Facebook & Twitter Try To Limit The Spread Of Sketchy NY Post Story; Leading To Ridiculous Trumpist Meltdown
from the content-moderation-mess dept
Yesterday was certainly an interesting day in the content moderation realm. Early in the morning the NY Post released a story that I won't link to, mainly because it's hot garbage. If you want a concise, non-hyperbolic, and thorough (and non-partisan) analysis of why the story is problematic, I suggest reading Thomas Rid's analysis, which highlights the many questions the story raises, and why it should not be reported on until certain details are confirmed.
CAUTION ADVISED with this morning's Burisma-Biden E-mail story. For several reasons. pic.twitter.com/61GEAhZZop
— Thomas Rid (@RidT) October 14, 2020
The story began to spread on social media, though. There were many people (like Thomas) raising questions, or in some cases debunking various aspects of the story (or just putting it into perspective). However, among supporters of President Trump, the story was (misleadingly) being used to claim there was a "smoking gun" of malfeasance on the part of Joe Biden's son, Hunter. The actual details of the story don't seem to support the claims being made. At the very least, without further confirmation, the story had all the hallmarks of a disinformation campaign.
As the story spread, both Facebook and Twitter decided to take steps to limit the spread, in both cases making use of relatively recently introduced policies. For Facebook, it simply limited the spread while fact checkers could check the story:
This is part of our standard process to reduce the spread of misinformation. We temporarily reduce distribution pending fact-checker review. https://t.co/vf3CBvLmjj
— Andy Stone (@andymstone) October 14, 2020
The company put that policy in place a year ago after facing widespread complaints that by the time Facebook did a thorough fact check on certain information, that information would have already spread widely. So Facebook put in place a sort of two-step process. If something is going viral, and there are concerns that it is disinformation, the company will first slow the ability to spread the information, allowing the full fact-check to take place, and then making a further decision based on the results of the fact check. This is basically a "let's slow this down while we check it out and then decide what to do" policy.
Twitter's move was a bit stronger and more controversial. It blocked people from sharing the link altogether, though not for the reasons most people thought. Twitter says it blocked the sharing of the link because the article was pointing to "hacked" materials. We've discussed Twitter's policy against hacked material in the past, including over the (controversial) decision to shut down the @DDoSecrets account, which posts newsworthy leaked documents, including the "BlueLeaks" documents of law enforcement leaks.
As seen in shutting down @DDoSecrets, Twitter takes a pretty strict definition of "hacked material" and under that definition, the Post's reporting on emails that were taken from a laptop would qualify. That is, even if you disagree with the specific policy that Twitter has in place, it's silly to claim that the takedown was for political purposes.
That said, this policy remains a silly one, and a dangerous one. As we have noted in the past in discussing it, journalists regularly report on leaked or "hacked" materials. And in many cases they are newsworthy. In this case, if the information is correct, then it is newsworthy.
But, even more to the point, it was not difficult to guess where this decision was going to end up -- which is that the usual crew of Trump sycophants immediately insisted that this was "censorship" on the part of Twitter and Facebook, and an attempt to stifle a story that, if accurate, could be seen by some to paint Joe Biden in a bad light. Indeed, Senator Josh Hawley -- who seems to have found his niche in creating absolutely bullshit panics about this kind of stuff -- quickly got out his pen to send stupid letters. First he sent a nonsense letter to Facebook, claiming that Facebook following the policy it put in place last year was "selective" and "suggests partiality on the part of Facebook."
Seems odd that if that's his concern he hasn't sent such letters to the NY Post or Fox News or Breitbart -- all of whom have made editorial choices that show "partiality" to one candidate. And, of course, the letter fails to acknowledge that this has been Facebook's policy for a year now, or that there may be legitimate reasons to try to slow the spread of possible disinformation. Instead, he tries to cook up a conspiracy.
His letter to Twitter is more of the same. Here, we have a US Senator demanding information regarding a private company's editorial policies. That's a HUGE 1st Amendment problem.
This statement raises questions about the applicability of your policy, especially because such a pre-emptive removal of a news story on such grounds—and the additional scrutiny you have applied—appears to be an unusual intervention that is not universally applied to all content.
I ask that you immediately answer these questions and provide the requisite justifications so that your users can feel confident that you are not seeking to influence the outcome of the presidential election with your content removal decisions.
Politicians should not be able to demand any private company explain their editorial decision making process, especially under the threat of legislation. It's an obvious intimidation tactic, and raises significant 1st Amendment questions.
Finally, Hawley sent an even more ridiculous letter to the Federal Election Commission, claiming that these moderation decisions violate campaign finance law. This is wrong on many, many, many levels. But first I'll note, in passing, that Republicans like Senator Hawley have made sure that the FEC doesn't even have enough members to meet, because the Republican Senate has refused to confirm them.
As for Hawley's claims about campaign finance, they are also hot garbage:
This conduct does not merely censor the core political speech of ordinary Americans, though it certainly does that. Twitter’s and Facebook’s conduct also appears to constitute a clear violation of federal campaign-finance law. Federal law prohibits any corporation from making a contribution to a federal candidate for office. 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a). Twitter and Facebook are both corporations. A “contribution” includes “anything of value . . . for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i). Twitter’s and Facebook’s active suppression of public speech about the New York Post article appears to constitute contributions under federal law. There can be no serious doubt that the Biden campaign derives extraordinary value from depriving voters access to information that, if true, would link the former Vice President to corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs. And this censorship manifestly will influence the presidential election.
This is ridiculous. Again, if true, then Fox News, Breitbart, and the NY Post all "violate federal campaign finance law." Hell, under this interpretation, the NY Post "violated campaign finance law" by running this article. So would any newspaper that ran an endorsement. Or any newspaper that (quite reasonably) refused to run this sketchy garbage story from Rudy Giuliani in the first place. This is not how any of this works. And Hawley doesn't want it to work that way either because it would destroy the media companies that prop up his own nonsense.
All that said, I still think that Twitter's decision to block the sharing of the link was hamfisted. Coming just after I praised the company for focusing on friction, rather than suppression, this move seemed more about suppression. And, of course, it was not effective. Lots of people started coming up with ways to get around the block, and at least one account tweeted out every sentence of the article as individual tweets. The Senate Republicans' Twitter account tweeted out a video of the article. And "Streisand Effect" trended on Twitter as Trump supporters noted that the block would likely only serve to draw more attention to the original story.
But it also did something worse. It played right into the bullshit narrative that Twitter is engaging in "anti-conservative bias" in its moderation practices. And it becomes a perfect (if inaccurate) talking point for Republicans like Josh Hawley and Donald Trump whose entire schtick is playing the victim. It also takes away attention from just how sketchy the original story was, and changes the focus to questions about social media companies and their moderation practices. That's not the story here and it shouldn't be. But these decisions made it 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: content moderation, disinformation, misinformation
Companies: facebook, ny post, twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
But you repeat yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'You looked at me funny, anti-conservative bias!'
But it also did something worse. It played right into the bullshit narrative that Twitter is engaging in "anti-conservative bias" in its moderation practices.
