Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Facebook employees stage a virtual walkout over Zuckerberg's inaction on Trump posts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
    They are being silenced - on a media platform aiming to shape global conversations. If you think foreign governments are going to accept a small number of American businesses dictating the limits of their internal political discussions and banning world leaders, lol.

    This also isn't where the ball stops. It's only a question of where this slippery slope actually bottoms out.
    Twitter, a private company, offers its services to everyone, subject to rules that person agrees to. Trump agreed to the rules, broke them, was warned, repeated that cycle many times, was suspended with a warning, broke the ToS yet again, and finally got banned.

    Despite what Trump and his cult think, he is neither above the law, nor above the Terms of Service for a private company (even though he effectively was for 4 years).

    That immunity has now, justifiably, ended.

    And as Buck said, the President possesses mind-boggling access to communication with the country, indeed the entire world. He can utilize that at a second's notice.

    Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

    Comment


    • #62


      So who's next, Jack ?

      We are focused on one account right now.

      But this going to be much bigger than just one account and its going to go on much longer than just this day, this week. And the next few weeks and go on beyond the inauguration.

      We have to expect that, we have to be ready for that. I don't believe this is going away any time soon.

      I'm not talking about Qanon.

      General Flynn & Sidney Powell already got their marching orders.
      Last edited by Double Edge; 17 Jan 21,, 23:19.

      Comment


      • #63
        Guess we have to find that philosophical tweet

        Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey said the Trump ban reflected ‘a failure’ to police online discourse | WAPO | Jan 14 2021


        Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey explained in a tweetstorm that the company faced an ‘extraordinary and untenable circumstance’

        In a lengthy philosophical tweetstorm, Twitter chief executive Jack Dorsey said he took no pride in the decision to remove President Trump’s account from the service last week, describing the decision as a “failure” to ultimately create a service that could sustain civil discourse and healthy conversations.

        Dorsey’s statements — the first time the CEO spoke about the decision — arrived on the heels of an emotional week in which right-wing figures disavowed the power of Silicon Valley companies, while employees and the public had begged the company for more explanation of its actions in response to the violent Jan. 6 pro-Trump rally at the Capitol. At the same time, Twitter continued to suspend tens of thousands of problematic accounts.

        “I believe this was the right decision for Twitter,” said Dorsey, adding that the company “faced an extraordinary and untenable circumstance, forcing us to focus all of our actions on public safety.”

        But the action, he noted, came with perilous consequences in terms of fragmenting the online conversation as people flee to use different services that suit them politically, and giving companies like Twitter enormous unchecked power.

        “This moment in time might call for this dynamic, but over the long term it will be destructive to the noble purpose and ideals of the open internet,” he wrote. “A company making a business decision to moderate itself is different from a government removing access, yet can feel much the same.”

        Twitter banned Trump’s account, which boasted 88 million followers, last Friday after first suspending him for 12 hours the day of the Capitol siege. On Friday Trump again tweeted that he wouldn’t attend the inauguration, as well as saying that his supporters would not be disrespected “in any way, shape, or form.”

        Twitter immediately dismantled his account, saying the tweets could incite violence.

        Facebook has also banned Trump indefinitely, as has Amazon-owned video platform Twitch. Snapchat also said it would permanently ban Trump from its app late Wednesday. The company had already said last week that Trump was indefinitely suspended last week.

        “In the interest of public safety, and based on his attempts to spread misinformation, hate speech, and incite violence, which are clear violations of our guidelines, we have made the decision to permanently terminate his account,” Snap spokesperson Rachel Racusen said in a statement.

        Google-owned YouTube banned Trump’s account for seven days. Amazon’s web services division cut off the Trump-friendly social media site Parler, which was also removed from the Google and Apple app stores.

        Together, the swift actions by tech companies demonstrated their ability to silence or significantly dampen the speech of even the most powerful voices in U.S. society. They raised fresh questions about the power of tech companies — which Dorsey alluded to — and the balance between free speech and public safety, even as the moves were lauded.

        Dorsey, along with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, is a strong proponent of building platforms that can encompass as many voices as possible. That latitude and pro-free speech stance was extended even further with politicians. Twitter — like Facebook — has long given exemptions to public figures regarding their hate speech policies on the grounds that what they said was newsworthy and worthy of public debate. The decisions last week, to effectively silence those voices, Dorsey pointed out, would have huge ramifications.

