President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[creekster]

Were social media platforms really built on the premise of everyone having a voice and being heard? I doubt that was really an overarching goal of any of the founders of these platforms.

From Twitter's website:

The mission we serve as Twitter, Inc. is to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers. Our business and revenue will always follow that mission in ways that improve – and do not detract from – a free and global conversation.

https://investor.twitterinc.com/cont...q/default.aspx

[Pelado]

From Twitter's website:


https://investor.twitterinc.com/cont...q/default.aspx

You believe them?

[swampfrog]

From Twitter's website:

The mission we serve as Twitter, Inc. is to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers. Our business and revenue will always follow that mission in ways that improve – and do not detract from – a free and global conversation.

https://investor.twitterinc.com/cont...q/default.aspx

All of the free social media companies share a similar business model. Since they are free to use, their end user services are by definition not the product being sold. The product being sold is the end user. Either individually (access for advertisers) or in aggregate (data and corresponding analytics). They all therefore answer to non-obvious market forces, mission statements notwithstanding. There are a complex set of somewhat competing interests at work in all of them.

Even if they don't currently actually have high levels of bias (of which I'm not certain), the potential and obvious ideological advantages for such a thing to manifest itself is worrisome enough.

The "Hateful conduct policy" is an interesting read. Intersectionality in near full bloom.

We recognise that if people experience abuse on Twitter, it can jeopardize their ability to express themselves. Research has shown that some groups of people are disproportionately targeted with abuse online. This includes; women, people of color, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual individuals, marginalized and historically underrepresented communities. For those who identity with multiple underrepresented groups, abuse may be more common, more severe in nature and have a higher impact on those targeted. We are committed to combating abuse motivated by hatred, prejudice or intolerance, particularly abuse that seeks to silence the voices of those who have been historically marginalized. For this reason, we prohibit behavior that targets individuals with abuse based on protected category.

Maybe I'm misreading, but essentially that reads that certain speech is tolerated at different levels based on the intersectional identity of a perceived target. That's arguably an ideological political opinion embedded in the official conduct policy. Such a policy provides a power lever to be wielded at the level of accusation. Shown most recently by the activities of Jessica Yaniv.

There's a lot going on in this space that needs time and patience to sort out.

[creekster]

You believe them?

It doesn't matter. It's their own standard.

[swampfrog]

You believe them?

It doesn't matter. It's their own standard.

This is exactly the problem, it's their declared public standard, but is somewhat contradicted by their own policies. You may be able to call a CIS white male ugly, but the same language directed at a trans-male will likely get flagged.

The only way to be sure they are following their own standard is for the public to have a view into their censorship data and algorithms. The public's representative in the US just happens to be the government, which I don't trust to look into the data. The erosion of trust may be the real problem.

[frank ryan]

I know where you're coming from on this, Frank. And I don't necessarily trust Trump or his folks to do it right.

But (there's always a but, right?)

I think this is an area where something might need to be done as far as social media censuring content on their platforms.

This quote in particular...


...seems pretty relevant. I think we can agree that web platforms have the right and responsibility to provide some monitoring and censuring of their content. Where it becomes more of an issue is when there is disagreement as to what should be removed and what shouldn't - and if they are identified as a public space and free speech for all is guaranteed in that space - then under what circumstances are the social media sites protected by the law, and under what circumstances can they be sued?

I don't spend enough time on Twitter to know what or how much they censor folks and/or if the complaints from the conservatives - who say they've had stuff removed or been banned - are valid or not. Most of what I read I get places like CUF - where they've been posted. I actually don't have a twitter account. But I've seen enough questions - including requests from conservatives who have had opponents calling for someone to find them and silence them permanently - only to be told that twitter has determined that it does not qualify for removal - to have questions myself.

I think it's funny that this is being sold as a Trump trying to censor the internet, but as I actually read it - it sure looks like it revolves around NOT censoring the internet. Or at least allowing for equal free speech.

Forcing platforms that are private businesses to tolerate things they don't want to isn't the same thing as protecting free speech. Alex Jones can say what he want, but when he consistantly spreads libelous assertions that the Sandy Hook victims and survivors were all actors, that platform has a right to ban him for that speech. Platforms have a right to enforce their terms of service. Conservatives aren't getting banned for being convservative. I'd encourage to read about the individuals who've been banned.

