iv said before..
Let the internet Become an independent country.. Let it pay for its USE of the lines as usual..
Talk to it, debate with it..DONT get into a hissy fit.. And think those responsible For the internet, Cant fight back.
They are just like the other corps. There is very little difference. They do everything they can to make money.. They can BUY our gov. the way it is now, considering how CHEAP they sell their soles for, it shouldnt cost them more then a few million Dollars..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All these checks and balances are just breaking down. The more the administration cheats and gets rid of any honest refs, the easier cheating gets.
Being a clear violation only means something if they want to let it mean something.
The First amendment only holds as much water as the politically charged supreme court decides to give it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Short-term clickbait ignoring long-term losses
Any group celebrating this should be reminded that if one company can be forced to be politically neutral others can as well, including theirs or others they agree with.
Somehow I get the feeling that for all their whining about 'unfair treatment of conservatives' Fox would be less than happy if a few years down the line someone put together a government panel about how insanely biased they are against non-conservatives, with the goal of 'persuading' them to provide 'equal treatment' or else.
On a more lighthearted, grossly hypocritical note I can't help but find it more than a little funny that the 'free market, small government' side is the one complaining that the free market apparently doesn't care for them and companies are responding appropriately. I guess companies are only supposed to be allowed to do what they want when it doesn't impact bigots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Short-term clickbait ignoring long-term losses
Mom! the libs won't let us play with their toys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Short-term clickbait ignoring long-term losses
Moooom! The libs keep holding me accountable for the things I say and do!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Short-term clickbait ignoring long-term losses
Can't we just get a government put in that will force them to share everything equally regardless of merit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Short-term clickbait ignoring long-term losses
Clearly you haven't been paying attention:
They have replaced multiple federal judges, and appointed two to the supreme court. Openly bragging about their intent of using their judicial appointees to shape policy for generations to come.
They have neutered the authority of regulatory agencies, and replaced many of their heads with corrupt self-serving interests.
They have successfully convinced around 45% of the population that all forms of news that disagree with their current viewpoints are illegitimate.
They have successfully convinced around 45% of the population that their society's ills come from their political rivals' policies.
They have successfully convinced around 45% of the population that their individual desires outweigh any and all responsibility that their freedoms demand of them, and that anyone who would attempt to enforce the consequences of abdicating that responsibility is a tyrant out to get them.
They have widened the gap of income inequality, and destroyed large swaths of the government's revenue stream by changing the laws to take less from those with the most, and more from those with the least.
They have gutted social programs.
They have all but denounced our international allies. Even gone as far as to deny humanitarian aid to an ally at war against a common enemy because they wanted personal political favors. Then went further and said that not only were such actions a justifiable thing to do, but that they should repeat those actions more often.
They have allowed a global pandemic to run rampant through out the country, told the country it was on it's own in finding relief, used favoritism to decide who got the little relief they did provide, denied relief to those who wouldn't kiss their ring, are trying to shield their donors from legal challenges over unsafe conditions, and refused to take any responsibility for their actions. (Guess they started doing those inhumane actions more often.)
They have stated repeatedly to the public that they are above the law.
They have openly encouraged overthrowing the elected governments of multiple states run by their political opponents.
There's plenty more to list here of course, but it's pointless to continue. As every single logical fallacy in the book will be used against the list by them as "justification" for why they shouldn't have to change their behavior.
Long story short: They aren't worried about their assumed powers being used against them. They are well beyond the need to keep favor with other political groups in their minds. The danger that represents is monumental. The fact you think otherwise is far worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Short-term clickbait ignoring long-term losses
Sounds like they need to be fired for dereliction of duty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Generally, if a conservative voice is censored for supposedly violating terms of service, it is then readily noted that those same terms of service are violated by a number of liberal voices with no action taken. This is the bias, and the method through which social media transforms from a platform to a publisher: all viewpoints are initially presented, but only the ones that they agree with remain uncensored and published.
If social media companies were to claim 1st amendment, which I think they should do, then it would be to admit a bias, which runs contrary to the goal of influencing viewers. Moreover, it would stake out a legal position that they are a publisher, and not a platform.
It would serve a valuable public interest to voters that the things you see on social media are not organic, but a deliberate attempt by company bigwigs to influence public opinion. Changing public perception to be aware of corporate meddling and shenanigans is why many of us peruse Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Generally, if a conservative voice is censored for supposedly violating terms of service, it is then readily noted that those same terms of service are violated by a number of liberal voices with no action taken.
This is cherry picking. It's not hard to find single examples of content that YOU BELIEVE violates a policy and content that YOU BELIEVE does not. You ignore all the counter examples, including those "liberal voices" who are moderated (frequently) and those "conservative voices" who are not.
What's funny is that in the "liberal" (or, often, "progressive") area of Twitter, they're constantly complaining in the other direction -- about how Twitter takes down their content (for doing things like calling people Nazis and assholes) while leaving up "Nazi" content.
You guys all live in your own little bubbles, but have NO EVIDENCE.
This is the bias, and the method through which social media transforms from a platform to a publisher: all viewpoints are initially presented, but only the ones that they agree with remain uncensored and published.
This is not happening though. You are making it up.
And there is no such thing as "platform vs. publisher." Please stop repeating that myth.
If social media companies were to claim 1st amendment, which I think they should do, then it would be to admit a bias, which runs contrary to the goal of influencing viewers.
I've read this sentence about 10 times and I still have zero idea of what you might be trying to say.
Moreover, it would stake out a legal position that they are a publisher, and not a platform.
There is no legal distinction here, so this comment is nonsense.
It would serve a valuable public interest to voters that the things you see on social media are not organic, but a deliberate attempt by company bigwigs to influence public opinion.
If you believed that to be true, you're incredibly ignorant. The "bigwigs" at these companies are not trying to influence public opinion.
Changing public perception to be aware of corporate meddling and shenanigans is why many of us peruse Techdirt.
