19 ms·

Can we have a conversation about broader implications of the increasing power in the public discourse of Twitter et al.? I’m no Trump supporter but I do wonder

• minimaxir 6y ago
  Trump's recent tweets that were flagged by Twitter weren't disagreements, they were antidemocratic.
  • googthrowaway42 6y ago
    Censoring the elected president is inherently anti democratic.
    • brown9-2 6y ago
      A warning is not censorship.
      • googthrowaway42 6y ago
        That is a depraved level of disingenuousness.
        • brown9-2 6y ago
          So is telling the public that there was massive fraud in all the states you lost and refusing to admit defeat!
          • googthrowaway42 6y ago
            He didn't allege massive fraud in all the states he lost. There are severe irregularities that have been recorded in many different areas within certain swing states. He has no obligation to admit defeat until the electors vote on the President in mid December. Another morally depraved take.
    • squidfish 6y ago
      There is no democracy on a privately owned platform. Trump can say what he wants, but Twitter absolutely has a choice what, if anything, they allow to be published on their platform. FWIW, Trump's time on Twitter is winding down. The only reason he hasn't received the ban-hammer from Twitter is his unique position as an elected official. January 20th shortly after noon, he will no longer exist on Twitter.
      • drdec 6y ago
        > There is no democracy on a privately owned platform. Interesting. Would the right-wing be better off if Twitter were a government-owned entity, thus ensuring that their right to free speech would always allow unfettered access? Would we ever be able to convince them to trust the government enough that that was actually the case? Would they be able to overcome their impulse in favor of privatization over nationalization to allow something like that to happen?
      • nostromo 6y ago
        > There is no democracy on a privately owned platform. So, do you support net neutrality? It's the ISP's platform, they can do what they want with it... right?
    • eertami 6y ago
      No it isn't. I'm quite sure you know it isn't. Being _unable_ to censor the president is what would be anti-democratic. Only in authoritarian regimes would a leader be able to force private companies to spread their message. In a democratic country, you have the freedom to choose what you want to support and not support.
      • googthrowaway42 6y ago
        Authoritarianism and Democracy are not opposing ideas.
  • hintymad 6y ago
    But what gives Twitter the power to dictate what is right and what is wrong?
    • dbt00 6y ago
      If he doesn't like it Trump can start his own site where he can say whatever he wants. There's no reason Twitter can't moderate his posts however they see fit, and in fact his position as elected official shielded him from most normal consequences of his behavior. Consider how judges around the country have responded to his campaign's legal filings, it's not like Twitter was out on a limb here.
      • hintymad 6y ago
        That I totally agree. Twitter is a private company, after all. In the meantime, Twitter is editorializing, and they should not enjoy Section 230.
        • geofft 6y ago
          What's an example in your mind of a case where someone can remove content and retain Section 230 immunity?
          • RonanTheGrey 6y ago
            Illegal content, in however the courts have agreed what 'illegal' means. Also spam, to what a reasonable person would consider spam -- and a political opinion isn't spam.
          • afiori 6y ago
            removing is not editorializing. Editorializing is twitter reading the tweet, deciding whether it is true or false, and then showing their decision to the end user together with the tweet. It is somewhat similar to choosing a title for a article, even if you leave the content unchanged you can significantly change the message or the effect by choosing an appropriate title. In this context twitter is not simply recommending accounts you might like, or refusing to deliver tweets, they are actually engaging with the speech of the user. As an analogy consider someone that retweets and article discussing some crimes. this person post a link and says: "I can't believe Person A is actually a murderer", in this case regardless of the article content the poster is exposed to a potential lawsuit in case Person A can prove its innocence. Twitter is closer to this example that to simply choosing to remove content. (specifically this does not apply to the removed trump tweets)
  • exolymph 6y ago
    "Disagreements" and "antidemocratic" aren't mutually exclusive categories.
    • wolfram74 6y ago
      I don't know that the /worst/ time to start a conversation about ending the practice of voting for office is when you're losing an elected office, but it's pretty bad.