This is the height of safespacery. Get in trouble for breaking rules and whine to dad Trump to interfere.

It's funny that you actually see it as anything other than a power grap.

Was Robin's or Johnny Lingo's freedom of spech violated when they banned from this website?

[frank ryan]

This is exactly the problem, it's their declared public standard, but is somewhat contradicted by their own policies. You may be able to call a CIS white male ugly, but the same language directed at a trans-male will likely get flagged.

The only way to be sure they are following their own standard is for the public to have a view into their censorship data and algorithms. The public's representative in the US just happens to be the government, which I don't trust to look into the data. The erosion of trust may be the real problem.

What does that have to do with conservatism?

[swampfrog]

Forcing platforms that are private businesses to tolerate things they don't want to isn't the same thing as protecting free speech. Platforms have a right to enforce their terms of service.

One of the advantages of a democracy with an inherent process for change is codified procedural novelty handling. There never has existed private businesses with an effective monopoly on nationwide public discourse--this is completely new. The old rules may indeed apply, but the situation requires careful consideration independent of political leanings.

This is the height of safespacery. Get in trouble for breaking rules and whine to dad Trump to interfere.

That is counter to the current definition and establishment of "safe spaces". A safe space by definition is a place of censorship to prevent perceived harm to participants. The social media companies are declaring their platforms to be safe spaces. From Twitter's rules:

Our rules are to ensure all people can participate in the public conversation freely and safely.

I already quoted more of the rules that are the actual definition of Twitter's safe space including protected classes. The complaint is that such platforms have become an effective sole source of direct public conversation and as such require more liberal rules for engagement. It's not a left/right dichotomy, the same argument is being made by people across the political spectrum.

It's funny that you actually see it as anything other than a power grap.

Of course it's a power grab, but in reaction to power that is already held and wielded. It's an open question as to whether the power is currently being wielded unfairly, only a direct open inquiry into the data can clarify that particular question.

Was Robin's or Johnny Lingo's freedom of spech violated when they banned from this website?

I don't know the particular's of either case, but this website does not include usage by a significant part of the US population, nor is it quoted and utilized by a majority of US media outlets. It's not a valid comparison. The large tech companies wield a novel amount of control over public discourse that has never existed before. So powerful that foreign agents utilize it to manipulate the population. It's in the public interest for such companies to make their policies and their enforcement transparent. Which means government oversight--at least I haven't come up with a different way of showing transparency.

[frank ryan]

One of the advantages of a democracy with an inherent process for change is codified procedural novelty handling. There never has existed private businesses with an effective monopoly on nationwide public discourse--this is completely new. The old rules may indeed apply, but the situation requires careful consideration independent of political leanings.



That is counter to the current definition and establishment of "safe spaces". A safe space by definition is a place of censorship to prevent perceived harm to participants. The social media companies are declaring their platforms to be safe spaces. From Twitter's rules:



I already quoted more of the rules that are the actual definition of Twitter's safe space including protected classes. The complaint is that such platforms have become an effective sole source of direct public conversation and as such require more liberal rules for engagement. It's not a left/right dichotomy, the same argument is being made by people across the political spectrum.



Of course it's a power grab, but in reaction to power that is already held and wielded. It's an open question as to whether the power is currently being wielded unfairly, only a direct open inquiry into the data can clarify that particular question.



I don't know the particular's of either case, but this website does not include usage by a significant part of the US population, nor is it quoted and utilized by a majority of US media outlets. It's not a valid comparison. The large tech companies wield a novel amount of control over public discourse that has never existed before. So powerful that foreign agents utilize it to manipulate the population. It's in the public interest for such companies to make their policies and their enforcement transparent. Which means government oversight--at least I haven't come up with a different way of showing transparency.

Conversatives are so picked on. Trump needs to protect the poor snowflakes and make the internet a safe place for them. Doesn't matter if they engage in hate speech, dangerous conspiracy theories, libel. Platforms can't ban them for that or they will be discriminating.

Platforms are not nationalized and run by the government. Facebook does not belong to you. It's not your birthright to participate in twitter.