Yes. Sure. But we focus on reality. Not myths told by a bunch of ignorant racists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The primary objective of politically motivated corporations is to influence others, while also being perceived as politically neutral. If social media companies were to defend against a potential government action by claiming a first amendment right to editorialize by censoring viewpoints with which they don't agree, that would be pretty honest of them. And it looks to me like it would hold up in a courtroom, if it were to come to that. But it would also dent their ability to do the influencing thing after that sort of admission. Once people are aware that you are being marketed to, the marketing doesn't work so well. TV and print news media have been suffering from this in recent years. Social media doesn't enjoy the thought of joining the rest of the club.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Counterpoint: Trump voters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The primary objective of an economically motivated corporation is to make money. Selling advertisements is a way to earn a good amount of money. The greater your audience is the more ads you can sell. So it is in the interest of the economically motivated company to kick out assholes that scare away other users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And if the majority (slim though it may be) of those assholes self-identify as conservatives, that isn’t Twitter’s problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would expect main-stream conservatives to identify those assholes as bigoted extremists. ;) And they are a problem for Twitter as long as they are on the platform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I would expect main-stream conservatives to identify those assholes as bigoted extremists. ;) "
Ah, but if they did people like "Koby" wouldn't get to come around and complain that "conservatives" are being deliberately obstructed.
Instead they choose to stand up and be counted among the bigoted extremists. Leading us to today's perception of republican politicians as being a hotbed of desperately lying bigots defending the Very Fine People marching under the swastika in Charlottesville.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
MathFox, that's true. That is the objective of economically-motivated corporations.
Unfortunately for you, that's not what Koby said. He said they're politically-motivated companies.
Like Google execs saying their objective is to prevent President Trump from being reelected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The primary objective of politically motivated corporations is to influence others, while also being perceived as politically neutral.
This is conjecture that does not seem to be supported by anything I've ever seen. There are plenty of politically motivated corporations -- and most do little to hide their political motivations.
If social media companies were to defend against a potential government action by claiming a first amendment right to editorialize by censoring viewpoints with which they don't agree, that would be pretty honest of them.
Another massive, and incorrect, assertion here, that the platforms are "editorializing" rather than cleaning up spam and abuse on their platform.
But it would also dent their ability to do the influencing thing after that sort of admission.
So you make a bad conjecture to start, and support it with an incorrect assertion. The platforms are not trying to be politically motivated. They legitimately are just trying to run a business, and they'd like for that to be without spam, abuse, election interference and the like.
I see that you have a lot of wrong things that you believe on faith. You might want to get out of your narrow filter bubble and come check out the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The platforms are not trying to be politically motivated.."
Nonsense. Look at the profile of Twitters lobbyists, all 23 of them. Look to whom their employee's/leadership donate their monies too. Your telling me that out of their employee's 163 individual donations, they gave 161 to Democrats or Democrat leaning political candidates, but they are not politically biased as a platform? Really?
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary?id=D000067113
"I see that you have a lot of wrong things that you believe on faith. You might want to get out of your narrow filter bubble and come check out the real world."
On this particular issue, I would say the same for you.
Your assertion that the platforms, just want to be platforms, is ridiculous. They are all run by humans, humans that bring their biases to work every single day. Their actions in lobbying, and how they spend their money, speak for them. They don't have to say a word, and you shouldn't be defending them.
Just my opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
160 out of 163 Donations... apparently I can't count today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What individuals do with their own speech is not necessarily related to their employer's. Is there any evidence of bias in Twitter's moderation practices? Please make sure your sources use statistically significant numbers, rather than the handful of anecdotal ones most people point to.
As for the lobbyists (which u mention then immediately forget about?), it would make sense that they lobby to those who are most likely to support policy that benefits Twitter, and right now there's no love for social media from the conservative side of things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Aside from Twitter seriously fucking up, you will never be able to prove 100% either way in a court of law. I'm simply saying that you cannot claim zero bias when over 98% of the twitter employees that donated money to a politician, donated to Democrats or Democrat leaning independents. These are not just voters, they contributed money.
"Twitter, and right now there's no love for social media from the conservative side of things."
Another good point, not the one I'm making, but same difference I guess.
.. and I didn't get into the lobbyists because I'm old and lazy. I didn't feel it necessary to make my point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But here's the thing, and why its so frustrating having this conversation over and over: there's no evidence to support your point.
If there was moderation bias on a platform the size of Twitter's, where are the stats? All anyone seems to be able to do is show a few examples, but on the scale that Twitter operates these hundred or thousands of examples are an infinitesimally small group and only go to show that moderation at that scale is hard. For every example of a conservative voice being pushed off Twitter for a nonsensical moderation action, there's also one on the liberal side, and several that have no political leanings.
So once again: What evidence is there of political bias in Twitter's moderation actions? And again: Bias is shown by trends, not individual examples.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"There's no evidence to support your point"
163 donations:
160 of 163 separate actions = trend
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
... one that has no link to the original claim...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I'm simply saying that you cannot claim zero bias when over 98% of the twitter employees that donated money to a politician, donated to Democrats or Democrat leaning independents."
Well, to be fair if they sponsored republican politicians it wouldn't make much sense, given how incredibly hostile republicans are towards the internet as a whole.
You probably won't find a single tech company with online interests willing to sponsor the GOP as long as their primary online policy is to abolish the 1st amendment and property ownership online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
... Or they change twitter from the inside out by buying it.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/29/paul-singer-elliott-management-twitter-jack-d orsey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you don't like the Guardian (me either) try this one....
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republican-mega-donor-and-converted-trump-supporter- paul-singer-buys-stake-in-twitter-and-plans-to-oust-jack-dorsey/ar-BB10A5uV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...well. If that works I guess Twitter may turn out to be the 8chan v2. That'll leave a gaping hole on the market. Wonder who's going to fill it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nonsense. Look at the profile of Twitters lobbyists, all 23 of them.
A large company these days needs lobbyists, otherwise the government cracks down on them. Just because a company has lobbyists does not make it "politically motivated." It means they understand that they need to play pattycake with the government or the government will crush them.
Either way, that is unrelated to my point.
Your assertion that the platforms, just want to be platforms, is ridiculous. They are all run by humans, humans that bring their biases to work every single day.
I never said they weren't run by humans. What I said is that there remains NO EVIDENCE that the content moderation efforts at these companies are driven by political bias.
Their actions in lobbying, and how they spend their money, speak for them. They don't have to say a word, and you shouldn't be defending them.
How someone lobbies is totally disconnected from content moderation. These are very, very separate parts of a company, and you're seriously entering tinfoil hat territory to assume that one means anything regarding the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"How someone lobbies is totally disconnected from content moderation."
If we were talking only about lobbyists then yes. But that's only part of it. 98% of their employee's that gave money to a political organization, gave to the Democrats. Employee's, not lobbyists. Proof or not, You can't tell me that there is no biased in this company when 98% give to one side vrs the other.
