5 ms·

The idea that Twitter — or any other company or person — should not be able to choose or express it’s own side in any matter of political contention because one

by jmull 5y ago

The idea that Twitter — or any other company or person — should not be able to choose or express it’s own side in any matter of political contention because one side or the other wouldn’t like it is insane to me. How does that even work? Who gets to decide which topics or points of view are off-the-table for normal social-media moderation? I guess you’re saying government figures and major political parties could decide unilaterally. We’ll have to repeal the first amendment, anyway.

foolinaround 5y ago
> should not be able to choose or express it’s own side in any matter of political contention It goes back to the conversations expressed elsewhere in this post about twitter being an utility, de-facto. If it is given that status, then there are some expectations that come with it. Once a company takes a political position, then it cannot appeal on 'moral' or other subjective grounds. > How does that even work? I don't know... maybe an entity like the Swiss? Not sure if it is a good example, being a country itself? The reason people seem to be ok with the presence of the country is that it is strictly neutral, and both sides protected it. > Who gets to decide which topics or points of view are off-the-table for normal social-media moderation? How about no one? > I guess you’re saying government figures and major political parties could decide unilaterally. We’ll have to repeal the first amendment, anyway. The 1st amendment is for the US exclusively. This version of the Freedom of speech is a distinctively American concept, and for that reason, twitter actually finds some tepid support from conservatives. Each country is sovereign in the laws that govern their land, unless they breach some major crimes, and thats when the UN steps in. Nothing new here.
- yibg 5y ago
  Problem here is "favorable" and "political position" are pretty subjective. Who's to decide what is favorable to whom and what constitutes political position? Is saying wear a mask a political position? These days it seems to be. So someone still has to decide what is political and what is not right? So seems like we're back to square 1.
  - foolinaround 5y ago
    the deeper point about the mask is that AFAICT, the people are not really opposing the mask, but the government that is directing those mandates, and the real root cause is the lack of trust in the government. it is also coinciding with a period of extreme distrust of the media, wherein, if some thing is spreading outside of the media, the position being taken is that it must be true, whereas one would expect the opposite to happen. The media and the government must introspect their roles in leading to this situation. Many lump twitter as being part of the media itself, because of its proactive actions.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      People distrust the media because one half of our political spectrum is busy as a beaver spreading lies so blatant that they can't be credibly presented as another side of the issue or an alternative perspective. Because the media is presenting reality in a fashion vastly closer to objective truth the liars are obliged to explain why their positions and the medias differ and the most trivial response is to continue lying and call the media liars. The liars audience has chosen their own alternative facts over objective reality and there is absolutely nothing the media could have done to prevent it.
      - foolinaround 5y ago
        > because one half of our political spectrum and the other half comes out smelling like roses? Let me ask you this, as atleast you know there are 2 universes (which many do not ): - Do you sample both of the universes and make up your mind? - Do you know which direction the media thats most accessible (otherwise called as mainstream) leans politically? - Do you lean that same direction yourself? - if so, it is that side that needs to seek out the alternate universe and figure if there is any truth to it. ( theoretically, there can be right?) -- The people on the right are generally exposed to the mainstream media, and therefore, and also consume alternate media from the right, and at least, get to hear both sides. The people on the left, on average, simply do not do this
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  Swiss neutrality was noticeable more in the breach than the observance: https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/switzerland-neutral-wwii.html https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/switzerlan... Militarily, invading Switzerland would have been far more work than it was worth.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  The way nations relate to one another is fundamentally different from the way parties relate to one another within a nation. The UN is a debating society that serves to provide a venue for potentially belligerent actors subject to different laws who ultimately can only truly enforce their will with bombs and bullets if debate fails. Parties within a nation are all subject to the same laws with established responsibilities and rights with established procedures for settling differences. The fact that some platforms choose to exclude a minority of players from using said platforms to spread ideas that the majority finds evil and harmful is a feature not a bug. There are established laws that protect actual rights and privileges. Just none that would privilege you to stand on others property and shout hateful offensive things. Get your own bullhorn and stop trying to make laws demanding your neighbor lend you his.
