It doesn't matter if it's justified or not. Getting political, instead of being a neutral platform, is still falling for the trap that will lead to the SplinterNet. To me, it depends on what you want. If you desire a global and open internet, then it's a dumb idea. If you want a fractured system of localized government-approved communication monopolies, then keep cheering on twitter's actions.
Actually, I don't support it. And you're missing the point. We probably agree on the politics of Nigeria, even though I don't follow Nigeria at all, or know the issues. However, if you don't want a SplinterNet, then this was a dumb move by twitter. If you want an open internet, then the platform has to stay apolitical. Instead, my prediction remains on-track.
it instead says the ban is because of ""the persistent use of the platform for activities... capable of undermining Nigeria's corporate existence." I honestly don't understand what the hell that means.
It means that the platform took sides, and became a publisher.
I'm no censor. Quite the opposite, I've been accused of advocating for compelled service. My problem, according to others, is that I'm willing to allow too many people to speak, and I'm unwilling to block content, lest it ruin someone's online viewing experience if they were to see a differing viewpoint.
Come on, you can't be serious. You don't see a difference between a property owner enforcing rules on what can be done on their property by making people leave, and a military dictatorship enforcing its rules on a captive populace under threat of lethal force?
Most social media companies are petrified of legislation that would allow individuals to sue for selective enforcement if their own rules. Let's face it: big tech invents its rules on the fly, not out of fairness, but rather as a political weapon. In that sense, U.S. tech companies and foreign military dictatorships have a lot in common.
Myanmar's military has been manipulating election outcomes for decades, at least since the 1960s, and long before Trump was on the scene. If anything, big tech has legitimized Mynamar's censorship policies. They're just copying the system of outlawing any dissent.
This is important to remember, especially as many people pushing to regulate the internet think only in the context of the US
While certainly a convenient excuse, make no mistake that non-free countries would have attempted this anyhow. China, for example, began building its Great Firewall long before any such western suggestions at regulation were introduced. Rather, it is suprising that western nations would begin following in the footsteps of non-free nations towards blocking content with which they disagree.
At least not currently. That is why a growing number of people want to repeal and reform the law. More and more people want that distinction. More and more people want equal treatment. I understand that a lot of court cases have gone in favor of the big corporations so far. But now you're freaking out whenever someone proposes a change. Making changes to the law is the next step in the fight for equality.
and I can't imagine Olsen would argue that the government should regulate that Fox News
That's because Fox News is a publisher, and not a platform.
he'll have to explain how the government can apply them to non-public spectrum, non-licensed networks
When tech monopolies create the internet version of a public square, then the First Amendment applies. Corporations must live up to their contracts, and must provide equal service to their customers without bias. Individuals can challenge a contract dispute in court, where they can conduct discovery, and present evidence of bias, fraud, or inequity.
Lots of people are (understandably) asking why Twitter is so bad at this, and it's a fair enough question. But the simple fact is that the companies are all put in an impossible spot.
It may be impossible to moderate at scale, but there will not be any improvement or accountability until the system stops being so opaque. Publish the algorithm, and explain why this one got censored.
No, they're not another story altogether. Fact checking is expressive and it is a function of the press as well. You cannot regulate it.
None of this would have been a problem if the legacy media hadn't torched its own credibility in recent years by inserting its political opinion as unbiased reporting. Meanwhile, other right-wing news outlets, although equally biased, have been gaining credibility with audiences. The legacy media has hired fact-checking operations as a fig leaf to outsource its credibility.
The term "expressive" simply means that you are putting thoughts into words. But "fact checking" goes beyond this. It is a declaration of who is objectively correct, and who is objectively incorrect. Unfortunately, for the fact checkers, facts never change. Yet during this week's news cycle, we have learned that the fact checkers are backing off of their previous decisions, which is something that can't actually happen. In other words, the fact checkers were fraudulently holding out their opinion as immutable fact.
If you want to express your opinion, I see no problem with that. If you use your opinion to falsely censor others, then the so-called fact checkers should pay a price for the shoddy work.
Departments like the CIA and FBI probably have a low likeability rating right now. Tracing the money back them would be too easy, and could generate a popular opinion to cut those agencies. Going through the USPS may make the funding trace a little less obvious, and then folks would need to call for budget reductions to the post office.
Bitcoin seems to be pure speculation, as it has no fundamental value beyond whatever people will exchange for it.
The fundamental value of crypto is the underlying mining network. It is a distributed system for processing payments in a trustless environment. Some people may not like such a system, and that's fine. I'm just saying that there's value, at least for its participants. Credit cards and banks essentially charge money for what they do, because they provide value. Bitcoin provides similar value for transferring money.