Not saying Twitter didn't screw this one up, but to be fair these days having rules at all that are applied to 'conservatives' is seen as evidence of 'anti-conservative' bias so they were basically in a lose/lose situation, where they either let the story fester on their platform and spread freely, in which case they get called out for allowing bullshit, or they do anything to hinder it, in which case the perpetual 'victims' scream about how persecuted they are again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'You looked at me funny, anti-conservative bias!'
Though and let's be honest with ourselves it was something involving Don Jr. this limiting the spread of the story wouldn't be happening.
The fact it was Hunter Biden could be EASILY spun as a story of social media companies taking a side and trying to censor a potentially damaging story that might affect Biden's chances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'You looked at me funny, anti-conservative bias!'
Possibly, though I imagine if they are quicker to go into damage control when it relates to Trump's opponents it might be less political and more to do with how easily and frequently he and those around him lies, with them finally realizing that more attention should be paid to claims made by the known liar than the other side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitter’s decision sucked. It shouldn’t serve as an excuse to destroy Section 230 — and with it, the Internet as we know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not that it matters, as Eric Goldman put it "Section 230 is doomed".
Congress is dead set on killing 230 and with it the modern internet of which I'm not totally unconvinced is a ploy to make it so people can't clap back when politicians say/do something stupid and/or corrupt as fuck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don’t (want to) believe in such defeatist thinking. 230 is doomed only if we let it be doomed.
Write your Congress critters, everbody. Make this a campaign issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Eric Goldman also said "FWIW, I plan to keep fighting for Section 230 with every ounce of energy I've got. But it's a hugely uphill fight."
Also Congress may have alot of bills trying to repeal 230 but its unlikely any of them will pass atleast right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thing is Section 230 is not doomed and is likely Congress will backtrack on killing 230 if the Dems take control.
Also Eric Goldman also said "FWIW, I plan to keep fighting for Section 230 with every ounce of energy I've got. But it's a hugely uphill fight." https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2020/05/trumps-preventing-online-censorship-executive-order-is -pro-censorship-political-theater.htm#comment-4937175754
So you are taken his words a bit out of context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Twitter’s decision sucked."
No, it didn't. They have the right to remove posts that violate their terms of use, and that post clearly did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can agree with the technical merits of the decision (yes, Twitter has the right to moderate) and still judge it on a moral or ethical basis (yes, the decision sucked).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"still judge it on a moral or ethical basis (yes, the decision sucked)"
I don't get this personally. The NY Post article, from what I understand, was both factually questionable and in clear violation of Twitter's own policies. Why would the decision to remove such a post be ethically or morally unacceptable, other than the inevitable whining from the right-wing toddler bubble?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because for all the trouble Twitter has gone through to mark Trump’s tweets with “this breaks our rules but he's the president so...yeah” warning labels when he violates the rules, I wonder why they didn’t apply a similar warning on the NY Post tweet. And as far as links to the article posted by third parties go, a warning pop-up or whatever when a user clicks on the link would’ve been effective enough.
Twitter had the right to do what they did. But just because you have the right to do it doesn’t mean you were right to do it. Twitter went a little overboard with its moderation in this case. Saying so doesn’t mean I think the article is legit; it means “Twitter went a little overboard with its moderation in this case” — especially compared to how they treat the president of the United States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Because for all the trouble Twitter has gone through to mark Trump’s tweets with “this breaks our rules but he's the president so...yeah” warning labels when he violates the rules, I wonder why they didn’t apply a similar warning on the NY Post tweet"
Despite his obvious disregard for the rules, Trump does bring a lot of traffic to the site and keeps the site relevant compared to some rival networks, so he gets to have a lot of leeway compared to other users. The fact that he's currently in the White House and has shown willingness to abuse his office to attack perceived enemies also helps.
One the other hand, NY Post is just another Murdoch rag that nobody goes to Twitter specifically to access, and it's easier to just block a URL than setting another precedent that they're fine with disinformation if someone's famous enough.
Basically, the way they treat Trump remains the exception rather than the rule, and for good reason even if most would rather they didn't make that exception. I don't agree with the special privileges they give Trump, but there's clear reasoning for it.
"Twitter went a little overboard with its moderation in this case."
I disagree, they did exactly what they'd normally do for most posters, it's just that this particular example has gained traction from the whiners who are invested in misinformation, in order to sway voters who have not already submitted their ballot. I'm sure it's happened before, it's just not gained the same level of outcry in the past. To give another example - there's multiple accounts that have been set up that simply post word for word exactly what Trump's tweets have stated. They invariably get banned rather quickly. This shows that Trump's treatment is out of the ordinary, not that the Post's treatment was special treatment.
"compared to how they treat the president of the United States"
There's very few venues where you'd expect the average poster to get the same treatment as the president would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All the same, you’d think that Twitter — having experience in marking tweets with a “this violated the rules but is likely newsworthy, so maybe consider that before you look at it” warning label — would’ve found some way to avoid looking like it outright “censored” a news outlet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"would’ve found some way to avoid looking like it outright “censored” a news outlet."
Have you seen the brayed and wailing about fact checks on Trump's tweets? They will still claim they're being censored, it's just that removing the post outright stoped it being shared among their users as if it's factual among the crowds that would just ignore the fact check.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But the specific policy they cited -- and have sense walked back -- is a stupid policy. Banning articles about "hacked documents" would mean banning reporting on issues like the Pentagon Papers or the Snowden leaks.
I'm not averse to blocking the Post story as misinformation, but that's not what happened here; they blocked it because of how the reporters gained access to the information in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"But the specific policy they cited -- and have sense walked back -- is a stupid policy"
Be that as it may, it was their policy and they acted on it. That might change in future by the look of things, but the whole thing is quite clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fortunately conservatives have Parler and Gab where they can share misinformation to their hearts content... Oh wait, they don't want that, they want an audience for their lies and they know normal people aren't super keen on going places where hate flows free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's like they don't want to be trapped in a cesspool of all the shit they spew unless everyone is forced to take a dip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The whole thing just looks bad. I mean for YEARS all we heard was Trump was colluding with the Russians! Russian meddling blah blah blah. It was beat into our brains by the MSM. When something like this gets shut down this quickly?! It just looks bad, whether by coincidence or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I mean for YEARS all we heard was Trump was colluding with the Russians! Russian meddling blah blah blah.
To be fair, he was, and they were. But it's no big deal to conservatives since it positively impacts their guy. Fucking closet commies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
To be fair, YOU CAN'T PROVE IT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
To be fair, I don't give a shit.
What's the weather like over there, Boris?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I do not need to prove anything.
The GOP has screwed themselves plenty enough, I say - You're Fired!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"To be fair, YOU CAN'T PROVE IT!"
Well, that's true. The only thing we can prove is that Trump has received incredibly convenient benefits from a few major banks who had no reason at all to lend a single cent to a man who failed even the most cursory of due diligence checks. I mean, Deutsche bank's massive loan to Trump was underwritten by the russian state-owned VTB. For, apparently, no reason what so ever. Make of that what you will.