  - foolinaround 5y ago
    The UN also theoretically can step in if a nation does bad things to its own citizens ( like genocide etc). What is being discussed here is Twitter, an American company in relation to countries like India, etc. > to spread ideas that the majority finds evil and harmful Who is the majority? And how did twitter find it? If twitter lets a ranking system similar to HN/reddit, and content below a particular ratio is hidden, that might be fine I guess. it would be a mob, I would'nt like it, but atleast, its uniform. > Get your own bullhorn and stop trying to make laws demanding your neighbor lend you his. What does that even mean? Is twitter my neighbour? Do I, a ordinary citizen have similar clout? In a way, I see twitter as a bully (a loud bullhorn) who was terrorizing the neighborhood one after the other. He walks into this one, where there is a stronger bully (with laws that have teeth) and slaps him silly. This bully now cries, and yeah, not getting much sympathy from the folks he bullied.
username90 5y ago
> company or person Billion dollar companies are not persons, they should not have the same rights at all. At that size they start to mingle heavily with politicians. They want politicians to enact the right policies, and in return those politicians wants the company to censor the right people or fund their campaigns. Just because there is no formal agreement here doesn't mean that the companies aren't just the extended arm of the government and vice versa.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  Billion dollar companies are composed of people individually acting within their rights and although they should be provided no special privileges neither should they lose their individual rights. Having companies have too close a relationship with donors is a defect not a reasonable basis for regulating businesses as if they were in fact part of the government.
stale2002 5y ago
> How does that even work? Well, it could work similar to the existing and uncontroversial laws, that are already widespread on certain communication companies. Specifically, we could take common carrier laws, which already apply to certain communication companies, and extend them. Those laws are uncontroversial, and established. So it is silly to claim that such a thing is unconventional. > We’ll have to repeal the first amendment No we won't. Common carrier laws already exist, and we didn't have to repeal the 1st amendment to have them.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  Please cite the exact laws that we ought to apply to social media companies and do touch on how the application of said laws will avoid infringing on these companies civil rights.
  - baumy 5y ago
    Exact laws: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II/part-I https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchap... The rest of your question I consider invalid. Companies do not have civil rights [1]. Hell, it's in the definition of the word: "relating to ordinary citizens and their concerns, as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters" But clearly the existing common carrier regulations don't infringe on the "civil rights" of the companies they apply to, so even accepting your false premise, this is very straightforward. [1] or at least, they didn't until extremely recently https://www.inquirer.com/business/hobby-lobby-citizens-united-corporations-free-speech-20190108.html https://www.inquirer.com/business/hobby-lobby-citizens-unite...
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      The law you linked just in plain language doesn't apply to websites. Not only does it not apply to websites but laws like CDA Section 230 explicitly disclaim any such regulation by explicitly providing for and protecting their right to moderate their users content. It's disingenuous to suppose that existing laws already cover the situation when one law has nothing to say about the matter and at least one contrary law would need to be repealed. We must then look at WHY common carrier laws exist. It is often impractical to have parallel communication infrastructure in the same way as it is impractical to have a parallel system of roads and bridges so it is important that it serve all comers in order to provide for the needs of society. Social media is the exact opposite. They are a dime a dozen and no barrier exists to making another one. If it comes to pass you don't have much of an audience on your alternative network that is a personal problem not an issue for society to solve for you by enforcing your presence where you aren't wanted.
grb100 5y ago
Newspapers and persons obviously should choose to express their own opinions. Twitter is different: It is close to a common carrier, and you can't just shut down one side of the political discussion. If you do, you'll have the appearance of free discussion, when in reality you are exercising totalitarian control. That is more harmful for democracy than occasional idiots dressing up in Viking costumes and entering the capitol (of course, riots of the opposing spectrum can be safely promoted on Twitter anyway).
- jmull 5y ago
  > It is close to a common carrier… It isn’t at all. Twitter’s business model is getting people to join and engage with the network, and to that end they broadcast, moderate, curate, promote, remove, suggest messages based on the content of the messages. If we pass some law that forces it to be a simple message or feed delivery platform, twitter as a business is done. > totalitarian control Twitter running its business the way it wants is normal western freedom. Forcing twitter to broadcast the messages of the leader of the government would be totalitarian control.