I'm not sticking my head in the sand, and I don't wear a tinfoil hat, the math is the math.
"I never said they weren't run by humans. What I said is that there remains NO EVIDENCE that the content moderation efforts at these companies are driven by political bias."
Your looking for a smoking gun. Good luck with that. Short of a catastrophic fuck up by a an employee, a very clever hacker, or some other anomaly, your never going to find it.
Just because I can't see air, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, I can breath. It's fair to say, without any other proof, that air exists. When over 98% of a companies employee's that gave money, gave to one side or the other (I don't care which), then by definition you have political bias. Does that show up on their moderation? Absolutely, they are human. Will you ever get "proof" via a smoking gun. Probably not.
This is all an exercise in opinion either way. The left will never admit to a smoking gun even if it got shoved up their ass, and the right will never stop whining about bias, regardless of if it exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And it's the individual content moderators who make the decisions of what content gets deleted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The left will never admit to a smoking gun even if it got shoved up their ass"
Actually, then there would be verifiable evidence and that's a hell of a lot more than you lot are trying to shovel right now.
"the right will never stop whining about bias"
Here, you are correct. They're trying to blame Obama for not having a vaccine for a disease that didn't exist when he left office FFS, you think they will accept any responsibility for lesser issues?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"They're trying to blame Obama for not having a vaccine for a disease that didn't exist when he left office FFS..."
Well, to be fair even democrats were surprised and disillusioned when it turned out that Obama didn't walk on water. That's how badly the DNC hyped him.
And for all the wrong reasons, at that. In the end the only reason the DNC let a sensible, driven and opinionated man stand for candidacy was because they thought "first black president" might bring more votes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Well, to be fair even democrats were surprised and disillusioned when it turned out that Obama didn't walk on water."
Well, apart from the fact that they never actually did that, he did indeed walk on water compared to the non-zero chance of Sarah frigging Palin being in the White House.
"because they thought "first black president" might bring more votes."
He did bring more votes, and was an absolutely fine president despite being hampered by both an opposition who refused every attempt to compromise and inheriting a massive economic depression and multiple off-the book wars. If he'd been able to do what he actually wanted instead of dealing with petulant children who thought that their team was more important than the public, he'd have done even better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's your smoking gun. I'm sure this will be explained away, something to the effect that their employee's don't control who gets banned, or something of the like.
https://www.vox.com/2018/9/14/17857622/twitter-liberal-employees-conservative-trump-politics
You cannot disconnect the people from the platform. They claim they are not bias, but then the CEO states that the company's employee's are so far left leaning, that the conservative employee's .. and I quote from Twitters CEO.. " “don’t feel safe to express their opinions”
How in the hell can this company be so far left that the CEO felt compelled to release that statement, and then claim there is no bias. Let me continue;
“They do feel silenced by just the general swirl of what they perceive to be the broader percentage of leanings within the company, and I don’t think that’s fair or right.”
Good for him. I actually respect the hell out of him for what he said, I bet it wasn't easy to say.
Again, I'm not right or left, I really don't care if they are bias or not aside from the fact that I would like to see everybody be intellectually honest and not spin this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People may have biases, but they’re paid to put them aside as much as is humanly possible and do a fucking job. That job is moderating content that runs afoul of the Twitter TOS.
Also: I have to wonder what opinions those self-proclaimed conservative Twitter employees don’t feel comfortable expressing. People can reasonably disagree on economic policy, the size of the government, or even immigration policy (to an extent). Something like “queer people don’t deserve civil rights” or “keep Muslims out of America”, on the other hand…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Got it. People should set their biases aside, and you question the opinions of the conservatives. Pretty much what I expected.
Facts aside, your correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Right - consider when the president says we should act in a bipartisan fashion, followed immediately by a tweet that does exactly the opposite.
You're living in a world that you helped create. Suck it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your assuming I voted for Trump? I'm a libertarian, I mostly vote independent (when there is a Independent running). Aside from that, I'm 50 50 on Dem's and Rep.. depends on the candidate and their platforms. As it stands, I really don't like any of the candidates/current President to be honest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
For someone who claims to not like conservatives or voting for them you sure go out of your way to break your back just to carry their water.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, you shouldn't have admitted that libertarian thing on Techdirt.
On Techdirt:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you figured out how to switch IP addresses and waste it on this laughable shit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I'm sure this will be explained away"
Then, perhaps, you're already aware on some level that you're wrong so that the rest of us don't need to tell you?
"How in the hell can this company be so far left that the CEO felt compelled to release that statement, and then claim there is no bias."
What are the "opinions" they are so afraid to state? Are they normal opinions that are acceptable in normal society, or are they whining that the f*ggot in the next cubicle gets treated like a human being? Context is key.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your just an asshole Paul. We've crossed swords several times and you continue to be an asshole. I really don't give a fuck what you think. I'm more interested in what Mike thinks. So fuck off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The level of maturity and intelligence I expect from you is fully in force, I see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How's that anti-Grindr lawsuit coming along, John Smith?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, classic John Smith/MyNameHere/horse with no name/The Anti-Mike behavior. Pretend to be anonymous, then fuck it all up by lashing out at random Techdirt regulars. I have to say, though, the insistence on hearing what Masnick has to say is antidirt/average_joe levels of adorable, like a lovesick puppy that keeps going back to the abusive owner who kicks it.
You know, Herrick, the entire point of trying to act as an anonymous concerned sealion is to not let people realize you have a personal history and vendetta with the people you're trying to appeal to. I get that blowing your own cover is par for the course when it comes to your big brain plays because you blow that as much as you blow Ajit Pai, but this is getting ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If John Smith was as smart and accomplished as he says he is, he'd stop visiting this site that he's claimed, on multiple occasions, to have a profound dislike for and persistent belief that it gets insignificant online traffic.
But he doesn't, and he won't. I mean, let's face it - the dumbass actually claimed that people making fun of him was what "forced him to come back". Because apparently other concerned readers were able to track him down, via his pseudonym, and suggest that other people were getting made fun of by associating them with his bullshit... and somehow him not actually leaving was an explanation that he believed could not have possibly been on the table.
Honestly he'd probably be actually effective at the whole sea lioning, gaslighting troll thing like Hamilton, if he wasn't such an easily triggered tantrum machine. There was a time when his entire gimmick was "Delenda carthago, Section 230 must be destroyed", then after his lies kept getting deciphered he resorted to toothless rants of press releases and boasting of raping Aspies.