What has me absolutely *stunned is that Trump, at that time gaining a loan of that size, against all reasonable expectation, was never held to be compromising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two Standards
Unauthorized Trump tax returns? Unverified Russian conspiracies? Twitter will allow it, which it should. But if a news site posts something that hurts a Democrat candidate, suddenly the censorship kicks into overdrive.
The the bias within social media corporations is at the core of the problem, and is the reason why support for Section 230 is eroding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A double standard on Twitter’s part isn’t censorship. Censorship requires that a person’s First Amendment rights have somehow been infringed; Twitter hasn’t done that at all. But hey, keep going with your 230 ignorance and see where that gets you. It hasn’t worked out well for you in the past, sure. But maybe today is the day when it will~.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Narrator: It would not be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A left wing moron wrote, "A double standard on Twitter’s part isn’t censorship. Censorship requires that a person’s First Amendment rights have somehow been infringed"
BS. The concept censorship isn't dependent on the 1st Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How is it censorship if I am not allowed to post an article on Twitter, but can immediately post it on Gab or Parlor or 8chan or any other social medial that isn't called Facebook or Twitter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Censorship is when you encounter speech with which you disagree, and so you attempt to hide the speech for fear of others becoming informed, or agreeing with said speech.
Just because you are able say something in greater than zero places does not mean that censorship is not occurring. Soviet citizens could say things in the privacy of their own homes, but knew that it would be outlawed in public. Corporate censorship is very much occurring on social media. And make no mistake, corporate censorship on open platforms is no better in principle than government censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now explain how Twitter moderating speech on Twitter was an attempt to “de-publish” or censor the NY Post article — which, I’ll remind you, was (and still is) available on the NY Post website regardless of Twitter’s dumbass decision.
It, uh…it kinda does. You can’t say you’re being censored if one platform blocks your speech but all other platforms allow it.
There’s a difference between private speech in private places and publicly available speech. If you can’t see it, I can’t help you.
Pray tell, what other services does Twitter control besides Twitter? Because unless Twitter controls Facebook, Medium, and basically every other site on the entire Internet, Twitter can no more censor you than I can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Help! I’m being repressed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Censorship is when you encounter speech with which you disagree, and so you attempt to hide the speech for fear of others becoming informed, or agreeing with said speech.
So like when Trump and/or his pet DOJ sue someone who puts out a tell-all book that doesn't portray them in a good light, or when rather than address or refute a claim Trump tries to dismiss it as 'fake news', or perhaps when Trump threw a fit because social media didn't remove a pic of McConnel( or however it's spelled) in a russian uniform? That kind of censorship?
(As an aside I do so love how you've decided to run with the 'people are being kicked off social media because the platform owners 'disagree' with them, not because they're bigots and/or assholes of other types' talking point, very convincing that one.)
And make no mistake, corporate censorship on open platforms is no better in principle than government censorship.
Absolutely, why if you ignore that one of them can prevent you from speaking anywhere and the other can only prevent you from speaking on their platform the two are positively indistinguishable!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But Koby, Parler!!!!
Why don't you tell me about screwing Twitter by going to Parler, big guy?
No censorship going on there! No sir!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, but it is, though. Censorship requires that someone’s right to speak freely is somehow suppressed or threatened to be suppressed. Twitter has done neither; the NY Post article is still on the NY Post website (which first published the article and is not under the purview of what speech Twitter can moderate), and people can still share links to the article outside of Twitter or discuss the article on Twitter.
Twitter didn’t censor anyone. It made a bad decision that plays into the hands of assholes who want to wreck Section 230 and force Twitter to host all speech, sure. But it didn’t censor anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, what you're saying is you're stupid, just not ignorant.
The 1st Amendment is all about the relationship between the government and the citizens, whereas censorship is simply the suppression of speech some party finds objectionable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don’t respond to otherwording.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Where does it say that corporations are not allowed to decide for themselves with whom they want to associate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Common carrier laws. That’s what prevents phone companies from denying services to people they don’t like.
This keeps up and social media companies will be regulated as common carriers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just like the FCC is trying to do with broadband, amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can’t wait to see how you justify the government forcing Twitter and Facebook to host all legally protected speech (including racial slurs, spam, and that one GIF you really hate) no matter what but conveniently~ leaving out smaller services like Gab and Parler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
leaving out smaller services like Gab and Parler
Leaving them out? They've given up even acknowledging they exist.
It's almost as if they've finally come to the conclusion that it's better to just not mention them anymore because it brings their real gripe - entitlement to an audience - front & center.
So they're learning...it's a start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can't wait to post Goatse on Gab and Parler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even better, post pictures of Obama everywhere - because I'm sure no one frequenting those sites likes Obama, I'm not so certain about the goatse though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Common carrier laws. That’s what prevents phone companies from denying services to people they don’t like"
Deja Vu?
I thought the present admin did not like title II common carrier being applied to the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"The 1st Amendment is all about the relationship between the government and the citizens, whereas censorship is simply the suppression of speech some party finds objectionable."
And where, exactly, did Twitter, Facebook, OR the NY Times become the government?
1A simply states that congress may make no laws restricting freedom of speech.
Censorship requires suppression. Twitter can't suppress or prohibit expression. They can simply state "Not in our home" and tell you to take it elsewhere.
You similarly don't censor the obnoxious loudmouth who showed up to your party. You show him the door and he canb keep right on being obnoxious in public space.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two Standards
The the bias within social media corporations is at the core of the problem
Then why Koby don't you poor poor persecuted conservatives just take all your bitching to Parler? You can freeze peach over there all you want, I'm told. Tell Trump - nut up and close his Twitter account to show us fucking libs how to vote with your wallet, big guy!
But no - just continue to complain like the whiny bitches you all are. You could fix things by going to Parler, but then you'd have to find something new to whine about.
I'm doing the worlds smallest violin playing "For the whiny conservatives too impotent to own the libs..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two Standards
The bias within Fox (OANN, Daily whatever) news corporation is at the core of the problem.
FTFY
PS learn to proofread (The the bias)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two Standards
You misunderstand, it's not the (claimed) bias that's the problem, it's the fact that they believe it's not in their favor. Bias for their side is great and is not at all a problem that needs addressing, it's only when the bias might be against them that it's a huge problem that needs the government to step in and 'correct' it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two Standards
If there was a social media bias against any one side, 1.) yes it would still be a problem worthy of fixing, and 2.) if it were against Democrats, then they would totally be in favor of a fix. Fortunately, the solution is for government to "step out" of Section 230 protection for open platforms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Two Standards
And what if there is a bias. SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! Can you honestly tell me that Fox news and Breitbart are not biased? Do you have a problem with that?
Also, shitting on somebody else's property and getting kicked off does not mean that the property owner is biased towards any one political view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whether Twitter has a bias is irrelevant. It’s allowed to have a bias. So is Facebook. And so are Gab and Parler. Any argument that Twitter must not show “bias” would also apply to those other sites. But something tells me the people complaining about “bias on social media” will conveniently ignore Gab and Parler while they bitch about Twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No need to fix something that isn't a problem
Hate to break it to you but there's nothing illegal or even wrong about bias, but if you really want to go down that road I look forward to your equally enthusiastic arguments in favor of enforcing 'neutrality' on the likes of Fox, OANN, Gab, Parler, or any others of that lot.
