5 ms·

Here's a list of various hoaxes/leaks/etc. that the big tech social media companies allowed and did not censor, even though they took action in this instance: h

Here's a list of various hoaxes/leaks/etc. that the big tech social media companies allowed and did not censor, even though they took action in this instance: https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/15/11-hacks-leaks-and-hoax https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/15/11-hacks-leaks-and-hoax... This list seems like strong proof that the we cannot trust these social media companies to be neutral actors. They shouldn't be given controlling power to the digital public square.

lanstin 6y ago
Who thinks any corporation is a neutral actor? And did the government make Twitter popular? The people that use Twitter granted that power as is their right. The people are free to setup decentralized publication systems if that is better. Twitter doesn’t really owe you an explanation of the different standard they use at different times.
- verroq 6y ago
  Ah but Twitter claims to be a neutral actor [0]. How dare we uphold it to its own standards. [0]. For the purposes of section 230
  - triceratops 6y ago
    For the 500 millionth time, section 230 says absolutely nothing about impartiality. And about moderation all it says is "Do as much as you like, even more than the government requires. You won't be liable." Seriously, actually go read section 230 instead of relying on Internet commenters to tell you what it is.
    - juniper_strong 6y ago
      To me, "It is the policy of the United States ... to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services" implies impartiality, as does the description of the internet as, among other things, "a forum for a true diversity of political discourse". Companies that control what information users can receive in order to allow only one side of a political discourse are in opposition to the policies being implemented in section 230.
      - triceratops 6y ago
        A provider of information services is not liable for "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"
        juniper_strong 6y ago
        You asked people to read section 230 and you claimed that section 230 says absolutely nothing about impartiality. I read section 230 and mentioned parts of it that I think are relevant to impartiality. In particular, I don't see how you maximize user control over the information they receive if information providers are going to be partial to one political party. And I don't see how you have forums for a true diversity of political discourse if forums are going to be partial to one political party. If you can tell me, I would love to know, how do Twitter's actions in this case maximize user control over the information they receive? I don't think they do, I think it is quite the opposite of that, but go ahead and make a case if you have one. Now it is true that the implementation of section 230 lacks an enforcement mechanism to enforce the policies that it advocates. That's a problem with the law, and it is what some people are advocating that we fix. I agree with those proposals, I would like to see section 230 amended so that companies that don't maximize user control over the information they receive lost section 230 protections. And the same thing for companies that don't allow a true diversity of political discourse.
        triceratops 6y ago
        > I read section 230 and mentioned parts of it that I think are relevant to impartiality. I don't think the part you highlighted is relevant to impartiality. It sets an aspirational goal of Section 230 and the safe harbor is the means to promote that goal. Without the safe harbor, providers would be forced to strictly police what users post. Smaller providers who aren't able to bear the burden of strict moderation would be forced to shut down entirely. This would have the consequence of reducing overall user access to information. > I don't see how you maximize user control over the information they receive if information providers are going to be partial to one political party. By using a different information provider. > description of the internet as, among other things, "a forum for a true diversity of political discourse". You said it yourself. The Internet is neutral, according to Section 230. Not individual information providers. If you don't like what one information provider does, go make your own. It's all based on free tools and open standards. No one's stopping you. Believe me, no one of any political stripe should want to take away ability to moderate Internet forums. It will turn all forums, regardless of political, religious or other affiliation, into spam-filled, unusable messes. That also reduces "user control over the information they receive", since the garbage will drown out anything useful and platforms will have no power to remove it.
  - lanstin 6y ago
    you can be neutral about this political party or that party and still seeks to encourage truth and goodness and discourage lies and badness, as you see it.
  - tzs 6y ago
    Section 230 has nothing to do with neutrality. Indeed, the whole point of 230 is to make it easier for sites that host user content to not be neutral.
- koolba 6y ago
  I don’t expect people who are lobbying on behalf of a candidate to be unbiased. They’re clearly not and they admit it. But if an org is going to fly the flag of neutrality then they’ll get called out for crap like this.
  - lanstin 6y ago
    Politically neutral but not neutral on truth or virtue. Also why don’t more of the people not agreeing with Twitter’s use of power push for more decentralized networks?
kordlessagain 6y ago