  • rayiner 6y ago
    The story about Hunter Biden wasn’t anti-Democratic. Tabloid fodder, but not anti-Democratic.
    • pjc50 6y ago
      Didn't it just turn out not to be true?
      • afiori 6y ago
        No, the story simply had very little evidence and so had no definitive claims, but for now there is no evidence that those email where planted by foreign agents nor that the content of the laptop was falsified (for example while the Biden campaign dismissed the story they never claimed the emails to be false). Moreover a witness that was part of that email thread confirmed the conclusion reached in the original story.
    • skuhn 6y ago
      Twitter didn't block that post for that reason. Also it wasn't on Trump's account, it was the NY Post which is, as you say, a tabloid. As you can see here, he posted about it and there is no warning label: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1317825484495880192 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/13178254844958801...
    • ummonk 6y ago
      That was blocked for privacy violations. And Twitter allowed discussion of the story, just not hotlinks to the story itself which was publishing stolen private content.
  • prossercj 6y ago
    Can we not disagree about the value of democracy?
    • eightysixfour 6y ago
      We all live in a society that functions the way it does (for good and bad) because we have some shared foundational beliefs in something like democracy. While I have mixed opinions about digital censorship in general, it should not be surprising for a (quasi)democratic society that values free speech to silence those in power who would encourage large groups to question those core values. This is especially true since western society regularly tries to interpret and judge intent along with what people say, and it has judged that Trump's intent is self-serving and not an honest disagreement, and as a result it has deemed it at least somewhat acceptable to censor him.
    • dlp211 6y ago
      This isn't some philosophy or political science class. We are a Constitutional Republic which is a fancy way of saying that we are a type of democracy. One which the POTUS swore an oath to uphold.
    • Kephael 6y ago
      Why is it inherently good? If we import 50 million poor people what do you think would appeal to them? Why wouldn't large groups just vote themselves access to other people's wealth? If 51% of people vote to steer a ship into an iceberg should this be accepted because of democracy? Democracy is a religion, look at Singapore and China and compare them to the West.
  • remarkEon 6y ago
    >they were antidemocratic. And "antidemocratic" gets defined by, well, Twitter.
• cblconfederate 6y ago
  It feels like twitter staff are (ab)using the popularity of its users to promote their own agenda. That is not right and will probably have implications about their relationship with Article 230 (which IIRC assumes "good faith"). It's not fair to other biased media, which are legally liable for what they publish.
  • JoshTriplett 6y ago
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
    • cblconfederate 6y ago
      this is what i m talking about > any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
      • JoshTriplett 6y ago
        The article I linked specifically addresses why that isn't a concern.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• GavinMcG 6y ago
  I think the shift to watch will be whether Trump's tactic of out-and-out lying takes deeper roots, particularly among Republicans or more broadly.
• brown9-2 6y ago
  It’s hard to think of a realistic example of the type of misinformation that is damaging to our society and democracy that Joe Biden could post. I think we need to acknowledge the unique threat that Trump is/was and stop both sides-ing this.
  • dx87 6y ago
    The democrats spent the last 4 years saying Trump stole the election by colluding with Russia, and twitter didn't take any of that down.
    • mhh__ 6y ago
      The difference is that there is actually hard evidence and convictions supporting that, as opposed to the Trump campaign just making it up as they go along. Very poor argument really, think about it.
      • afiori 6y ago
        What about all those people that claimed to have definitive proofs on twitter and on television and then it turned out that they had no knowledge of the facts? The broad statements might have some supporting fact but along the way some (Brian Stelter I think) have theorized that Trump was a Russian agent since the soviet union.
      • dx87 6y ago
        I don't doubt that Biden won, but it's not like there's zero evidence for voter fraud. A USPS employee was recently arrested for trying to take absentee ballots out of the country, another in PA said that he was told to back date ballots received after the election so they could still be counted, and they've also found ballots in the trash that were mostly for Trump. He's exaggerating, but he's not just making things up either.
