4 ms·

Turns out Twitter is a private company and can institute whatever terms of use they want on people blathering on about the (in)effectiveness vaccines. Who knew

Turns out Twitter is a private company and can institute whatever terms of use they want on people blathering on about the (in)effectiveness vaccines. Who knew?

systemvoltage 5y ago
I used to say this but then realized that lots of official government communications are exclusively published on Twitter. It pissed me off when they started requiring a phone number to view tweets. Let's not perpetuate the narrative that Twitter is a private company and therefore they can do whatever they want. In theory, yes. But the line is being increasingly blurred and it is tending more towards a public square. When my local police department chooses to exclusively publish alerts on Twitter, I am strongly in opposition of the private-sector argument. Either pass a law to prevent Governments from going on Twitter as a sole outlet or make access to Twitter like a public utility. You can't have a free pass. I'll be writing to my local representatives of this insanity. Ideally, I'd want the former. Government officials are playing a reality-TV-like-theater on Twitter, throwing rocks at people, memes, the whole 9 yards. I'd want a publicly funded real-time .gov website where officials can communicate to citizens. No memes. No bullshit. No Senator Warren vs. Elon Musk. I sometimes wonder WTF is going on in the world. We've stooped so far, it is unbelivable. USDS needs to take the lead here: https://www.usds.gov/ https://www.usds.gov/
- retrocryptid 5y ago
  USG information is distributed via several media including twitter. i would agree with you if twitter was the only medium carrying official USG info (but it's not.) i do, however, agree restrictions on viewing tweets are annoying.
- peter_retief 5y ago
  You make some good points, at the moment Twitter is a Trojan Horse pretending to be an impartial public exchange but in reality it is being controlled by political and business interest groups.
  - bediger4000 5y ago
    That an interesting point, because the same form was true of TV, radio and newspapers when they were the chief media: At the moment newspapers are a Trojan Horse pretending to be an impartial public exchange but in reality they are controlled by political and business interest groups. When did the USA have any impartial public exchanges?
    - peter_retief 5y ago
      Maybe this https://mastodon.social/about https://mastodon.social/about
- Imnimo 5y ago
  So if the government wants to force a company like Twitter to be a "public square", all it has to do is just post some information exclusively on that platform? And then the company has no choice and must stop moderating the platform? It seems like the objection here should be purely about government agencies disseminating information exclusively through Twitter. That's not really something Twitter has any say in, and shouldn't take away Twitter's right to moderate as it sees fit.
  - telxosser 5y ago
    Our 70 year old+ law makers who graduated high school before color television was common just need to understand scaling in complex systems as it relates to digital technology and then we will be all set.
    - retrocryptid 5y ago
      i believe our 70+ year old law makers know exactly what they are doing with regards to CD230.
    - dingosity 5y ago
      Just a nit. Color Television was demonstrated in 1928. Telechrome was demonstrated in the 40s. The NTSC color spec was complete in 1953 when a color performance of Carmen was broadcast. But yes, it wasn't until 1965 when all prime-time shows on the three major networks at the time were broadcast in color. So assuming you're a 70 year old lawmaker in 2022 and you graduated high school at age 18, you probably graduated in 1970, well after the invention of color television. If you're an 80 year old lawmaker in 2022, you probably graduated in 1960, well after the first NTSC color transmission. In 1971, 48% of new TV sets sold were color, so you certainly have a leg to stand on if you're counting the 50/50 point as "common." But if "common" means 25% of new TV sales, then that event came in 1968, so there's two years where a lawmaker in 2022 who is 70+ could have graduated as and after color TV became "common."
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    > all it has to do is just post some information exclusively on that platform Exclusive publication of Gov information is just one of the aspects but the one that is most eggregious to me as a tax paying citizen and comes to mind immediately when I think about a public square. Broadcasting on Radio doesn't prevent anyone from accessing the radio waves. You don't need to give your information to ad-tech platform to access information. > must stop moderating the platform How much moderation/censorship is debatable and can get messy. Obviously you want to ban spam. But, as I said, I'd much prefer an official Gov version of Twitter-like system. I don't even want a Gov contract to procure Twitter platform for Gov use unless the algorithms are also public that control what's shown to people. In general: Social media x Government comm = Unequivocally terrible idea IMO. Let alone US gov, Foreign governments who have no fricking clue about what Twitter's internal algorithms are have decided to jump on the Twitter bandwagon which seems to be a monumentally stupid idea. Great for politicians probably, bad for people.
bigodbiel 5y ago
I disagree. If they expect Section 230 protection then they must act as the neutral information providers that the code was meant to protect. Once they start deciding what to publish or not (eg censoring or banning users) based on the platform’s opinion, then Section 230 should not apply anymore.
- retrocryptid 5y ago
  you should read CD230.
- SahAssar 5y ago
  That's not how that law is currently interpreted though. If you want to argue for it to be changed go ahead but that's not the way it is now.
  - funstuff007 5y ago
    Indeed, Federal Law used to be the law of the land, but now we have many states legalizing recreational marijuana and Texas restricting abortion. Everything is a mess.