Copyright-types were always a pretty messed up bunch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If John Smith was as smart and accomplished as he says he is..."
You mean he isn't a legal eagle, successful entrepreneur, skilled network tech, talented artist and God's Gift To Women the way he's asserted whenever he tried to argue from authority in the years he's haunted this forum and Torrentfreak?
I'm shocked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"We've crossed swords several times and you continue to be an asshole."
"crossing swords" isn't the analogy I'd use. More like just you waving your limp dick around shouting about your "mighty claymore" until someone slaps some sense in your face and tells you to put your pants back on.
You never bring actual arguments to the table, Bobmail, and the few times you do it turns out they're either outright falsehoods, something you lifted from Breitbart, or something which actually proves your assertion to be false.
But you do you, Baghdad Bob. Not like it's hard to spot your tells by now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Poor, poor, poor conservatives.
When will they ever catch a break?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" — Hamlet by William Shakespeare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike, the standard answer to suggestive posts like the one you replied to is
although I think you prefer a proper (raw) dataset to analyze and put this "discussion" to rest and call the whiners whiners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He doesn't need a proper raw dataset from the only entities that can provide such a thing: the censorious companies themselves.
Why not? Those companies personally told Masnick they're not censoring wrongthinkers.
Good enough!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You guys are the ones making a positive claim, not Mike. The burden of proof is in your court. The fact that you refuse to provide any suggests there is none.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Generally...
Already bullshit. Thanks for playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Correct. It's all a matter of opinion, and spun in whatever direction either side of the political platform's narrative happens to be going at the time. This site, however subtle, included.
"You guys all live in your own little bubbles, but have NO EVIDENCE."
Again, subjective. Unless twitter actually says "we are taking this down because we don't like this particular political view", it will always be subjective. You will always be able to explain it away or conclude that it was taken down because of "reasons".
Full disclosure; I don't subscribe to the left or the right. I think both sides are a cancer on our society. We are flailing around trying to determine who is censoring whom... forest for the tree's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And even if Twitter says that, they still have the legal right to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Unless twitter actually says "we are taking this down because we don't like this particular political view", it will always be subjective.
Until math steps in, at the scale that Twitter operates at moderation is largely automated. Bias will show in the disproportionate actions taken against millions of accounts, instead of the hundred handfuls we are seeing now.
I don't subscribe to the left or the right. I think both sides are a cancer on our society. We are flailing around trying to determine who is censoring whom... forest for the tree's.
This both-sidesism is a very lazy. This is about people pushing for internet speech to be destroyed because a few loud racists they liked were banned from one of many competing social media companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Until math steps in, at the scale that Twitter operates at moderation is largely automated."
Citation needed.
"This both-sidesism is a very lazy."
I don't drink the cool aid. Deal with it. Both sides are a cancer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Both sides are a cancer."
The real cancer is the idiotic thinking that there's only 2 possible sides
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please point out where in Section 230, or in any jurisprudence surrounding both 230 and the First Amendment, the law makes a distinction of “platform” and “publisher” vis-á-vis interactive computer services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I dont think that it does, and I believe court cases thus far have also failed to do so. But that is the complaint: editors can essentially publish their viewpoint, while hiding behind section 230 to claim that they are merely a provider of the service. Yet, indeed, the service providers are going beyond merely providing the service, and into the realm of publishing by using the censorship strategy. And this is why some people want to reform 230.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, some people want to reform 230 because they believe (wrongly) that any social media company that shows even a hint of perceived bias towards conservatives must be made to act “neutral” towards conservatives, with no thought put into the consequences of legally enforced “neutrality” towards speech on social media platforms.
If this supposed bias occurs on Twitter because conservatives use racial slurs more often than liberals/progressives, the issue isn’t with Twitter — it’s with the conservatives opting to use those slurs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, I think that they HAVE put a lot of thought into it. Another poster down below says it best, "When a commercial platform de facto replaces the public forum, then either free speech must be enforced on that forum or free speech dies."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, they haven’t. They haven’t thought about what would happen to Twitter if it couldn’t moderate any legally protected speech.
Because White supremacist propaganda is protected speech. So is anti–queer rights rhetoric, including support for “conversion ‘therapy’ ”. And so is every other kind of bigoted speech. Spam is legally protected, too, y’know.
So imagine all that legally protected speech running roughshod all over Twitter. People can’t escape it without leaving Twitter because Twitter can’t legally stop people from posting that speech. Black people would have to deal with their notifications being full of White supremacists saying racial slurs; queer people, the same, but with anti-queer rhetoric. Historically marginalized people would get so fed up with that level of bullshit that they’d quit the service, thus depriving them of a popular communications method and scattering them all to a bunch of much smaller services. In the end, Twitter would eventually become another 4chan — a worthless shitpit of vileness that no decent human being would ever want to visit, much less use as a communication service.
Opponents of 230 haven’t thought about those kinds of consequences. I know this because if they did, they’d have arguments in favor of why the law should allow those consequences to happen — and from what I’ve read, they don’t.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Opponents of 230 haven’t thought about those kinds of consequences."
Oh, I'm sure many of them have. If 230 goes away so does online forum interactivity - because public forums won't exist.
And that is a great benefit when the recognized republican philosophy is to keep as much of the citizenry out of the political debate as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
except for it being utter bullshit.
Or would you care to explain how any one of these many large competing social media companies have replaced the public forum?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The federal government long ago decided to disregard the 'freedom of association' portion of the Constitution.
Brick and mortar businesses are told they have no choice in whom they fire or hire, serve or not serve, permit on or ban from their property.
Why should anyone be surprised that in 2020, people expect there be no exception for a business simply because their property exists only digitally?
Either give everyone their full freedom of association back, or expect people to object to this hypocrisy. (The former is the preferred solution.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If it wouldn't be so incredibly damaging I'd almost say give the people trying to kill/'reform' 230 what they claim they want, because no matter which side you're talking to neither would be happy with the results.
Those that are complaining that platforms are removing too much would have their stuff removed even more, if they were allowed to post at all, as platforms became vastly more careful about what they allowed and would pull anything that even might be problematic, while those that were complaining that platforms weren't removing enough would find themselves facing the same issue, as their stuff was removed for the same reason.
It's a strange war indeed when achieving 'victory' would only compound the problems that caused the 'war' in the first place, such that only in defeat can one of the sides 'win'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Things would also slow way down, considering any company that DID allow user posts would have to have a human manually review each and every post before it was released to the website, so submit your comment today and it may show up in a week or so (when the topic is no longer relevant)...