        • robryan 6y ago
          With 150 million ballots both sides could easily find individuals that may have had legitimate issues with voting. As to something systematic they don’t seem to have found anything.
• robertlagrant 6y ago
  I don't think Jack Dorsey would do that to a Democratic candidate.
  • guscost 6y ago
    If said candidate was also challenging the existing power structures in this country, they would.
    • oezi 6y ago
      Citation needed. A term like power structures is just lazy thinking.
      • guscost 6y ago
        Citation for my belief in a hypothetical? Sorry, not possible.
        • arnoldsing 6y ago
          > Sorry, not possible Source? Also, I think this video is an excellent counter to what you are claiming: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
        • robertlagrant 6y ago
          Wow, a self-burn. Those are rare.
  • recursive 6y ago
    Neither do I, but I think that's because Democratic candidates for some reason don't have the same penchant for misinformation and incitement.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• guscost 6y ago
  Whatever their justification, it is obvious that there is absolutely going to be a tendency to do this with anyone who is even half as much of an outsider as Trump. The notion that these watchmen are simply protecting us from “lies” is a naive delusion. And yes, regardless of your politics, that is not a good thing for citizens.
  • evgen 6y ago
    If the 'outsider' does nothing but lie, threaten, and harass opponents then I think Twitter will continue to do it job and suppress the assholes. If you happen to be a political ally of the asshole then I guess it sucks to be you.
    • guscost 6y ago
      This kind of bullying (from either side) leads directly to war. “The First Amendment is first for a reason. Second Amendment is just in case the First one doesn't work out.” - Chappelle
      • skywal_l 6y ago
        Reminder: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I don't see twitter mentioned.
        • guscost 6y ago
          Shall we convene a panel with myself, Dave Chappelle, and you, and debate the meaning of “First one not working out”? You’re completely ignoring my and his intended meaning, which is that restricting speech pushes people toward violence.
          • skywal_l 6y ago
• redwood 6y ago
  I think that while it may seem like a slippery slope at first, it is what we need. I think it's actually quite similar to the immune system analogy in the comment above. We need to have democratic participants in a democratic process. Our immune system needs to repel the undemocratic elements in some capacity. Admittedly the question becomes how we can in a fair manner judge what ideas in which context can have such a dangerous impact as to be non-democratic. We all have to reflect how close fascism and other kinds of ideologies always are just beneath the surface, and that we are all susceptible of falling on that train it isn't specifically another group that is.
• TuringNYC 6y ago
  I think the harder problem is not the binary cases but the shades of gray. Want to ban Nazi's? I wont disagree, most people wont. Want to ban group X which is fighting with group Y in a tit-for-tat skirmish over decades? How do you decide who is right? How do you decide truth? What about cases where someone has done something bad in response to something bad done earlier? Do you ban one side? The other? Both? Does the side with more political/status power decide who gets banned?
  • twodave 6y ago
    This reminds me of the episode of Mythic Quest where they decided they wanted to ban Nazis--but then they started asking, "Who else should we ban?" The committee ended up with a horrifyingly-unwieldy list of hate/predatory groups. They felt it was just too many, so they put them all into a bracket and voted--Nazis still won. By the time the meeting was over, the engineers had figured out a way to flag all the Nazis and just moved them all to their own instance. Problem solved.
  • hectormalot 6y ago
    > Want to ban group X which is fighting with group Y in a tit-for-tat skirmish over decades? How do you decide who is right? How do you decide truth? I think there is a difference between ‘right vs wrong’ and ‘factually correct vs incorrect’. Platforms like Twitter will rarely be in a position to decide right/wrong, because in many opposed discussion both sides will use the platform. On the factual correctness, platforms can more easily take a stance in high impact cases. I would assume that they’d have out the same warnings on Biden’s Twitter if he had said ‘I won’ on Tuesday. That leaves a challenge: how do you decide what’s a fact? For example on the vote count. Most outlets say the reported figures are fact, but it implies trusting the process of counting and reporting. Removing that implied trust means others can take ‘there is fraud!’ as fact just as well. Twitter seems to use the mainstream media (eg AP predicting the election outcome) as a base of trust (and so do I). But I’ve come to realize that once you don’t trust the media, it is easy to believe in another set of facts (that are true for you), and suddenly (to you) it seems Twitter is censoring. I hope people will find and trust each other again.
