3 ms·

That's so patently untrue. These people have been using social media to spread nothing but disinformation. And their one and only reason for revolting is their

by tootie 6y ago

That's so patently untrue. These people have been using social media to spread nothing but disinformation. And their one and only reason for revolting is their mistaken belief that the election was stolen. Nobody needs to listen or sympathetize with their nonsense and giving them a platform has been far, far worse for the country than censoring them.

wernercd 6y ago
> nothing but disinformation Meanwhile, those who spread approved disinformation remain unpunished. Stories about Convington High School students is a massive example... Then there's "disinformation" that's really true - like Hunter Bidens laptop stories. The problem with claiming to stop the "spread of disinformation" to limit free speech is the numerous examples where that is not the goal... and giving powers to groups that are not biased or interested in "truth" will have massive consequences in a supposedly free society.
- arminiusreturns 6y ago
  Well said. What flabbergasts me is that so many otherwise intelligent people are falling for this to the point of hopping on the bandwagon, without realizing the kind of things it will enable will eventually be turned around on them too.
- tootie 6y ago
  The Covington story is not remotely equivalent. News organizations ran a story based on information that turned out to be inaccurate. It was sloppy, not deliberate and most of the same orgs that got it wrong ran corrections. That's misinformation. I have no idea what you mean by the laptop story. The laptop existed and had some photos on it. The notion that it proved corruption was completely unsubstantiated and it was very clearly engineered as a political ploy. Donald Trump and his supporters have been very deliberately concocting false stories to further a political agenda that has led to dangerous confrontations and culminated in a violent insurrection. Stories that utterly defy reality and are designed explicitly to sow discord. Stories that have hampered our covid response to the tune of hundreds of thousands of deaths. Trying to draw a parallel is absolutely ridiculous. There is a slippery slope here but we're at the bottom of that slope trying to climb right now.
  - wernercd 6y ago
    > Covington not relevant False stories were allowed for weeks or months after facts were know without repurcussions > laptop story Stories about Hunter Biden were ACTIVELY suppressed on claims of "russian disinformation" without proof that they were in fact RD. Stories about Trump with LESS evidence and more proof of "disinformation" are allowed to run unchecked. > deliberately concocting false stories to further political agendas And the same can be said of his detractors... INCLUDING among facebook/twitter. Both floating unverified stories and suppressing stories that haven't been proven false. > explicitly sow discord again... all the same is allowed from the left. Biden is allowed to claim "police treat BLM worse" when facts say the opposite... details that go against "trump mob violent" (IE antifa/blm individuals and groups in the "mob", cops letting protestors in, etc) are suppressed... You want a slippery slope? allowing "facebook and twitter" to determine truth is THE slippery slope. They are biased and have been proven wrong repeatedly. There is no "trying to climb out". Giving them unfettered power is digging the hole deeper.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dumpsterdiver 6y ago
  Yeah, this move is very concerning to me. Moving forward, when any particular platform grows to the point where it becomes a candidate's primary means of being heard (the next Twitter/Facebook), those companies effectively gain the power to change the outcome of an election by censoring and demonizing that person, and doing the same to the people who support that candidate. Imagine in the future if a company bans and demonizes a political opponent that they don't like because that candidate violated an arbitrary ToS - regardless of whether the candidate was right or wrong in violating those terms, due to the company's influence and reach, would it not, for all practical purposes, count as election interference?
  - wernercd 6y ago
    my problem isn't really banning... it's inconsistency based on political whims and flash mobs. If you ban all violence and racism? great... if you ban racism and violence from the right and allow it from the left? That's unacceptable.
jsight 6y ago
> These people have been using social media to spread nothing but disinformation. Since when was it Twitter's job to make sure that only true things are said? "Somebody is wrong on the internet" used to be a meme, but now its a solemn responsibility of content hosts? This is a really dangerous path as it applies to political speech.

by tootie 6y ago

wernercd 6y ago

> nothing but disinformation Meanwhile, those who spread approved disinformation remain unpunished. Stories about Convington High School students is a massive example... Then there's "disinformation" that's really true - like Hunter Bidens laptop stories. The problem with claiming to stop the "spread of disinformation" to limit free speech is the numerous examples where that is not the goal... and giving powers to groups that are not biased or interested in "truth" will have massive consequences in a supposedly free society.

arminiusreturns 6y ago
Well said. What flabbergasts me is that so many otherwise intelligent people are falling for this to the point of hopping on the bandwagon, without realizing the kind of things it will enable will eventually be turned around on them too.
tootie 6y ago
The Covington story is not remotely equivalent. News organizations ran a story based on information that turned out to be inaccurate. It was sloppy, not deliberate and most of the same orgs that got it wrong ran corrections. That's misinformation. I have no idea what you mean by the laptop story. The laptop existed and had some photos on it. The notion that it proved corruption was completely unsubstantiated and it was very clearly engineered as a political ploy. Donald Trump and his supporters have been very deliberately concocting false stories to further a political agenda that has led to dangerous confrontations and culminated in a violent insurrection. Stories that utterly defy reality and are designed explicitly to sow discord. Stories that have hampered our covid response to the tune of hundreds of thousands of deaths. Trying to draw a parallel is absolutely ridiculous. There is a slippery slope here but we're at the bottom of that slope trying to climb right now.
- wernercd 6y ago
  > Covington not relevant False stories were allowed for weeks or months after facts were know without repurcussions > laptop story Stories about Hunter Biden were ACTIVELY suppressed on claims of "russian disinformation" without proof that they were in fact RD. Stories about Trump with LESS evidence and more proof of "disinformation" are allowed to run unchecked. > deliberately concocting false stories to further political agendas And the same can be said of his detractors... INCLUDING among facebook/twitter. Both floating unverified stories and suppressing stories that haven't been proven false. > explicitly sow discord again... all the same is allowed from the left. Biden is allowed to claim "police treat BLM worse" when facts say the opposite... details that go against "trump mob violent" (IE antifa/blm individuals and groups in the "mob", cops letting protestors in, etc) are suppressed... You want a slippery slope? allowing "facebook and twitter" to determine truth is THE slippery slope. They are biased and have been proven wrong repeatedly. There is no "trying to climb out". Giving them unfettered power is digging the hole deeper.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dumpsterdiver 6y ago
Yeah, this move is very concerning to me. Moving forward, when any particular platform grows to the point where it becomes a candidate's primary means of being heard (the next Twitter/Facebook), those companies effectively gain the power to change the outcome of an election by censoring and demonizing that person, and doing the same to the people who support that candidate. Imagine in the future if a company bans and demonizes a political opponent that they don't like because that candidate violated an arbitrary ToS - regardless of whether the candidate was right or wrong in violating those terms, due to the company's influence and reach, would it not, for all practical purposes, count as election interference?
- wernercd 6y ago
  my problem isn't really banning... it's inconsistency based on political whims and flash mobs. If you ban all violence and racism? great... if you ban racism and violence from the right and allow it from the left? That's unacceptable.

jsight 6y ago

> These people have been using social media to spread nothing but disinformation. Since when was it Twitter's job to make sure that only true things are said? "Somebody is wrong on the internet" used to be a meme, but now its a solemn responsibility of content hosts? This is a really dangerous path as it applies to political speech.