Adding to your problems is that 230 isn't where that 'protection' ultimately comes from, all 230 really does it make it quicker to dismiss junk cases so platforms don't have to worry so much about being bled dry from lawsuits filed by idiots by making it clear that if you want to sue someone for what they said you sue them, not the platform.
No, get rid rid of 230 and you'd still have the first amendment to deal with, as forcing sites to host speech against their wishes would very much be a violation of that, putting you not just back to square one but farther back, as platforms would be even quicker to remove questionable content and if you think you've got it bad now you would really not be happy then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good, then you should have no problem asking for Gab and Parler to fix their biases.
I want you to understand something about your anti-230 crusade, so I’m going to explain in it detail so you will finally fucking get it.
Let’s you and I assume you get your wish: Section 230 goes bye-bye. Whereas you think this will be some panacea against “censorship”, I see it differently — by thinking about the consequences of repealing 230.
Services that accept third-party content in any way will need to make a decision about what they do in the wake of that repeal. The obvious solution — and the one most likely to occur en masse around the Internet — would be to shut down acceptance of third-party content to avoid even the possibility of legal liability for someone else’s speech. This move would kill an untold number of services that rely on third-party speech to function as a service; Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Reddit, and 4chan would all be on the chopping block in that regard.
But if such services choose to keep accepting third-party content, they’re going to make one of three decisions about moderating that content:
They’ll hold back every third-party submission to make sure each submission won’t put the service in legal jeopardy. (This will have the added effect of driving away users who won’t want to wait hours or even days for the sake of posting content.)
They’ll allow third-party submissions to go forth unchecked, but they’ll moderate speech so heavily after it’s published — again, to avoid legal jeopardy — that lots of speech will end up deleted than it would with 230 in place. (Twitter, for example, would probably end up deleting a lot of Trump’s tweets.)
Every one of these decisions — deny, allow after extensive vetting, allow but moderate heavily, allow and don’t moderate at all — are the only decisions that would let interactive web services avoid legal liability for someone else’s speech. They’re also the only decisions that services could make if 230 were repealed. (Yes, that includes big corporate services like Twitter and YouTube. They have legal war chests, but those aren’t bottomless.) Practically every service you can think of that relies on third-party content would either shut down or become so unusable that virtually no one will use it. The Internet will become a read-only medium, since only those people and corporations with the money to publish their speech will remain.
That’s the future you want, Koby: a read-only Internet controlled by corporations who will tell you what you want to read, to say, to watch, to hear, to think. You want an Internet where “censorship” doesn’t exist, but neither does all the speech — including the speech of every commenter on this site, a group which includes you — that we can currently access.
If you want to silence every outlet for your speech that the Internet currently provides, keep pushing for a repeal of 230. But ask yourself if everyone else on the Internet deserves to be silenced and have their speech wiped from servers everywhere because you personally got a bug up your ass about Twitter moderating speech on its own platform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
TL;DR, but I don't think that any amount of explaining will allow them to "get it". Their heads are sooooo far up their arses such that everything they hear is funneled through the shit their heads are wadding in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Their heads are sooooo far up their arses..."
It's a bit worse than that. Most of the alt-right are fully aware they're peddling bullshit.
It's just that they have a vested interest in overturning section 230. For plenty of reasons, some of which include that a few of them want access to the massive advertising revenue to be found in an actually popular site rather than, say, stormfront.
And a lot of it simply because the Very Fine People and the Proud Boys can't stand being excluded from the halls patronized by the majority.
TL;DR?
The neo-nazis, neo-confederates and classic old KKK are butthurt that people can and do show them the online door as soon as they start spouting racist nonsense in any forums with an actual audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Two Standards
Oh please, Koby - why don't you ever want to talk about the freeze peach bastion called Parler?
Is it because you and your conservative whiner friends know this is all about feeling you're entitled to an audience versus any censorship bullshit you trot out like a broken record?
Just another whiny conservative who finds it easier to complain rather than do something about their situation.
Pull yourselves up by your bootstraps why dont cha? Enjoy the freeze peach on Parler and leave Twitter if you hate it so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Two Standards
"Fortunately, the solution is for government to "step out" of Section 230 protection for open platforms."
Do you want an Internet with no user-generated content? Because that's how you get an Internet with no user-generated content!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
For someone who claims to not kiss the footprints of Republicans, Koby, you sure love snapping your vertebrae just to carry their fucking water.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"For someone who claims to not kiss the footprints of Republicans, Koby..."
Pretty sure by now that Koby is kissing the footprints of far shadier people than mere "republicans". Many of his arguments are pure reich rhetoric.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Two Standards
"If there was a social media bias against any one side, 1.) yes it would still be a problem worthy of fixing, and 2.) if it were against Democrats, then they would totally be in favor of a fix."
To which the obvious response is that;
1) No it,s not a problem that private entities get to set the rules for their own property.
2) Parler and Gab is decidedly biased against democrats and I don't see a single democrat calling for a fix because of it.
So we're right back to where you keep claiming that if a platform becomes popular enough then the government has to step in and nationalize it. Last I checked the call for the state to seize the means of production is dictionary-definition communist ideology. I wasn't aware that "alt-right" in actuality meant "stalinist left" but I guess it is what it is.
So tell us, Koby, why you keep advocating soviet russia-style state control to be imposed over twitter? Because your crowd isn't popular enough to make Parler as big?
By your argumental logic a woman shouldn't be allowed to say "No" if enough people wanted her in bed, and a wealthy man should be taxed into oblivion if enough people envied him. Why not, if you already run with the idea that property should not exist if it's popular enough among other people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two Standards
"So tell us, Koby, why you keep advocating soviet russia-style state control to be imposed over twitter?"
Because the people he supports had a shining, brief moment where they had access to the benefits of being in a mainstream community. Then, when people got tired of their behaviour, they were relegated back to the cess pit where they naturally congregated and they realised that the could not possibly attract the same audience (read: income) that they had a taste of before other people told them they were no longer welcome at the family restaurant.
It helps that these people have been trained to believe that terms like "socialism" and "communism" just mean "things I don't like", so they see no hypocrisy in demanding Soviet tactics to get an audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two Standards
"It helps that these people have been trained to believe that terms like "socialism" and "communism" just mean "things I don't like", so they see no hypocrisy in demanding Soviet tactics to get an audience."
I'm at the point where I think we should just open our borders and start accepting every educated american as an exile. We'll only have to put up with them for about ten years or so. After that most of the white power trailer trash will have managed to kill and eat one another and we can let the sane people move back to the US again.
I wish I could see any other, actually practical solution to a country where some 30-40% - over a hundred million people - are at a kindergarten stage of education...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two Standards
To the tone deaf this may look like a double standard. But in reality they are even remotely the same. This Hunter Biden story came out of nowhere. Yes, the Trumpists have been trying to use Hunter to discredit for a long time, but this is the first we have heard of this mysterious laptop whereas we've know Trump's tax returns exist for years (decades even) and many have been trying to obtain them. Next, there is a high probability that the Hunter Biden laptop story is phony, with no way to debunk it conclusively even if completely false, whereas there is an excellent chance that the Trump tax returns are legitimate and if not, Trump can easily debunk them by releasing the correct tax returns.