    • 6y ago
• lwansbrough 6y ago
  Trump is making blatant baseless claims and accusations. That gets you a Twitter timeout. Other people receive similar treatment. (Congresswoman Majorie Taylor Greene’s Twitter page is entirely censored because all she does is spread QAnon conspiracy theories.) The solution is to just stop spreading disinformation.
  • zepto 6y ago
    The problem with that is that mainstream press outlets such as Bloomberg spread disinformation and don’t get censored.
• squidfish 6y ago
  Your premise is wrong. Twitter's actions weren't as a result of something it disagreed with. Your comment/thought illustrates one of the REAL root problems ... and that is we are living in a state of two apparent states of "factual reality". Unfortunately this is not possible. There is only one set of facts. Until we can return to that, we will be repeating similar scenarios. In other words, there is nothing inappropriate about Twitter putting disclaimers on objectively factually incorrect statements.
  • vianneychevalie 6y ago
    I’m sorry but how do you reconcile your second paragraph’s criticism of the coexistence of two factual realities and your last paragraph in which you simply pick the one you happen to personally favor?
    • dlp211 6y ago
      Data supports one of those two realities. Joe Biden is President-Elect.
      • MacsHeadroom 6y ago
        The reality is that he's not. Not yet, since the Electors haven't gone to the Electoral College and still won't for a long time. In between now and then there will be court challenges. Will those challenges change the ultimate outcome? Almost certainly not. But it's still a fact that Biden is not the President-Elect. Should Twitter fact check people calling him the President-Elect? IMO, probably but only to look unbiased. Will they? No, because they don't care about looking biased despite 70M+ Americans siding with Trump.
        • GavinMcG 6y ago
          It's not "biased" and never has been to project a winner based on statistical data. But if we're sticking to a statistical conclusion, how do you think Biden should be described at this point? There is essentially no basis in history or law to believe that Biden will not take office, unless he dies before inauguration. There are no credible legal theories by which he will not be elected.
• daenz 6y ago
  It's not just Twitter, it's the media in general. When I watch CNBC, and they decide to stop airing the President's presser because he's lying, that says to me that the media believes that they should do the thinking for me. That says a lot about how they view the public. We're building a world where "think for yourself" means "defer your thinking to Trusted Sources™", which is not a world that I support. EDIT>> s/CNN/CNBC
  • sk5t 6y ago
    Some of the networks wisely determined that the speech was unfounded, baseless, and harmful. News networks do not need to be a spigot for outright lies and fabrication.
    • RonanTheGrey 6y ago
      Sorry, I want to know what my public servants are saying. How we can we make sure they are serving us if their words are being hidden from us?
      • eyeball 6y ago
        The party will take care of that for you. Shhh.
      • jackson1442 6y ago
        Wasn't it streamed by the White House itself as well? Should every TV station be required to air every public servant's statements? Surely going to the source isn't too big of a burden for most.
        • bot41 6y ago
          it's not every tv station in question it's about news stations covering the election. 'every public servant' is not in question.. it's about the current president of the USA
      • ntsplnkv2 6y ago
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• x87678r 6y ago
  Its fascinating. I'd never think the most important person in the world would have their tweets hidden. I'm quite impressed with how they did it. Though if I really liked Trump I could feel hard done by. If you haven't see its worth a look. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump
• adrianmonk 6y ago
  Statements fall on a spectrum between pure opinion and incontrovertible, undisputed fact. Somewhere along there is a threshold where it's no longer about agreeing with something. I'd say it's impossible to do a perfect job of finding that threshold, but I think Twitter has done a decent job of it with Trump's tweets. But yes, as it stands right now, it is in their hands and we are relying on them to do a good job of it when they decide to.
