3 ms·

I'd prefer full censorship instead of the partisan sham that Twitter is doing now.

rektide 6y ago
why don't you go someplace else then? no one is forcing anyone on to Twitter, it had no more sway or status than the Babylon Bee or any other media. if people vote with their feet to hang out someplace, it should not face increasing nuetrality regulations, imo. to answer Cruzcs question, every active Twitter user voted for Twitter, & our choice not to go use an alternative is an ongoing continual voting that could change any day. I also don't agree, don't think Twitter is acting at all biased. I think they have very basic rules & have been very kind about trying to enforce them.
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  > no one is forcing anyone on to Twitter, it had no more sway or status than the Babylon Bee or any other media. That is probably the most untrue statement I've heard this week. Twitter the de facto standard way by which famous people and journalists speak out to their audience. As a general user, I have no alternative for the kind of news that is on Twitter. As a journalist/celebrity, there is no alternative to reach my audience directly. There is an immensely strong network effect. > I also don't agree, don't think Twitter is acting at all biased. I think they have very basic rules & have been very kind about trying to enforce them. Why then did they let people post about the fictional Russian collusion for 3 years? Investigations by federal agencies finally concluded that there was none. So why did Twitter allow that narrative to play out? Why did they let the leaked video of Trump saying random things in personal conversations be posted and shared? Why did Twitter let people post about fake and unproven allegations against Bret Kavanaugh? What was different?
  - rektide 6y ago
    This is incredibly insightful commentary, and I think it confesses to what a lot of the people protesting these platforms are actually angry about. It's unfortunate that humanity is addicted to a couple pairs of supra-governmental private entities, that governments are less important than these private properties, but I don't think their massive massive world dominating size entitles governments to come meddle with their affairs & poke & prod & demand they become certain specific forms of free speech vehicles. It's up to the company to decide what kind of platform they want to be. And it's up to us to use these systems or not. This above statement works & holds, so long as it's only network effect & not technical barrier to generating our own speech systems. Which, thankfully, I feel like the internet readily supplies (at least for now!).
dragonwriter 6y ago
> I'd prefer full censorship instead of the partisan sham that Twitter is doing now. Historically, and this is one of its major problems, "full" censorship is a partisan act by the party defining and implementing the standards. So, when you say this, all I hear is that you prefer a different partisan basis for censorship, and for it to be globally-consistent partisanship rather than variable to reflecting the partisans preferences of individual outlets.
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  I meant make them responsible for anything that is posted/published on the platform. Oh, someone tweeted out a link to download a pirated copy of Mulan? Twitter is sued by Disney for losses incurred. Someone tweeted a threat to the President, secret service will interrogate Twitter execs/mods. Someone posts a tweet about depression and later is found to have committed suicide, Twitter will be criminally responsible for not informing the local police about a possible suicidal person. Then they will be forced to vet every single tweet for accuracy/illegal content, or face continuous threat of lawsuits. Right now, they are blatantly bidding for one party's candidate, and abusing their monopoly by doing so. And hiding behind the guise of being a "platform".

why don't you go someplace else then? no one is forcing anyone on to Twitter, it had no more sway or status than the Babylon Bee or any other media. if people vote with their feet to hang out someplace, it should not face increasing nuetrality regulations, imo. to answer Cruzcs question, every active Twitter user voted for Twitter, & our choice not to go use an alternative is an ongoing continual voting that could change any day. I also don't agree, don't think Twitter is acting at all biased. I think they have very basic rules & have been very kind about trying to enforce them.

perryizgr8 6y ago
> no one is forcing anyone on to Twitter, it had no more sway or status than the Babylon Bee or any other media. That is probably the most untrue statement I've heard this week. Twitter the de facto standard way by which famous people and journalists speak out to their audience. As a general user, I have no alternative for the kind of news that is on Twitter. As a journalist/celebrity, there is no alternative to reach my audience directly. There is an immensely strong network effect. > I also don't agree, don't think Twitter is acting at all biased. I think they have very basic rules & have been very kind about trying to enforce them. Why then did they let people post about the fictional Russian collusion for 3 years? Investigations by federal agencies finally concluded that there was none. So why did Twitter allow that narrative to play out? Why did they let the leaked video of Trump saying random things in personal conversations be posted and shared? Why did Twitter let people post about fake and unproven allegations against Bret Kavanaugh? What was different?
- rektide 6y ago
  This is incredibly insightful commentary, and I think it confesses to what a lot of the people protesting these platforms are actually angry about. It's unfortunate that humanity is addicted to a couple pairs of supra-governmental private entities, that governments are less important than these private properties, but I don't think their massive massive world dominating size entitles governments to come meddle with their affairs & poke & prod & demand they become certain specific forms of free speech vehicles. It's up to the company to decide what kind of platform they want to be. And it's up to us to use these systems or not. This above statement works & holds, so long as it's only network effect & not technical barrier to generating our own speech systems. Which, thankfully, I feel like the internet readily supplies (at least for now!).

dragonwriter 6y ago

> I'd prefer full censorship instead of the partisan sham that Twitter is doing now. Historically, and this is one of its major problems, "full" censorship is a partisan act by the party defining and implementing the standards. So, when you say this, all I hear is that you prefer a different partisan basis for censorship, and for it to be globally-consistent partisanship rather than variable to reflecting the partisans preferences of individual outlets.

perryizgr8 6y ago
I meant make them responsible for anything that is posted/published on the platform. Oh, someone tweeted out a link to download a pirated copy of Mulan? Twitter is sued by Disney for losses incurred. Someone tweeted a threat to the President, secret service will interrogate Twitter execs/mods. Someone posts a tweet about depression and later is found to have committed suicide, Twitter will be criminally responsible for not informing the local police about a possible suicidal person. Then they will be forced to vet every single tweet for accuracy/illegal content, or face continuous threat of lawsuits. Right now, they are blatantly bidding for one party's candidate, and abusing their monopoly by doing so. And hiding behind the guise of being a "platform".