9 ms·

I don’t care what she said, it is not the job of private businesses to censor elected officials. And yes, I know they can but that does not mean they should.

uncletaco 5y ago
They suspended her personal account but her official congressional account is still live
gjsman-1000 5y ago
Also Twitter has now demonstrated they are completely ignorant to the Streisand Effect. This won’t change minds. This will only harden viewpoints and invite political and regulatory scrutiny.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  > Streisand Effect She is a Congressional Representative. This isn't about shutting her up. Its about Twitter coming out and saying that they agree that she's a loon. No one actually expects a member of Congress to be permanently shut up over something like this. -------- When '@dang' comes around here and deletes posts, its about pushing the discussion in the direction they want for this website. The _ONLY_ moderating action internet citizens have is moderation: deletion of posts, soft-banning, permanent bans, and the like. There's no other possible effect available for Twitter (or other social media) to come down on unruly users.
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    I disagree. Any communication system can be gamed, but the incentives can be distributed many different ways. If Twitter had shared blocklists for example, it would be easier for people to coordinate that kind of signaling. I think the originally intent was to have it as a platform for positive conversation (so you can favorite or share a tweet but not downvote it); however the structure of the platform meant that disagreement instead became expressed through snark, sarcasm, and pithy one-liners, to the detriment of any real discourse.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      > If Twitter had shared blocklists for example, it would be easier for people to coordinate that kind of signaling. But Twitter doesn't. Hacker News doesn't. Reddit doesn't. All three of these large Social Media sites require moderators to police the actions of their users. This isn't new or exotic, this is just how the web typically works. Forums, Usenet, Mailing lists, IRC, BBS, its always been like this. If you want to try to make a new social network with different moderation systems (ex: user-based blocking), feel free to do so. But I've hung out enough on 8-chan to know that you'll have to deal with Swatters and Doxxers almost immediately, who are looking for an unmoderated coordination medium, and they'll take advantage of your features. You'll also have to deal with lesser forms of spam and advertisements: Cryptocoin spam these days, but it used to be Viagra, or Nigerian Prince scams. ------- The question isn't "Twitter shouldn't be allowed to moderate its users". The question is if Twitter made the right move here or not. So now lets actually discuss the crux of the issue: is spreading COVID19 misinformation a big enough reason to warrant a banning? I of course agree with the move. Our hospitals are filling up with the Omicron variant and the vast majority of these patients are not-vaccinated. Twitter leveraging their reputation to say that Marjorie Taylor Green is a net benefit to society.
      - anigbrowl 5y ago
        Well nothing is preventing them from implementing such features if they want to.
        dragontamer 5y ago
        > Well nothing is preventing them from implementing such features if they want to. There's nothing preventing you from implementing your own social network with those rules. Hacker News is a forum for business ideas and web-based technologies after all, built around an angel fund / venture capital slant. But I'm trying to tell you that you'll end up relying upon user-based moderation for many cases: including simple cases like spam from new users or VPNs. Maybe even IP-based blocking as certain unsavory groups of people tend to cluster around certain IP addresses.
- grayfaced 5y ago
  Streisand effect only helps them in this case. They don't care about the content of the message or changing minds. They care about the message being tied to twitter and the damage to their brand.
- bootlooped 5y ago
  I don't think history has proved the Streisand Effect materializes here. When Twitter and others deplatformed Trump after January 6, his direct lines to his followers were dissolved. He had a subscription email or something that was a failure. I think he's trying to launch a social network soon. He has never managed to get as big of microphone as he had before.
- boardwaalk 5y ago
  I’m not sure Streisand effect applies here. Anyone roughly aware of American politics knows MTG’s looniness. And Twitter has already banned DJT which was a bigger thing. This isn’t going to bring attention where there wasn’t any already.
- short12 5y ago
  Twitter doesn't need to care about the Streisand effect. The goal was to remove her from being their problem. Mission accomplished Let her go elsewhere
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  Absurd. Of all platforms, Twitter is best positioned to assess how big the Streisand effect really is and measure whether the howls of outrage from her supporters are really louder than the low-level rumble of discontent from her opponents.
JohnTHaller 5y ago
Most private sector businesses don't want to be in the business of helping spread deadly lies, though. And they're not required to be.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  Twitter did not even say she lied, they just said that they (Twitter) considered it “misleading.” Not false, “misleading.”
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    That’s a distinction without a difference. The reason that false claims are dangerous is because they can mislead people.
  - mint2 5y ago
    Most deception is build on half truth and partial truths and or even selective truths. Outright lies tend to be less believable
