4 ms·

We are not talking about next video suggestion here. We are talking about censoring direct messages or feeds people deliberately follow. Tech companies insertin

by cm2187 6y ago

We are not talking about next video suggestion here. We are talking about censoring direct messages or feeds people deliberately follow. Tech companies inserting their political bias in direct communications. Not amplification.

tayo42 6y ago
You're still free to send a text, write a letter, call. Twitter and facebook aren't public utilities. I saw an interesting comparison the other day. If this was a message board from the early 2000s, and the moderator was deleting posts, you move on, not throw a giant fit about free speech using some one else server.
- josephg 6y ago
  Twitter and facebook have become an internet "public square", kept in monopolistic power by network effects and compulsion mechanisms stronger than casinos. Insofar as they're monopolies, they should be managed by the people as if they were a public space.
  - verdverm 6y ago
    There is prior case law to support this idea. This would be similar to the central area of a mall or when companies provided housing to workers to prevent unionization efforts. Both places were upheld as places where the First Amendment must be upheld, despite private ownership.
  - swixi 6y ago
    By what objective metric(s) do you determine that a particular website has become an internet "public square"?
    - mensetmanusman 6y ago
      When the president of a country is using it.
    - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
      Ok. Where's the internet public square? Please show me the way because I think I forgot my map.
  - tayo42 6y ago
    Why does the unwelcomed network want to stay on Twitter. Why don't they make their own news feed site to post and comment on?
    - hackerfromthefu 6y ago
      If that's a genuine question .. .. .. you can research on the term network effects.
    - saxonww 6y ago
      Because it's not about being able to say what they want on a particular platform, it's about saying what they want where everyone else will hear it. A lot of people look at this issue and see two groups fighting over it. There are (at least) three groups though: for, against, and undecided. This is really a fight about how to convince the undecided, so solutions like "go make your own platform" aren't desirable; undecideds aren't going to know about the new platform, and won't automatically appear en masse on it, so it actually makes reaching them more difficult.
- cscurmudgeon 6y ago
  > Twitter and facebook aren't public utilities. > You're still free to send a text, write a letter, call Exactly. This is why free college and free medical care are not necessary. You can learn from public libraries and go to the forest and apply herbs when you are sick.
  - tayo42 6y ago
    We didn't take over Harvard and make a public university. They co exist. Do we need a publicly run social media? Though tbh I'm not totally sure what point you're trying to make.
zaroth 6y ago
This is a crucial point. We are not talking about someone coming to my house and blaring Tweets with a bullhorn. If I follow @NYPost then I want to hear what they tweet. Twitter may have every right to censure them, but it’s the wrong thing to do, and people are rightly incensed about it. If I want to retweet a @NYPost article to my followers that is my business. And my followers can gladly listen or unfollow. Twitter’s faux rationale about “hacked materials” sticks coming just days after NYTime’s story on Trump tax returns. If these monopolistic social networks want to interfere in public & private messages on their platform to the benefit of particular political candidates they shouldn’t be doing it with the benefit of Section 230 immunity and/or should be scrutinized for making campaign contributions in-kind, like how National Inquirer got hit with charges for their buy&bury on Trump’s affair.
- hooande 6y ago
  Twitter has made themselves clear on this. They're going to censor content they don't like, even in direct communications. Use another platform if you don't like it. If you can't do that because all of the content producers and your friends have decided that twitter's level of censorship is ok, then you're just out of step with the rest of society. It's like complaining that Coca Cola is an evil company and you hate them. If everyone else but you still likes Coke then your view on their practices, however valid it may be, won't be relevant
  - zaroth 6y ago
    It’s totally fine by me if they want to take on the legal liability of being a publisher. I think it goes against the stated purpose and core mission of their platform. So perhaps they are lying to their users, and even to themselves. > The mission we serve as Twitter, Inc. is to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers. Our business and revenue will always follow that mission in ways that improve – and do not detract from – a free and global conversation. It also may be an illegal campaign contribution in some cases.
    - hooande 6y ago

by cm2187 6y ago

tayo42 6y ago

You're still free to send a text, write a letter, call. Twitter and facebook aren't public utilities. I saw an interesting comparison the other day. If this was a message board from the early 2000s, and the moderator was deleting posts, you move on, not throw a giant fit about free speech using some one else server.

josephg 6y ago
Twitter and facebook have become an internet "public square", kept in monopolistic power by network effects and compulsion mechanisms stronger than casinos. Insofar as they're monopolies, they should be managed by the people as if they were a public space.
- verdverm 6y ago
  There is prior case law to support this idea. This would be similar to the central area of a mall or when companies provided housing to workers to prevent unionization efforts. Both places were upheld as places where the First Amendment must be upheld, despite private ownership.
- swixi 6y ago
  By what objective metric(s) do you determine that a particular website has become an internet "public square"?
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    When the president of a country is using it.
  - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
    Ok. Where's the internet public square? Please show me the way because I think I forgot my map.
- tayo42 6y ago
  Why does the unwelcomed network want to stay on Twitter. Why don't they make their own news feed site to post and comment on?
  - hackerfromthefu 6y ago
    If that's a genuine question .. .. .. you can research on the term network effects.
  - saxonww 6y ago
    Because it's not about being able to say what they want on a particular platform, it's about saying what they want where everyone else will hear it. A lot of people look at this issue and see two groups fighting over it. There are (at least) three groups though: for, against, and undecided. This is really a fight about how to convince the undecided, so solutions like "go make your own platform" aren't desirable; undecideds aren't going to know about the new platform, and won't automatically appear en masse on it, so it actually makes reaching them more difficult.
cscurmudgeon 6y ago
> Twitter and facebook aren't public utilities. > You're still free to send a text, write a letter, call Exactly. This is why free college and free medical care are not necessary. You can learn from public libraries and go to the forest and apply herbs when you are sick.
- tayo42 6y ago
  We didn't take over Harvard and make a public university. They co exist. Do we need a publicly run social media? Though tbh I'm not totally sure what point you're trying to make.

zaroth 6y ago

This is a crucial point. We are not talking about someone coming to my house and blaring Tweets with a bullhorn. If I follow @NYPost then I want to hear what they tweet. Twitter may have every right to censure them, but it’s the wrong thing to do, and people are rightly incensed about it. If I want to retweet a @NYPost article to my followers that is my business. And my followers can gladly listen or unfollow. Twitter’s faux rationale about “hacked materials” sticks coming just days after NYTime’s story on Trump tax returns. If these monopolistic social networks want to interfere in public & private messages on their platform to the benefit of particular political candidates they shouldn’t be doing it with the benefit of Section 230 immunity and/or should be scrutinized for making campaign contributions in-kind, like how National Inquirer got hit with charges for their buy&bury on Trump’s affair.

hooande 6y ago
Twitter has made themselves clear on this. They're going to censor content they don't like, even in direct communications. Use another platform if you don't like it. If you can't do that because all of the content producers and your friends have decided that twitter's level of censorship is ok, then you're just out of step with the rest of society. It's like complaining that Coca Cola is an evil company and you hate them. If everyone else but you still likes Coke then your view on their practices, however valid it may be, won't be relevant
- zaroth 6y ago
  It’s totally fine by me if they want to take on the legal liability of being a publisher. I think it goes against the stated purpose and core mission of their platform. So perhaps they are lying to their users, and even to themselves. > The mission we serve as Twitter, Inc. is to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers. Our business and revenue will always follow that mission in ways that improve – and do not detract from – a free and global conversation. It also may be an illegal campaign contribution in some cases.
  - hooande 6y ago