        “They limit the potential for clarification, redemption, and learning,” he wrote. “And sets a precedent I feel is dangerous: the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation.”
        Hire the former speaker of UK Parliament. John Bercow. Mr. ODAAA. Sure he's got some ideas on how to handle a bunch of grown up kids.
        Last edited by Double Edge; 17 Jan 21,, 23:39.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by astralis View Post
          the only people who see it that way are the ones whom aren't bright enough to realize that Twitter =/= entirety of public communications.
          Old school public communications are open to him. With their limited reach.

          The reason a leader like Trump takes to twitter is it allows him to say what he wants without being filtered.

          Depending on the media's opinion of him is going to create the wrong impression and they can twist what he says. Artistic license they call it.

          If he has a platform that allows him to say what he wants that is fine. So long as its American.

          Right now he's being treated like a threat to national security.


          Originally posted by astralis View Post
          the more cogent argument is that the influence of Big Tech is too pervasive-- I do, because social media rewards inflammatory comments and allows people to monetize socially destructive actions.

          but that's not "silencing the leader of the free world", whom even without Twitter has the largest bullhorns in the world.
          Yes but should world leaders continue to remain on twitter ?

          Arbitrary decisions can be used against them too and they would have to hope it does not come at a critical time.

          There's going to be fallout from this. The way we understood things to be is changing.

          What i'm seeing is different countries have to resort to measures in order to protect life.

          The Indian model is ban the network.

          You are banning users.

          Israelis infiltrate the platform and disrupt the messaging.


          Originally posted by astralis View Post
          companies aren't -obligated- to host Parler. that's not banning.

          they can make choices for their own bottom-line.
          No, they are not but they took a consicious decision to act in unison.

          Originally posted by astralis View Post
          so what?
          Allows people like Tucker Carlson to say they remove anything that threatens the ruling party.



          Cancel culture ?

          Censorship by proxy ? this WSJ article


          Conventional wisdom holds that technology companies are free to regulate content because they are private, and the First Amendment protects only against government censorship. That view is wrong: Google, Facebook and Twitter should be treated as state actors under existing legal doctrines. Using a combination of statutory inducements and regulatory threats, Congress has co-opted Silicon Valley to do through the back door what government cannot directly accomplish under the Constitution.

          Section 230 is the carrot, and there’s also a stick: Congressional Democrats have repeatedly made explicit threats to social-media giants if they failed to censor speech those lawmakers disfavored. In April 2019, Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond warned Facebook and Google that they had “better” restrict what he and his colleagues saw as harmful content or face regulation: “We’re going to make it swift, we’re going to make it strong, and we’re going to hold them very accountable.” New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler added: “Let’s see what happens by just pressuring them.”


          Such threats have worked. In September 2019, the day before another congressional grilling was to begin, Facebook announced important new restrictions on “hate speech.” It’s no accident that big tech took its most aggressive steps against Mr. Trump just as Democrats were poised to take control of the White House and Senate. Prominent Democrats promptly voiced approval of big tech’s actions, which Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal expressly attributed to “a shift in the political winds.”

          For more than half a century courts have held that governmental threats can turn private conduct into state action.

          Either Section 230 or congressional pressure alone might be sufficient to create state action. The combination surely is. Suppose a Republican Congress enacted a statute giving legal immunity to any private party that obstructs access to abortion clinics. Suppose further that Republican congressmen explicitly threatened private companies with punitive laws if they fail to act against abortion clinics. If those companies did as Congress demands, then got an attaboy from lawmakers, progressives would see the constitutional problem.

          Republicans including Mr. Trump have called for Section 230’s repeal. That misses the point: The damage has already been done. Facebook and Twitter probably wouldn’t have become behemoths without Section 230, but repealing the statute now may simply further empower those companies, which are better able than smaller competitors to withstand liability. The right answer is for courts to recognize what lawmakers did: suck the air out of the Constitution by dispatching big tech to do what they can’t. Now it’s up to judges to fill the vacuum, with sound legal precedents in hand.

          Liberals should worry too. If big tech can shut down the president, what stops them from doing the same to Joe Biden if he backs antitrust suits against social-media companies? Our Framers deeply understood the need for checks and balances in government. They couldn’t anticipate the rise of a new Leviathan with unchecked power to make extraconstitutional political judgments under the mantle of private enterprise.