Presenting lists of things as "evidence" people should or should not trust things is the work of a troll.
mellosouls 6y ago
While I agree that the liberal-run tech firms are biased against conservative news sources, I think it is only fair to point out that the list you link is compiled and presented by a conservative organisation that has apparently been under criticism for its own approach to covid reporting (see the wiki page; and yes, I think wikipedia seems often liberal-biased), and can not be considered a neutral voice in this particular discussion. That doesn't mean the list isn't valid; but it can't be assumed it is balanced.
- rayiner 6y ago
  I would encourage folks to resist the urge to put up blinders based on the URL. Particularly where, as here, the source is just collecting publicly-available documents and links. You’re not being asked to trust the author’s synthesis of a bunch of facts. You can check the underlying links yourself. Obviously conservative organizations have more of an incentive to compile this sort of thing. That doesn’t make it in and of itself unreliable. Also, “conservative” and “liberal” are relative terms. Journalists are vastly more liberal than the public as a whole, so any news outlet that covers things from a middle ground perspective is labeled “conservative.” https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/ https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-lef... In an ASU study of financial journalists, people who labeled themselves “very liberal” or “liberal” outnumbered those who labeled themselves “conservative” or “very conservative” 13:1. I’m not saying that this makes liberal reporters bad, or biased in the sense of willful prejudice. But liberals and conservatives have different assumptions, have different sets of facts they consider salient to different issues, etc. When a liberal reporter covers Sanders’ suggestion of $60,000 minimum teacher pay, the facts that come to mind might be things like how the income gap between teachers and other college-educated professionals is bigger in the US than in other countries. To a conservative, the first thing that might come to mind is that US teachers are already paid well above the OECD average. Both facts are true (American teachers are paid more than British teachers, but American programmers are paid a lot more). These differences inevitably come out in the reporting. Just because an outlet is writing from a conservative point of view doesn’t mean it’s trying to manipulate or deceive people.
  - 6y ago
pcmoney 6y ago
I don't understand why this is so controversial. You cannot reveal personal details of someone on Twitter (email, phone number etc.) The article contained unreacted personal info so should be blocked. You also cannot link directly to hacked/obtained without consent material on twitter. The article contained screenshot of the material so should be blocked. You CAN link to material that discusses hacked/obtained without consent material on Twitter as long as it does not contain the material. eg. Trump Tax Return story by NYT.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
riffic 6y ago
> digital public square I don't know if you know this or not, but the technology exists for anyone to participate in a "digital public square" without use of the incumbent services (Facebook, Twitter, et cetera). These services are not the digital public square. They are private spaces (like a shopping mall.) it would be wholly incorrect to make that assumption.
- vladvasiliu 6y ago
  The technology may well exist, but is it being used by a sufficient amount of people? Just like if all people happen to congregate in a private mall for one reason or another, if someone's excluded from that mall it doesn't matter all that much that there are public parks where anyone can go if no one actually goes there.
  - riffic 6y ago
    > but is it being used by a sufficient amount of people? yes, it is. It's a pretty healthy and vibrant ecosystem (I'm referring to the W3C ActivityPub ecosystem here because I didn't mention it in the grandparent comment)
    - vladvasiliu 6y ago
      While I think that it would be great for people to use decentralized alternatives to FB and Twitter, I think that at least as of today they are very, very far from having the same kind of reach, despite the ecosystem being healthy and vibrant. So again, even though I think that we as a society would gain a lot from using these technologies, in the year 2020 they really don't have the same "public square" effect that FB and Twitter have, simply because most "regular" people (as in "not in tech") have probably never even heard of them, whereas everybody and their grandma is on Facebook. Also, the fact that FB and Twitter aggressively attempt to bring people to their platforms likely blurs the line between them being a private venue or a public square.
- op03 6y ago
  At the shopping mall they dont hand out as much Dopamine, as FB and Twitter have. People don't even realize what is going on. The addicts are getting cut of from their favorite drug. A drug that has conditioned their behavior for 10-15 years. FB and Twitter, every time they make these moves all over the world, need to check out how good ol Alex Jones is doing. Cause thats where a lot of ppl who get cut off will be in a year or two.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

lanstin 6y ago

Who thinks any corporation is a neutral actor? And did the government make Twitter popular? The people that use Twitter granted that power as is their right. The people are free to setup decentralized publication systems if that is better. Twitter doesn’t really owe you an explanation of the different standard they use at different times.

