7 ms·
It's just a matter of objective fact that the world does now have a kind of 'public square' and it happens to be Twitter. Thru a series of events no one planne
by WClayFerguson 6y ago
It's just a matter of objective fact that the world does now have a kind of 'public square' and it happens to be Twitter.
Thru a series of events no one planned we just evolved into a situation where a public figure's main way of reaching out directly to their audience is over Twitter.
The correct analogy here is the phone (not TV networks). When the telephone system was originally a monopoly (or even today) imagine if the phone company had started disconnecting lines or censoring calls? Alexander Graham Bell would've been hanged from the nearest tree.
But if you want to use a TV Network analogy it's not like canceling an Anchor, it's like canceling a 'viewer'. It would be like if CNN had the power to stop any individual from either consuming CNN content or creating CNN content. Total Godlike control over the individual.
- mattnewton 6y agoIn this case it is like canceling an anchor, because the people are complaining that their speech is being moderated under section 230. Whether a network like facebook can ban someone is a separate issue of tech company power, this regulation protects them to moderate content while not being legally responsible for the content they don't moderate.
- WClayFerguson 6y agoI think Section 230 is a distraction from the real issue. Here's the crux: Q) Can AT&T censor texts or cut service if an AT&T employee gets triggered by the content of speech? A) Not just no, but hell no. The same applies to Twitter for precisely all the same reasons.
- mattnewton 6y agoCan Twitter remove a tweet because advertisers don't want to appear next to it? Can Twitter remove a tweet because it suspects it is an action from a bot? Is it censorship to rank a post lower on someone else's feed? Section 230 is absolutely the crux here because it's about what we expect from internet platforms. Do we expect them to be moderated or not? If we expect them to be unmoderated entirely they would look nothing like the current platforms.
- WClayFerguson 6y agoSure there could be a checkbox somewhere to hide foul language, or even hide things that the progressive Twitter kids deem offensive (like "All lives matter" for example), ...so people who want to live in an online safe-space can run with "Safe Space" mode on. But AT&T can't cut service, nor cancel texts after sent, etc, and for all the same reasons you'd give for phone companies not censoring I'd claim apply to Twitter.
- mattnewton 6y agoIf "safe space mode" is on by default, and you can't see a pundit without turning it on, I don't see how that is different from demoting or hiding a tweet behind a disclaimer. Or, for that matter, how it is really different from having to go to another platform where safe space mode doesn't exist, to even know it exists. As an aside, the constant bashing of "twitter kids" and allusions to political speech like "all lives matter" being censored (which is not happening, as far as I know) seems counterproductive.
- WClayFerguson 6y agoThe problem with twitter is the censorship, shadow-banning, feed-manipulation, and permanent banning. Despite your confused opinions, there is no 'setting' to disable any of that.
- mattnewton 6y agoI think you might have missed my point- you said that there could be a checkbox for people to hide offensive content, and I asked what the difference between manipulating someone’s feed so their posts are only seen by people looking for it directly, and having a content filter on by default. They would be functionally identical in how they limit the audience, which if I understand correctly is the main ill you are accusing twitter/etc of.
- WClayFerguson 6y ago