  - JohnTHaller 5y ago
    They don't want the liability of calling here a liar. But she's big on posting about 'vaccine deaths' and that the vaccine doesn't work against Delta and that people 65 and under don't need to worry about Covid.
micromacrofoot 5y ago
Is it censorship? she’s not banned from the internet… less than 25% of the country has a twitter account.
amusedcyclist 5y ago
No they definitely should, this is precisely their job. Why should public officials not be held to the same standards as individual citizens
- poszlem 5y ago
  Because they have the weight of people who elected them behind them. I don't understand how that's hard to understand. It's the same reason why we care about murder of an elected official more than a murder of any other person.
  - MattPalmer1086 5y ago
    So you think they should be held to higher standards than others then?
    - poszlem 5y ago
      I think it should be the voters who decide what the standars are, not random corporations.
      - amusedcyclist 5y ago
        Voters decide who sits in congress, not who gets to talk on twitter, thats a job for twitters employees
  - skywal_l 5y ago
    She'll be fine. Isn't the media market, in the US, free? She'll go to fox news or parler.
krapp 5y ago
So you're saying no elected official should be bound by any laws, contracts or the terms of service of any organization, since doing so could be interpreted as "censorship?" That if anyone else had said what Marjorie Taylor Greene had said, they would be subject to action by Twitter under its own stated policies, but the rules just shouldn't apply to her?
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  Has Twitter applied their rules fairly and evenly, or even tried to do so? Last I remember Maxine Waters was calling for public harassment without consequence.
  - gpu_explorer 5y ago
    Twitter isn't the government. Twitter isn't the government. Twitter isn't the government. Like it or not, they have a perfect right to terminate her account for any legal reason, including breach of contract. For the record, Twitter doesn't even need a "reason" as long as they don't terminate her for an illegal reason. This might be difficult to understand, but it's not censorship.
    - saurik 5y ago
      Just because Twitter has the right to do something doesn't make it right for them to do it. And that they have the right to do it also doesn't mean that people shouldn't be angry at them for having done it, or use their right to call them out for it. Twitter shouldn't be doing this stuff. You totally can defend their right to do it while damning their actually doing it... but that isn't what you are doing as the person you are arguing with didn't even claim they shouldn't be allowed to do it: they merely said they shouldn't do it.
      - gpu_explorer 5y ago
        You mean the "right" to ban Marjorie Taylor Green for breach of contract? Marjorie Taylor Green breached a written agreement she entered into with Twitter. Provided their terms of service aren't illegal, Twitter certainly should be able to enforce them.
graememcc 5y ago
Twitter has worldwide reach, so what if a citizen of another country is harmed due to misinformation posted by a US elected official? The citizens of that country didn't elect them.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  She’s only elected to be a legislator in the House of Representatives. It’s not like she has a license to kill. That ought to have nothing to do with anything else, including her privileges on any random website.
- showerrain 5y ago
  That's the problem of the other country to defend its citizens.
gpu_explorer 5y ago
Why should Twitter give up their right to freedom of expression and freedom of association? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  In an ideal world, because they are now the public square effectively, they should be held to a different stricter standard. As well as other big tech companies (App Store, etc.)
  - gpu_explorer 5y ago
    Twitter is not the public square. They app stores are not the public square. No one takes that argument seriously because it's not serious. Is it censorship that most existing book publishers are highly unlikely to publish a book of your or my political opinions? Should a publisher, or anyone else, be compelled to promote speech they disagree with? Would you want someone to compel you to write or publish lies? Marjorie Taylor Greene has VASTLY more ability to get her messages out, and to therefore express herself, than the average American citizen. She can go on Fox News or MSNBC or she can have her office send out press releases. Please stop saying this is censorship. This is NO WAY meets any accepted definition of censorship in the frame you are using.
    - gjsman-1000 5y ago
      I’m not talking about just Twitter or just this issue. And I specified “in an ideal world” which we aren’t in. In an ideal world, big tech would have more regulation and would have, due to their size, certain regulations on their behavior and who they choose not to do business with, not just in the political sphere. An example (to draw an extreme example to make my point), Visa and MasterCard (due to their size) couldn’t just say screw OnlyFans. They are too large and influential especially together.
      - rpdillon 5y ago
zachberger 5y ago
Her official congressional account was not suspended, only her personal account.
freedAssoc99 5y ago
gregd 5y ago
What obligation does Twitter have to provide anyone with a platform?
albertopv 5y ago
Why not? Why should a private business let government decide who can speak and how and their platform? China does that and it's not funny.
gethoht 5y ago
It was only her personal account that was suspended. The account tied to her position in government is still there @RepMTG.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
What laws should be written to address this then?