verroq 6y ago
Ah but Twitter claims to be a neutral actor [0]. How dare we uphold it to its own standards. [0]. For the purposes of section 230
- triceratops 6y ago
  For the 500 millionth time, section 230 says absolutely nothing about impartiality. And about moderation all it says is "Do as much as you like, even more than the government requires. You won't be liable." Seriously, actually go read section 230 instead of relying on Internet commenters to tell you what it is.
  - juniper_strong 6y ago
    To me, "It is the policy of the United States ... to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services" implies impartiality, as does the description of the internet as, among other things, "a forum for a true diversity of political discourse". Companies that control what information users can receive in order to allow only one side of a political discourse are in opposition to the policies being implemented in section 230.
    - triceratops 6y ago
      A provider of information services is not liable for "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"
      - juniper_strong 6y ago
        You asked people to read section 230 and you claimed that section 230 says absolutely nothing about impartiality. I read section 230 and mentioned parts of it that I think are relevant to impartiality. In particular, I don't see how you maximize user control over the information they receive if information providers are going to be partial to one political party. And I don't see how you have forums for a true diversity of political discourse if forums are going to be partial to one political party. If you can tell me, I would love to know, how do Twitter's actions in this case maximize user control over the information they receive? I don't think they do, I think it is quite the opposite of that, but go ahead and make a case if you have one. Now it is true that the implementation of section 230 lacks an enforcement mechanism to enforce the policies that it advocates. That's a problem with the law, and it is what some people are advocating that we fix. I agree with those proposals, I would like to see section 230 amended so that companies that don't maximize user control over the information they receive lost section 230 protections. And the same thing for companies that don't allow a true diversity of political discourse.
        triceratops 6y ago
        > I read section 230 and mentioned parts of it that I think are relevant to impartiality. I don't think the part you highlighted is relevant to impartiality. It sets an aspirational goal of Section 230 and the safe harbor is the means to promote that goal. Without the safe harbor, providers would be forced to strictly police what users post. Smaller providers who aren't able to bear the burden of strict moderation would be forced to shut down entirely. This would have the consequence of reducing overall user access to information. > I don't see how you maximize user control over the information they receive if information providers are going to be partial to one political party. By using a different information provider. > description of the internet as, among other things, "a forum for a true diversity of political discourse". You said it yourself. The Internet is neutral, according to Section 230. Not individual information providers. If you don't like what one information provider does, go make your own. It's all based on free tools and open standards. No one's stopping you. Believe me, no one of any political stripe should want to take away ability to moderate Internet forums. It will turn all forums, regardless of political, religious or other affiliation, into spam-filled, unusable messes. That also reduces "user control over the information they receive", since the garbage will drown out anything useful and platforms will have no power to remove it.
- lanstin 6y ago
  you can be neutral about this political party or that party and still seeks to encourage truth and goodness and discourage lies and badness, as you see it.
- tzs 6y ago
  Section 230 has nothing to do with neutrality. Indeed, the whole point of 230 is to make it easier for sites that host user content to not be neutral.
koolba 6y ago
I don’t expect people who are lobbying on behalf of a candidate to be unbiased. They’re clearly not and they admit it. But if an org is going to fly the flag of neutrality then they’ll get called out for crap like this.
- lanstin 6y ago
  Politically neutral but not neutral on truth or virtue. Also why don’t more of the people not agreeing with Twitter’s use of power push for more decentralized networks?

kordlessagain 6y ago

Presenting lists of things as "evidence" people should or should not trust things is the work of a troll.

