4 ms·

The liberal wing was upset that state and non state actors influenced the 2016 election by manipulating social media. Now, Twitter is working to suppress some

The liberal wing was upset that state and non state actors influenced the 2016 election by manipulating social media. Now, Twitter is working to suppress some content that they believe is a repeat attempt — the October surprise if you will. I don’t have strong opinions on whether it’s right or wrong, but I don’t think this is a scandal. Twitter is a private company. You don’t have a constitutional right to write whatever you want on Twitter. If Americans believe otherwise, then they’d have to nationalize Twitter or at least pass legislation that mandates what content Twitter can or cannot moderate. I do find it surprising that social media companies are being held to a very different standard than “news”. In the US, we have specific news organizations that are unashamedly biased and blasting the airwaves with dangerous propaganda. I’m not trying to make a case of whataboutism, but it’s mind boggling that social media receives so much scrutiny when this other group of fairly openly nefarious actors get a free pass. As far as I can tell, this is because the media organizations have fairly established relationships with politicians from one party or the other, with political parties using them as propaganda loud speakers.

missedthecue 6y ago
Should T Mobile or Verizon be able to censor your phone calls and text messages if they don't like the content? After all, they're private companies as well.
- tracer4201 6y ago
  I would say yes. If they censor my calls, I would switch providers. But more importantly, if we as a country believe that’s wrong, we should pass legislation
  - Negitivefrags 6y ago
    There is legislation. It’s called common carrier. The argument is this existing legislation should be extended to social media as well.
    - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
      We can’t even get it applied to ISP’s, I don’t know how we could stretch it to social media. My guess is that any legislation attempting to make social media common carriers would eventually be found to unconstitutionally abridge the first amendment.
- hackinthebochs 6y ago
  The difference is that social media aren't neutral communication channels when the visibility of a communication is altered by likes and algorithms.
  - ethanwillis 6y ago
    DMs don't have their visibility modulated in the same way as the main feed.
- sagichmal 6y ago
  They're common carriers, a different set of rules apply.
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  ISPs are private companies, too. Should they be suppressing political information as well?
  - tracer4201 6y ago
    For one, ISPs aren’t social media companies. If my ISP censors information, then effectively I have no way to access that information, particularly in cases when there’s no other ISP in my area. A social media platform banning certain content is different. Just as we have alt right media sources such as Breitbart, nothing is preventing you from starting your own social media platform, with whatever content you want or don’t want. At the end of the day, you still have a variety of content sources on the internet to consume that same content. Twitter is not the only source of information, and if you believe it is, then we have more serious problems. I was literally banned from r/conservative for posting a question that folks found very inconvenient. Should they be forced to reverse the ban? How far do you believe is too far? In my opinion, this is pretty clear cut. If you don’t like Twitter’s policies, don’t use their website. I’m surprised the free enterprise conservatives are actually the ones so against this. “We want government to get out of the way... unless it furthers our agenda and helps us stay in power, in which case, let’s threaten to regulate or break up private companies.”
    - bialpio 6y ago
      > In my opinion, this is pretty clear cut. If you don’t like Twitter’s policies, don’t use their website. On one hand yes, but on the other, does that also apply to other services? Can I open a shop only for <insert skin color> people only and claim that if you don't like it, go somewhere else? How about other categories, protected or otherwise? As a society, we already agree that there are some freedoms that private businesses are denied, and for good reasons, because when taken to the extremes, you end up with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nur_f%C3%BCr_Deutsche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nur_f%C3%BCr_Deutsche. > A social media platform banning certain content is different. Just as we have alt right media sources such as Breitbart, nothing is preventing you from starting your own social media platform, with whatever content you want or don’t want. Not really - you can start your own media outlet and selectively run the stories you want, that's fine. But if you just regurgitate user-generated content, IMO you better be really careful about applying your own rules consistently and in a transparent manner.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
haltingproblem 6y ago
You make valid points and I don't know why are you downvoted. But Twitter is not a journalism play, it is a platform play and purported to be neutral. If there is blatant supression then they will antagonize atleast 50% of Americans which would be terrible for their bottom line.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  "Platforms" and "publishers" are not actually legal categories, not mutually exclusive, and any sorting of Twitter into one of those categories happened entirely in your head. Twitter also doesn't specifically call itself "neutral" (some "publisher" comes to mind doing that far more).
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  1. Twitter is absolutely a journalism play. Look at the front page. 2. Neutral doesn't mean "whoever can game the algorithm wins" 3. Less than 50% of Americans are opposed to suppressing sharing of articles like the one suppressed.
- triceratops 6y ago
  YSK there's no requirement for a "platform" to be "neutral". By law platforms can do whatever the heck they like with regards to content moderation. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or misinformed.