uncletaco 5y ago

They suspended her personal account but her official congressional account is still live

gjsman-1000 5y ago

Also Twitter has now demonstrated they are completely ignorant to the Streisand Effect. This won’t change minds. This will only harden viewpoints and invite political and regulatory scrutiny.

dragontamer 5y ago
> Streisand Effect She is a Congressional Representative. This isn't about shutting her up. Its about Twitter coming out and saying that they agree that she's a loon. No one actually expects a member of Congress to be permanently shut up over something like this. -------- When '@dang' comes around here and deletes posts, its about pushing the discussion in the direction they want for this website. The _ONLY_ moderating action internet citizens have is moderation: deletion of posts, soft-banning, permanent bans, and the like. There's no other possible effect available for Twitter (or other social media) to come down on unruly users.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  I disagree. Any communication system can be gamed, but the incentives can be distributed many different ways. If Twitter had shared blocklists for example, it would be easier for people to coordinate that kind of signaling. I think the originally intent was to have it as a platform for positive conversation (so you can favorite or share a tweet but not downvote it); however the structure of the platform meant that disagreement instead became expressed through snark, sarcasm, and pithy one-liners, to the detriment of any real discourse.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    > If Twitter had shared blocklists for example, it would be easier for people to coordinate that kind of signaling. But Twitter doesn't. Hacker News doesn't. Reddit doesn't. All three of these large Social Media sites require moderators to police the actions of their users. This isn't new or exotic, this is just how the web typically works. Forums, Usenet, Mailing lists, IRC, BBS, its always been like this. If you want to try to make a new social network with different moderation systems (ex: user-based blocking), feel free to do so. But I've hung out enough on 8-chan to know that you'll have to deal with Swatters and Doxxers almost immediately, who are looking for an unmoderated coordination medium, and they'll take advantage of your features. You'll also have to deal with lesser forms of spam and advertisements: Cryptocoin spam these days, but it used to be Viagra, or Nigerian Prince scams. ------- The question isn't "Twitter shouldn't be allowed to moderate its users". The question is if Twitter made the right move here or not. So now lets actually discuss the crux of the issue: is spreading COVID19 misinformation a big enough reason to warrant a banning? I of course agree with the move. Our hospitals are filling up with the Omicron variant and the vast majority of these patients are not-vaccinated. Twitter leveraging their reputation to say that Marjorie Taylor Green is a net benefit to society.
    - anigbrowl 5y ago
      Well nothing is preventing them from implementing such features if they want to.
      - dragontamer 5y ago
        > Well nothing is preventing them from implementing such features if they want to. There's nothing preventing you from implementing your own social network with those rules. Hacker News is a forum for business ideas and web-based technologies after all, built around an angel fund / venture capital slant. But I'm trying to tell you that you'll end up relying upon user-based moderation for many cases: including simple cases like spam from new users or VPNs. Maybe even IP-based blocking as certain unsavory groups of people tend to cluster around certain IP addresses.
grayfaced 5y ago
Streisand effect only helps them in this case. They don't care about the content of the message or changing minds. They care about the message being tied to twitter and the damage to their brand.
bootlooped 5y ago
I don't think history has proved the Streisand Effect materializes here. When Twitter and others deplatformed Trump after January 6, his direct lines to his followers were dissolved. He had a subscription email or something that was a failure. I think he's trying to launch a social network soon. He has never managed to get as big of microphone as he had before.
boardwaalk 5y ago
I’m not sure Streisand effect applies here. Anyone roughly aware of American politics knows MTG’s looniness. And Twitter has already banned DJT which was a bigger thing. This isn’t going to bring attention where there wasn’t any already.
short12 5y ago
Twitter doesn't need to care about the Streisand effect. The goal was to remove her from being their problem. Mission accomplished Let her go elsewhere
anigbrowl 5y ago
Absurd. Of all platforms, Twitter is best positioned to assess how big the Streisand effect really is and measure whether the howls of outrage from her supporters are really louder than the low-level rumble of discontent from her opponents.

