6 ms·

I am strongly anti-Trump and pro truth and reasonably pro Jack Dorsey and don’t disagree with anything you say except — I’m not sure why Jack Dorsey should get

I am strongly anti-Trump and pro truth and reasonably pro Jack Dorsey and don’t disagree with anything you say except — I’m not sure why Jack Dorsey should get to decide what’s true just because he invented a social media platform

tehwebguy 6y ago
Jack didn’t decide what’s true, in fact lies are posted to Twitter by users everyday. He just decided that these particular lies are too unreasonable for him to help spread them.
- jariel 6y ago
  "Jack didn’t decide what’s true" It's a little bit naive to think that the truth is easily discerned by any individual, it's always a matter of shades. 'Stole the Election' can mean many different things in many different contexts, not literally election fraud. I detest Donald Trump and don't much like Jack Dorsey, but he should not be in a position to arbiter the truth. I'm very thankful he censored Trump on the eve of the election, not thankful he banned the Post, and very worried about the future. We probably need regulations over this. The free speech people have to come to terms with the fact that the big mediums have always been filtered, and it only takes one insane president to start a civil war, that the truth among the plebes is 'Whatever their Ideologue Says' and so there needs to be credibility in the system. The anti-Trump crowd who are happy with the censoring need to realize how dangerous of a game this is. Twitter and FB need to set up a completely independent public board, with established guidelines and public oversight to manage these things..
rewgs 6y ago
He's not deciding. Just observing and reacting.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
baby 6y ago
I would expect them to have a team actually doing this in a more principled fashion, instead of Jack Dorsey calling the shot from his ivory tower.
systemvoltage 6y ago
At some point you're gonna have to trust an authoritative source. Whether that is APNews or NYT or straight from the government website. The question of "Who gets to decide the truth" is extremely tiring to refute - someone has always had the authoritative voice is determining what's true and what's not. You're shifting the burden of truth from one source to the other until there is no one you can trust. Statement: Foo is Bar. [1] [1] Source Baz. You then need to argue, why does Baz gets to decide what's true or not? This goes on ad-infinitum. By asking "Who gets to decide the truth", you're essentially saying "Why should I trust anyone?" and by that logic "I cannot trust anyone, so everything must be false." The society's fabric is based on trust in institutions. Whether it is government, an independent news source or whatever.
- symlinkk 6y ago
  How about I get to decide who to trust instead of Twitter, Reddit, etc censoring people and deciding for me?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    Perhaps you'll go to another source, say ABC news? You can ask them the same thing "Hey ABC news, why are you guys deciding the truth for me?". Literally every source you will use, your own argument will falsify it.
    - jtdev 6y ago
      Okay, so are you supportive of Twitter censoring political speech? Or should we be given the opportunity to view information and decide for ourselves what is bullshit and what isn’t? Anyone who believes everything they see on Twitter is beyond being helped by Jack’s censorship.
      - systemvoltage 6y ago
wan23 6y ago
Why would you say that anyone else should decide what's true on his platform? Twitter isn't even so popular that you can say it has a monopoly of any sort. There are plenty of alternative services, and no significant barriers to starting a new one. I guarantee that if the president of the United States was to say "From now on I'm only posting on my blog" then that blog would become very popular.
bagacrap 6y ago
I don't think it's as black and white as you say. "I won the presidency" could, in theory, be a true statement, even if it comes before the counting is complete and we haven't yet determined its veracity. "There was fraud" could, in fact, be true, even if the evidence to prove it is not forthcoming. Ultimately, Twitter censors things it doesn't think are healthy for its platform. I think that's within its rights, but I don't think it's by any means objective.
bsradcliffe 6y ago
Twitter doesn't point out what's true. They point out what's under dispute.
shadowgovt 6y ago
> I’m not sure why Jack Dorsey should get to decide what’s true just because he invented a social media platform That's the fundamental misalignment of understanding in this era: he doesn't. He gets to decide what his platform hosts and how he spins it. The determiner of truth is, as it has always been, the audience.
randomsearch 6y ago
> I’m not sure why Jack Dorsey should get to decide what’s true just because he invented a social media platform A social media platform is a publisher, if it encourages news to be disseminated through its networks then it should be held to the same scrutiny. Some might cry - well this is impossible! I can tweet anything and a stranger can share it, how can I cope with that volume etc... well, then you have to choose: if you want to be a broadcaster, then you must obey the law and not broadcast propaganda or blatant falsehoods. If you do not want to censor or edit, then you must stop being a broadcaster, that is you must limit the reach of that material, so that a person may only communicate it to their friend and not further in the same way as an ordinary conversation in person, by telephone, or text message would work.

