8 ms·

Twitter's lack of transparency is depressing. If they're going to lock the NY Post account, they should put a notification on the page (and perhaps a reason why

Twitter's lack of transparency is depressing. If they're going to lock the NY Post account, they should put a notification on the page (and perhaps a reason why). Right now if you go to the NY Post Twitter it just looks like they voluntarily decided to stop tweeting, which is misinformation.

eli 6y ago
Is there any reason to think the NY Post didn't get a notification with a reason why?
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  GP is arguing there should be a user-facing notification.
  - eli 6y ago
    Ah, yeah, that's fair. I could imagine there are also cases where people are happy there is no public notification. If I get in a heated twitter argument and say something over the line, I'd probably prefer Twitter just let me fix it quietly
vvillena 6y ago
As a counterpoint, Twitter as a company isn't forced to do any such thing, so if they think it can hurt its userbase and its revenue, it won't be done. Social media tries to establish a unique public forum, that gets policed by a single company. It's an unsustainable, doomed model. There's a reason the Internet as a whole is serviced by miriads of companies that are more or less forced to cooperate.
- vaccinator 6y ago
  But such massive companies probably should be held to standards similar to governments... they probably will eventually.
- hamsterOnWheel 6y ago
  I think there needs to be rules about transparency for media companies. In court you have to argue about and explain any disallowance of evidence; however in the court of public opinion, the media, no such rules apply. Obviously you have to be careful when coming up with rules for government regulation of media, but the laissez faire thing we're doing now doesn't seem to be heading on a positive trendline.
  - RIMR 6y ago
    You are describing the abridging private organizations' right to free speech by congress... Twitter isn't the government, and they don't control speech anywhere but on the platform that they own. They could ban the American Flag and they still wouldn't owe anyone an explanation short of their stakeholders who are going to want to know how this factors into Twitter's only business: Selling ads.
    - hamsterOnWheel 6y ago
      >You are describing the abridging private organizations' right to free speech Many people and organizations have their free speech regulated because of the ability of speech to do harm (e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater). Saying something trite about rights is not an argument. these companies have a huge responsibility to our democracy, and treating them as if they're just another company is exactly what allows them to be so cynical about making decisions calculated to increase ad revenue even when they're harmful to democracy.
      - anthonypasq 6y ago
        why should we care whether its harmful to democracy? if the population of a democracy doesnt want to be a democracy anymore, that seems perfectly legitimate
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - chroem- 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- einpoklum 6y ago
  I don't buy the moral legitimacy of groups of people doing wrong merely because they are recognized as a "private company" and not being legally bound to act a certain way. So, > a unique public forum, that gets policed by a single company ... is an unsustainable, doomed model is exactly right. It's just so damn hard to pull people out of it!
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  Since this ban is helping the Biden campaign by keeping a damaging story from being spread before the election, it can be seen as an in kind campaign contribution. And for that there are some strict laws! If the laws actually apply for this, I have no idea...
  - bosswipe 6y ago
    Imagine how much Fox News and a hundred talk radio shows would contribute in that scenario.
vmchale 6y ago
Pretty standard for a company, for better or for worse.
ntsplnkv2 6y ago
Meh. Just go to the NYPost directly if you want. We shouldn't be forcing and infringing on the freedoms of corporations to decide what they can sell/show.
- Kaytaro 6y ago
  Sure, but if they're going to be an editorialized platform they should be held liable for the content of each and every tweet.
  - bosswipe 6y ago
    If Twitter were held liable for user's posts they would probably ban all right-wing content since that's were most of the libel I see comes from. For example reddit tried hard to keep /r/TheDonald around but it turned out to be an impossible task. Especially in online right-wing youth culture there's a strong anything goes, ends justify the means, trolling for the lulz, strain where they find it more acceptable to spread deliberate misinformation.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Not sure what this actually means - liable for what? They already ban tweets required by law. What other liability is there?
RIMR 6y ago
"The false conclusion I jumped to is someone else's fault for giving me too little information" That's a terrible excuse. Lack of information isn't the same as misinformation.
Shivetya 6y ago
I am in the camp of, once you open your company to political communication and news you are beholden to be open to all such activity as long as it is legal. You don't get to choose and the reason you don't get to choose is because filtering one view over another provides a service to the view permitted and as such is political speech and or contribution to one party over another. As in, once you open that door it goes both ways. Twitter on purpose catered to news and political organizations and while they are free to issue a disclaimer of not supporting a message or messenger as long as its legal they should be held to account

eli 6y ago

Is there any reason to think the NY Post didn't get a notification with a reason why?