          American democracy is under siege from Silicon Valley’s political plutocracy. Next week Mr. Trump will be a private citizen without a Twitter account. Our new class of corporate monarchs will still control whether and how Americans can hear from the president—or anyone else. We have devolved from a three-branch federal government to one with a branch office in Silicon Valley. But there’s no democratic accountability for Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg.

          Hard cases make bad law, and Mr. Trump presented America with a hard case last week. The breach of the Capitol is a stain on American history, and Silicon Valley seized on the attack to do what Congress couldn’t by suppressing the kind of political speech the First Amendment was designed to protect.

          There’s more at stake than free speech. Suppression of dissent breeds terror. The answer to last week’s horror should be to open more channels of dialogue, not to close them off. If disaffected Americans no longer have an outlet to be heard, the siege of Capitol Hill will look like a friendly parley compared with what’s to come.

          Ordinary Americans understand the First Amendment better than the elites do. Users who say Facebook, Twitter and Google are violating their constitutional rights are right. Aggrieved plaintiffs should sue these companies now to protect the voice of every American—and our constitutional democracy.


          Originally posted by astralis View Post
          you're deflecting. your original statement is that Pompeo and Trump are being silenced.

          they're not.
          Not deflecting. The man is being protested on a govt platform.

          I don't know how things work at VOA and whether this has happened in the past. What the culture is like.
          Last edited by Double Edge; 18 Jan 21,, 00:45.

          Comment


          • #65
            A political stance or side that supports the big tech agenda....



            The first amendment applies only to the physical space not the digital one.

            Your physical self is protected by the constitution not your digital self.
            Last edited by Double Edge; 18 Jan 21,, 04:03.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post

              GV,

              You have said you are a Libertarian or such. What should be done? Regulation? They are a private corporation who can kick whomever they want off their platform.

              I'm on Twitter and can be kicked off if I don't like it.

              Again and again....the president can call a press conference WHENEVER he wants and is guaranteed to be able to speak to the world. Same with Pompeo. There are entire press corps dedicated to covering their very words.

              No one has ANY guaranteed rights on a private platform....especially one that is free to use.
              Yeah, other countries are going to subject Twitter to regulation and if Twitter doesn't comply, it's going to be banned.

              I'm sorry you guys can't see the obvious writing on the wall. Everyone else can.

              Within the US, the boys on your side were just arguing on CNN today that providers like Comcast/Verizon/etc (basically given pseudo-monopolies) should also be removing networks like OANN and Newsmax from their service entirely. In addition to the anti First Amendment bullshit the NY Times and the rest of the journalistic community has been peddling for the last 4 years.

              Now that we're on the slippery slope, there's nothing to it except to ride the slide and see where we go. Good times.
              Last edited by GVChamp; 18 Jan 21,, 04:08.
              "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by GVChamp View Post

                Yeah, other countries are going to subject Twitter to regulation and if Twitter doesn't comply, it's going to be banned.

                I'm sorry you guys can't see the obvious writing on the wall. Everyone else can.

                Within the US, the boys on your side were just arguing on CNN today that providers like Comcast/Verizon/etc (basically given pseudo-monopolies) should also be removing networks like OANN and Newsmax from their service entirely. In addition to the anti First Amendment bullshit the NY Times and the rest of the journalistic community has been peddling for the last 4 years.

                Now that we're on the slippery slope, there's nothing to it except to ride the slide and see where we go. Good times.
                There's no slippery slope here, the ISPs will ultimately make their decision based on what will make them the most profit. The logic was the same when Fox News went big, the logic will be the same again if they decide that having OANN and Newsmax will be more trouble than they're worth.

                Now this isn't necessarily directed at you, but of course NOW Republicans decide to be concerned about the borderline monopolies that ISPs hold on the country. Where the hell was this enthusiasm when Democrats and Independents were trying to pass national Net Neutrality laws? It's all about the Free Marketuntil it starts going against their side.


                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                A political stance or side that supports the big tech agenda....



                The first amendment applies only to the physical space not the digital one.

                Your physical self is protected by the constitution not your digital self.
                The First Amendment protects people from being prosecuted by the government for what they say. It does not guarantee people to have an equal "speech" to each other, nor does it protect you from the consequences of breaking the terms and conditions of a site that you agree to follow before gaining access to services. You are no more entitled to say whatever you want on a major private platform than you are allowed to yell obscenities in a McDonalds.
                "Draft beer, not people."

