Jack Dorsey(Twitter) lays the groundwork to finally censor Trump

Kimsang

I believe they are enforcing rules that can be seen to violate peoples rights under the first amendment, and as such face being broken up by government."

I don't know what you think you are arguing against, but I never said that.

They are seen as violating peoples rights.
They are possibly facing being broken up by the government.

batgoat

Kimsang wrote: »

I don't know what you think you are arguing against, but I never said that.

They are seen as violating peoples rights.
They are possibly facing being broken up by the government.

They are not possibly being broken up the government. They are not breaching anyone's rights by enforcing their policy of use. If one perceives it as such, then it's a general issue of intelligence of the individual who believes that.

Kimsang

batgoat wrote: »

Gab literally houses the worst of the Internet and has notoriety more than success. Eg the synagogue shooter used it for racist rants. These are genuinely the users who tend to manage to get banned on Facebook.

Of course that is what it will be labelled as. Look at how Brett Weinstein is labelled, or James Damore, or Roger Scruton, or Majiid Nawaz, or Eoin Lenihan, or Sam Harris, or.....

There is one ideology particularly fond of labeling others.

The christchurch shooter used facebook for its shootings, does this mean facebook houses the worst of the internet?

amcalester

Kimsang wrote: »

I don't know what you think you are arguing against, but I never said that.

They are seen as violating peoples rights.
They are possibly facing being broken up by the government.

Are they though? Has any current Government official with any real power suggested this?

You mentioned Elizabeth Warren above, and while she has suggested breaking up Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google, has she actually mentioned Twitter?

amcalester

Kimsang wrote: »

The christchurch shooter used facebook for its shootings, does this mean facebook houses the worst of the internet?

It kind of does, I mean, he killed 51 people. If that doesn't make him the worst then I don't know what does.

Facebook doesn't solely house the worst, but some on there are the worst.

batgoat

Kimsang wrote: »

Of course that is what it will be labelled as. Look at how Brett Weinstein is labelled, or James Damore, or Roger Scruton, or Majiid Nawaz, or Eoin Lenihan, or Sam Harris, or.....

There is one ideology particularly fond of labeling others.

The christchurch shooter used facebook for its shootings, does this mean facebook houses the worst of the internet?

Gab literally formed as a result of users who engaged in hate speech being banned. The synagogue shooter behaviour on the platform was not a minority issue, he represents viewpoints that are commonly expressed on the platform.

ohnonotgmail

Kimsang wrote: »

I don't know what you think you are arguing against, but I never said that.

They are seen as violating peoples rights.
They are possibly facing being broken up by the government.

that is a direct quote from you.

Kimsang wrote: »

let me unequivocally say i don't think twitter are violating the first amendment. I believe they are enforcing rules that can be seen to violate peoples rights under the first amendment, and as such face being broken up by government.

what rights are they

Kimsang

amcalester wrote: »

Are they though? Has any current Government official with any real power suggested this?

You mentioned Elizabeth Warren above, and while she has suggested breaking up Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google, has she actually mentioned Twitter?

Possibly, I'd say unlikely alright in the extreme. It might be attempted though.

I think Trump spoke about it aswell.

I don't think twitter was specifically mentioned, but I guess big-tech would include them.
What is being spoken about more is market regulation. Mandatory competition and the likes.

Kimsang

batgoat wrote: »

Gab literally formed as a result of users who engaged in hate speech being banned. The synagogue shooter behaviour on the platform was not a minority issue, he represents viewpoints that are commonly expressed on the platform.

Have you got evidence of this?

batgoat

Kimsang wrote: »

Possibly, I'd say unlikely alright in the extreme. It might be attempted though.

I think Trump spoke about it aswell.

I don't think twitter was specifically mentioned, but I guess big-tech would include them.
What is being spoken about more is market regulation. Mandatory competition and the likes.

If attempted, it would be more of a sign of an authoritarian government rather than rights being violated. Similar to social media in China.

ohnonotgmail

Kimsang wrote: »

I don't know what you think you are arguing against, but I never said that.

They are seen as violating peoples rights.
They are possibly facing being broken up by the government.

Kimsang wrote: »

Possibly, I'd say unlikely alright in the extreme. It might be attempted though.

I think Trump spoke about it aswell.

I don't think twitter was specifically mentioned, but I guess big-tech would include them.
What is being spoken about more is market regulation. Mandatory competition and the likes.

so twitter is not in danger of being broken up then? So why say it was several times?

Kimsang

batgoat wrote: »

If attempted, it would be more of a sign of an authoritarian government rather than rights being violated. Similar to social media in China.

