3 ms·

Is Jack Dorsey, the Twitter CEO, a good enough source? https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-i-fully-admit-our-bias-is-more-left

Is Jack Dorsey, the Twitter CEO, a good enough source? https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-i-fully-admit-our-bias-is-more-left-leaning https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jac... > Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey: I 'fully admit' our bias is 'more left-leaning'

loceng 7y ago
Yet they're aware of that and set their rules and follow them accordingly; people only get ban from Twitter after 3 strikes as far as I know, and that's bad behaviour related, which if bad behaviour happens more by "one side" than the other - how can you blame the platform/moderators for that?
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  So disagree with Twitter politics three times and you’re gone. That’s a fair system? I would agree with you if there weren’t so many examples of people getting banned for “wrong think” and not rule breaking.
  - loceng 7y ago
    All of the examples I have seen, when have a response by Twitter associated with them, is that Twitter follows a 3 strikes and you're out rule - and they apply these rules to everyone. If there are a few examples where this isn't followed then okay, there were mistakes, problems - but that is then at a government level that needs some judiciary process for. Re: 'so many examples of people getting banned for "wrong think"'- have your sources been confirmed/provided confirmation by Twitter that's that what it was - and Moderation (parenting) is a very important and effort full work that is required to prevent a wild west of society. A wild west of society is more costly and leads to far more suffering than a managed home; if you want to raise children that are racist within your own home, or who where you find it acceptable for them threaten to kill others, you're allowed to - however forcing ALL platforms to allow all behaviour is insanity, and so Twitter needs to be allowed to have the rules they want to allow - and people can "vote" by using that service or not, and then other platforms can have their own rules - and that government as a whole will have to decide what those bounds are; perhaps should government provide a free speech platform like exist public parks as an option that everyone has available to them.
xfitm3 7y ago
Many big companies being headquartered in SF are left-leaning. I don't think they should let their political opinions trickle to business, but they do. It's a shame. It should be neutral and non-political, supportive of all view points.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sveniv 7y ago
Also from the article you linked: "But the real question behind the question is, are we doing something according to political ideology or viewpoints? And we are not. Period," he added. Dorsey went on to insist that his company only polices behavior on the platform, not content. Is having a personal political opinion only illegal if it is left-leaning?

loceng 7y ago

Yet they're aware of that and set their rules and follow them accordingly; people only get ban from Twitter after 3 strikes as far as I know, and that's bad behaviour related, which if bad behaviour happens more by "one side" than the other - how can you blame the platform/moderators for that?

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
So disagree with Twitter politics three times and you’re gone. That’s a fair system? I would agree with you if there weren’t so many examples of people getting banned for “wrong think” and not rule breaking.
- loceng 7y ago
  All of the examples I have seen, when have a response by Twitter associated with them, is that Twitter follows a 3 strikes and you're out rule - and they apply these rules to everyone. If there are a few examples where this isn't followed then okay, there were mistakes, problems - but that is then at a government level that needs some judiciary process for. Re: 'so many examples of people getting banned for "wrong think"'- have your sources been confirmed/provided confirmation by Twitter that's that what it was - and Moderation (parenting) is a very important and effort full work that is required to prevent a wild west of society. A wild west of society is more costly and leads to far more suffering than a managed home; if you want to raise children that are racist within your own home, or who where you find it acceptable for them threaten to kill others, you're allowed to - however forcing ALL platforms to allow all behaviour is insanity, and so Twitter needs to be allowed to have the rules they want to allow - and people can "vote" by using that service or not, and then other platforms can have their own rules - and that government as a whole will have to decide what those bounds are; perhaps should government provide a free speech platform like exist public parks as an option that everyone has available to them.

xfitm3 7y ago

Many big companies being headquartered in SF are left-leaning. I don't think they should let their political opinions trickle to business, but they do. It's a shame. It should be neutral and non-political, supportive of all view points.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

sveniv 7y ago

Also from the article you linked: "But the real question behind the question is, are we doing something according to political ideology or viewpoints? And we are not. Period," he added. Dorsey went on to insist that his company only polices behavior on the platform, not content. Is having a personal political opinion only illegal if it is left-leaning?