Looking at both situations and seeing equivalence requires a very large dose of bias on behalf of the viewer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two Standards
There's even the statement that,
"The actual details of the story don't seem to support the claims being made."
thus, its suspect without more confirmation. Trust but verify. So they are doing the verication. and given they were burned before about not fact checking, they are being sure. and its more, "Lets be sure before we get in more trouble."
I mean, if it was a trump story, and they ran it wihtout fact checking and was false, you can be sure trump would try to sue...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a garbage article
If limiting the spreading of misinformation is the goal here then how were all that total BS about Trump denigrating the armed forces allowed? This story had literally no basis and no sources and it was promptly contested by tens of officials eg proper sources that actually were on the spot.
If illegally obtained materials is the issue then how were all those stories about Trump's taxes or the Melania tapes allowed? Don't think such concerns were displayed then.
This is election interference, pure and simple. It's time to abolish Twitter's and Facebook's 230 protections and designate them as publishers they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a garbage article by NYPost
No its not about censorship or election interference. This is about a private company not wanting to host the garbage of another party. Just because Republicans are being stupid and not understanding how the first amendment, section 230, logic, and fact checking work doesn't mean the rest of us have to lose our ability to use the Internet like it is now.
If anything this is about Giuliani interfering by passing on stuff probably created by a foreign government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a garbage article
allegations and no substance, typical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good thing 230 doesn't rely on being 'bias free'
If it did, all right wing sites would need to shut down immediately.
So lets shut down, Britebart, Fox news, and all the other right-wing nut job sites out there, since they are obviously not 'bias free'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good thing 230 doesn't rely on being 'bias free'
Shut down techDIRT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re not doing a very good job of it, fam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good thing 230 doesn't rely on being 'bias free'
Yeah, but let's complain about censorship at the same time in a different.
Self awareness is not one of your strong points. It's a common tale for trump supporters - being obtuse to own the libs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Good thing 230 doesn't rely on being 'bias free'
You might need a multivitamin, because you seem a bit irony deficient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good thing 230 doesn't rely on being 'bias free'
Well, that sure hurt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the hell happened to Techdirt
Does anyone believe that if it was Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr smoking a crack pipe and having emails proving contacts with Russia that Techdirt would support Facebook and Twitter suppressing the story?
This is insane. You have actual emails and pictures from the laptop of a son of a presidential candidate and you don’t think it is relevant?
You know, no one ever fully verified the Pentagon Papers or Deep Throat before publication.
You have let your hatred of Trump cloud your judgment. I never thought Techdirt would ever argue for suppression of free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What the hell happened to Techdirt
At least it would be more believable!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What the hell happened to Techdirt
Hunter Biden was kicked out of the US military for cocaine use... so really, you're so full of bullsqueeze, it oozes from every orifice of your being.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What the hell happened to Techdirt
And you know what, I can respect a person who admits to their addiction and takes the appropriate steps to help overcome said addictions.
OTOH, have you seen the interviews that Orange Jr. has been doing? There is ZERO doubt that he has been all jack up on coke while doing them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would be if we could be sure that the laptop itself was actually Hunter Biden’s. That particular bit of evidence has been called into question by outlets that aren’t the NY Post — outlets that have more rigorous journalistic standards.
Did you think newspapers were really going to run that stuff by the government and risk all kinds of reprisal? They could have verified some of the information through non-Pentagon sources, which would have been enough to properly test the veracity of the Papers. Right now, the veracity of the claims about that laptop is being tested, and it’s not looking so good.
Show me a single line from this article that has argued for the government to somehow punish the NY Post as an institution or its employees as individuals for publishing that article.
Twitter’s decision, dumb as it was, does not constitute “suppression of speech”. You can’t offer any argument to the contrary that isn’t rooted in a misunderstanding (intentional or not) of the First Amendment/Section 230.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow, you should shut up... You're incredibly ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you for proving that you have no counterargument. Your future contributions will be read accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In the article it is stated that blocking thr link is a hamfisted decision and probably should not have happened. Insulting people gets you nowhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is how we get one of those futuristic mega-corp dystopia. Companies having more rights than government to suppress major news stories in a blatant manner.
No one should be arguing for the right of any corporation to suppress a newspaper story in so blatant a manner. Twitter is now blocking the White Hose press secretary and blocking links to house.gov documents.
This is crap out of a bad sci-fi novel. And the worst part is that many who support free speech are for this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How is Twitter suppressing a story that is still available on the site that published it, findable via the search engines, and even linked to from other sites? Obviously you know that other sites than Twitter and Facebook exist as you are commenting here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nobody is arguing for that. And in case you haven’t been reading the rest of the comments, the original article is still available on the site where it was originally published. Twitter banning links to the article on Twitter doesn’t “suppress” the speech of the NY Post. You can’t offer a single counterargument to that point that will hold up under scrutiny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have no problem accessing the content in question, but then I don't use Twitter and even if I had, I actually have a functioning brain that can reason - and reason tells me that I can go elsewhere to get my daily fix of drama. If that is too an onerous of a task, that reflects more on you than Twitter.
And in regards to free speech, if I force you to say what I want - is that free speech?
Perhaps you don't understand that free speech is just that, you are free to say whatever you want but you aren't entitled to a platform.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It is difficult to get a person to understand a thing when their position/argument depends upon their real or feigned lack of understanding of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is how we get one of those futuristic mega-corp dystopias. Companies having more rights than government to suppress major news stories in a blatant manner.
No one should be arguing for the right of any corporation to suppress a newspaper story in so blatant a manner. Twitter is now blocking the White Hose press secretary and blocking links to house.gov documents.
This is crap out of a bad sci-fi novel. And the worst part is that many who support free speech are for this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What the hell happened to Techdirt
Did any of those stories come from people who have been openly trying to manufacture this exact same story for years now? Did they come out conveniently at a time they would have the most benefit for the people who've been trying to manufacture that story? Rudy, Trump and the New York Post have lost the benefit of the doubt in this situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What the hell happened to Techdirt
"Did any of those stories come from people who have been openly trying to manufacture this exact same story for years now?"
It doesn't matter... refute the evidence. Attacking the messenger just makes you look like a left wing shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What the hell happened to Techdirt
They did, and decided it unreliable and didn't want it on their platform anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What the hell happened to Techdirt
If I lied on a topic every time I opened my mouth in front of an audience, I would lose the right to be treated as a reliable source on that topic and deservedly so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See also: Jacob Wohl; Project Veritas; Donald J. Trump
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're not fans of obvious propoganda, that's what
Yeah, you might want to check out the Thomas Rid analysis linked to at the top of the article, as the story is not nearly as clear-cut as you seem to think it is.
Does anyone believe that if it was Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr smoking a crack pipe and having emails proving contacts with Russia that Techdirt would support Facebook and Twitter suppressing the story?
If that story had as many holes as this one yeah, I'd hope that they would treat it the same and either hold it for fact-checking like Facebook did or tell people that if they want to share propaganda they can do it elsewhere like Twitter did, neither of which 'suppressed the story'.
