6 ms·

I don't understand why this is a story to begin with. Twitter is a private company that does what it wants. It can boot or block whoever or whatever story they

I don't understand why this is a story to begin with. Twitter is a private company that does what it wants. It can boot or block whoever or whatever story they want to for whatever reason. Obviously if the people running the site lean towards one political direction, that's going to affect their moderation policies. Why don't we analyze Fox News's decision to run or not run certain stories. People's first mistake is getting their news from Twitter, or Fox News for that matter. This is not a free speech issue. If you are interested in the Hunter Biden story there are about 300 other sources you could find information about it within about 1/2 a second, it was one of the most widely reported stories in 2020 if I remember correctly. I guess the story is that the people that ran Twitter were left leaning? Which we already knew going into it?

tekknik 4y ago
> It can boot or block whoever or whatever story they want to for whatever reason. We discussed this years ago when it first started. When you’re the defacto town square then no, you shouldn’t be able to kick people out for whatever reason. > Why don't we analyze Fox News's decision to run or not run certain stories. How do you justify the left ignoring stories in their media? For instance the story about Chase Staub. > People's first mistake is getting their news from Twitter, or Fox News for that matter. There’s always an assumption it’s Fox. Try WSJ. > This is not a free speech issue. Very much disagree. Ask yourself why you’re so upset at this information. Or if you’re not upset, ask why there is so much anxiety around this story. Clearly some the left are concerned about what this will result in. > I guess the story is that the people that ran Twitter were left leaning? Which we already knew going into it? Yes and that’s a problem when they use their political viewpoints to control the conversation.
- jliptzin 4y ago
  I’m not upset, I’m just amused. It’s always amazing to me when “free market” conservatives complain about private companies making private decisions that they don’t like. I go on Twitter maybe 5 minutes a month. There are dozens of other “town squares” and if you think twitter is the only one you’re on there way too much. Has anyone been arrested or imprisoned for running the Hunter Biden laptop story? Has any government authority threatened anyone with arrest for running the Hunter Biden story? No? Then not a free speech issue. Twitter is not a government agency. Don’t like their moderation practices? Start your own twitter which is exactly what Trump did and is the correct response. He can then push or censor whatever stories he wants and people decide whether or not they want to traffic on that site. That is the beauty of the free market we play in. If Fox wants to be the propaganda arm of the Republican Party while masquerading as news, good for them. If Elon wants to unban everyone on Twitter and let everything go unfettered with no moderation, good for him. There are lots of other choices out there. None of this is new or interesting. This seems like more of a school cafeteria food fight than any kind of “free speech” issue.
  - tekknik 4y ago
    On the other hand, we could just stop trying to control speech and understand the implications of one side having a defacto town square that the other isn’t invited to. We can also understand that while there’s no legal protection, having companies run around as pseudo dictators removing rights for their own political beliefs undermines the spirit of 1A You seem pro echo chamber and I still cannot for the life of me understand why you want to control speech so much. It’s almost like you’re scared a second voice in the room because it’s harder dispense misinformation that leads to support.
    - jliptzin 4y ago