tehwebguy 6y ago

Jack didn’t decide what’s true, in fact lies are posted to Twitter by users everyday. He just decided that these particular lies are too unreasonable for him to help spread them.

jariel 6y ago
"Jack didn’t decide what’s true" It's a little bit naive to think that the truth is easily discerned by any individual, it's always a matter of shades. 'Stole the Election' can mean many different things in many different contexts, not literally election fraud. I detest Donald Trump and don't much like Jack Dorsey, but he should not be in a position to arbiter the truth. I'm very thankful he censored Trump on the eve of the election, not thankful he banned the Post, and very worried about the future. We probably need regulations over this. The free speech people have to come to terms with the fact that the big mediums have always been filtered, and it only takes one insane president to start a civil war, that the truth among the plebes is 'Whatever their Ideologue Says' and so there needs to be credibility in the system. The anti-Trump crowd who are happy with the censoring need to realize how dangerous of a game this is. Twitter and FB need to set up a completely independent public board, with established guidelines and public oversight to manage these things..

rewgs 6y ago

He's not deciding. Just observing and reacting.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

baby 6y ago

I would expect them to have a team actually doing this in a more principled fashion, instead of Jack Dorsey calling the shot from his ivory tower.

systemvoltage 6y ago

At some point you're gonna have to trust an authoritative source. Whether that is APNews or NYT or straight from the government website. The question of "Who gets to decide the truth" is extremely tiring to refute - someone has always had the authoritative voice is determining what's true and what's not. You're shifting the burden of truth from one source to the other until there is no one you can trust. Statement: Foo is Bar. [1] [1] Source Baz. You then need to argue, why does Baz gets to decide what's true or not? This goes on ad-infinitum. By asking "Who gets to decide the truth", you're essentially saying "Why should I trust anyone?" and by that logic "I cannot trust anyone, so everything must be false." The society's fabric is based on trust in institutions. Whether it is government, an independent news source or whatever.

symlinkk 6y ago
How about I get to decide who to trust instead of Twitter, Reddit, etc censoring people and deciding for me?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  Perhaps you'll go to another source, say ABC news? You can ask them the same thing "Hey ABC news, why are you guys deciding the truth for me?". Literally every source you will use, your own argument will falsify it.
  - jtdev 6y ago
    Okay, so are you supportive of Twitter censoring political speech? Or should we be given the opportunity to view information and decide for ourselves what is bullshit and what isn’t? Anyone who believes everything they see on Twitter is beyond being helped by Jack’s censorship.
    - systemvoltage 6y ago

wan23 6y ago

Why would you say that anyone else should decide what's true on his platform? Twitter isn't even so popular that you can say it has a monopoly of any sort. There are plenty of alternative services, and no significant barriers to starting a new one. I guarantee that if the president of the United States was to say "From now on I'm only posting on my blog" then that blog would become very popular.

bagacrap 6y ago

I don't think it's as black and white as you say. "I won the presidency" could, in theory, be a true statement, even if it comes before the counting is complete and we haven't yet determined its veracity. "There was fraud" could, in fact, be true, even if the evidence to prove it is not forthcoming. Ultimately, Twitter censors things it doesn't think are healthy for its platform. I think that's within its rights, but I don't think it's by any means objective.

bsradcliffe 6y ago

Twitter doesn't point out what's true. They point out what's under dispute.

shadowgovt 6y ago

> I’m not sure why Jack Dorsey should get to decide what’s true just because he invented a social media platform That's the fundamental misalignment of understanding in this era: he doesn't. He gets to decide what his platform hosts and how he spins it. The determiner of truth is, as it has always been, the audience.

randomsearch 6y ago

> I’m not sure why Jack Dorsey should get to decide what’s true just because he invented a social media platform A social media platform is a publisher, if it encourages news to be disseminated through its networks then it should be held to the same scrutiny. Some might cry - well this is impossible! I can tweet anything and a stranger can share it, how can I cope with that volume etc... well, then you have to choose: if you want to be a broadcaster, then you must obey the law and not broadcast propaganda or blatant falsehoods. If you do not want to censor or edit, then you must stop being a broadcaster, that is you must limit the reach of that material, so that a person may only communicate it to their friend and not further in the same way as an ordinary conversation in person, by telephone, or text message would work.