4 ms·

"Hey Twitter, please block this crap" is users trying to block what they don't want to see. Blocking unpopular content doesn't become a political act just beca

"Hey Twitter, please block this crap" is users trying to block what they don't want to see. Blocking unpopular content doesn't become a political act just because one side produces more of it than the other.

catiopatio 4y ago
> "Hey Twitter, please block this crap" is users trying to block what they don't want to see. No, it's users trying to censor what they don't want other people to be permitted to say or see. Twitter users have a "block" button; they're free to use it, and thus limit what they themselves will see.
- ineptech 4y ago
  Being kicked off Twitter isn't the same as being silenced.
  - catiopatio 4y ago
    What would you call it?
    - the_jesus_villa 4y ago
      Well, here in Guatemala journalists are being silenced, and it doesn't mean they're being kicked off Twitter. I really hate big tech censorship, but you're naivete about the impact of "being silenced" reminds me of this part from Days and Nights of Love and of War >Perdí varias cosas en Buenos Aires... No me quejo. Con tantas personas perdidas, llorar por las cosas sería como faltarle el respeto al dolor. Translates roughly as: >I lost various things in Buenos Aires... I don't complain. With so many people lost, to cry over things seemed to lack respect for suffering. In a kind of similar vein, you're complaint about Twitter users being silenced lacks some respect for people who are actually being silenced. Although I agree with your underlying sentiment.
      - catiopatio 4y ago
        Obviously, "silenced" has different meanings and weight depending on the context in which it's being used, but ... I never actually used the term, so it's an odd point of contention to raise. The original statement I replied to — which was also the first time "silenced" was used in this thread — was: > Being kicked off Twitter isn't the same as being silenced. In reply, I asked "What would you call it?".
        infotogivenm 4y ago
        Banned from one of a universe of private platforms for breaking their specific terms of service? In any case, do we really want the government to start dictating to private sector publishing companies what content they must publish?
        catiopatio 4y ago
        > do we really want the government to start dictating to private sector publishing companies what content they must publish? Yes, I think we do, if it’s in exchange for their currently privileged position. Currently, they operate with the privileges of a common carrier, and none of the responsibilities. They shouldn’t have the privilege of being shielded from responsibility for what they publish on behalf of others, while also claiming that doing so represents their own protected speech. If they want to editorialize, they can be treated like any other publisher, and be held responsible for what they publish — including disinformation, libel, harassment, et al.
        hedora 4y ago
        They are definitely not common carriers. That is a well-defned legal term, and Twitter simply does not meet the bar: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier > A common carrier in common law countries (corresponding to a public carrier in some civil law systems,[1] usually called simply a carrier)[2] is a person or company that transports goods or people for any person or company and is responsible for any possible loss of the goods during transport.[3] A common carrier offers its services to the general public under license or authority provided by a regulatory body, which has usually been granted "ministerial authority" by the legislation that created it.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Is Twitter the only way to communicate over the Internet? Why is a “social media” company headed by the most popular “conservative” in America failing? Why can’t FoxNews create its own social media company?
      - cowtools 4y ago
        Pulled from payment processor, DDoS protection, etc. "If they don't like it, why can't they just create their own internet that we will not be able to access?"
        scarface74 4y ago
        That’s not why Truth Social is failing https://time.com/6209392/truth-social-financial-problems-trump/ https://time.com/6209392/truth-social-financial-problems-tru... Trump is supposedly a billionaire. He couldn’t fund the equivalent of Cloudflare if he desires? He couldn’t find enough like minded investors?
        cowtools 4y ago
        Sorry, I confused truth social with another website called gab. In any case they are simply mastodon forks, are they not? I can't see why it would require massive funding. I don't think the failure of truth social speaks to the failure of "splinter" forums at large.
        scarface74 4y ago
        Conservatives love the free market. Truth Social is showing the free market voting with its dollars
      - catiopatio 4y ago
        What does that have to do with my question — or anything else I’ve said? What word should we use to describe the viewpoint-based prohibition of someone’s speech?
    - ineptech 4y ago
      I think the usual term for being asked to leave a place due to your behavior is "eighty-sixed".
xani_ 4y ago
It does when the block is for everyone, not just the people who asked to not see it. Giving people option to filter out what they don't want to see is fine; but the moment when (aside from reporting illegal stuff) you block content for user B because user A asked, it quickly becomes picking a side and censoring the other side.

