4 ms·

Yet apparently, facilitating the burning down, rioting, and violence in cities across the country in the name of (allegedly) a convicted felon who died of a hea

by coolso 5y ago

Yet apparently, facilitating the burning down, rioting, and violence in cities across the country in the name of (allegedly) a convicted felon who died of a heart attack while restrained by police after attempting to drive on public streets high on fenty and meth, is in their best interests. Also, you... think this just started after January of last year? And that everyone who thinks differently than the establishment idea of what is "right" is part of that group? Interesting. You only further my point. The truth is, it has been happening for a while, but certainly sped itself up when the establishment realized that allowing people to freely spread ideas and opinions very likely resulted in that really mean tweeter winning, rather than the person they wanted to win, and that to ensure that the only ideas considered "correct" moving forward are allowed to propogate, that comments either needed to be disabled, or heavily regulated, by the very smart, very good people in Big Tech, who cried tears of frustration and anger after the Cheeto won. [0] [0]: https://www.newsweek.com/google-vs-trump-leaked-video-reveals-negative-reactions-trumps-election-1119490 https://www.newsweek.com/google-vs-trump-leaked-video-reveal...

shadowgovt 5y ago
Trump's victory was not the last gasp of laissez-faire moderation by the big companies. As you've noted, they allowed people to use their service for what people wanted after that day. The end of his Presidency, though, is a different story. Indeed, Twitter, upon being forced to decide whether their laxly-enforced TOS meant they'd have to kick a sitting President off their service or whether they would find a way to avoid that scenario, modified their TOS to allow him and his ilk to stay. ... and the consequences of that decision were that their CEO, four years later, got hauled in front of Congress to talk about what their communications service facilitated on January 6, 2021, and whether they should have done anything differently. They tried their damnedest, they really did. They don't actually want to be some kind of benevolent dictators over what people see and hear; it's not the job they set out to have. But they've seen what happens now if they don't assume the responsibility their size has thrust upon them. We're now at the beginnings of the experiment where they assume the role of benevolent dictators, and the results remain to be seen.

by coolso 5y ago

shadowgovt 5y ago

Trump's victory was not the last gasp of laissez-faire moderation by the big companies. As you've noted, they allowed people to use their service for what people wanted after that day. The end of his Presidency, though, is a different story. Indeed, Twitter, upon being forced to decide whether their laxly-enforced TOS meant they'd have to kick a sitting President off their service or whether they would find a way to avoid that scenario, modified their TOS to allow him and his ilk to stay. ... and the consequences of that decision were that their CEO, four years later, got hauled in front of Congress to talk about what their communications service facilitated on January 6, 2021, and whether they should have done anything differently. They tried their damnedest, they really did. They don't actually want to be some kind of benevolent dictators over what people see and hear; it's not the job they set out to have. But they've seen what happens now if they don't assume the responsibility their size has thrust upon them. We're now at the beginnings of the experiment where they assume the role of benevolent dictators, and the results remain to be seen.