This is insane. You have actual emails and pictures from the laptop of a son of a presidential candidate and you don’t think it is relevant?
No, you really don't, what you have are some PDF's of emails with questionable metadata, and the 'smoking gun' email only available as an image file rather than PDF, all of which were found on laptops that were just randomly dropped off at a computer repair store 'for repairs' by an unknown person who didn't pay for the job or return for the hard-drives, and if that isn't questionable enough the story just so happened to pop up in the last month of the election despite the fact that the alleged repair job was in april of I'm guessing last year as the story mentions them being handed over to the FBI in december, making the timing of this 'revelation' either intentional or one of the greatest coincidences of the year.
You know, no one ever fully verified the Pentagon Papers or Deep Throat before publication.
Taking that claim at face value there's still a large difference between 'not fully verified' and 'running a story without apparently bothering with any verification at all'.
You have let your hatred of Trump cloud your judgment. I never thought Techdirt would ever argue for suppression of free speech.
Ah yes, the good old 'You've just got TDS', that one never gets old.
Agreeing that social media should probably have in place systems to deal with propaganda and lies is not an argument against free speech, nor a 'suppression' of it because(and am I ever getting tired of explaining this) you have no free speech on a privately owned platform, so them saying 'not on our property' is not a suppression of free speech any more than a bar telling a belligerent drunk who's swearing at the staff to get out would be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They're not fans of obvious propoganda, that's what
The OP is obviously deluded. Why would anyone hate the Donald? He's such a nice guy.
He keeps all his promises.
He never lies.
He treats woman respectfully at all time.
He carefully studies all technical issues before making a decision.
He runs his businesses very well.
He doesn't allow any hostile foreign actors to influence his campaigns.
His hair looks so good.
He never dishonors America by betraying allies.
He isn't remotely racist.
He always respects everyone, even his opponents.
He would never throw an employee under the bus, no matter how convenient.
He has upheld all traditional republican values.
He would never show disrespect for military veterans.
He wouldn't dream of screwing honest contractors out of their fees by declaring an unnecessary bankruptcy.
He is totally loyal and faithful to his supporters and his wife.
He is honest to a fault on his tac returns.
He is fearless in the face of 'foreign strong' man leaders.
He always checks the direction that navy task forces are travelling before talking about them.
His knowledge of the revolutionary war is impeccable and has never made imbecilic comments during an unscripted speach.
He is all-round wonderful. Anyone who hates him simply must be a politically motivated bigot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What the hell happened to Techdirt
"This is insane. You have actual emails and pictures from the laptop of a son of a presidential candidate and you don’t think it is relevant? "
It's relevant that the NY Times and other self-defined news agencies carry that story. They're staffed by actual journalists.
Twitter, on the other hand, is neither staffed by journalists nor a government agency. Twitters closest comparison is the gossipy old dingbat who faithfully passes on all the gossip she hears to everyone in the village by speaking loudly about it while standing on street corners.
And that picture gains a full dimension extra of colorful quaintness when we include the chubby redneck - you - shouting from the end of the street about how unfair it is that the old dingbat chose not to pass on his gossip. While pouting and caterwauling in bombastic tones.
"You know, no one ever fully verified the Pentagon Papers or Deep Throat before publication. "
Are you an idiot? They certainly did. Bernstein and Woodward have painstakingly documented the processes they went through trying to verify the information they received before going public. Had they not Watergate would have vanished into a puff of quick and brutal lawsuit.
But hey, don't let me stop you alt-right idiots dreaming up an alternate history - revisionism is, after all, right up your alley.
"You have let your hatred of Trump cloud your judgment."
Every anti-trumper here has said the exact same thing; Let the NY Times, being the newspaper, run with that story.
The truth is that you don't give a shit about the hunter-biden story. You came in leveraging that for an axe to swing at the digital gossipmonger of Twitter out of sheer vindictiveness because they refuse to let you guys call black people the N-word and debate the Global Jewish Conspiracy.
"I never thought Techdirt would ever argue for suppression of free speech."
Oh, spare me. You're around here whining about how Techdirt supports the abolition of free speech every day because most of the people here argue that private platforms should be allowed to throw racists and bigots out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What the hell happened to Techdirt
"They certainly did. Bernstein and Woodward have painstakingly documented the processes they went through trying to verify the information they received before going public."
It's also worth mentioning that while the identity of Deep Throat was a closely guarded secret at the time, we now know who he is and his story has been verified.
Whereas the NY Post story is clear hearsay that has already been debunked with verifiable evidence.
"You're around here whining about how Techdirt supports the abolition of free speech every day"
...and the fact that he's still allowed to do so despite the majority of other people here telling him to GTFO and STFU is testament enough to the site's actual commitment to free speech, even though they are not legally required to put up with him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What the hell happened to Techdirt
"...and the fact that he's still allowed to do so despite the majority of other people here telling him to GTFO and STFU is testament enough to the site's actual commitment to free speech, even though they are not legally required to put up with him."
Oh, but you must have read his frequent complaints about how he is being censored here as well. Why, every last one of his posts is marked by a "This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it".
Apparently along with adding a warning sign that a tweet has been fact-checked this is how corporations come to take his freeze peach away from him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What the hell happened to Techdirt
NY Post, not NY Times
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One could be forgiven for thinking that the people who actually write laws would know that none of them are actually being broken. Hauling Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey into a Senate Hearing because you're butt-hurt should be considered professional malpractice, and in a perfect world, would hammer the last few nails into the coffin of your legislative career.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except that jJack Dorsey is now admitting Twitter overreacted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And is there a law against overreacting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
'We could have handled this better' does not a justification to be grilled by whiny senators make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Dorsey is very carefully not saying Twitter overreacted. He's admitting fault, not for the blatant censorship they engaged in of material that embarrasses a major political candidate, but only for not doing a good job of explaining their rationale for that censorship.
Remember, "news is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress. Everything else is just advertising."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When did Twitter try to have that NY Post article deleted from the entire Internet and prohibit any future reposting of it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Except that jJack Dorsey is now admitting Twitter overreacted."
No "except" about that. Twitter isn't a government agency, nor a news agency. They are a private platform whose mission statement most closely compares to being the gossipmonger who faithfully passes on most of what they hear to everyone willing to hear it.
Twitter isn't really beholden to anyone to do anything. If Jack Dorsey says Twitter overreacted then that's nice for him, I guess. What does that have to do with the price of eggs?
They are fully free to carry Trumps incessant tweeting. Or not. To fact-check him, Biden, and all of the Kardashians. Or not. They can append a heartfelt call for longpork to be recognized as a legitimate comestible by the FDA in every message. Or not.
Social media isn't a public space, nor a government platform, nor an acknowledged news media. They are a gossipmonger network. Nothing more. Nothing less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"If Jack Dorsey says Twitter overreacted then that's nice for him, I guess. What does that have to do with the price of eggs?"
Of course, that would be an example of Jack exercising his freedom of speech, which he is allowed to do even if it differs from the stance of his private corporation's policy of managing its own property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Of course, that would be an example of Jack exercising his freedom of speech..."
