Twitter Trainwreck

[TR930]

Originally Posted by DETRoadster

Newspapers and magazines make decisions every day about which stories to run, which ones to bury, and which ones to twist to fit a narrative. Every election season your local newspaper comes out in support of one candidate or another. But we seem OK with that generally, right? If one rag leans too far one direction you go find another one that leans the other way.

Is the problem here that people (naively) think or thought that Twitter as a company was fair and balanced in how they operate? Did we expect them to be politically agnostic? If they've found that leaning Left is a better business model, should we not celebrate the free market and let it play out? Take our business elsewhere if we dont like it.

I have a hard time believing anyone here would be shocked if I strolled on over to Truth Social, begin posting Left wing pro Antifa garbage, and got censored.

Not trying to turn my own thread political here so let's keep the debate to one of censorship. From my vantage point, I never did think social media platforms were balanced, nor do I expect them to be. As businesses in the free market, I expect them to craft a platform that fits their profit model. Just like the mods here at BP are free to decide where the line is and, sometimes, enforce that in what appears to us to be a haphazard and unbalanced fashion. It's their platform, their business to protect, and their right to do it in whatever way they see fit. If I dont like it I can find a different platform.

You are missing the point. It would be no issue if Twitter decided to hide news and silence voices. The fact that the Gov told them which stories to hide and which voices to silence AND THEN DID IT, is the problem...

The appearance of one particular political party pretty much steering all of this information and determining who the " bad guys" are, and what "misinformation" is, is a whole other problem.

[________]

Originally Posted by DETRoadster

Lol, thats actually exactly what Kanye posted.

Oh really, what did he say? Don’t have Twitter and don’t follow stories, I think I saw a video title saying he was banned for posting a Star of David with a swastika in the middle, that’s as much as I know.

[________]

Originally Posted by TR930

You are missing the point. It would be no issue if Twitter decided to hide news and silence voices. The fact that the Gov told them which stories to hide and which voices to silence AND THEN DID IT, is the problem...

The appearance of one particular political party pretty much steering all of this information and determining who the " bad guys" are, and what "misinformation" is, is a whole other problem.

Yes just like it happened at Facebook.
No problem for a political party to “ask”.
A huge problem for a party in power to use the public machine to “ask”.

At Facebook the FBI was the one saying stuff. That’s madness.

[DETRoadster]

Originally Posted by TR930

You are missing the point. It would be no issue if Twitter decided to hide news and silence voices. The fact that the Gov told them which stories to hide and which voices to silence AND THEN DID IT, is the problem...

The appearance of one particular political party pretty much steering all of this information and determining who the " bad guys" are, and what "misinformation" is, is a whole other problem.

I wasn't aware of that tidbit. You're right, that's a serious problem when any politician or political party can turn a company like Twitter or FB into their media weapon.

[gatorfast]

Originally Posted by DETRoadster

Mmmm, but my cell is a utility. Not a platform. At least that's how I view it.

Anyway, I think most all of us can agree that our laws have not kept pace with technologies. Trying to apply 1930s era telecommunications laws to the internet is just not a great fit.

Agreed. Also, a phone connection is a private one on one communication whereas Twitter is a public forum available for limitless people to view.

I for one am happy Kanye got suspended. While Twitter, Facebook, etc are great platforms to express yourself, share news, and connect with people I think it's only responsible to remove overt hate speech, calls for violence, obscene images, etc.

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by DETRoadster

Mmmm, but my cell is a utility. Not a platform. At least that's how I view it.

Anyway, I think most all of us can agree that our laws have not kept pace with technologies. Trying to apply 1930s era telecommunications laws to the internet is just not a great fit.

It goes back to section 230. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is they get special protections under 230 like public utilities. Like they cannot be sued for what is published on their platform, unlike actual publishers who do not have these protections and can be sued.

So if they want to be a publisher that's fine. Then we should drop their section 230 protections. They don't want that though.

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by gatorfast

Agreed. Also, a phone connection is a private one on one communication whereas Twitter is a public forum available for limitless people to view.

I for one am happy Kanye got suspended. While Twitter, Facebook, etc are great platforms to express yourself, share news, and connect with people I think it's only responsible to remove overt hate speech, calls for violence, obscene images, etc.

I for one am quite concerned that you are so eager to censor things you don't agree with. You are ok with it because thus far it has only been used to censor things you want censored. However once you grant that power to these companies or the government the sword cuts both ways.

[OkieSnuffBox]

Originally Posted by minn19

Musk suspended Kanye. Free speech?

The 1st Amendment has to do with government preventing free speech, not corporations. I'm not sure why this is constantly parroted. Many people also seem to mistake "speech I don't like/agree with" for actual "hate speech" or calls to action.

