Anyway, I find it funny how "conservatives" complain about how they are silenced and the moment a way to bad faith silence people comes along their first thought is to use it en masse.
Conservatives are convinced that bad faith censorship will be used against them, in the future as it is today. After this test, we expect reversals and account restorations to work in our favor in the future, or else it is more proof of bias.
No, this was not a test for bias, it was pure and unadultered assholery
They simply played by the rules, and didn't want their images used, and filed the proper notice. Now the pictures are probably going to go back up. Twitter effectively can't abide by it's own rules that it created.
If I someone says they don't like you and what you are saying and that you aren't welcome on their property,
I think it speaks volumes about you that you believe social media is property of leftist speech. This is why most Americans are convinced of anti-conservative bias with the big tech corporations.
And even as Fox News talking heads insisted the policy would only be used against conservatives, in actuality, a bunch of alt right/white nationalists/white supremacists immediately saw this...
Looks Fox News was wrong, and instead of being reactionary, these groups performed the first strike. But the point still stands: Twitter may undo the effects of this operation, and then only allow left wing groups to use the rule in the future. If so, it answers your question from before:
"The company claimed that this was to prevent harassment and also (for reasons I still don't understand)"
The reason would be to manipulate the outcome of events in a biased fashion. This was the first step by the conservative side to test for that bias. Harassment isn't an objective policy; anything that you don't like is harassment.
Good job. You should have been the one to write the article, not Mr. Bode. Rather than character assassination, you're addressing issues. Also, it was written in 2018, around the time of the Tribute Merger. Keep going:
"For all my concerns about #Facebook, I believe that Fox News has had the most negative impact on our democracy. It's state-sponsored propaganda, with few if any opposing viewpoints. Where's the hearing about that?" -Gigi Sohn, via Twitter, Oct 2020.
But that's going to lead to some very, very big judgment calls about (a) who is a "public figure" and (b) what is "in the public interest." And early examples suggest that Twitter's Trust & Safety team are failing this test.
They're not failing. They're manipulating. The goal is to shape public discourse whenever they see fit. A couple of mistakes here, there, and everywhere are a small price to pay to be able to arbitrarily takedown content later when they deem it important.
and you are an interactive computer service for hosting content other people create.
But now when you engage in moderation, it's editorialization.
You can't. Because that's what the 1st Amendment forbids. Editorials are protected speech
The first amendment does NOT protect against defamation or contractual obligations amongst private citizens. Now that moderation is officially recognized as editorialization on behalf of the corporation, we can start to get somewhere.
Section 230 has fuck all to do with it. It's the 1st Amendment you hate (and don't understand).
Section 230 is the fig leaf behind which corporations claim that they are not editorializing. It's free speech that you hate, and you understand that you will use corporations to accomplish the censorship for which government dreams it could perform directly.
That's fine if a social media company wants to editorialize. You can always choose to be a publisher instead of a platform. The next step now is to hold corporations accountable for their editorials. And the company is responsible for their editorials, not the users. Section 230 reform will be the key.
Once again, we must ask: what is the fucking endgame? Do American companies actually believe that adhering their tongues to the underside of the Chinese government's boot will somehow exclude them from future censorship demands?
American media companies have failed to grow the domestic market in recent years. And without that growth, the industry becomes a mature segment whereby high salaries for upper management is unjustified for a business that is expected to merely maintain its income streams. By attempting to expand overseas into China, media companies hope to reignite that growth. They are basing their financial assumptions and spending decisions on that hope of growth. The corporate bigwigs are willing to sacrifice at the Chinese censorship altar for the sake of their own paychecks.
You have spent years on this site spewing blatant false information. Your misunderstanding of how media works is not surprising, but really, you should shut the fuck up.
I have more than enough savvy to understand how media has failed. I think you would do well to also explore how it has gone from being trusted, so being ridiculed by large swaths of the population. Childish name calling won't make the problem go away and regain the media's reputation.
No, it's not accurate reporting. For example, the first article that they did, regarding the Flynn-Kislyak ambassador meeting, was a lie. It turns out that the FBI had a transcript of the meeting all along. The transcript was later released, and nothing illegal was found at all in the conversation. The amazon post was being fed disinformation from the fbi, and they bought it hook, line, and sinker.
In going down the pulitzer list, I can already tell that there's some sleazy reporting in every one of their other stories as well. I trust that everyone here is intelligent enough to perform internet searches on non-censored engines to be able to find that documented criticism, if you so choose. Mike is sounding very jealous of certain news organizations that have managed to remain trusted by large numbers of Americans. Don't throw your reputation away with these stinker stories.