                Comment


                • #68
                  Yeah, other countries are going to subject Twitter to regulation and if Twitter doesn't comply, it's going to be banned.
                  yeah, spoiler alert: that was true long before Trump was banned.

                  There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by GVChamp View Post

                    Within the US, the boys on your side were just arguing on CNN today that providers like Comcast/Verizon/etc (basically given pseudo-monopolies) should also be removing networks like OANN and Newsmax from their service entirely. In addition to the anti First Amendment bullshit the NY Times and the rest of the journalistic community has been peddling for the last 4 years.

                    Now that we're on the slippery slope, there's nothing to it except to ride the slide and see where we go. Good times.
                    Or we could reinstate the FCC Fairness Doctrine.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Red Team View Post

                      Now this isn't necessarily directed at you, but of course NOW Republicans decide to be concerned about the borderline monopolies that ISPs hold on the country. Where the hell was this enthusiasm when Democrats and Independents were trying to pass national Net Neutrality laws? It's all about the Free Marketuntil it starts going against their side.
                      A cynical soul might conclude that, broadly speaking, the committment of the right to 'free markets' is more situational, tactical and political than genuinely ideological. Net Neutrality was a short step from Communism a very short time ago, now they want government regulators getting into the minutae of personal opinions on social networks.

                      sigpic

                      Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        It seems possible to support the ban of Trump from Twitter while acknowledging that regulation of social media giants is both inevitable and necessary. This would be true even without Trump. We are going to have to adapt to new realities brought about technological change and realise this isnt just about the now but the trend, the future and the possible.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Wait a second! Twitter is Trump's C3? I did not believe the clusterfuck could fuck himself over even more ...
                          Chimo

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Congressional hearing from Oct 28 about twitter taking down NYPost's article. But the NYT article on Trump's returns is acceptable.



                            Fast forward today and is there a pattern emerging. No, Jack you have not done anything to improve trust.

                            Indian right has been railing against twitter for over two years now.
                            Last edited by Double Edge; 18 Jan 21,, 14:51.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Is there some way to do multi-quote as easily as it was on the old forum structure?

                              Red,
                              ISPs should not be censoring networks based on ideology. People should not be threatening to boycott ISPs based on carrying ideologically distasteful networks.
                              Free speech is unpopular. It never will be popular.
                              Free speech does not mean "the government can't tell me what to say!" It's bigger than that. It's always been bigger than that. Major platforms do in fact have ethical obligations to carry ideologically diverse viewpoints. This is not hard. This is easy.

                              Trump himself would be hard, except Twitter made it real easy to determine that they made the wrong choice, because they published their logic here:Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump (twitter.com)

                              Twitter is in the wrong. Twitter is OBVIOUSLY in the wrong. Twitter is a major platform in US politics and culture these days: it has an ethical obligation to carry American politicians and permit Americans to engage ideologically on its platform. Twitter has an obligation to make sure it is not used as a platform to commit or incite violence. It's ban of Trump isn't it.

                              If you're trying to Big Brain yourself into a different interpretation...as the internet said, congrats, you played yourself. Again, this is super, duper, 7th grade civics level easy. It's not hard.


                              Asty,
                              Yeah we're riding pre-existing trends. Banning Trump throws gasoline on fire. That's probably stretching it a bit, I think most world leaders will adopt a "wait and see" attitude because they know how shit Trump was, but there are obviously negative implications here.

                              GG,
                              Fairness doctrine is extreme liberalism the kinds of which even Obama wouldn't touch.
                              "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Red Team View Post
                                The First Amendment protects people from being prosecuted by the government for what they say. It does not guarantee people to have an equal "speech" to each other, nor does it protect you from the consequences of breaking the terms and conditions of a site that you agree to follow before gaining access to services. You are no more entitled to say whatever you want on a major private platform than you are allowed to yell obscenities in a McDonalds.
                                It means you have no freedom of speech in digital space.

                                Given we are now in the digital age and so much of our speech is in that form these days do you not see the mismatch emerging ?

                                German contention is this mismatch is less in Germany.

                                Not surprised to see Angela come out and say something, she has in the past.

                                Her definition of freedom of speech is very compact, can you say it or not.
                                Last edited by Double Edge; 18 Jan 21,, 16:01.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X