Personally, I'd prefer sites/apps/platforms, not remove those kind of tweets/messages or ban the users. That way we know exactly who the big pieces of sh-- are. All it does is push it underground, it certainly doesn't stop it.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by OkieSnuffBox

The 1st Amendment has to do with government preventing free speech, not corporations. I'm not sure why this is constantly parroted. Many people also seem to mistake "speech I don't like/agree with" for actual "hate speech" or calls to action.

Personally, I'd prefer sites/apps/platforms, not remove those kind of tweets/messages or ban the users. That way we know exactly who the big pieces of sh-- are. All it does is push it underground, it certainly doesn't stop it.

No sh?!. Because it’s a Musk thing he constantly parrots and the supposed reason he bought the company.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

I for one am quite concerned that you are so eager to censor things you don't agree with. You are ok with it because thus far it has only been used to censor things you want censored. However once you grant that power to these companies or the government the sword cuts both ways.

That's usually how it is for many. They are okay with censorship when it's only affecting/impacting the things/people/ideas/philosophies they disagree with.

[KRS_SN]

PayPal = not great
Tesla's as cars at the price point =not great(in my opinion based on many drives an intolerably cheap interior and road noise, won't even start on the exterior)
Musk at making money and making others money =great.
I've held this opinion for long. He's a great salesman for the gullible and impressionable and a great asset for the speculator.
As for twitter
It's going to be great
It's going bankrupt
Look its working albeit not as great as it was
Now I've succeeded as it didn't go bankrupt
Now invest in me as twitter is more valuable than apple and Samsung put together lol.

[DETRoadster]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

PayPal = not great
Tesla's as cars at the price point =not great(in my opinion based on many drives an intolerably cheap interior and road noise, won't even start on the exterior)
Musk at making money and making others money =great.
I've held this opinion for long. He's a great salesman for the gullible and impressionable and a great asset for the speculator.
As for twitter
It's going to be great
It's going bankrupt
Look its working albeit not as great as it was
Now I've succeeded as it didn't go bankrupt
Now invest in me as twitter is more valuable than apple and Samsung put together lol.

Invest in him, how? That's the piece I cant figure out. He took Twitter private. You cant invest in Twitter. So what, "invest in Tesla because I'm awesome and own Twitter."? I still cant crack why he even wanted Twitter in the first place. He almost certainly sees value and financial opportunity in Twitter but I'm not sure where or how.

[KRS_SN]

Originally Posted by DETRoadster

Invest in him, how? That's the piece I cant figure out. He took Twitter private. You cant invest in Twitter. So what, "invest in Tesla because I'm awesome and own Twitter."? I still cant crack why he even wanted Twitter in the first place. He almost certainly sees value and financial opportunity in Twitter but I'm not sure where or how.

I'm sure he'll tweet the answer to your question soon followed by a retweeet on how his answer has changed based on reality..meanwhile if you've supported him legions will like your tweet ...simples.

[DETRoadster]

So Ive been reflecting on this idea that Twitter (and social media in general) is just the modern digital equivalent of the old town square. I realized as I was making my waffles this AM just how wrong that is. There was no anonymity in the old town square. Your small town knew just who you were. Unless of course you were some stranger who wandered in from another town, in which case I'll bet the locals were pretty on guard with whomever had shown up in their town and was taking to their square. Also, the town had mechanisms to deal with speech they didnt like. Wander into the town square of an (insert ethnicity here. Irish, German, Jewish, etc.) community and start spouting hate about that community and you were going to get beat. Plain and simple. If the mob beating you grew large enough maybe the cops would come in and haul you away for disturbing the peace.

Point is, you couldn't just say whatever you wanted in the town square without consequences. I wonder what a forum here like BP would be like if we all knew who eachother were. Probably pretty different.

[________]

Originally Posted by DETRoadster

So Ive been reflecting on this idea that Twitter (and social media in general) is just the modern digital equivalent of the old town square. I realized as I was making my waffles this AM just how wrong that is. There was no anonymity in the old town square. Your small town knew just who you were. Unless of course you were some stranger who wandered in from another town, in which case I'll bet the locals were pretty on guard with whomever had shown up in their town and was taking to their square. Also, the town had mechanisms to deal with speech they didnt like. Wander into the town square of an (insert ethnicity here. Irish, German, Jewish, etc.) community and start spouting hate about that community and you were going to get beat. Plain and simple. If the mob beating you grew large enough maybe the cops would come in and haul you away for disturbing the peace.

Point is, you couldn't just say whatever you wanted in the town square without consequences. I wonder what a forum here like BP would be like if we all knew who eachother were. Probably pretty different.