mellosouls 6y ago

While I agree that the liberal-run tech firms are biased against conservative news sources, I think it is only fair to point out that the list you link is compiled and presented by a conservative organisation that has apparently been under criticism for its own approach to covid reporting (see the wiki page; and yes, I think wikipedia seems often liberal-biased), and can not be considered a neutral voice in this particular discussion. That doesn't mean the list isn't valid; but it can't be assumed it is balanced.

rayiner 6y ago
I would encourage folks to resist the urge to put up blinders based on the URL. Particularly where, as here, the source is just collecting publicly-available documents and links. You’re not being asked to trust the author’s synthesis of a bunch of facts. You can check the underlying links yourself. Obviously conservative organizations have more of an incentive to compile this sort of thing. That doesn’t make it in and of itself unreliable. Also, “conservative” and “liberal” are relative terms. Journalists are vastly more liberal than the public as a whole, so any news outlet that covers things from a middle ground perspective is labeled “conservative.” https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/ https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-lef... In an ASU study of financial journalists, people who labeled themselves “very liberal” or “liberal” outnumbered those who labeled themselves “conservative” or “very conservative” 13:1. I’m not saying that this makes liberal reporters bad, or biased in the sense of willful prejudice. But liberals and conservatives have different assumptions, have different sets of facts they consider salient to different issues, etc. When a liberal reporter covers Sanders’ suggestion of $60,000 minimum teacher pay, the facts that come to mind might be things like how the income gap between teachers and other college-educated professionals is bigger in the US than in other countries. To a conservative, the first thing that might come to mind is that US teachers are already paid well above the OECD average. Both facts are true (American teachers are paid more than British teachers, but American programmers are paid a lot more). These differences inevitably come out in the reporting. Just because an outlet is writing from a conservative point of view doesn’t mean it’s trying to manipulate or deceive people.
- 6y ago

pcmoney 6y ago

I don't understand why this is so controversial. You cannot reveal personal details of someone on Twitter (email, phone number etc.) The article contained unreacted personal info so should be blocked. You also cannot link directly to hacked/obtained without consent material on twitter. The article contained screenshot of the material so should be blocked. You CAN link to material that discusses hacked/obtained without consent material on Twitter as long as it does not contain the material. eg. Trump Tax Return story by NYT.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

riffic 6y ago

> digital public square I don't know if you know this or not, but the technology exists for anyone to participate in a "digital public square" without use of the incumbent services (Facebook, Twitter, et cetera). These services are not the digital public square. They are private spaces (like a shopping mall.) it would be wholly incorrect to make that assumption.

vladvasiliu 6y ago
The technology may well exist, but is it being used by a sufficient amount of people? Just like if all people happen to congregate in a private mall for one reason or another, if someone's excluded from that mall it doesn't matter all that much that there are public parks where anyone can go if no one actually goes there.
- riffic 6y ago
  > but is it being used by a sufficient amount of people? yes, it is. It's a pretty healthy and vibrant ecosystem (I'm referring to the W3C ActivityPub ecosystem here because I didn't mention it in the grandparent comment)
  - vladvasiliu 6y ago
    While I think that it would be great for people to use decentralized alternatives to FB and Twitter, I think that at least as of today they are very, very far from having the same kind of reach, despite the ecosystem being healthy and vibrant. So again, even though I think that we as a society would gain a lot from using these technologies, in the year 2020 they really don't have the same "public square" effect that FB and Twitter have, simply because most "regular" people (as in "not in tech") have probably never even heard of them, whereas everybody and their grandma is on Facebook. Also, the fact that FB and Twitter aggressively attempt to bring people to their platforms likely blurs the line between them being a private venue or a public square.
op03 6y ago
At the shopping mall they dont hand out as much Dopamine, as FB and Twitter have. People don't even realize what is going on. The addicts are getting cut of from their favorite drug. A drug that has conditioned their behavior for 10-15 years. FB and Twitter, every time they make these moves all over the world, need to check out how good ol Alex Jones is doing. Cause thats where a lot of ppl who get cut off will be in a year or two.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]