Turns out Twitter is a private company and can institute whatever terms of use they want on people blathering on about the (in)effectiveness vaccines. Who knew?

systemvoltage 5y ago

I used to say this but then realized that lots of official government communications are exclusively published on Twitter. It pissed me off when they started requiring a phone number to view tweets. Let's not perpetuate the narrative that Twitter is a private company and therefore they can do whatever they want. In theory, yes. But the line is being increasingly blurred and it is tending more towards a public square. When my local police department chooses to exclusively publish alerts on Twitter, I am strongly in opposition of the private-sector argument. Either pass a law to prevent Governments from going on Twitter as a sole outlet or make access to Twitter like a public utility. You can't have a free pass. I'll be writing to my local representatives of this insanity. Ideally, I'd want the former. Government officials are playing a reality-TV-like-theater on Twitter, throwing rocks at people, memes, the whole 9 yards. I'd want a publicly funded real-time .gov website where officials can communicate to citizens. No memes. No bullshit. No Senator Warren vs. Elon Musk. I sometimes wonder WTF is going on in the world. We've stooped so far, it is unbelivable. USDS needs to take the lead here: https://www.usds.gov/ https://www.usds.gov/

retrocryptid 5y ago
USG information is distributed via several media including twitter. i would agree with you if twitter was the only medium carrying official USG info (but it's not.) i do, however, agree restrictions on viewing tweets are annoying.
peter_retief 5y ago
You make some good points, at the moment Twitter is a Trojan Horse pretending to be an impartial public exchange but in reality it is being controlled by political and business interest groups.
- bediger4000 5y ago
  That an interesting point, because the same form was true of TV, radio and newspapers when they were the chief media: At the moment newspapers are a Trojan Horse pretending to be an impartial public exchange but in reality they are controlled by political and business interest groups. When did the USA have any impartial public exchanges?
  - peter_retief 5y ago
    Maybe this https://mastodon.social/about https://mastodon.social/about
Imnimo 5y ago
So if the government wants to force a company like Twitter to be a "public square", all it has to do is just post some information exclusively on that platform? And then the company has no choice and must stop moderating the platform? It seems like the objection here should be purely about government agencies disseminating information exclusively through Twitter. That's not really something Twitter has any say in, and shouldn't take away Twitter's right to moderate as it sees fit.
- telxosser 5y ago
  Our 70 year old+ law makers who graduated high school before color television was common just need to understand scaling in complex systems as it relates to digital technology and then we will be all set.
  - retrocryptid 5y ago
    i believe our 70+ year old law makers know exactly what they are doing with regards to CD230.
  - dingosity 5y ago
    Just a nit. Color Television was demonstrated in 1928. Telechrome was demonstrated in the 40s. The NTSC color spec was complete in 1953 when a color performance of Carmen was broadcast. But yes, it wasn't until 1965 when all prime-time shows on the three major networks at the time were broadcast in color. So assuming you're a 70 year old lawmaker in 2022 and you graduated high school at age 18, you probably graduated in 1970, well after the invention of color television. If you're an 80 year old lawmaker in 2022, you probably graduated in 1960, well after the first NTSC color transmission. In 1971, 48% of new TV sets sold were color, so you certainly have a leg to stand on if you're counting the 50/50 point as "common." But if "common" means 25% of new TV sales, then that event came in 1968, so there's two years where a lawmaker in 2022 who is 70+ could have graduated as and after color TV became "common."
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  > all it has to do is just post some information exclusively on that platform Exclusive publication of Gov information is just one of the aspects but the one that is most eggregious to me as a tax paying citizen and comes to mind immediately when I think about a public square. Broadcasting on Radio doesn't prevent anyone from accessing the radio waves. You don't need to give your information to ad-tech platform to access information. > must stop moderating the platform How much moderation/censorship is debatable and can get messy. Obviously you want to ban spam. But, as I said, I'd much prefer an official Gov version of Twitter-like system. I don't even want a Gov contract to procure Twitter platform for Gov use unless the algorithms are also public that control what's shown to people. In general: Social media x Government comm = Unequivocally terrible idea IMO. Let alone US gov, Foreign governments who have no fricking clue about what Twitter's internal algorithms are have decided to jump on the Twitter bandwagon which seems to be a monumentally stupid idea. Great for politicians probably, bad for people.

bigodbiel 5y ago

I disagree. If they expect Section 230 protection then they must act as the neutral information providers that the code was meant to protect. Once they start deciding what to publish or not (eg censoring or banning users) based on the platform’s opinion, then Section 230 should not apply anymore.

retrocryptid 5y ago
you should read CD230.
SahAssar 5y ago
That's not how that law is currently interpreted though. If you want to argue for it to be changed go ahead but that's not the way it is now.
- funstuff007 5y ago
  Indeed, Federal Law used to be the law of the land, but now we have many states legalizing recreational marijuana and Texas restricting abortion. Everything is a mess.