JohnTHaller 5y ago

Most private sector businesses don't want to be in the business of helping spread deadly lies, though. And they're not required to be.

gjsman-1000 5y ago
Twitter did not even say she lied, they just said that they (Twitter) considered it “misleading.” Not false, “misleading.”
- tshaddox 5y ago
  That’s a distinction without a difference. The reason that false claims are dangerous is because they can mislead people.
- mint2 5y ago
  Most deception is build on half truth and partial truths and or even selective truths. Outright lies tend to be less believable
- JohnTHaller 5y ago
  They don't want the liability of calling here a liar. But she's big on posting about 'vaccine deaths' and that the vaccine doesn't work against Delta and that people 65 and under don't need to worry about Covid.

micromacrofoot 5y ago

Is it censorship? she’s not banned from the internet… less than 25% of the country has a twitter account.

amusedcyclist 5y ago

No they definitely should, this is precisely their job. Why should public officials not be held to the same standards as individual citizens

poszlem 5y ago
Because they have the weight of people who elected them behind them. I don't understand how that's hard to understand. It's the same reason why we care about murder of an elected official more than a murder of any other person.
- MattPalmer1086 5y ago
  So you think they should be held to higher standards than others then?
  - poszlem 5y ago
    I think it should be the voters who decide what the standars are, not random corporations.
    - amusedcyclist 5y ago
      Voters decide who sits in congress, not who gets to talk on twitter, thats a job for twitters employees
- skywal_l 5y ago
  She'll be fine. Isn't the media market, in the US, free? She'll go to fox news or parler.

krapp 5y ago

So you're saying no elected official should be bound by any laws, contracts or the terms of service of any organization, since doing so could be interpreted as "censorship?" That if anyone else had said what Marjorie Taylor Greene had said, they would be subject to action by Twitter under its own stated policies, but the rules just shouldn't apply to her?

gjsman-1000 5y ago
Has Twitter applied their rules fairly and evenly, or even tried to do so? Last I remember Maxine Waters was calling for public harassment without consequence.
- gpu_explorer 5y ago
  Twitter isn't the government. Twitter isn't the government. Twitter isn't the government. Like it or not, they have a perfect right to terminate her account for any legal reason, including breach of contract. For the record, Twitter doesn't even need a "reason" as long as they don't terminate her for an illegal reason. This might be difficult to understand, but it's not censorship.
  - saurik 5y ago
    Just because Twitter has the right to do something doesn't make it right for them to do it. And that they have the right to do it also doesn't mean that people shouldn't be angry at them for having done it, or use their right to call them out for it. Twitter shouldn't be doing this stuff. You totally can defend their right to do it while damning their actually doing it... but that isn't what you are doing as the person you are arguing with didn't even claim they shouldn't be allowed to do it: they merely said they shouldn't do it.
    - gpu_explorer 5y ago
      You mean the "right" to ban Marjorie Taylor Green for breach of contract? Marjorie Taylor Green breached a written agreement she entered into with Twitter. Provided their terms of service aren't illegal, Twitter certainly should be able to enforce them.

graememcc 5y ago

Twitter has worldwide reach, so what if a citizen of another country is harmed due to misinformation posted by a US elected official? The citizens of that country didn't elect them.

tshaddox 5y ago
She’s only elected to be a legislator in the House of Representatives. It’s not like she has a license to kill. That ought to have nothing to do with anything else, including her privileges on any random website.
showerrain 5y ago
That's the problem of the other country to defend its citizens.

gpu_explorer 5y ago

Why should Twitter give up their right to freedom of expression and freedom of association? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

gjsman-1000 5y ago
In an ideal world, because they are now the public square effectively, they should be held to a different stricter standard. As well as other big tech companies (App Store, etc.)
- gpu_explorer 5y ago
  Twitter is not the public square. They app stores are not the public square. No one takes that argument seriously because it's not serious. Is it censorship that most existing book publishers are highly unlikely to publish a book of your or my political opinions? Should a publisher, or anyone else, be compelled to promote speech they disagree with? Would you want someone to compel you to write or publish lies? Marjorie Taylor Greene has VASTLY more ability to get her messages out, and to therefore express herself, than the average American citizen. She can go on Fox News or MSNBC or she can have her office send out press releases. Please stop saying this is censorship. This is NO WAY meets any accepted definition of censorship in the frame you are using.
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    I’m not talking about just Twitter or just this issue. And I specified “in an ideal world” which we aren’t in. In an ideal world, big tech would have more regulation and would have, due to their size, certain regulations on their behavior and who they choose not to do business with, not just in the political sphere. An example (to draw an extreme example to make my point), Visa and MasterCard (due to their size) couldn’t just say screw OnlyFans. They are too large and influential especially together.
    - rpdillon 5y ago

zachberger 5y ago

Her official congressional account was not suspended, only her personal account.

freedAssoc99 5y ago

gregd 5y ago

What obligation does Twitter have to provide anyone with a platform?

albertopv 5y ago

Why not? Why should a private business let government decide who can speak and how and their platform? China does that and it's not funny.

gethoht 5y ago

It was only her personal account that was suspended. The account tied to her position in government is still there @RepMTG.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

What laws should be written to address this then?