On the flip side, not being law enforcement has some other consequences. Such as no body camera requirement. Nor must they call in for medical help, if they don't want to. Private security will likely demonstrate a great deal of selective enforcement, when they know exactly who is cutting their paycheck.
I mean, I just can't even bother to respond to this nonsense.
Normally, if a government were to use secret algorithms against its citizens to dole out punishment, and silence free speech, you would come out against it. But because a corporation is doing it, and you approve of its politics, you shall remain silent.
What if you don't use Google search anymore? I haven't tracked the search engine numbers over the years, but it appears that some newcomers are starting to emerge, such as DuckDuckGo. If Google loses its dominance in this area, litigators that attempt to block content by going straight to Google could find that they only prevent a portion of the search results. They might then begin to realize that they're better served by cutting off the content on the site where it's posted, which would seem to be the most appropriate location.
Here, though, we have a third party -- Apple -- stepping in and doing that deciding for the users. It is Apple's platform, so of course, they do get to make that decision, but it's a trend worth watching.
Normally, Techdirt would heavily criticize a hardware manufacturer for dictating what can and cannot be done by users on its equipment. From game modding, to right of repair, to software anti-piracy measures, to encryption, the ability for users to operate their own devices as they see fit is usually sacrosanct.
I'm sure you are stupid enough to believe that the outlets listed are somehow neutral,
I realize that they're not neutral. But they are the symptom of the lack of NPOV. If the legacy media continues its bias, the easiest way to eat up a dwindling market share will be counter bias. NPOV for legacy outlets is very difficult for them to do now. But it IS the solution, and the alternative for them is to continue down this dystopian path. Quite a dilemma.
It sounds like the real complaint is that the traditional news media is losing credibility and viewers, while new conservative networks are growing. The solution now, as it always has been, is Neutral Point Of View.
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
Re:
It doesn't matter if it's justified or not. Getting political, instead of being a neutral platform, is still falling for the trap that will lead to the SplinterNet. To me, it depends on what you want. If you desire a global and open internet, then it's a dumb idea. If you want a fractured system of localized government-approved communication monopolies, then keep cheering on twitter's actions.
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
Re: Re:
Actually, I don't support it. And you're missing the point. We probably agree on the politics of Nigeria, even though I don't follow Nigeria at all, or know the issues. However, if you don't want a SplinterNet, then this was a dumb move by twitter. If you want an open internet, then the platform has to stay apolitical. Instead, my prediction remains on-track.
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
It means that the platform took sides, and became a publisher.
On the post: As Western Democracies Ramp Up Efforts To Censor Social Media, Russia Appears To Feel Emboldened To Do More Itself
Re: Re: Other Way Around
I'm no censor. Quite the opposite, I've been accused of advocating for compelled service. My problem, according to others, is that I'm willing to allow too many people to speak, and I'm unwilling to block content, lest it ruin someone's online viewing experience if they were to see a differing viewpoint.
On the post: As Western Democracies Ramp Up Efforts To Censor Social Media, Russia Appears To Feel Emboldened To Do More Itself
Re: Re: Re: Re: Other Way Around
Most social media companies are petrified of legislation that would allow individuals to sue for selective enforcement if their own rules. Let's face it: big tech invents its rules on the fly, not out of fairness, but rather as a political weapon. In that sense, U.S. tech companies and foreign military dictatorships have a lot in common.
On the post: As Western Democracies Ramp Up Efforts To Censor Social Media, Russia Appears To Feel Emboldened To Do More Itself
Re: Re: Other Way Around
Myanmar's military has been manipulating election outcomes for decades, at least since the 1960s, and long before Trump was on the scene. If anything, big tech has legitimized Mynamar's censorship policies. They're just copying the system of outlawing any dissent.
On the post: As Western Democracies Ramp Up Efforts To Censor Social Media, Russia Appears To Feel Emboldened To Do More Itself
Other Way Around
While certainly a convenient excuse, make no mistake that non-free countries would have attempted this anyhow. China, for example, began building its Great Firewall long before any such western suggestions at regulation were introduced. Rather, it is suprising that western nations would begin following in the footsteps of non-free nations towards blocking content with which they disagree.
On the post: Washington Post Runs Bizarrely Ignorant Opinion Piece Claiming Florida's Content Moderation Law Is Constitutional
Re: Re: We Know Why
At least not currently. That is why a growing number of people want to repeal and reform the law. More and more people want that distinction. More and more people want equal treatment. I understand that a lot of court cases have gone in favor of the big corporations so far. But now you're freaking out whenever someone proposes a change. Making changes to the law is the next step in the fight for equality.
On the post: Washington Post Runs Bizarrely Ignorant Opinion Piece Claiming Florida's Content Moderation Law Is Constitutional
We Know Why
That's because Fox News is a publisher, and not a platform.