Good times are coming...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ah yes, how dare these editors hide behind section 230 to avoid being sued over [checks notes] ...other people's words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I dont think that it does"
You're correct. So why do you insist on bringing this irrelevant nonsense up every time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh look, anecdotes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Generally, if a conservative voice is censored for supposedly violating terms of service, it is then readily noted that those same terms of service are violated by a number of liberal voices with no action taken"
That's often claimed, but those claiming it always go silent when citations are requested...
"If social media companies were to claim 1st amendment, which I think they should do, then it would be to admit a bias, which runs contrary to the goal of influencing viewers."
Their goal is to make money. They're biased toward the needs of their advertisers, who will pull out if your neo-Nazi videos stay up or your false information about the pandemic that ends up with dead people surrounds their ads..
"Moreover, it would stake out a legal position that they are a publisher, and not a platform."
Which, as you've been told many, many times, is meaningless for this issue.
"Changing public perception to be aware of corporate meddling and shenanigans is why many of us peruse Techdirt."
Yet, you seem incapable of understanding what's said here. Strange...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Generally, if a conservative voice is censored for supposedly violating terms of service, it is then readily noted that those same terms of service are violated by a number of liberal voices with no action taken"
Yeah, that's not the problem.
It's that terms of service are written in such a way that liberal opinions are permitted and conservative opinions are anathema.
Conservatives and liberals have opposing positions. One would not expect them to say the same things; so one wouldn't expect them to violate terms of service the same way.
PEOPLE WHO CANNOT SEE WILL BE ESCORTED OFF THE PREMISES
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Generally, if a conservative voice is censored for supposedly violating terms of service, it is then readily noted that those same terms of service are violated by a number of liberal voices with no action taken."
No, Koby. No matter how much you personally feel it is the same when a conservative deigns to discuss his/her views of "n_ggers, women and queers" as when a liberal tries to debate equal opportunity, It really isn't.
Nor is it a "bias against heterosexuals" when someone gets tossed out of a forum for discussing how "unnatural" the LGBTQ-movement is.
The main issue "conservatives" appear to have is that when they show up in a forum to discuss their religious beliefs about why they should Hate The Other or why <insert demonstrable falsehood here> is the main reason to vote for <whoever> they are shown the door. That is not a "left-leaning bias" unless you want to make the claim that factual reality is leftist.
"If social media companies were to claim 1st amendment, which I think they should do, then it would be to admit a bias..."
False assumption. You claim your part of the 1st amendment simply by opening your mouth. It does not by necessity follow that you opening your mouth will be followed by an attempt to influence.
"...that the things you see on social media are not organic, but a deliberate attempt by company bigwigs to influence public opinion."
By astroturfers and assorted trolls, yes. The ToS on most forums are posted at the door.
Whining about how Google is being mean because they won't let you hold a serious discussion about the benefits of Jim Crow or how all mexicans are rapists aren't credible complaints.
Now if conservatives were sensible they'd stop trying to borrow the victim cards of the KKK and the neo-nazis. At that point of course your narrative of being persecuted sort of falls apart in your hands.
Nevertheless a loss I'd advocate they should take rather than voluntarily grouping themselves with the "ausländer raus"-brigade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Scary absolutely looooves his "N-word" references.
You know, the word you hear non-black people using all the time in their conversations and music and humor and...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will that be followed up by a panel looking at anti-liberal bias on cable news channels that call themselves "Fair and Balanced"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or anti Islamofascism bias or anti anarchy bias. It just makes no sense to be forced to pretend all political viewpoints are equally valid and makes no sense to pick any particular ones and force people to pretend those are equally valid either. Just because those happen to be the politics of the day doesn't mean a balance between them has any sort of special meaning whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When a commercial platform de facto replaces the public forum, then either free speech must be enforced on that forum or free speech dies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Answer yes or no, with no hedging or deflecting or distracting: Do you believe the law should force Twitter into hosting propaganda for White supremacists and anti-queer activists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes.
Don't like it? Don't read it.
If Twitter decides it doesn't like being a de facto public square, they're free to take the platform private and only allow those they wish to hear from be able to join and post.
And as much as you don't like anyone with a slightly differing opinion from yours having free speech rights, they still do. The response should be more speech, not censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Isn't that what they already do via moderation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay, let’s take a new tack and see how you handle it.
As a hypothetical, say you start a Mastodon instance that anyone can join. One of the rules of your Terms of Service says “you can’t use racial slurs”. You make it clear that violating the TOS will result in a ban.
Your instance chugs along for a good three months; you get a couple hundred users or so — nothing too big for two or three mods to handle — and you’ve federated with instances that share your instance’s rules and such. Your userbase enjoys a smaller, nicer, even kinder social media experience. But at the end of that third month, a Supreme Court ruling comes down: The government can legally regulate speech on social media platforms. (Don’t get into the logic of that, just roll with me.)
One week after that ruling, a government agent contacts you. The agent says “you can’t ban racial slurs on your platform” and gives you a court order saying as much. You have a week to either comply with the court order or voluntarily shut down your instance. The government will shut down your instance if you refuse to comply or shut it down yourself.
Of the following three options (which are your only viable options), would you…
comply with the legal court order and allow racial slurs (and thus racist propaganda) on your instance despite not wanting to do that,
shut down your instance immediately and without warning to keep from hosting that speech at the cost of all your users losing access to their accounts (and the data held within), or
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Basically people are trying to talk outside, some asshole keeps yelling nazi propoganda or whatever so you move into a bar. The bar owner doesn't let people yell nazi propoganda in his bar so it's perfect and lots of people go there to talk.. Then the government decides it isn't fair to the nazi's to be left out of the discussion and forces the bar owner to let nazis yell their propoganda in her bar and the people go somewhere else and the bar closes down
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, when you boil it down this is all the same as a pub owner saying "you're barred" and forcing you to drink elsewhere. It doesn't matter they you really like that pub, it's where all your friends go and it's the biggest in town, your ass remains barred and you should have thought about not breaking the rules instead of doing whatever it was that got you kicked out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I want to see what would happen when they pit the "must accept speech" including gay appreciation, with bigoted religious cakemakers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have the right to speak, not a platform to speak from
And as much as you don't like anyone with a slightly differing opinion from yours having free speech rights, they still do.