      It is actually the opposite, you are the one advocating for controlling speech. Telling Twitter or any other private organization that they have to spread information on their private platform that they consider harmful or damaging to themselves or their business is a violation of their speech. If I host a comment section on my blog and someone starts posting nazi propaganda I should have the right to remove those posts. Or any other posts I don’t like. Twitter is just a bigger version of that. If you don’t like twitter’s moderation policies don’t use twitter, use truth social or Parler or 4chan or whatever.
      - tekknik 4y ago
        Twitter does not speak when someone posts. This is a ridiculous take on free speech and is a bit concerning if you actually think this way.
        tekknik 4y ago
        Here you go, a perfect example just came up: https://www.foxnews.com/us/retired-navy-seal-made-famous-coming-out-trans-announces-detransition-destroyed-my-life https://www.foxnews.com/us/retired-navy-seal-made-famous-com... While CNN has many many articles on the individual, they’re missing this one.
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  > How do you justify the left ignoring stories in their media? For instance the story about Chase Staub. I'm guessing that "the premier media source for LGBTQ Georgia"[1] is probably left-leaning and they've covered it. Same for "a central part of Washington, DC’s gay and lesbian community"[2]. Reasonably sure that [3] lean left. [1] https://thegavoice.com/today-in-gay-atlanta/police-arrest-chase-staubs-for-threatening-lgbtq-establishments/ https://thegavoice.com/today-in-gay-atlanta/police-arrest-ch... [2] https://www.metroweekly.com/2022/12/atlanta-man-arrested-for-violent-threats-against-lgbtq-bars/ https://www.metroweekly.com/2022/12/atlanta-man-arrested-for... [3] https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/11/28/chase-staub-arrest-made/ https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/11/28/chase-staub-arrest-ma...
  - tekknik 4y ago
    But Fox has it. Why doesn’t CNN, Wapo, The Hill, MSNBC, or USA Today? Just no-name sites is it for the left. I wonder why?
    - zimpenfish 4y ago
      You mean [1]? That's a Fox-subscriber called WAGA-TV local to Atlanta, not Fox itself as such - who don't have the story, btw. > Your search - "chase staub" site:foxnews.com - did not match any documents. I guess if CNN, WaPo, etc. had Atlanta local affiliates, they'd probably have covered it locally as well. [1] https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/atlanta-police-charge-person-with-making-threats-to-lgbtq-friendly-nightclub https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/atlanta-police-charge-perso...
      - tekknik 4y ago
        It actually showed up in apple news the other day under fox, perhaps it was moved. either way I can’t find a link on it on the main site. the question still remains as to why the other news orgs didn’t pick up something this serious and at least mention it.
        zimpenfish 4y ago
zajio1am 4y ago
> Why don't we analyze Fox News's decision to run or not run certain stories. There is clear distinction between content producers (like TV or newspapers) and platforms (like social networks, Youtube, and others). Content producers produce content with some bias, their consumers have (hopefully) similar bias and everyone is happy. Bias is here, it is editorial policy and nobody is understand it. It has some disadvantages in contrast to unbiased producers, but that is probably unreachable ideal. With platforms, you have matching content producers and consumers (or just parties trying to communicate) and then you have third party (platform) who 'moderates' the content regardless of whether communicating parties are interested or not. Because it is not supposed to be editorial, it tries to dress it as rule enforcement. But biased rule enforcement is just much less acceptable than biased editorial policy.
jessaustin 4y ago
2. it was obvious to everyone ... I don't understand why this is a story to begin with. So we're now at stage 2.