And that's the committee's own protected speech. The letter claims that the committee awarded the prize "erroneously" to the Times and the Post, but that's not his call, nor is it a legal issue. If the Pulitzers want to give an award to terrible reporting, that's its fundamentally protected 1st Amendment right.
But this a rather egregious moral mistake. Decisions like this is why trust in the press, and america's institutions are declining. Pulitzer has a pretty clear decision to make: take away the the award, or say goodbye to their credibility.
The information that the times is seeking to publish was leaked illegally by the FBI. Project Veritas is currently engaged in a defamation lawsuit with the times. This is a really slimy way to perform an end-around of the discovery process. The times may be a party to the FBI's crooked behavior, so hopefully they won't get rewarded for it.
Trademark lawsuits no doubt cost a decent amount of money to defend, but hopefully this case will set precedence that will make it easier for other businesses down the road. I appreciate you helping them out in their case.
Yes, that's how algorithms work. If I'm looking for a decent sushi restaurant near me, I don't want to see what's near you since we most likely live a long way from each other.
I'm not sure that everyone realizes that, or the degree to which it's happening. I suspect that there is now a desire to know, and control it. If I search for restaurants in San Francisco, and it auto populates "showing restaurants near 2300 Irving Avenue in San Francisco", now I can know that the search engine is tracking my workplace location to deliver results. But the marketing rabbit hole doesn't stop there.
If you have a problem with Hawley being called stupid, the problem may not be how Google is filtering
I don't have a problem with people being called names. Rather, folks suspect that the results are being manipulated depending on who you are. Pull aside the curtain. Let them see. And let them search based on other assumptions about the user, if the user desires. But that, of course, would be a marketing nightmare.
Like the ones that already exist, or do you need an AI to filter them further to protect you?
The existing fields are for the subject that the user wants to find. The fields that I want to see are the ones that the search engine believes describe the user.
Which is why Facebook and Google failed in the marketplace since everyone knows these things about them. Wait...
People are addicted to the service, but are horrified by the data collection that has been added to the product.
The opaque algorithm classification seems to target algorithms that produce different results for different people. For example, if a user of a search engine searches for "Josh Hawley", and the user is evaluated to be a Republican, then it might return results such as "Josh Hawley's greatest liberal smackdowns", while another user believed to be a Democrat might receive results along the lines of "Josh Hawley's stupidest comments ever".
So a possible solution might be along similar lines to yours, which would look like an advanced search with many fields, except those fields are about the user and pre-populated, and could be manually changed. Of course, this might freak out users as to what kind of information is being collected on them, but I say that's a good thing. Inform the users, and If a site is getting creepy with the information they're gathering, then folks will react accordingly.
Or are you implying that your comments getting flagged are solely the result of actions of the admins, and that us users clicking "flag this comment" have no effect?
It doesn't sound to me as if anything is being implied. Instead, you use the report button as a disagreement button. Meanwhile, the admins are actively engaging in editorialization, and not moderation. We all know what's going on.
In fact, it provides those websites the right to moderate how they want.
They are not moderating in good faith. Just as techdirt also engages in bad faith moderation, as evidenced above. The rules are not applied consistently, and are instead a fig leaf for political bias. This is why support for section 230 reform continues to grow.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
Because the other industries don't directly threaten the nation's basic constitutional liberties. The first amendment doesn't give you the right to an airplane trip, or the right to fill up your fuel tank. The right to free speech is paramount.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
The subscription numbers of many local newspapers have plummeted over the years. Smaller newspapers have failed to adapt, while others news sources have thrived in the internet age. There's plenty of money, but the small local outlets will have to earn it back.
The police did serve it. They knocked on his door, and the homeowner chose to ignore it and hid inside his house. The notice was properly affixed to his front door. If he didn't want to come outside, that's fine, and that's his choice. But they did properly serve him and provide notice.
On the post: Twitter Admits It Messed Up In Suspending Accounts Under Its New Policy, But Policies Like This Will ALWAYS Lead To Overblocking
Re: Re: Re: Ultimate Test
Conservatives are convinced that bad faith censorship will be used against them, in the future as it is today. After this test, we expect reversals and account restorations to work in our favor in the future, or else it is more proof of bias.
They simply played by the rules, and didn't want their images used, and filed the proper notice. Now the pictures are probably going to go back up. Twitter effectively can't abide by it's own rules that it created.
I think it speaks volumes about you that you believe social media is property of leftist speech. This is why most Americans are convinced of anti-conservative bias with the big tech corporations.