missedthecue 6y ago

Should T Mobile or Verizon be able to censor your phone calls and text messages if they don't like the content? After all, they're private companies as well.

tracer4201 6y ago
I would say yes. If they censor my calls, I would switch providers. But more importantly, if we as a country believe that’s wrong, we should pass legislation
- Negitivefrags 6y ago
  There is legislation. It’s called common carrier. The argument is this existing legislation should be extended to social media as well.
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    We can’t even get it applied to ISP’s, I don’t know how we could stretch it to social media. My guess is that any legislation attempting to make social media common carriers would eventually be found to unconstitutionally abridge the first amendment.
hackinthebochs 6y ago
The difference is that social media aren't neutral communication channels when the visibility of a communication is altered by likes and algorithms.
- ethanwillis 6y ago
  DMs don't have their visibility modulated in the same way as the main feed.
sagichmal 6y ago
They're common carriers, a different set of rules apply.
commandlinefan 6y ago
ISPs are private companies, too. Should they be suppressing political information as well?
- tracer4201 6y ago
  For one, ISPs aren’t social media companies. If my ISP censors information, then effectively I have no way to access that information, particularly in cases when there’s no other ISP in my area. A social media platform banning certain content is different. Just as we have alt right media sources such as Breitbart, nothing is preventing you from starting your own social media platform, with whatever content you want or don’t want. At the end of the day, you still have a variety of content sources on the internet to consume that same content. Twitter is not the only source of information, and if you believe it is, then we have more serious problems. I was literally banned from r/conservative for posting a question that folks found very inconvenient. Should they be forced to reverse the ban? How far do you believe is too far? In my opinion, this is pretty clear cut. If you don’t like Twitter’s policies, don’t use their website. I’m surprised the free enterprise conservatives are actually the ones so against this. “We want government to get out of the way... unless it furthers our agenda and helps us stay in power, in which case, let’s threaten to regulate or break up private companies.”
  - bialpio 6y ago
    > In my opinion, this is pretty clear cut. If you don’t like Twitter’s policies, don’t use their website. On one hand yes, but on the other, does that also apply to other services? Can I open a shop only for <insert skin color> people only and claim that if you don't like it, go somewhere else? How about other categories, protected or otherwise? As a society, we already agree that there are some freedoms that private businesses are denied, and for good reasons, because when taken to the extremes, you end up with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nur_f%C3%BCr_Deutsche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nur_f%C3%BCr_Deutsche. > A social media platform banning certain content is different. Just as we have alt right media sources such as Breitbart, nothing is preventing you from starting your own social media platform, with whatever content you want or don’t want. Not really - you can start your own media outlet and selectively run the stories you want, that's fine. But if you just regurgitate user-generated content, IMO you better be really careful about applying your own rules consistently and in a transparent manner.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

haltingproblem 6y ago

You make valid points and I don't know why are you downvoted. But Twitter is not a journalism play, it is a platform play and purported to be neutral. If there is blatant supression then they will antagonize atleast 50% of Americans which would be terrible for their bottom line.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
"Platforms" and "publishers" are not actually legal categories, not mutually exclusive, and any sorting of Twitter into one of those categories happened entirely in your head. Twitter also doesn't specifically call itself "neutral" (some "publisher" comes to mind doing that far more).
srtjstjsj 6y ago
1. Twitter is absolutely a journalism play. Look at the front page. 2. Neutral doesn't mean "whoever can game the algorithm wins" 3. Less than 50% of Americans are opposed to suppressing sharing of articles like the one suppressed.
triceratops 6y ago
YSK there's no requirement for a "platform" to be "neutral". By law platforms can do whatever the heck they like with regards to content moderation. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or misinformed.