5 ms·

Ted Cruz Rips Jack Dorsey over Censorship of Post’s Hunter Biden Bombshell

14 points by bra-ket 6y ago

ganoushoreilly 6y ago
He’s not wrong, but I don’t expect this submission or any post about it to make the front page. Which is ironic given the topic. The follow up where Ted tried to post up this link again after the hearing, shows it’s still blocked. Which is 100% counter to what Dorsey just stated under oath.
- Finnucane 6y ago
  He is wrong. He says "Who put you in charge of what the media is allowed to report?" but nothing Twitter does changes what the Post is allowed to report. The Post, did in fact, run the report. No one said they couldn't. They suffered no legal consequences for it, were not forced to offer any retractions. Twitter has no obligation to promote the report.
  - ganoushoreilly 6y ago
    Dorsey (and others) repeatedly presented Twitter as neutral and effective at keeping in line with their polices and the law. Taking away the context of mediation for political reasoning (IE because it works against Biden), Twitters cause for action was breaking the rules on hacked data. That in of itself was proven to be false. As was stated by both Dorsey and Zuckerberg, they had and have no evidence of Russian Dis-information or that the data is hacked or illegally obtained. They also acknowledge there is no evidence that the allegations were false. There were no Fact checking procedures leveraged. In the case of Dorsey, he then said they were wrong and that they have since removed the block for sharing of that information. Which as stated previously, was false, and would amount to lying under oath. To prove partisan bias and hypocrisy, the follow up question of why didn't you block or ban discussion or distribution of Private Tax returns (which is a federal offense) was important. Their responses and handling show that they do not treat data equally, the do not treat context equally, and have and will likely continue to apply selective biases. Additionally, Dorsey was asked why Trump was censored or labeled as non factual over 65 times, when no other leader had been was intersting as well. His response on why they wouldn't block the Ayatollah and others was that they had a duty to distribute their messages freely, yet when faced with clear evidence that they broke Twitter rules, he had no response. Further, when it was pointed out that Twitter isn't even available in those countries, he had no statement either. You can argue both sides, and thats fine. Break it down to the single argument here though and it is clear, there is a bias amongst these firms. Now the argument is what should be done and what does that impact. You don't have to like it, but the reality is this sets a dangerous precident that needs to be addressed. All is fine with the above until it impacts the other side. Then all of us end up with excessive rules and controls that ruins it for all of us. The argument here is simply apply the rules equally. They're choosing not to do that. Twitter, Facebook, and others ultimately made their choices, now they have to explain and defend.
    - Finnucane 6y ago
      Twitter has no obligation not to have partisan bias.
      - ayende 6y ago
        That is actually not true. They can have a bias, but then they will lose the safe harbor of being a pipe, not a publisher. If they are a publisher, then they are _responsible_ for the content on the platform. If they edit / censor information on their system, with a bias, they have to deal with the results, and I don't think they want that.
      - ganoushoreilly 6y ago
        Sure they don't, but stop saying you don't and be clear that you manage content the way you want. Then we can regulate you accordingly for being a publisher. You get one or the other, they made a choice, now they will be accountable to it.

14 points by bra-ket 6y ago

He’s not wrong, but I don’t expect this submission or any post about it to make the front page. Which is ironic given the topic. The follow up where Ted tried to post up this link again after the hearing, shows it’s still blocked. Which is 100% counter to what Dorsey just stated under oath.

Finnucane 6y ago
He is wrong. He says "Who put you in charge of what the media is allowed to report?" but nothing Twitter does changes what the Post is allowed to report. The Post, did in fact, run the report. No one said they couldn't. They suffered no legal consequences for it, were not forced to offer any retractions. Twitter has no obligation to promote the report.
- ganoushoreilly 6y ago
  Dorsey (and others) repeatedly presented Twitter as neutral and effective at keeping in line with their polices and the law. Taking away the context of mediation for political reasoning (IE because it works against Biden), Twitters cause for action was breaking the rules on hacked data. That in of itself was proven to be false. As was stated by both Dorsey and Zuckerberg, they had and have no evidence of Russian Dis-information or that the data is hacked or illegally obtained. They also acknowledge there is no evidence that the allegations were false. There were no Fact checking procedures leveraged. In the case of Dorsey, he then said they were wrong and that they have since removed the block for sharing of that information. Which as stated previously, was false, and would amount to lying under oath. To prove partisan bias and hypocrisy, the follow up question of why didn't you block or ban discussion or distribution of Private Tax returns (which is a federal offense) was important. Their responses and handling show that they do not treat data equally, the do not treat context equally, and have and will likely continue to apply selective biases. Additionally, Dorsey was asked why Trump was censored or labeled as non factual over 65 times, when no other leader had been was intersting as well. His response on why they wouldn't block the Ayatollah and others was that they had a duty to distribute their messages freely, yet when faced with clear evidence that they broke Twitter rules, he had no response. Further, when it was pointed out that Twitter isn't even available in those countries, he had no statement either. You can argue both sides, and thats fine. Break it down to the single argument here though and it is clear, there is a bias amongst these firms. Now the argument is what should be done and what does that impact. You don't have to like it, but the reality is this sets a dangerous precident that needs to be addressed. All is fine with the above until it impacts the other side. Then all of us end up with excessive rules and controls that ruins it for all of us. The argument here is simply apply the rules equally. They're choosing not to do that. Twitter, Facebook, and others ultimately made their choices, now they have to explain and defend.
  - Finnucane 6y ago
    Twitter has no obligation not to have partisan bias.
    - ayende 6y ago
      That is actually not true. They can have a bias, but then they will lose the safe harbor of being a pipe, not a publisher. If they are a publisher, then they are _responsible_ for the content on the platform. If they edit / censor information on their system, with a bias, they have to deal with the results, and I don't think they want that.
    - ganoushoreilly 6y ago
      Sure they don't, but stop saying you don't and be clear that you manage content the way you want. Then we can regulate you accordingly for being a publisher. You get one or the other, they made a choice, now they will be accountable to it.