Good thoughts!
I wish there was no anonymity, and we’ve been conditioned to hide behind screen names because we’re afraid of repercussions (people harassing you in real life, losing jobs, etc.)

While there’s power in anonymity (vide voting, for example), I agree this would be a different place if we all knew each other in person.

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by DETRoadster

So Ive been reflecting on this idea that Twitter (and social media in general) is just the modern digital equivalent of the old town square. I realized as I was making my waffles this AM just how wrong that is. There was no anonymity in the old town square. Your small town knew just who you were. Unless of course you were some stranger who wandered in from another town, in which case I'll bet the locals were pretty on guard with whomever had shown up in their town and was taking to their square. Also, the town had mechanisms to deal with speech they didnt like. Wander into the town square of an (insert ethnicity here. Irish, German, Jewish, etc.) community and start spouting hate about that community and you were going to get beat. Plain and simple. If the mob beating you grew large enough maybe the cops would come in and haul you away for disturbing the peace.

Point is, you couldn't just say whatever you wanted in the town square without consequences. I wonder what a forum here like BP would be like if we all knew who eachother were. Probably pretty different.

So you're justification for online censorship is that someone could be physically violent towards you in a real town square? Then after you're beaten by a mob the police would haul you away... wtf??

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that seems like some serious mental gymnastics to try to justify your position.

[DETRoadster]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

So you're justification for online censorship is that someone could be physically violent towards you in a real town square? Then after you're beaten by a mob the police would haul you away... wtf??

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that seems like some serious mental gymnastics to try to justify your position.

No, you're reading too much into it. I've heard the "Twitter is the modern town square" argument made here and in the media. It got me thinking that analogy isn't a great fit as the town square of the old days had a self-moderation mechanism rooted in a lack of anonymity. Perhaps it's the anonymity that's the issue here when it comes to people feeling free to say whatever horrible things they want to say. Not suggesting violence in any way.

[gatorfast]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

I for one am quite concerned that you are so eager to censor things you don't agree with. You are ok with it because thus far it has only been used to censor things you want censored. However once you grant that power to these companies or the government the sword cuts both ways.

Well yes, I absolutely do not agree with promoting antisemitism so I am more than ok with social media companies removing content that is overt hate speech. It concerns me why you think hate speech shouldn't be called out and removed from public spaces. I'm not talking about some red herring slippery slope argument - I'm talking about the Kanye example of praising Hitler. You are ok with this?

I am also a believer that the first amendment gives you freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences. Kanye and others are free to espouse their hate filled rhetoric but must accept the social consequences which come with doing so. I don't think Twitter or any other major social media company has expressly said any and all content is allowed on their platforms and nothing will ever be removed. I'll stand by my opinion that they have a duty to restrict hate speech, violent threats, obscene content, etc.

[gatorfast]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

That's usually how it is for many. They are okay with censorship when it's only affecting/impacting the things/people/ideas/philosophies they disagree with.

You are misconstruing censorship over disagreement of opinion vs hate speech and promotion of antisemitism.

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by DETRoadster

No, you're reading too much into it. I've heard the "Twitter is the modern town square" argument made here and in the media. It got me thinking that analogy isn't a great fit as the town square of the old days had a self-moderation mechanism rooted in a lack of anonymity. Perhaps it's the anonymity that's the issue here when it comes to people feeling free to say whatever horrible things they want to say. Not suggesting violence in any way.

Ok let's forget the whole assaulting protestors in a town square and focus on the anonymity aspect. If you look at any of the big controversial censoring that was going on at twitter... these are not anonymous people in their grandmas basement... it was the potus, world famous celebrities, journalists etc.

Originally Posted by gatorfast

Well yes, I absolutely do not agree with promoting antisemitism so I am more than ok with social media companies removing content that is overt hate speech. It concerns me why you think hate speech shouldn't be called out and removed from public spaces. I'm not talking about some red herring slippery slope argument - I'm talking about the Kanye example of praising Hitler. You are ok with this?

Because I'm an adult. I was taught from a young age sticks and stone may break my bones but words will never hurt me. I want to know if Kanye is an anti semite, I want to know if the potus is "inciting violence", I want to know if the next potential potus has a crackhead son. I don't feel the need to close my eyes and stick my head in the sand when confronted with something I don't like or agree with. However even if I was that sensitive and could not handle conflicting views.... unlike an actual town square... you can block people. You can not follow them etc.

If we cannot agree that I can be against what Kayne said, but still be for his right to say it, then I doubt we can agree on much.

[________]

Originally Posted by gatorfast

You are misconstruing censorship over disagreement of opinion vs hate speech and promotion of antisemitism.

My friend, what is this “hate speech” you speak of?
What does that mean?

[TXSTYLE]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...150328191.html