As I noted below, free speech does not include the right to a platform to speak from. No-one's free speech is being violated when social media tells them 'not on our platform', and in the spirit of your own comment, 'Don't like it? Find another platform.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
they're free to take the platform private and only allow those they wish to hear from be able to join and post.
That is literally how Twitter operates. They are a private company, they only allow those who have requested to be on their platform and have explicitly agreed to Twitter's terms. If someone breaks that agreement they have their permission to post revoked.
Your arrogance and ignorance is baffling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Your arrogance and ignorance is baffling."
Yet, very typical of the assholes who keep getting themselves kicked out of polite company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nice try, John Smith.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"And as much as you don't like anyone with a slightly differing opinion from yours having free speech rights, they still do. "
...and the people who own the platform also have free speech rights, including the right to free association. Stop whining like a baby and go somewhere you're actually welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"If Twitter decides it doesn't like being a de facto public square, they're free to take the platform private and only allow those they wish to hear from be able to join and post."
You mean if Starbucks and Taco Bell don't like being a de facto public square then they should force their customers to shut the fsck up inside their premises or demand membership before allowing people entry?
Here's news for you - Twitter IS a PRIVATE platform. They tell you flat-out which terms apply to your participation in their premises. If you violate them you will be shown the door.
You are basically arguing that if enough people feel like it you will be forced to let them host conventions inside your own living room. And that is a VERY ODD position for a "conservative" to assume. Not so much for bigots, extremists and neo-nazis of course, and I keep wondering why conservatives keep trying to stand and be counted with those Very Fine People.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Twitter IS a PRIVATE platform. They tell you flat-out which terms apply to your participation in their premises. If you violate them you will be shown the door."
So was Woolworth's lunch counter. You sure private companies can choose their own terms of service?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, as long as they don't violate some law telling them they can't. Also, you cheapen civil rights by claiming that someone refused service because they're black and being refused because you're a hateful disruptive asshole are the same thing.
Sorry, but being an asshole is not currently a protected class, so Twitter can kick out all the assholes it wants. If you feel discriminated against, start asking why you seem to have all the assholes on your side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'You can't kick me out, this is THE spot to socialize.'
'Lots of people congregate there' does not make a place or platform 'the public forum', and even if it did that would still not mean that the owner(unless it's the government) magically loses the ability to kick people out. Following that line of thought, if a town had a privately owned popular club or business that a majority of those in the town used to meet up at a certain point they would lose the ability to give the boot to those that violate any rules they may have, which I imagine most people would consider just kinda absurd.
Just because you may have free speech does not mean non-government individuals, groups or companies are obligated to provide you a platform to speak from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
de facto replaces the public forum
By what method are you determining whether or not something meets this standard?
then either free speech must be enforced on that forum or free speech dies.
By this argument, spam filters would be illegal. Is that the way you think it should be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
While this is an attempt at nitpicking a general truth by demanding specificity, how about "If someone sues the President of the United States to be able to post comments, then yes it is the defacto standard.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180523/18033139894/court-says-unconstitutional-trump-t o-block-people-twitter-doesnt-actually-order-him-to-stop.shtml
“In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And it’s a specific answer that you generally refused to give, so let’s try that again: By what method are you determining whether or not a platform meets the standard of “becoming a public forum” such that the government can absolutely and legally tell the owners of that platform what speech they can and cannot, will and will not, must and must not host?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No specific standard for ubiquity can be established, thus I attempted to cite an example that clearly social media has become a defacto public forum.
Since we might not ever achieve a well defined threshold on something subjective, my solution would be a 230 reform, where service providers must choose between being a platform, or being a publisher, but not both simultaneously. All platforms then ought to be politically neutral, because the speech on that platform is important to someone. Oh, and your spam filters will be okay. Just don't engage in political censorship if you are a platform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then stop acting like you’ve found one that you conveniently refuse to share with the rest of the class.
And you failed. The ruling you cited says that a Twitter account belonging to the President of the United States, which he uses in his official capacity as a civil servant of the federal government, qualifies as a public forum. That ruling did not extend to the entirety of Twitter.
Your solution is bullshit because the law already doesn’t make that distinction. Introducing it would likely cause more problems than it solves, starting with all the lawsuits that would be filed from the social media companies over the constitutionality of your “solution”.
Yes or no, with no hedging or deflecting or distracting: Should a Black person who uses Twitter have to endure their mentions being flooded with the legally protected political speech that is White supremacist propaganda?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You sound ridiculous. Your ultimatums are ridiculous.
You pretend, for the sake of your hypothetical, that someone is standing over you with your eyes held open, a la A Clockwork Orange, and forcing you to read messages you don't like.
If I receive a message I don't like, I delete it. If I don't like the opinions of someone, I don't follow or read them. See how easy that is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So you explicitly Are requesting twitter cease enforcing the harassment clause within the TOS? Or That the clauses unenforceable? Could you cite statute or case law on that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Three things.
You can’t technically “delete” notifications from Twitter. (You can block and report users, but you can’t delete their tweets.)
People on Twitter can still tag you in their tweets even if you don’t follow them. (You can’t see those tweets if you’ve blocked them, but you can still see the replies to those tweets if you don’t mute the conversation.)
To the broader point: The whole “well just don’t look at it” ethos shifts responsibility for shitty speech onto the people whom that speech targets instead of the people delivering that speech. Maybe ask those assholes to stop saying shitty things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So, you apparently don't know how Twitter works...
How do you people always have such strong opinions about this you know nothing about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The Clockwork Orange analogy is a damn good one.
The left wants people protected from opinions they find makes them think about uncomfortable things, like patterns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If nobody is forcing you to put up with people you disagree with then why are you here? Tantrum throwing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because I have no problem "putting up" with people with whom I disagree.
As I said, it's the left who shrink from uncomfortable reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I have no problem putting with being a man inside the ladies' room, because leftist women shrink from uncomfortable reality."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Because I have no problem "putting up" with people with whom I disagree."
Nor do I. However, if I'm trying to enjoy my lunch and the person I disagree with is shouting abuse from the other side of the room, I would hope he's escorted from the premises so that normal people are able to finish their lunch. I would not expect the restaurant to be prevented from kicking him out the door.
"As I said, it's the left who shrink from uncomfortable reality."
No, we'd just rather not have to put up with people who think that bullying, bigotry and abuse are valid forms of behaviour. Maybe you need to just not be obnoxious assholes while discussing reality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Saying something is a "de facto" public forum is saying something is "de facto" public property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Saying something is a "de facto" public forum is saying something is "de facto" public property."