On the post: Twitter Admits It Messed Up In Suspending Accounts Under Its New Policy, But Policies Like This Will ALWAYS Lead To Overblocking
Ultimate Test
Looks Fox News was wrong, and instead of being reactionary, these groups performed the first strike. But the point still stands: Twitter may undo the effects of this operation, and then only allow left wing groups to use the rule in the future. If so, it answers your question from before:
"The company claimed that this was to prevent harassment and also (for reasons I still don't understand)"
The reason would be to manipulate the outcome of events in a biased fashion. This was the first step by the conservative side to test for that bias. Harassment isn't an objective policy; anything that you don't like is harassment.
On the post: GOP Claim That Biden FCC Nom Gigi Sohn Wants To 'Censor Conservatives' Is AT&T & Rupert Murdoch Backed Gibberish
Re: Re: Sounds Like A Censor
Good job. You should have been the one to write the article, not Mr. Bode. Rather than character assassination, you're addressing issues. Also, it was written in 2018, around the time of the Tribute Merger. Keep going:
"For all my concerns about #Facebook, I believe that Fox News has had the most negative impact on our democracy. It's state-sponsored propaganda, with few if any opposing viewpoints. Where's the hearing about that?" -Gigi Sohn, via Twitter, Oct 2020.
On the post: GOP Claim That Biden FCC Nom Gigi Sohn Wants To 'Censor Conservatives' Is AT&T & Rupert Murdoch Backed Gibberish
Sounds Like A Censor
“Will @FCC do anything when Sinclair’s licenses are up for renewal?” -Gigi Sohn, via Twitter
On the post: Twitter's New 'Private Information' Policy Takes Impossible Content Moderation Challenges To New, Ridiculous Levels
Under The Guise Of
They're not failing. They're manipulating. The goal is to shape public discourse whenever they see fit. A couple of mistakes here, there, and everywhere are a small price to pay to be able to arbitrarily takedown content later when they deem it important.
On the post: Texas Court Gets It Right: Dumps Texas's Social Media Moderation Law As Clearly Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Officially They're A Publisher
But now when you engage in moderation, it's editorialization.
The first amendment does NOT protect against defamation or contractual obligations amongst private citizens. Now that moderation is officially recognized as editorialization on behalf of the corporation, we can start to get somewhere.
Section 230 is the fig leaf behind which corporations claim that they are not editorializing. It's free speech that you hate, and you understand that you will use corporations to accomplish the censorship for which government dreams it could perform directly.
On the post: Texas Court Gets It Right: Dumps Texas's Social Media Moderation Law As Clearly Unconstitutional
Officially They're A Publisher
That's fine if a social media company wants to editorialize. You can always choose to be a publisher instead of a platform. The next step now is to hold corporations accountable for their editorials. And the company is responsible for their editorials, not the users. Section 230 reform will be the key.
On the post: Disney Yanks China-Mocking Simpsons Episode From Its Hong Kong Streaming Service
It's Always The Money
American media companies have failed to grow the domestic market in recent years. And without that growth, the industry becomes a mature segment whereby high salaries for upper management is unjustified for a business that is expected to merely maintain its income streams. By attempting to expand overseas into China, media companies hope to reignite that growth. They are basing their financial assumptions and spending decisions on that hope of growth. The corporate bigwigs are willing to sacrifice at the Chinese censorship altar for the sake of their own paychecks.
On the post: Donald Trump Says He's Going To Sue The Pulitzer Committee If They Don't Take Away The NY Times And WaPo Pulitzers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
I have more than enough savvy to understand how media has failed. I think you would do well to also explore how it has gone from being trusted, so being ridiculed by large swaths of the population. Childish name calling won't make the problem go away and regain the media's reputation.
On the post: Donald Trump Says He's Going To Sue The Pulitzer Committee If They Don't Take Away The NY Times And WaPo Pulitzers
Re: Re: Credebility Loss
No, it's not accurate reporting. For example, the first article that they did, regarding the Flynn-Kislyak ambassador meeting, was a lie. It turns out that the FBI had a transcript of the meeting all along. The transcript was later released, and nothing illegal was found at all in the conversation. The amazon post was being fed disinformation from the fbi, and they bought it hook, line, and sinker.
In going down the pulitzer list, I can already tell that there's some sleazy reporting in every one of their other stories as well. I trust that everyone here is intelligent enough to perform internet searches on non-censored engines to be able to find that documented criticism, if you so choose. Mike is sounding very jealous of certain news organizations that have managed to remain trusted by large numbers of Americans. Don't throw your reputation away with these stinker stories.