by jmull 5y ago

foolinaround 5y ago

> should not be able to choose or express it’s own side in any matter of political contention It goes back to the conversations expressed elsewhere in this post about twitter being an utility, de-facto. If it is given that status, then there are some expectations that come with it. Once a company takes a political position, then it cannot appeal on 'moral' or other subjective grounds. > How does that even work? I don't know... maybe an entity like the Swiss? Not sure if it is a good example, being a country itself? The reason people seem to be ok with the presence of the country is that it is strictly neutral, and both sides protected it. > Who gets to decide which topics or points of view are off-the-table for normal social-media moderation? How about no one? > I guess you’re saying government figures and major political parties could decide unilaterally. We’ll have to repeal the first amendment, anyway. The 1st amendment is for the US exclusively. This version of the Freedom of speech is a distinctively American concept, and for that reason, twitter actually finds some tepid support from conservatives. Each country is sovereign in the laws that govern their land, unless they breach some major crimes, and thats when the UN steps in. Nothing new here.

yibg 5y ago
Problem here is "favorable" and "political position" are pretty subjective. Who's to decide what is favorable to whom and what constitutes political position? Is saying wear a mask a political position? These days it seems to be. So someone still has to decide what is political and what is not right? So seems like we're back to square 1.
- foolinaround 5y ago
  the deeper point about the mask is that AFAICT, the people are not really opposing the mask, but the government that is directing those mandates, and the real root cause is the lack of trust in the government. it is also coinciding with a period of extreme distrust of the media, wherein, if some thing is spreading outside of the media, the position being taken is that it must be true, whereas one would expect the opposite to happen. The media and the government must introspect their roles in leading to this situation. Many lump twitter as being part of the media itself, because of its proactive actions.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    People distrust the media because one half of our political spectrum is busy as a beaver spreading lies so blatant that they can't be credibly presented as another side of the issue or an alternative perspective. Because the media is presenting reality in a fashion vastly closer to objective truth the liars are obliged to explain why their positions and the medias differ and the most trivial response is to continue lying and call the media liars. The liars audience has chosen their own alternative facts over objective reality and there is absolutely nothing the media could have done to prevent it.
    - foolinaround 5y ago
      > because one half of our political spectrum and the other half comes out smelling like roses? Let me ask you this, as atleast you know there are 2 universes (which many do not ): - Do you sample both of the universes and make up your mind? - Do you know which direction the media thats most accessible (otherwise called as mainstream) leans politically? - Do you lean that same direction yourself? - if so, it is that side that needs to seek out the alternate universe and figure if there is any truth to it. ( theoretically, there can be right?) -- The people on the right are generally exposed to the mainstream media, and therefore, and also consume alternate media from the right, and at least, get to hear both sides. The people on the left, on average, simply do not do this
anigbrowl 5y ago
Swiss neutrality was noticeable more in the breach than the observance: https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/switzerland-neutral-wwii.html https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/switzerlan... Militarily, invading Switzerland would have been far more work than it was worth.
michaelmrose 5y ago
The way nations relate to one another is fundamentally different from the way parties relate to one another within a nation. The UN is a debating society that serves to provide a venue for potentially belligerent actors subject to different laws who ultimately can only truly enforce their will with bombs and bullets if debate fails. Parties within a nation are all subject to the same laws with established responsibilities and rights with established procedures for settling differences. The fact that some platforms choose to exclude a minority of players from using said platforms to spread ideas that the majority finds evil and harmful is a feature not a bug. There are established laws that protect actual rights and privileges. Just none that would privilege you to stand on others property and shout hateful offensive things. Get your own bullhorn and stop trying to make laws demanding your neighbor lend you his.
- foolinaround 5y ago
  The UN also theoretically can step in if a nation does bad things to its own citizens ( like genocide etc). What is being discussed here is Twitter, an American company in relation to countries like India, etc. > to spread ideas that the majority finds evil and harmful Who is the majority? And how did twitter find it? If twitter lets a ranking system similar to HN/reddit, and content below a particular ratio is hidden, that might be fine I guess. it would be a mob, I would'nt like it, but atleast, its uniform. > Get your own bullhorn and stop trying to make laws demanding your neighbor lend you his. What does that even mean? Is twitter my neighbour? Do I, a ordinary citizen have similar clout? In a way, I see twitter as a bully (a loud bullhorn) who was terrorizing the neighborhood one after the other. He walks into this one, where there is a stronger bully (with laws that have teeth) and slaps him silly. This bully now cries, and yeah, not getting much sympathy from the folks he bullied.