catiopatio 4y ago

> "Hey Twitter, please block this crap" is users trying to block what they don't want to see. No, it's users trying to censor what they don't want other people to be permitted to say or see. Twitter users have a "block" button; they're free to use it, and thus limit what they themselves will see.

ineptech 4y ago
Being kicked off Twitter isn't the same as being silenced.
- catiopatio 4y ago
  What would you call it?
  - the_jesus_villa 4y ago
    Well, here in Guatemala journalists are being silenced, and it doesn't mean they're being kicked off Twitter. I really hate big tech censorship, but you're naivete about the impact of "being silenced" reminds me of this part from Days and Nights of Love and of War >Perdí varias cosas en Buenos Aires... No me quejo. Con tantas personas perdidas, llorar por las cosas sería como faltarle el respeto al dolor. Translates roughly as: >I lost various things in Buenos Aires... I don't complain. With so many people lost, to cry over things seemed to lack respect for suffering. In a kind of similar vein, you're complaint about Twitter users being silenced lacks some respect for people who are actually being silenced. Although I agree with your underlying sentiment.
    - catiopatio 4y ago
      Obviously, "silenced" has different meanings and weight depending on the context in which it's being used, but ... I never actually used the term, so it's an odd point of contention to raise. The original statement I replied to — which was also the first time "silenced" was used in this thread — was: > Being kicked off Twitter isn't the same as being silenced. In reply, I asked "What would you call it?".
      - infotogivenm 4y ago
        Banned from one of a universe of private platforms for breaking their specific terms of service? In any case, do we really want the government to start dictating to private sector publishing companies what content they must publish?
        catiopatio 4y ago
        > do we really want the government to start dictating to private sector publishing companies what content they must publish? Yes, I think we do, if it’s in exchange for their currently privileged position. Currently, they operate with the privileges of a common carrier, and none of the responsibilities. They shouldn’t have the privilege of being shielded from responsibility for what they publish on behalf of others, while also claiming that doing so represents their own protected speech. If they want to editorialize, they can be treated like any other publisher, and be held responsible for what they publish — including disinformation, libel, harassment, et al.
        hedora 4y ago
        They are definitely not common carriers. That is a well-defned legal term, and Twitter simply does not meet the bar: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier > A common carrier in common law countries (corresponding to a public carrier in some civil law systems,[1] usually called simply a carrier)[2] is a person or company that transports goods or people for any person or company and is responsible for any possible loss of the goods during transport.[3] A common carrier offers its services to the general public under license or authority provided by a regulatory body, which has usually been granted "ministerial authority" by the legislation that created it.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Is Twitter the only way to communicate over the Internet? Why is a “social media” company headed by the most popular “conservative” in America failing? Why can’t FoxNews create its own social media company?
    - cowtools 4y ago
      Pulled from payment processor, DDoS protection, etc. "If they don't like it, why can't they just create their own internet that we will not be able to access?"
      - scarface74 4y ago
        That’s not why Truth Social is failing https://time.com/6209392/truth-social-financial-problems-trump/ https://time.com/6209392/truth-social-financial-problems-tru... Trump is supposedly a billionaire. He couldn’t fund the equivalent of Cloudflare if he desires? He couldn’t find enough like minded investors?
        cowtools 4y ago
        Sorry, I confused truth social with another website called gab. In any case they are simply mastodon forks, are they not? I can't see why it would require massive funding. I don't think the failure of truth social speaks to the failure of "splinter" forums at large.
        scarface74 4y ago
        Conservatives love the free market. Truth Social is showing the free market voting with its dollars
    - catiopatio 4y ago
      What does that have to do with my question — or anything else I’ve said? What word should we use to describe the viewpoint-based prohibition of someone’s speech?
  - ineptech 4y ago
    I think the usual term for being asked to leave a place due to your behavior is "eighty-sixed".

xani_ 4y ago

It does when the block is for everyone, not just the people who asked to not see it. Giving people option to filter out what they don't want to see is fine; but the moment when (aside from reporting illegal stuff) you block content for user B because user A asked, it quickly becomes picking a side and censoring the other side.