On the post: Donald Trump Says He's Going To Sue The Pulitzer Committee If They Don't Take Away The NY Times And WaPo Pulitzers
Credebility Loss
But this a rather egregious moral mistake. Decisions like this is why trust in the press, and america's institutions are declining. Pulitzer has a pretty clear decision to make: take away the the award, or say goodbye to their credibility.
On the post: Hypocrite Grifters Project Veritas Scream About Press Freedom, Then Run To Court To Silence The NY Times
Collusion
The information that the times is seeking to publish was leaked illegally by the FBI. Project Veritas is currently engaged in a defamation lawsuit with the times. This is a really slimy way to perform an end-around of the discovery process. The times may be a party to the FBI's crooked behavior, so hopefully they won't get rewarded for it.
On the post: Jury Correctly Recognizes That Print-On-Demand Website Isn't A 'Counterfeiting' Business Engaged In Infringement
Freedom Isn't Free
Trademark lawsuits no doubt cost a decent amount of money to defend, but hopefully this case will set precedence that will make it easier for other businesses down the road. I appreciate you helping them out in their case.
On the post: The Latest Version Of Congress's Anti-Algorithm Bill Is Based On Two Separate Debunked Myths & A Misunderstanding Of How Things Work
Re: Re: Re: What about Section 3?
I'm not sure that everyone realizes that, or the degree to which it's happening. I suspect that there is now a desire to know, and control it. If I search for restaurants in San Francisco, and it auto populates "showing restaurants near 2300 Irving Avenue in San Francisco", now I can know that the search engine is tracking my workplace location to deliver results. But the marketing rabbit hole doesn't stop there.
I don't have a problem with people being called names. Rather, folks suspect that the results are being manipulated depending on who you are. Pull aside the curtain. Let them see. And let them search based on other assumptions about the user, if the user desires. But that, of course, would be a marketing nightmare.
The existing fields are for the subject that the user wants to find. The fields that I want to see are the ones that the search engine believes describe the user.
People are addicted to the service, but are horrified by the data collection that has been added to the product.
On the post: The Latest Version Of Congress's Anti-Algorithm Bill Is Based On Two Separate Debunked Myths & A Misunderstanding Of How Things Work
Re: What about Section 3?
The opaque algorithm classification seems to target algorithms that produce different results for different people. For example, if a user of a search engine searches for "Josh Hawley", and the user is evaluated to be a Republican, then it might return results such as "Josh Hawley's greatest liberal smackdowns", while another user believed to be a Democrat might receive results along the lines of "Josh Hawley's stupidest comments ever".
So a possible solution might be along similar lines to yours, which would look like an advanced search with many fields, except those fields are about the user and pre-populated, and could be manually changed. Of course, this might freak out users as to what kind of information is being collected on them, but I say that's a good thing. Inform the users, and If a site is getting creepy with the information they're gathering, then folks will react accordingly.
On the post: Klobuchar, Cotton Competition Bill Latest To Pretend 'Big Tech' Is The Only Industry With Problems
Re: Re: Re: Re: But They're Doing It Too!
It doesn't sound to me as if anything is being implied. Instead, you use the report button as a disagreement button. Meanwhile, the admins are actively engaging in editorialization, and not moderation. We all know what's going on.
On the post: Klobuchar, Cotton Competition Bill Latest To Pretend 'Big Tech' Is The Only Industry With Problems
Re: Re: But They're Doing It Too!
They are not moderating in good faith. Just as techdirt also engages in bad faith moderation, as evidenced above. The rules are not applied consistently, and are instead a fig leaf for political bias. This is why support for section 230 reform continues to grow.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
On the post: Klobuchar, Cotton Competition Bill Latest To Pretend 'Big Tech' Is The Only Industry With Problems
But They're Doing It Too!
Because the other industries don't directly threaten the nation's basic constitutional liberties. The first amendment doesn't give you the right to an airplane trip, or the right to fill up your fuel tank. The right to free speech is paramount.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
On the post: Killing Website Comment Sections Wasn't The Brilliant Move Many Newsroom Leaders Assumed
Re:
The subscription numbers of many local newspapers have plummeted over the years. Smaller newspapers have failed to adapt, while others news sources have thrived in the internet age. There's plenty of money, but the small local outlets will have to earn it back.
On the post: Austin Homeowners Association Pitches In To Help Cops Kill A Guy Over Uncut Grass
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The police did serve it. They knocked on his door, and the homeowner chose to ignore it and hid inside his house. The notice was properly affixed to his front door. If he didn't want to come outside, that's fine, and that's his choice. But they did properly serve him and provide notice.
Next >>