An interesting argument to hear from "republicans" who should normally be abhorred by classical communist principles, yes.
And that this is their current take speaks volumes about what happened to the "party of lincoln" in recent years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What about political spam drowning out everything else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
but what if it's political spam being blocked by the filters? is that censorship?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Spam is spam.
Non spam political messages would have been requested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The President of the United States acting in official capacity is bound by the First Amendment.
A private company acting on its own platform, is not.
Why is this a difficult concept for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look Who's Arguing Private Corporate Rights Now
A private company acting on its own platform, is not.
Ah, yes, how calm and straight-forward. Surely were they acting in a way that you didn't agree with, you would still be all about private company rights. Right?
It's odd how Democrats have shifted on this position, especially given that they are, on average, the more educated party.
When companies discriminate against, say, people who are against gay marriage, we scream that they are private companies.
When they discriminate against people who are gay, or who are for gay marriage, we go about as berzerk as a group can, we melt-down every social media platform in sight, and we command our legislators to pass laws preventing private companies from discriminating against said groups.
What happened to being a private company's discretion?
Well, that's the thing. We only cite this when we agree with the decision. And we're grown, mature, educated adults.
White privilege is one thing, but affluent white privilege, that's where it's at. There's where you can taunt others about their preferences, because yours just become law. We're so used to getting our way, that it just becomes the act of divine right. After all, we're us, human pure of thought and one step away from being a messiah. People for whom there is no problem that a snarky one-liner won't fix.
The best part about affluent white privilege, however, is having carte blanche to be a hypocrite, knowing that nobody will call you out on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two things.
That rhetorical gimmick is bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look Who's Arguing Private Corporate Rights Now
"Surely were they acting in a way that you didn't agree with, you would still be all about private company rights. Right?"
I would. When sites do things I don't agree with, I go elsewhere. Why are you lots instead demanding that the law be changed so that you can be allowed somewhere you're not welcome?
"When companies discriminate against, say, people who are against gay marriage, we scream that they are private companies."
Lol. It was the right-wing bigots who were demanding that the bakeries be allowed to discriminate. Sane people were simply demanding gays get the same rights as others.
"What happened to being a private company's discretion?"
Racism, bigotry and hatred are not art of that discretion, and for good reason. If you don't like that, have you perhaps considered not being such a person? I mean from the rest of your comments you're clearly in a delusional state and have issues dealing with reality, but there's no reason to be such a dick about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look Who's Arguing Private Corporate Rights Now
"Two completely different situations are treated differently? Oh, the hypocrisy!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look Who's Arguing Private Corporate Rights Now
What happened to being a private company's discretion?
It becomes irrelevant unless you want to argue that a conservative is somehow a protected class.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Look Who's Arguing Private Corporate Rights Now
That's the problem with the very concept of such a thing as a "protected class".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Look Who's Arguing Private Corporate Rights Now
"That's the problem with the very concept of such a thing as a "protected class"."
No, the problem with the concept of a protected class is that it needs to exist, since some people have no problem with discrimination if not prevented from doing so. If you guys were not such hateful assholes, the law telling you not to be one would not be necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look Who's Arguing Private Corporate Rights Now
"When companies discriminate against, say, people who are against gay marriage, we scream that they are private companies."
The bigot doesn't get to carry the victim card. Do we really need to tell you the difference between the perpetrator and the victim?
"When they discriminate against people who are gay, or who are for gay marriage..."
OK, I see the problem here. You don't see the difference between perpetrator and victim. One of those two is protected in actual law and by globally accepted standards. The other is not.
You are actually arguing that the skinhead kicking the jew or black man shouldn't be stopped because that would be discrimination.
"The best part about affluent white privilege, however, is having carte blanche to be a hypocrite, knowing that nobody will call you out on it."
Yeah, no, I think we are all calling you out on your bullshit right here and now. Nice wordwall and a LOT of false assumptions, false equivalence, and reversed logic around the toxic assumption that everyone should be forced to give the Very Fine People of the KKK a bullhorn and a place to stand in their living room.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look Who's Arguing Private Corporate Rights Now
If you are going to call me a hypocrite, can you at least put some effort into it? This is a pathetic attempt.
Showing two examples of a private company using its discretion, one in a manner I agree with and one that I don't only show that I have an opinion on their actions' morality. I can disagree with an action while acknowledging its lawful nature. (Also I don't think you know what discrimination means if you are bringing it to this discussion.) Bringing in this kind of distractive argument reveals that you either have no idea what you are talking about, or know full well that your point is full of shit.
(And as a side note your use of "we" during your post is rather presumptuous and I don't appreciate being lumped in with the likes of you.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look Who's Arguing Private Corporate Rights Now
Rex -
"Democrats … are, on average, the more educated party"
I'm curious to know if that's actually true. (I believe you're talking about Democrat v. Republican voters; I think everyone would agree that D v. R elected officials are probably of similar education levels.)
Here's my guess as to why it's widely believed Democrat voters are more educated:
This adds up to an impression that Democrats are college-educated and Republicans are high school-educated. What this doesn't account for is that, my guess, GEDs, dropouts, and immigrants comprise a vastly higher percentage of Democrat voters than Republican voters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The President of the United States acting in official capacity is bound by the First Amendment."
Even though he is unaware of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The ruling was that because of his position, the presidents account was a public forum. The ruling did not say that twitter was a public forum. It is a public official using their account for official business that makes that account a public forum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
By this argument, spam filters would be illegal. Is that the way you think it should be?
“In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less.”
... did you just seriously agree that spam filters would/should be illegal, or was that just a red herring?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh please, everyone knows the only real red herring is communism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are totally (like 100%) misreading the Trump Twitter case. NOTHING in that case declared Twitter the defacto public square. It was just addressing whether or not the President created a public space for people to participate. This would have applied had it been Twitter or if he set up his own site on blogger.
None of that would have meant that the platform he used was "the defacto public square."
You speak very confidently about a number of subjects you appear to not understand. I'd recommend you stop doing that, though I fear this wish is unlikely to be heeded...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"While this is an attempt at nitpicking a general truth by demanding specificity, how about "If someone sues the President of the United States to be able to post comments, then yes it is the defacto standard."
I'm curious - are you capable of reading things properly and just inventing things to be concerned about, or are you really this stupid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I am probably foolishly feeding a troll, but someone ought to point out that the President, in his official capacity, had created a public twitter forum which was subject to the First Amendment. That is different from twitter generally being a public forum.
