4 ms·

1. Not in the sense we normally understand it. They’re interfering with a massive tactical misinformation campaign that’s attempting to weaponize their platform

1. Not in the sense we normally understand it. They’re interfering with a massive tactical misinformation campaign that’s attempting to weaponize their platform. It’s in the same bucket as banning ISIS from using their platform as a recruiting tool. 2. Yes, but it’s a real problem that they’ve created a platform where it’s necessary for them to do this. 3. Oh, absolutely. This is not a situation we want to be in. 4. No. The harder question is how do we get out of this situation, and if its possible at all without shutting down all the social networks.

jaybrendansmith 6y ago
I'm still not understanding why we are questioning their right to do this? Back in the old days, you paid for an advertisement in the newspaper. Your right to post that ad was completely controlled by that paper. If you posted an ad with inflammatory or blatantly false information, the newspaper would refuse to run your ad. Imagine if I was Nixon running against JFK, and I attempted to buy an ad in the Times on the second page, immediately after the election, indicating that the election was fraudulent, and that I had actually won. Would anybody have run that ad? Absolutely not. What's incredible is that Twitter does actually allow these tweets but simply indicates the facts may not be accurate.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  But we all understand that an old newspaper is quite different, right? Now 'news' is instantaneous, simultaneously 'published' everywhere, unedited, capable of rousing the rabble like a lightening rod... We'll need different rules for this new media.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    Don't buy that for argument for a second. The letter of the law might need to adapt, the spirit does not. We don't need to allow the media to be weaponized with abject lies that are killing Americans are damaging our country.
    - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
      Wanting something, and it being practical, are entirely different things. That's the trouble with slogans. They don't get us anywhere.
      - jaybrendansmith 6y ago
        Yes, and obviously I understand the legal difference between these two models as well. Section 230 is still an experiment, one that was put in place primarily to protect intermediaries, like ISPs. It allows for a free and open Internet, and without it, the Internet as we know it is dead. How do we square this against the control and restrictions a publisher has? Because that is what keeps publishers in check, and prevents them from printing lies, or publishing things that are too radical. And how do we pragmatically solve this issue, in a way that can be as fast as the Internet? One way to look at it might be, how bad would this dystopia look, you know, the one where a 'publisher' is redefined a bit. Section 230 should continue to protect ISPs, and Proxies, and anything that supports complete and total net neutrality. But any service that 'filters' what I see, in any way whatsoever, should automatically fall under old school publisher libel laws. That's the issue. It's not that Facebook or Twitter are broadcasting freely, it's that they are modifying and adjusting what user's see, using unknown algorithms. Much like the FCC regulates the RF spectrum, and approves devices, the FCC needs to approve algorithms, and determine if they qualify for Section 230. Fixed it. Discuss.
neilsense 6y ago
Do they ban ISIS? Because it looks like they've spent more time going after Trump and his base than they've done actually fighting the spread of Islamic extremism on it's platform. You can find old accounts with horrific stuff said about the very society we live in, about LGBTQ rights, about women's rights, etc. I think Twitter is taking the easy way out.

jaybrendansmith 6y ago

I'm still not understanding why we are questioning their right to do this? Back in the old days, you paid for an advertisement in the newspaper. Your right to post that ad was completely controlled by that paper. If you posted an ad with inflammatory or blatantly false information, the newspaper would refuse to run your ad. Imagine if I was Nixon running against JFK, and I attempted to buy an ad in the Times on the second page, immediately after the election, indicating that the election was fraudulent, and that I had actually won. Would anybody have run that ad? Absolutely not. What's incredible is that Twitter does actually allow these tweets but simply indicates the facts may not be accurate.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
But we all understand that an old newspaper is quite different, right? Now 'news' is instantaneous, simultaneously 'published' everywhere, unedited, capable of rousing the rabble like a lightening rod... We'll need different rules for this new media.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  Don't buy that for argument for a second. The letter of the law might need to adapt, the spirit does not. We don't need to allow the media to be weaponized with abject lies that are killing Americans are damaging our country.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    Wanting something, and it being practical, are entirely different things. That's the trouble with slogans. They don't get us anywhere.
    - jaybrendansmith 6y ago
      Yes, and obviously I understand the legal difference between these two models as well. Section 230 is still an experiment, one that was put in place primarily to protect intermediaries, like ISPs. It allows for a free and open Internet, and without it, the Internet as we know it is dead. How do we square this against the control and restrictions a publisher has? Because that is what keeps publishers in check, and prevents them from printing lies, or publishing things that are too radical. And how do we pragmatically solve this issue, in a way that can be as fast as the Internet? One way to look at it might be, how bad would this dystopia look, you know, the one where a 'publisher' is redefined a bit. Section 230 should continue to protect ISPs, and Proxies, and anything that supports complete and total net neutrality. But any service that 'filters' what I see, in any way whatsoever, should automatically fall under old school publisher libel laws. That's the issue. It's not that Facebook or Twitter are broadcasting freely, it's that they are modifying and adjusting what user's see, using unknown algorithms. Much like the FCC regulates the RF spectrum, and approves devices, the FCC needs to approve algorithms, and determine if they qualify for Section 230. Fixed it. Discuss.

neilsense 6y ago

Do they ban ISIS? Because it looks like they've spent more time going after Trump and his base than they've done actually fighting the spread of Islamic extremism on it's platform. You can find old accounts with horrific stuff said about the very society we live in, about LGBTQ rights, about women's rights, etc. I think Twitter is taking the easy way out.