• deanCommie 6y ago
  "because of something it disagreed with" is a mischaracterization of "because of provable falsehoods dangerous to public safety, and democracy". A President with a massive angry following with guns, tweeting falsehoods about the lack of integrity of the electoral process (And I don't mean the vague things, I mean the explicitly false things like his party not having access to view vote count processes, which they do) is about as close as you can get to yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater on the internet. Not only is it Twitter's prerogative to act accordingly, I'd go further and say it is their ethical duty. And yes, if Biden did the equivalent "from the other side", Twitter would act in exactly the same way.
• skywal_l 6y ago
  Please give us an example of a Tweet from Trump that was removed and that was just remotely debatable.
  • lovecg 6y ago
    There are a few parts to your question. Can I find anything salvageable in the flagged statements that he made on Twitter? Definitely not, I’m pissed off we elected someone who thinks it’s OK to say things like that in public. I think Colbert said it best: Trump doing those things puts an eternal stain on the Office of Presidency; now among the things Presidents of the US have done, being subjected to Internet moderation is one of them. This was unimaginable merely a decade ago. Trump forced Twitter’s hand here, but now we live in a world where that precedent exists. Am I excited that We the People are delegating the decisions what speech to amplify or not to fickle private companies? It’s hard for me to get behind that. Something just feels very wrong about this idea.
    • fl0wenol 6y ago
      The president is human and a civilian just like the rest of us shlubs. Don't forget that.
      • DoreenMichele 6y ago
        I don't know what you mean by "civilian." In my life, that typically means "not in the military." But being President of the US makes one the Commander in Chief. That's the highest military position we have in this country.
        • fl0wenol 6y ago
          Don't take my word for it https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-2/clause-1/the-commander-in-chief-a-civilian-officer https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/sec... Not only this, but the offices of the SECDEF and secretaries of each service branch are also led by civilians, to which the JCS report. There are strict limits to the number of positions in those offices that can be filled by uniformed officers.
• mixologic 6y ago
  Twitter didnt hide Trump's tweets because they disagreed, the hid them because they were unsubstantiated falsehoods, that could have a deleterious effect on peoples faith in the process itself. They would have hidden Biden's too, if he did something along those lines.
  • phendrenad2 6y ago
    How famous does one have to be to get this special treatment? Or is it just for political candidates? (I'm firmly in the "Their platform, their rules" camp, so I agree that Twitter CAN do this, I'm really just curious as to why people think they SHOULD).
    • chris11 6y ago
      > How famous does one have to be to get this special treatment? Or is it just for political candidates? The special treatment is placing the warning instead of banning them. But you have to be important enough that executives think applying the standard policy to you would be a bad idea.
• ChrisClark 6y ago
  Proven lies that are trying to kill the democratic election process should be hidden by default. It's not even censorship, they are all there still and anyone can read them. But proven lies need to be called out. Freedom of the press allows us to call out politicians on their lies.
• adamsea 6y ago
  Maybe we should have federally refulated aocial media then, or the social media version of PBS. Then we as a democracy could decide via legislation and law what is approrpriate and what is not.
• crimethink352 6y ago
  Of course it's not isolated. It's clear that the left wants the power to censor factual information that undermines their narratives, like crime statistics, and especially interracial crime statistics. That's why they hate 4chan so much.
• tiziniano 6y ago
  Broader tendency for sure, look at the Alexandra Ocasio tweet asking for a list of Trump "enablers". The future is scary
• im3w1l 6y ago
  I definitely think this is the future. And other countries are wise to take note, and consider very carefully the threat Twitter poses to their sovereignty. It's exceedingly likely that American liberals will tell you what to do, and pat themselves on the back.
  • ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    It's a ridiculous and absurd stretch to say that Twitter poses any threat to American sovereignty but Trump claiming an election he lost isn't a threat to that same sovereignty.
• twodave 6y ago
  I wonder how much public opinion was impacted by Trump's tweets (one way or the other). I also wonder the magnitude of the impact of Twitter's actions. I sort of also wonder why some public figures are subject to fact checking and others are not. Censoring really ought to be driven by the individual, not the platform. By getting involved in censoring certain parties, Twitter is implying here (whether intentionally or not) that its platform is a source of truth. That's a horrifying notion on its own. If anything my trust in Twitter (what little I had) is basically gone. It has nothing to do with politics. The minute a social media platform starts meddling with user content (especially the content of public figures, especially especially the current POTUS, whoever he is), I no longer believe anything I see on the platform. It's hard enough to know what to believe without questioning the authenticity of people's statements.
• crocodiletears 6y ago
  My Facebook account was recently restricted from 'complex entities interactions' a week before the election until November 28, with no explanation as to why, and an error thrown whenever I click a link to contest the restrictions (for lack of a better term). Thus far, it seems to mean that I can't follow, comment, post, or dm on/with groups or facebook pages. I cannot create events, pages, or new groups. I can only post to my timeline, dm my friends, or comment on my friend's posts. I do not post, or comment on Facebook, though I am a member of a number of politically engaged and activist facebook groups on the fringes for the purposes of having access to on the ground primary sources. I have a number of friends active on the right who received a similar set of restrictions, ending on the same day. They're used to these kinds of restrictions, comment often, and thought nothing of it. This is typical of facebook to them. More unexpectedly, and in my opinion a disturbing development in an already unsettling moderation regime, a number of second-order contacts (friends of friends and coworkers) who work as left and progressive organizers/activists (not liberals, progressives and leftists) also received the same levels of restriction. This was accompanied by the removal of quite a few fringe activist and political pages, the most infamous which comes to my mind being 'God Emperor Trump', a large meme page that had significant reach during the 2016 election. I don't think this is circumstantially unique. This is a preview. Assuming recounts and court challenges go Biden's way, I believe we're looking at a future where social media uses the tools they've developed over the past four years to enforce a bipartisan moderate consensus over their user-bases, restricting any populist, revolutionary, or potentially dangers speech or users that might produce it. The activist left has largely been shielded by its circumstantial alliance with the DNC establishment and its allied institutions, given their mutual opposition to the Trump administration. The populist right has partially been shielded by the implicit threat of Trump's executive authority. Libertarians (I'm including the Boogaloo movement, and many lockdown protests under this umbrella) have had no such cover, and in my limited experience I've seen entire networks of users and pages been scrubbed off the platform over the past two years with little fanfare, and largely as a product of their affiliations. I believe their experience will be mirrored on the left and the right going forward.
  • tim44 6y ago
    The censorship is getting scary. I'm recently permabanned from reddit for being too progressive. I shouldn't have criticized mayor Pete for his takes on M4A on the politics sub. Both ends of the spectrum are being deplatformed.
• jtitor 6y ago
  The trend where large Internet platforms control political content propagation will intensify, and prevail in the end. Elites all over the world will not easily cede control of important narratives, which they wield in traditional media (news paper, TVs). For me, deleting COVID misinformation is ok. Blocking Trump's tweet on the election results is a bit more dubious (why not leave it to the people to judge, which are given the right to vote anyway?). And we will see more of these in the coming years.
• jasonvorhe 6y ago
  The way you phrase it is as intellectually dishonest as it gets. Twitter didn't hide tweets they disagreed with, they hid tweets from a public official who cast doubt on the election process with no shred of evidence and acted in a responsible manner. With additional security on his account, there's are also additional responsibilities and since he didn't care, they had to interfere. They didn't delete anything, they didn't remove anything, they just made it perfectly clear that there's no proof to his allegations. That's responsible behavior and something that should have come way sooner.