tekknik 4y ago

> It can boot or block whoever or whatever story they want to for whatever reason. We discussed this years ago when it first started. When you’re the defacto town square then no, you shouldn’t be able to kick people out for whatever reason. > Why don't we analyze Fox News's decision to run or not run certain stories. How do you justify the left ignoring stories in their media? For instance the story about Chase Staub. > People's first mistake is getting their news from Twitter, or Fox News for that matter. There’s always an assumption it’s Fox. Try WSJ. > This is not a free speech issue. Very much disagree. Ask yourself why you’re so upset at this information. Or if you’re not upset, ask why there is so much anxiety around this story. Clearly some the left are concerned about what this will result in. > I guess the story is that the people that ran Twitter were left leaning? Which we already knew going into it? Yes and that’s a problem when they use their political viewpoints to control the conversation.

jliptzin 4y ago
I’m not upset, I’m just amused. It’s always amazing to me when “free market” conservatives complain about private companies making private decisions that they don’t like. I go on Twitter maybe 5 minutes a month. There are dozens of other “town squares” and if you think twitter is the only one you’re on there way too much. Has anyone been arrested or imprisoned for running the Hunter Biden laptop story? Has any government authority threatened anyone with arrest for running the Hunter Biden story? No? Then not a free speech issue. Twitter is not a government agency. Don’t like their moderation practices? Start your own twitter which is exactly what Trump did and is the correct response. He can then push or censor whatever stories he wants and people decide whether or not they want to traffic on that site. That is the beauty of the free market we play in. If Fox wants to be the propaganda arm of the Republican Party while masquerading as news, good for them. If Elon wants to unban everyone on Twitter and let everything go unfettered with no moderation, good for him. There are lots of other choices out there. None of this is new or interesting. This seems like more of a school cafeteria food fight than any kind of “free speech” issue.
- tekknik 4y ago
  On the other hand, we could just stop trying to control speech and understand the implications of one side having a defacto town square that the other isn’t invited to. We can also understand that while there’s no legal protection, having companies run around as pseudo dictators removing rights for their own political beliefs undermines the spirit of 1A You seem pro echo chamber and I still cannot for the life of me understand why you want to control speech so much. It’s almost like you’re scared a second voice in the room because it’s harder dispense misinformation that leads to support.
  - jliptzin 4y ago
    It is actually the opposite, you are the one advocating for controlling speech. Telling Twitter or any other private organization that they have to spread information on their private platform that they consider harmful or damaging to themselves or their business is a violation of their speech. If I host a comment section on my blog and someone starts posting nazi propaganda I should have the right to remove those posts. Or any other posts I don’t like. Twitter is just a bigger version of that. If you don’t like twitter’s moderation policies don’t use twitter, use truth social or Parler or 4chan or whatever.
    - tekknik 4y ago
      Twitter does not speak when someone posts. This is a ridiculous take on free speech and is a bit concerning if you actually think this way.
      - tekknik 4y ago
        Here you go, a perfect example just came up: https://www.foxnews.com/us/retired-navy-seal-made-famous-coming-out-trans-announces-detransition-destroyed-my-life https://www.foxnews.com/us/retired-navy-seal-made-famous-com... While CNN has many many articles on the individual, they’re missing this one.
zimpenfish 4y ago
> How do you justify the left ignoring stories in their media? For instance the story about Chase Staub. I'm guessing that "the premier media source for LGBTQ Georgia"[1] is probably left-leaning and they've covered it. Same for "a central part of Washington, DC’s gay and lesbian community"[2]. Reasonably sure that [3] lean left. [1] https://thegavoice.com/today-in-gay-atlanta/police-arrest-chase-staubs-for-threatening-lgbtq-establishments/ https://thegavoice.com/today-in-gay-atlanta/police-arrest-ch... [2] https://www.metroweekly.com/2022/12/atlanta-man-arrested-for-violent-threats-against-lgbtq-bars/ https://www.metroweekly.com/2022/12/atlanta-man-arrested-for... [3] https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/11/28/chase-staub-arrest-made/ https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/11/28/chase-staub-arrest-ma...
- tekknik 4y ago
  But Fox has it. Why doesn’t CNN, Wapo, The Hill, MSNBC, or USA Today? Just no-name sites is it for the left. I wonder why?
  - zimpenfish 4y ago
    You mean [1]? That's a Fox-subscriber called WAGA-TV local to Atlanta, not Fox itself as such - who don't have the story, btw. > Your search - "chase staub" site:foxnews.com - did not match any documents. I guess if CNN, WaPo, etc. had Atlanta local affiliates, they'd probably have covered it locally as well. [1] https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/atlanta-police-charge-person-with-making-threats-to-lgbtq-friendly-nightclub https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/atlanta-police-charge-perso...
    - tekknik 4y ago
      It actually showed up in apple news the other day under fox, perhaps it was moved. either way I can’t find a link on it on the main site. the question still remains as to why the other news orgs didn’t pick up something this serious and at least mention it.
      - zimpenfish 4y ago

zajio1am 4y ago

> Why don't we analyze Fox News's decision to run or not run certain stories. There is clear distinction between content producers (like TV or newspapers) and platforms (like social networks, Youtube, and others). Content producers produce content with some bias, their consumers have (hopefully) similar bias and everyone is happy. Bias is here, it is editorial policy and nobody is understand it. It has some disadvantages in contrast to unbiased producers, but that is probably unreachable ideal. With platforms, you have matching content producers and consumers (or just parties trying to communicate) and then you have third party (platform) who 'moderates' the content regardless of whether communicating parties are interested or not. Because it is not supposed to be editorial, it tries to dress it as rule enforcement. But biased rule enforcement is just much less acceptable than biased editorial policy.

jessaustin 4y ago

2. it was obvious to everyone ... I don't understand why this is a story to begin with. So we're now at stage 2.