username90 5y ago

> company or person Billion dollar companies are not persons, they should not have the same rights at all. At that size they start to mingle heavily with politicians. They want politicians to enact the right policies, and in return those politicians wants the company to censor the right people or fund their campaigns. Just because there is no formal agreement here doesn't mean that the companies aren't just the extended arm of the government and vice versa.

michaelmrose 5y ago
Billion dollar companies are composed of people individually acting within their rights and although they should be provided no special privileges neither should they lose their individual rights. Having companies have too close a relationship with donors is a defect not a reasonable basis for regulating businesses as if they were in fact part of the government.

stale2002 5y ago

> How does that even work? Well, it could work similar to the existing and uncontroversial laws, that are already widespread on certain communication companies. Specifically, we could take common carrier laws, which already apply to certain communication companies, and extend them. Those laws are uncontroversial, and established. So it is silly to claim that such a thing is unconventional. > We’ll have to repeal the first amendment No we won't. Common carrier laws already exist, and we didn't have to repeal the 1st amendment to have them.

michaelmrose 5y ago
Please cite the exact laws that we ought to apply to social media companies and do touch on how the application of said laws will avoid infringing on these companies civil rights.
- baumy 5y ago
  Exact laws: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II/part-I https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchap... The rest of your question I consider invalid. Companies do not have civil rights [1]. Hell, it's in the definition of the word: "relating to ordinary citizens and their concerns, as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters" But clearly the existing common carrier regulations don't infringe on the "civil rights" of the companies they apply to, so even accepting your false premise, this is very straightforward. [1] or at least, they didn't until extremely recently https://www.inquirer.com/business/hobby-lobby-citizens-united-corporations-free-speech-20190108.html https://www.inquirer.com/business/hobby-lobby-citizens-unite...
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    The law you linked just in plain language doesn't apply to websites. Not only does it not apply to websites but laws like CDA Section 230 explicitly disclaim any such regulation by explicitly providing for and protecting their right to moderate their users content. It's disingenuous to suppose that existing laws already cover the situation when one law has nothing to say about the matter and at least one contrary law would need to be repealed. We must then look at WHY common carrier laws exist. It is often impractical to have parallel communication infrastructure in the same way as it is impractical to have a parallel system of roads and bridges so it is important that it serve all comers in order to provide for the needs of society. Social media is the exact opposite. They are a dime a dozen and no barrier exists to making another one. If it comes to pass you don't have much of an audience on your alternative network that is a personal problem not an issue for society to solve for you by enforcing your presence where you aren't wanted.

grb100 5y ago

Newspapers and persons obviously should choose to express their own opinions. Twitter is different: It is close to a common carrier, and you can't just shut down one side of the political discussion. If you do, you'll have the appearance of free discussion, when in reality you are exercising totalitarian control. That is more harmful for democracy than occasional idiots dressing up in Viking costumes and entering the capitol (of course, riots of the opposing spectrum can be safely promoted on Twitter anyway).

jmull 5y ago
> It is close to a common carrier… It isn’t at all. Twitter’s business model is getting people to join and engage with the network, and to that end they broadcast, moderate, curate, promote, remove, suggest messages based on the content of the messages. If we pass some law that forces it to be a simple message or feed delivery platform, twitter as a business is done. > totalitarian control Twitter running its business the way it wants is normal western freedom. Forcing twitter to broadcast the messages of the leader of the government would be totalitarian control.