read_if_gay_ 6y ago
GP is arguing there should be a user-facing notification.
- eli 6y ago
  Ah, yeah, that's fair. I could imagine there are also cases where people are happy there is no public notification. If I get in a heated twitter argument and say something over the line, I'd probably prefer Twitter just let me fix it quietly

vvillena 6y ago

As a counterpoint, Twitter as a company isn't forced to do any such thing, so if they think it can hurt its userbase and its revenue, it won't be done. Social media tries to establish a unique public forum, that gets policed by a single company. It's an unsustainable, doomed model. There's a reason the Internet as a whole is serviced by miriads of companies that are more or less forced to cooperate.

vaccinator 6y ago
But such massive companies probably should be held to standards similar to governments... they probably will eventually.
hamsterOnWheel 6y ago
I think there needs to be rules about transparency for media companies. In court you have to argue about and explain any disallowance of evidence; however in the court of public opinion, the media, no such rules apply. Obviously you have to be careful when coming up with rules for government regulation of media, but the laissez faire thing we're doing now doesn't seem to be heading on a positive trendline.
- RIMR 6y ago
  You are describing the abridging private organizations' right to free speech by congress... Twitter isn't the government, and they don't control speech anywhere but on the platform that they own. They could ban the American Flag and they still wouldn't owe anyone an explanation short of their stakeholders who are going to want to know how this factors into Twitter's only business: Selling ads.
  - hamsterOnWheel 6y ago
    >You are describing the abridging private organizations' right to free speech Many people and organizations have their free speech regulated because of the ability of speech to do harm (e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater). Saying something trite about rights is not an argument. these companies have a huge responsibility to our democracy, and treating them as if they're just another company is exactly what allows them to be so cynical about making decisions calculated to increase ad revenue even when they're harmful to democracy.
    - anthonypasq 6y ago
      why should we care whether its harmful to democracy? if the population of a democracy doesnt want to be a democracy anymore, that seems perfectly legitimate
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - chroem- 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
einpoklum 6y ago
I don't buy the moral legitimacy of groups of people doing wrong merely because they are recognized as a "private company" and not being legally bound to act a certain way. So, > a unique public forum, that gets policed by a single company ... is an unsustainable, doomed model is exactly right. It's just so damn hard to pull people out of it!
BurningFrog 6y ago
Since this ban is helping the Biden campaign by keeping a damaging story from being spread before the election, it can be seen as an in kind campaign contribution. And for that there are some strict laws! If the laws actually apply for this, I have no idea...
- bosswipe 6y ago
  Imagine how much Fox News and a hundred talk radio shows would contribute in that scenario.

vmchale 6y ago

Pretty standard for a company, for better or for worse.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago

Meh. Just go to the NYPost directly if you want. We shouldn't be forcing and infringing on the freedoms of corporations to decide what they can sell/show.

Kaytaro 6y ago
Sure, but if they're going to be an editorialized platform they should be held liable for the content of each and every tweet.
- bosswipe 6y ago
  If Twitter were held liable for user's posts they would probably ban all right-wing content since that's were most of the libel I see comes from. For example reddit tried hard to keep /r/TheDonald around but it turned out to be an impossible task. Especially in online right-wing youth culture there's a strong anything goes, ends justify the means, trolling for the lulz, strain where they find it more acceptable to spread deliberate misinformation.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Not sure what this actually means - liable for what? They already ban tweets required by law. What other liability is there?

RIMR 6y ago

"The false conclusion I jumped to is someone else's fault for giving me too little information" That's a terrible excuse. Lack of information isn't the same as misinformation.

Shivetya 6y ago

I am in the camp of, once you open your company to political communication and news you are beholden to be open to all such activity as long as it is legal. You don't get to choose and the reason you don't get to choose is because filtering one view over another provides a service to the view permitted and as such is political speech and or contribution to one party over another. As in, once you open that door it goes both ways. Twitter on purpose catered to news and political organizations and while they are free to issue a disclaimer of not supporting a message or messenger as long as its legal they should be held to account