When tech monopolies create the internet version of a public square, then the First Amendment applies. Corporations must live up to their contracts, and must provide equal service to their customers without bias. Individuals can challenge a contract dispute in court, where they can conduct discovery, and present evidence of bias, fraud, or inequity.
On the post: It's Not Personal: Content Moderation Always Involves Mistakes, Including Suspending Experts Sharing Knowledge
They Hope You Will Forget
It may be impossible to moderate at scale, but there will not be any improvement or accountability until the system stops being so opaque. Publish the algorithm, and explain why this one got censored.
On the post: Fact Check: Yes, Fact Checking Is Totally Protected By The 1st Amendment
None of this would have been a problem if the legacy media hadn't torched its own credibility in recent years by inserting its political opinion as unbiased reporting. Meanwhile, other right-wing news outlets, although equally biased, have been gaining credibility with audiences. The legacy media has hired fact-checking operations as a fig leaf to outsource its credibility.
The term "expressive" simply means that you are putting thoughts into words. But "fact checking" goes beyond this. It is a declaration of who is objectively correct, and who is objectively incorrect. Unfortunately, for the fact checkers, facts never change. Yet during this week's news cycle, we have learned that the fact checkers are backing off of their previous decisions, which is something that can't actually happen. In other words, the fact checkers were fraudulently holding out their opinion as immutable fact.
If you want to express your opinion, I see no problem with that. If you use your opinion to falsely censor others, then the so-called fact checkers should pay a price for the shoddy work.
On the post: Private Security Company Thinks It Should Be Able To Take People To Jail Just Like Real Cops
Ferguson Effect
The people hiring these companies feel otherwise.
On the post: US Postal Service's Social Media Surveillance Program Uses Clearview's Facial Recognition Tech
Please Don't Try To Follow The Money
Departments like the CIA and FBI probably have a low likeability rating right now. Tracing the money back them would be too easy, and could generate a popular opinion to cut those agencies. Going through the USPS may make the funding trace a little less obvious, and then folks would need to call for budget reductions to the post office.
On the post: Babies & Bathwater: WSJ OpEd Suggests Banning Cryptocurrency Entirely To Stop Ransomware
Re: More socially useful cryptocurrencies?
The fundamental value of crypto is the underlying mining network. It is a distributed system for processing payments in a trustless environment. Some people may not like such a system, and that's fine. I'm just saying that there's value, at least for its participants. Credit cards and banks essentially charge money for what they do, because they provide value. Bitcoin provides similar value for transferring money.
On the post: Crime-Reporting App Citizen Apparently Attempting To Get Into The Law Enforcement Business
Re: No qualified immunity
On the flip side, not being law enforcement has some other consequences. Such as no body camera requirement. Nor must they call in for medical help, if they don't want to. Private security will likely demonstrate a great deal of selective enforcement, when they know exactly who is cutting their paycheck.
On the post: Florida Man Signs Blatantly Corrupt And Unconstitutional Social Media Bill, Cementing Florida As Tech Laughing Stock
You Wish Government Could Do It Too
Normally, if a government were to use secret algorithms against its citizens to dole out punishment, and silence free speech, you would come out against it. But because a corporation is doing it, and you approve of its politics, you shall remain silent.
On the post: If There's A Defamatory Review On Yelp, Is It Google's Job To Hide It?
Side Step
What if you don't use Google search anymore? I haven't tracked the search engine numbers over the years, but it appears that some newcomers are starting to emerge, such as DuckDuckGo. If Google loses its dominance in this area, litigators that attempt to block content by going straight to Google could find that they only prevent a portion of the search results. They might then begin to realize that they're better served by cutting off the content on the site where it's posted, which would seem to be the most appropriate location.
On the post: Parler Was Allowed Back In The Apple App Store Because It Will Block 'Hate Speech,' But Only When Viewed Through Apple Devices
Blind Spot
Normally, Techdirt would heavily criticize a hardware manufacturer for dictating what can and cannot be done by users on its equipment. From game modding, to right of repair, to software anti-piracy measures, to encryption, the ability for users to operate their own devices as they see fit is usually sacrosanct.
But not here, because of leftist politics.
On the post: As The US Press Withers, Glorified Marketing Aims To Take Its Place
Re: Re: But You Won't Like It
I realize that they're not neutral. But they are the symptom of the lack of NPOV. If the legacy media continues its bias, the easiest way to eat up a dwindling market share will be counter bias. NPOV for legacy outlets is very difficult for them to do now. But it IS the solution, and the alternative for them is to continue down this dystopian path. Quite a dilemma.
On the post: As The US Press Withers, Glorified Marketing Aims To Take Its Place
But You Won't Like It
It sounds like the real complaint is that the traditional news media is losing credibility and viewers, while new conservative networks are growing. The solution now, as it always has been, is Neutral Point Of View.
Next >>