A lot of the whining concerns these individuals: Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones, Laura Loomer, Paul Joseph Watson, Paul Nehlen, and Mike Cernovich. Trolls and hatemongers who beg to be banned.

Btw, Conservativism or Political affiliation is not a protected class.

[Eddie]

Forcing platforms that are private businesses to tolerate things they don't want to isn't the same thing as protecting free speech. Alex Jones can say what he want, but when he consistantly spreads libelous assertions that the Sandy Hook victims and survivors were all actors, that platform has a right to ban him for that speech. Platforms have a right to enforce their terms of service. Conservatives aren't getting banned for being convservative. I'd encourage to read about the individuals who've been banned.

This is the height of safespacery. Get in trouble for breaking rules and whine to dad Trump to interfere.

It's funny that you actually see it as anything other than a power grap.

Was Robin's or Johnny Lingo's freedom of spech violated when they banned from this website?

First - if you don't see the difference between CUF and twitter, then I suppose we really can't even have this conversation. Twitter put themself in that position of being a public space. They asked for it. They want to be there.

Second - I don't have a problem with people being banned for inappropriate and threatening speech. I DO have a problem with the enforcement of that being one sided.

Here's a guy calling for the "eradication" of Trump and his followers. Apparently you're OK with that?

https://twitter.com/rezaaslan/status...-supporters%2F

Here's a guy talking about conservative talking heads (Shapiro & Ngo) that refers to "removing" them (he uses the quotes around "removed" in his tweet) by any means necessary, comparing them to a gangrenous limb that needs to be cut off, and telling one of them that it will come when he least expects it and better keep his head on a swivel.

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/sta...Fid%3D22059026

I'm not even really looking - those are just a couple that have shown up the last couple of days that friends have shared with me.

Frank - I thought you were a generally peaceful guy. Please don't tell me that you've added killing people to what you find as an acceptable approach to removing political views you disagree with. See - I don't have a problem with conservatives getting removed from twitter if they say crap like this. I would think that you'd be OK with liberals being removed for doing so as well.

I think both sides should be treated the same. I think any threats against anyone should be off limits.

[swampfrog]

Conversatives are so picked on. Trump needs to protect the poor snowflakes and make the internet a safe place for them. Doesn't matter if they engage in hate speech, dangerous conspiracy theories, libel. Platforms can't ban them for that or they will be discriminating.

Platforms are not nationalized and run by the government. Facebook does not belong to you. It's not your birthright to participate in twitter.

A lot of the whining concerns these individuals: Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones, Laura Loomer, Paul Joseph Watson, Paul Nehlen, and Mike Cernovich. Trolls and hatemongers who beg to be banned.

Btw, Conservativism or Political affiliation is not a protected class.

That was an interesting rant but had almost no response to anything that I wrote, so I don't know exactly what to do with it. I'll try again. I did not once mention conservatism, I specifically indicated it's a national issue spanning the political spectrum. The industry has matured to the point where there are thousands of persons employed monitoring content in addition to algorithms making millions of decisions every day. On platforms that span the globe and have more reach than any previous entity in the history of the world. But we shouldn't be worried about potential abuses. No need to look under the covers here, such power would of course never be used inappropriately.

The government regulates and has an interest in all kinds of industries which they don't run. Any time a new technology emerges that has a national impact, the government is involved. Automobiles, railroad, airplanes, phone systems--all regulated and laws dictating transparent, fair, and safe practices which can be audited. The clients of my company are constantly required to submit to audits that determine if they are compliant with laws and regulations that are meant to protect consumers against unfair or discriminatory financial practices. Such audits include reports of data and how it is used. This is normal in the US. Lending companies don't belong to me either, but I have been granted protections from the US government on how those companies must interact with me in good faith. I also have recourse if I think they have transgressed those protections. Medical data is that same, it can't be shared without my permission.

Why would the social media industry be any different?

[imanihonjin]

So much for fiscal conservatism from Trump or the GOP.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-bud...180000048.html

[beefytee]

So much for fiscal conservatism from Trump or the GOP.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-bud...180000048.html

With our economy doing so well, the deficit should be going in the other direction.

[SCcoug]

Embedded Tweet

[Jeff Lebowski]

Embedded Tweet

Not a bad idea. It is going to be ice-free before too long. This would be a good time to buy.