Ah, so not only did he "steal" the freeze peach from the poor benighted alt-right, he also flaunts it in public...wait, did I just invent Baghdad Bob's next argument for him...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Both Facebook and Twitter are private businesses and therefore are not held to the requirements listed in the US Bill of Rights which is limited to what the government is not supposed to do .. even tho they do it anyways.
People can, and do, argue about the definitions of words till the friggin cows come home and yet accomplish nothing other than wasting a lot of time. I think some people just like to argue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how dare you call me out like this
how dare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From a tweet sent out about five hours ago as of this posting:
But sure, tell me about that “anti-conservative bias” on social media again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'I'm being silenced!' screamed the man with a megaphone
As I and I'm sure a number of other people have noted in the past if social media really does have it out for 'conservatives' and are trying to silence them they're doing a terrible job of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"But sure, tell me about that “anti-conservative bias” on social media again."
This just in; "Big Drama in Podunk Town, pennsylvania! Local gossipy dingbat failed to pass on a rumor about the liberal mayor's son's shady moonshine! Pennsylvanian KKK chapter in tears of outrage! Pouty Grand Goblin whimpers that 'It's Not Fair!'; Implies liberal conspiracy to silence dissent."
Seriously, the "alt-right" are surely the absolute KINGS of Special Snowflakes, when they can have themselves a full meltdown over one rumor in a hundred NOT being passed on by the digital gossip monger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Analysis
I read the rid analysis, and it wasn't convincing that the story is false, nor did it cause me to question the story any more than when I first read it. But I had some doubts about the original story. But it seemed more credible than the recent Atlantic story citing anonymous sources about something Trump said. That story was not censored, and that is the hypocrisy that people are claiming about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many examples have to "play into" it before it stops being a "bullshit narrative" and is simply recognized as true?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'One' would be a good start
How many examples have to "play into" it before it stops being a "bullshit narrative" and is simply recognized as true?
Any would be a good start, but funny thing is, when 'examples' are put forth they tend to be either obvious mistakes(inevitable given the number of moderation actions that take place per day) or people getting kicked off for very good reasons like being an asshole or a bigot(but I repeat myself), which is only 'anti-conservative bias' if you want to argue that bigotry is a conservative value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better question: What makes you think the government should restrict Twitter’s right to moderate speech on the basis of “political bias”? Because if you’re going to argue that such bias should result in such restrictions, you’ll also need to explain why the government shouldn’t put those restrictions on services with a far more open bias (e.g., Gab and Parler).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"How many examples have to "play into" it before it stops being a "bullshit narrative" and is simply recognized as true?"
Easy. More than there are examples of an anti-liberal bias. It's pretty easy to determine. Have a thousand liberals and conservatives both present a topic which violates the Twitter ToS. Count the number of blocked accounts on either side. Bias confirmed or disproven.
I have the distinct feeling that if you stop defining uses of the N-word or terms such as "The jewish conspiracy" as inherently "conservative" then much of the perceived bias goes away.
Even more will vanish once you stop defining bigotry in general as inherently "conservative".
Now if you guys just stopped clinging to bigotry and racism as if they were the demanded pacifiers of the entitled man-children the alt-right tends to consist of, we'd all have fewer problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't speak but only for myself. I am deeply uncomfortable that speech is being suppressed. What Facebook & Twitter have done I see as an attack on the free press and free flow of information.
These social media companies have deemed it their position as a defacto Ministry of Truth and I find that unacceptable.
This action has absolutely terrified me about the future of the free flow of information. I don't want a company, any company, deeming what information is factual and isn't. What is acceptable and what isn't.
I'm an adult and I can form my own opinions. This action was categorically wrong. And there needs to be consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure hope you're consistent and don't have a spam filter on your email so that you don't have a company determining what you do and do not get to see...
I am deeply uncomfortable that speech is being suppressed.
Would you feel equally uncomfortable were a bar to tell a particular patron that they can take their racist ranting out of the building as they didn't care to have that garbage in their store, and then when several other people decided to 'protest' the ban by taking up the racist loser mantel they were also told to leave, with the owners making clear that anyone following suit would quickly find themselves facing a boot as well? Because that would be the same amount of 'speech suppression' as is found here.
What Facebook & Twitter have done I see as an attack on the free press and free flow of information.
Nope, the press is working just fine as evidenced by the fact that the original article is still easily available at the source and information likewise flows just as well given all the people talking about it.
Neither the press nor the public are owed platforms to speak from, and refusing to grant that platform or revoking access to it is not in any way an attack on a 'free press' or 'free flow of information'.
I don't want a company, any company, deeming what information is factual and isn't. What is acceptable and what isn't.
If you use basically any site or go to any store I guarantee that you already deal with companies who do that on a regular basis and you are better off for it, as those decisions are called 'rules', and they're the kind of thing that keeps trolls from posting reprehensible pictures on your social media platform of choice, and/or keeps people from wandering through your favorite store drunk off their ass and swearing at anyone who 'looks at them funny'.
I'm an adult and I can form my own opinions.
Good for you, nothing they did prevents you from doing that.
This action was categorically wrong.
Twitter could have handled it better but there's nothing 'wrong' about them deciding what they will and will not allow on their platform.
And there needs to be consequences.
I'd be careful opening that can of worms, as once you open the door to punishing a platform for exercising their free speech and property rights simply because you don't like what they did it's not will that backfire but when, and at that point, when it's applied to you or a person/platform you agree with it will be too late, the precedent already set.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On one platform, by the platform’s owner, in a way that doesn’t stop people from going to other platforms and expressing the same speech. That isn’t “suppression”, it’s “moderation”.
The NY Post article is still on the NY Post website.
Don’t blame them for your overreliance on them as a source for news and information. They didn’t make you use their services, and they’re not forcing you to stay on them.
Who should get to decide that, then — the government?
Now try forming an opinion informed by facts instead of emotional bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The speech was in no way whatsoever being suppressed. The article was still available to be read on the ny post site itself. The only thing Twitter and Facebook did was not amplify it to their audiences. Since the entirety of the internet is not just Facebook and Twitter alone, there was more than ample opportunity for the information to flow.
Then refrain from using them, problem solved!
When was the last time you watched Fox news?
Ok, how about you tell us your opinions on the 1st amendment and how that should determine the consequences?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This action has absolutely terrified me about the future of the free flow of information. I don't want a company, any company, deeming what information is factual and isn't. What is acceptable and what isn't.
So... you're against spam filters? Or are you just a hypocrite?
I'm an adult and I can form my own opinions.
Again, so you don't have a spam filter, right? You should read each and every email and form your own opinion, right?
And there needs to be consequences.
What kinds of "consequences" should there be for a private company saying it doesn't want to host something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I refer you to my previous comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I can't speak but only for myself. I am deeply uncomfortable that speech is being suppressed. What Facebook & Twitter have done I see as an attack on the free press and free flow of information."
Facebook and twitter are the digital analogue of the gossipy old dingbat passing on all the rumors she hears. If the Gossipmongers are what you call a "free press" from which you gain "information" then the joke's on you.
"These social media companies have deemed it their position as a defacto Ministry of Truth and I find that unacceptable."