The concrete company provides concrete for both sidewalks in front of City Hall, and for walkways in front of homes. Its provision of concrete for City Hall sidewalks does not make concrete walkways into public fora. Rather, it is the decree by municipal officials that certain sidewalks shall run in front of city hall that makes them public fora.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"how about "If someone sues the President of the United States to be able to post comments, then yes it is the defacto standard."
Nope. That just means the courts have determined that The open communications of POTUS are considered public information.
It doesn't magically mean the courts decided to nationalize private property.
How the fsck self-styled "conservatives" can argue classical communist nationalization of private property without getting a brain hemmorhage over the cognitive dissonance is beyond me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Newspapers have been privately owned for decades and if you didn't like the slant of the local paper, you were free to start your own.
Nowadays you don't even have to take a mortgage on your house to start your own opinion-blog.
But don't expect others to publish your garbage for free. If you pay for the publication you can set the rules, if you want a freebee, live with the rules that the funder sets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
free speech survives just fine as long as long as support for the commercial platform is optional. It can only survive as the "defacto public forum" as long as people continue to voluntarily support it. The actual public forums that don't need to be confiscated from anyone haven't gone anywhere. People are free to voice their support or dissent for it either by using it, not using it, replacing it with their own better platform, shouting about it on the sidewalk, using any number of other methods etc. Just because became platform hardly means it's mandatory. Sure you want to use it because it's popular so you can "reach the most people", but free speech just isn't a right to reach the most people possible with your message.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just because became platform => Just because a platform became popular
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As is often said, you have the right to speak but you don't have the right to use my front lawn to do it, nor the right to a megaphone so people at the end of the street can hear you. The self entitlement of these people is astounding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"When a commercial platform de facto replaces the public forum, then either free speech must be enforced on that forum or free speech dies."
Why are you not complaining about being kicked out of shopping malls? Quite similar, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Call back when that actually happens at least once. For now until that point, you can fuck right off moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Okay first off who banned all public speaking outside Twitter and when did tbat happen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Right around the time someone told them that Google was the entire Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why have an 'Anti-Conservative Bias' Panel
I really doubt this new panel has anything to do with actually changing the behavior of targeted platforms. My take is this is a cynical political move to try to persuade potential voters, already right of center, to assume that if such a panel exists it must be with just cause, "No Smoke Without Fire" sentiment rules the day.
I think the hoped for consequence is that perfectly reasonable, even persuasive speech, will be further relegated to "outside my echo chamber" thus reducing the chances of any erosion of support for this President, and of course his lackeys in Congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, remember the Voter fraud panel, where they hired all the loudest supporters of voting restrictions, people who went in wanting any excuse to kick as many people off the voter rolls and still couldn't produce any evidence fraud was a widespread thing? Remember how they refuse to release any of their findings because it's so damaging to their narrative? It's going to be that for another conservative bugbear, with the same outcome because facts don't care about conservative feelings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Kris Kobach (Thoroughly discredited voter fraud witchfinder general). J. Christian Adams (Voter ID law advocate), Hans von Spakovsky (Dubyah recess appointment to the FEC who weaponised the system to disenfranchise voters, also pushed to try and stop any democrats being appointed to the panel at all), Connie Lawson (Secretary of state that defended indiana's illegal voter purges)... The panel was stacked against democrats in terms of numbers of representatives and power, still didn't find what they wanted to find. They disbanded rather than share information with democratic members after a court ordered them to do so.
They created the legion of doom and STILL couldn't get the result they wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Careful there, Bloof. By actually providing the citation he asked for you are discriminating and repressing him.
Stop being biased against the Very Fine Man who only wants his right to stand on another person's private property and shout about how the n__gers all need to go back to the plantation, the women all need to get back to the kitchen where they belong, and the queers should all get strung up as the unholy abominations they are.
Every time we tell him that's not nice and will he please get lost from our living rooms and forums we are being absolutely horrible people. Think of the poor nazis, Bloof. Whatever did they do for us to ostracize them like this?
/s Because the sad part is that this appears to be exactly how the "alt-right" thinks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama's Operation Chokepoint could be a good model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obama's Operation Chokepoint could be a good model.
Obama had corps de listed from the stock exchange?
Is that what you are claiming?
First I'd heard of it ... (looking)
and apparently the internet has not heard of it either
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obama's Operation Chokepoint could be a good model.
Operation Chokepoint certainly seems bad from those sources, but also seems completely disconnected from the topic at hand, so I'm now sure what point you were trying to make by bringing it up.
As for the one about Candace Owens, not only is it a single point of reference and thus incapable of showing trends of bias at all, it also shows that it was not the political leanings of the tweeter that got them moderated, but rather the racist and hateful content that tripped the moderation action. To further support this, Twitter reviewed the case and reversed the action. Your source is supporting the opposite of what you claim it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obama's Operation Chokepoint could be a good model.
Weird. You seem to be citing facutal sources, but the words you've chosen to surround them are nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obama's Operation Chokepoint could be a good model.
Anti-Fa can and has made terrorist threats worse than anything on the right and they are still there.
Oh come on. They're just gung-ho about their 2A rights. And I've found that there's nothing more comical to watch than right-wing 2A nutjobs lose their shit when the other guys show up with guns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obama's Operation Chokepoint could be a good model.
What's even more disturbing is that most domestic terrorism is perpetrated by right-wingers, all the while we have people like tz1 trying to blame everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Obama's Operation Chokepoint could be a good model.
Since 9/11, right-wing extremist terror attacks has had a higher body count than any other motivation, and three times as many attacks as Islamists.
From 2009 to 2018, 73% of extremist attack fatalities in the US came from the extremist Right
In 2018, every extremist killing in the US was right-wing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Obama's Operation Chokepoint could be a good mod
And then there's the COVID-related terrorism like marching with long guns into the Governor's office, and the negligent homicides from those willfully disregarding quarantine orders because freedumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Obama's Operation Chokepoint could be a good mod
"...right-wing extremist terror attacks has had a higher body count than any other motivation, and three times as many attacks as Islamists."
Nah. Those are just "isolated murders". And the odd "Freedom Fighter" driven mad by the persistent democrat narrative that bigotry and racism is somehow bad.
After all, as any of these Very Fine People will tell you, white people can't be terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I will shut it down for not allowing my free speech!!!1111111
[ link to this | view in chronology ]