Except that they are private companies, not a government agency able to come to your house and send you to do hard time for daring to question Dear Leader.
Let me guess, when the local rumor mill fails to carry a single line about the latest cross-burning you go all pouty-eyed and similarly stand outside and scream about the injustice of it all?
"This action has absolutely terrified me about the future of the free flow of information. I don't want a company, any company, deeming what information is factual and isn't. What is acceptable and what isn't."
Wow. You're...demanding and implying that private entities should be held to a government-sanctioned standard of truth. Tell me again about that ministry of Truth - which you appear to be very much in favor of by your own arguments.
"I'm an adult and I can form my own opinions. This action was categorically wrong. And there needs to be consequences."
Ah, so when a private entity fails to tell you absolutely everything they've heard there must be PUNISHMENT?
Those arguments shooting each other in the crotch which you keep pushing? Those are tells, Baghdad Bob, and they're pretty damn easy to recognize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Etch a Sketch
It's not their place or role to delete anything. Nationalize these "services."
And in the meantime, since when did valid emails become "sketchy?"
In what TDS universe do you inhabit? Simply astounding ignorance. Astonishing. How could anyone be so thick?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Etch a Sketch
Do you ever get tired of talking to the moron you see in your mirror?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Etch a Sketch
It's not their place or role to delete anything. Nationalize these "services."
So odd to see Republican/conservatives embracing the Marxist cries of seizing the means of production. It's almost like you have no principled stance on anything at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow. I never thought I’d see the day when people were advocating for communism to take hold in America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Much like their stance on free speech really
Oh only parts of it, namely the parts that they don't like/control, they're all for 'small government' and the 'free market' when it comes to companies that they like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Etch a Sketch
"It's not their place or role to delete anything. Nationalize these "services." "
Ah, it can't be "communism" if the US is the one which steals the page right out of Stalin's book?
Funny. I thought you guys were supposed to be the "Alt-right", not the "extreme left".
The only ideology I'm aware which borrows from both extreme ends of the spectrum is national socialism.
"And in the meantime, since when did valid emails become "sketchy?""
When you don't know who sent them, who received them, or whether those were actually emails with a proper chain of validation? There's a reason Woodward and Bernstein didn't storm out of the house hollering "Extra! Extra!" every time they had a meeting with Deep Throat.
Revelations of wrongdoing belongs to either credible news media or law enforcement investigation - in both case with proper sourcing and a good evidence chain.
Not with the damn digital gossip monger!
Unbelievable. You've delivered an argument for enslaving the local gossipy dingbat to government service for failing to carry a desired rumor. Tell me again how the fuck you guys are "right-wing" or even "conservative"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Nork Post: "Hey, Twitter and Facebook, will you tell everyone you can about the latest scam we're trying to pull for us, okay?"
Twitter: "No, do it yourself."
Shit-for-brains sheep: "OMG censorship!!!1!Q!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greenwald actually get's it
https://theintercept.com/2020/10/15/facebook-and-twitter-cross-a-line-far-more-dangerous-than-what-t hey-censor/
This is by far the best take on the subject. But then again, Greenwald is leagues above Mike when it comes to "journalism".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Greenwald actually get's it
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't the NYT story on Trump taxes containing hacked document?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No. The documents were not officially released by the IRS or Trump himself, but it does not necessarily follow that they were obtained by hacking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitter and Facebook support populist right and were instrumental in electing Trump last time. They have to talk about Trump, but need to find a careful way to push voters without looking political themselves. The standard scheme being used is the following, already repeated many times:
1) Facebook "censors" a non-news story, or tinfoil hat group of idiots which everyone already knows about and is not central to the election, so the censorship itself does not shift votes. Key is to pretend that Facebook really cares about disinformation, which is false.
2) as the public outrage grows, Facebook can comment on the story, which is what they wanted to do in the first place, and the story gets more PR than what would have gotten without censorship. Facebook itself looks like they are not supporting the right, while at the same time giving them national inflamed audience.
3) the right voters base feels like a victim, and this is a very powerful emotion to rally everyone together. Crucial for voters participation in swing states.
Rinse and repeat, play the role of defender of public speech against disinformation, and actually inflame the right voters base. Again and again, till Trump wins again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitter's Jack Dorsey: "Straight Blocking Of URLs" Was Wrong
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/twitters-jack-dorsey-straight-blocking-urls-was-wrong
So, smug little punks of Techdirt: Dorsey has been forced to CRAWL trying to escape punishment, gives a "limited hangout" admission that The Public is to be served, NOT censored by corporate policy, let alone whim.
Soon as actual censoring can be seen clearly, corporations will always drop their stance and CRAWL, or else The Public will have its gov't servants CRUSH the mere legal fictions. Period.
That's why corporations censor out of sight, shadow-banning, self-serving definitions, "hacked" specifically in this, usually "hate speech", or at TD, Masnick simply pretends he/Techdirt admins are not involved, it's "the community" which censors my comments.
(BTW: the news is all over, so don't bother writing "oh, ZeroHedge, credible as The Onion".)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Twitter's Jack Dorsey: "Straight Blocking Of URLs" Was Wrong
As usual, you missed the context leading up to the blocking of the URL and subsequently Jack Dorsey's tweet. But I'm not surprised, simpletons need simple answers so they take things out of context.
And what punishment could Jack possible face: None except the ridicule from the public because of the flip-flopping.
Btw, flagging and hiding your comments isn't censorship - it's more akin to flushing shit down the toilet, out of sight out of mind - but damn, it feels good afterwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other than a virtual public flogging, what “punishment” could he possibly suffer from Twitter’s dumb decision? The government can’t punish him for it, after all.
And yet, if Twitter were to shut down tomorrow, “the public” would have no actual recourse because Twitter is neither government property nor a public utility.
There is no “actual censor[ship]” going on here. Twitter didn’t suppress the speech of the NY Post or any Twitter user trying to discuss the article — because the article was on the NY Post website (which Twitter has no power to control) and Twitter users could either share the link outside of Twitter (where Twitter has no power) or discuss the content of the article via Twitter (which happened plenty). I’m sorry that you mistake moderation for censorship and want a government takeover of social networking sites so you can force people to associate with you and listen to your speech, but that’s a “you” problem.
Old saying: If everyone around you is an asshole, it’s probably you that’s the real asshole. So maybe consider that your comments getting hidden isn’t because every other commenter besides you is an asshole.
If “the news is all over”, as you say, why not link to a site with some credibility and name recognition instead of a site only right-wing jerkoffs like you seem to know exist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Twitter didn’t suppress the speech of the NY Post or any Twitter user trying to discuss the article"
The latter is a really important point. Only the link was verbatim, not the story. Twitter users could still talk about it, they just couldn't give the article free traffic while doing so.
So, yet again, these people are trying to pretend they are having their rights removed, but what they're complaining about is that they're losing free advertising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nobody believes you, ignorant motherfucker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Twitter's Jack Dorsey: "Straight Blocking Of URLs" Was Wrong
"don't bother writing "oh, ZeroHedge, credible as The Onion""
Why shouldn't we post factual information?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]