Fair point, but brings up a related question.


Is there anything in your eyes that social media can do (considering how big and influential they are) that would warrant them being broken up?

I mean everyone argues they are a private company, what if they were suddenly bought out by nazis, and started spreading nazi propganda.

amcalester

Kimsang wrote: »

Possibly, I'd say unlikely alright in the extreme. It might be attempted though.

I think Trump spoke about it aswell.

I don't think twitter was specifically mentioned, but I guess big-tech would include them.
What is being spoken about more is market regulation. Mandatory competition and the likes.

A lot of supposition in this.

batgoat

Kimsang wrote: »

Fair point, but brings up a related question.


Is there anything in your eyes that social media can do (considering how big and influential they are) that would warrant them being broken up?

I mean everyone argues they are a private company, what if they were suddenly bought out by nazis, and started spreading nazi propganda.

A host for content would be perfectly entitled to remove hosting if they view it as unacceptable or in violation of their terms of use. Similar has happened with stormfront and Gab. Also would be awful pr so they'd implode on selves in a few weeks.

Kimsang

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahhh jesus Kimsang, come on now! Freedom of expression
Fcuk this, I’m going for coffee, too early to be trying to get my head around this shìte

I hope you enjoy your coffee, because you will return upset at the clear errors you have made

Hate laws don't exist in the US. That's why I had to cite Irish laws. To assume that I'm conflating the two is disingenuous.

We do have laws yes, but these are the most non-laws ever. Pedantic would be an under-statement.

The blasphemy act of which you speak being repealed in 2018, wasn't even in-acted until 2009!! Go away with yourself!

The offence of publishing or uttering blasphemous matter was first defined in Irish law in the Defamation Act 2009. Someone is guilty of the offence if they publish or utter "matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion", and they intend, "by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage". There is a broad defence where "a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates".[6] To date, there has not been a public prosecution for the offence of blasphemy in the Irish state.

To date, there has not been a public prosecution for the offence of blasphemy in the Irish state.

The elephant you are avoiding though is more importantly this line

You have a right to freely express your convictions and opinions

Which is also echoed in the U.S. constitution.

My argument is this, if a forum of people like google becomes big enough, and they start to spread solely one ideology, is it ever right to break them up? Idealistically speaking?

Surely you agree that a government can stop any social media site they wish from operating in their country.

Kimsang

batgoat wrote: »

A host for content would be perfectly entitled to remove hosting if they view it as unacceptable or in violation of their terms of use. Similar has happened with stormfront and Gab. Also would be awful pr so they'd implode on selves in a few weeks.

What if that social media was shown to censor political ideas/opinions, I mean what if that could be proved. Should government have any influence on how social media conduct themselves?

Honestly I think the market will take care of it(maybe at the price of civil war), as long as government don't regulate first.

batgoat

Kimsang wrote: »

What if that social media was shown to censor political ideas/opinions, I mean what if that could be proved. Should government have any influence on how social media conduct themselves?

Honestly I think the market will take care of it(maybe at the price of civil war), as long as government don't regulate first.

A government can request for twitter to remove content that violates the laws of their country. Eg hate speech and likes of Germany/France does this. Otherwise they risk being blocked. You cannot force them to host content on other hand.

Kimsang

batgoat wrote: »

A government can request for twitter to remove content that violates the laws of their country. Eg hate speech and likes of Germany/France does this. Otherwise they risk being blocked. You cannot force them to host content on other hand.

Indeed. But while they operate under the freedom of 'platform' they are indeed acting like a publisher. These two things must equate sometime soon in the future.

I don't like that Tim Pool is always wearing a beanie. I don't trust someone who thinks that's a good idea.

notobtuse

If Twitter decides to censure Trump they’ll have to probably censure millions of people who respond to his posts, first. Take a look at his twitter page… many of the responses are filled with vitriol, hate, libel and slander against the POTUS. Bottom line if Twitter continues their seemingly march to suppressing conservative/republican content, those people will start to move to another platform… Parler, in this instance. It’s already happening. If I see conservative actor James Woods who was banned by Twitter goes there, then I will also.

But the First Amendment does apparently get complicated when it comes to Twitter and Trump. I find it ironic how some claim Twitter is a private owned company and can make their own rules, but remember the outrage when Trump blocked about 150 of the most hateful followers from his private account (not the office White House account)? It went to court. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, of NY, said in her ruling that Trump is violating the U.S. Constitution by preventing certain Americans from viewing his tweets on @realDonaldTrump. Buchwald said the social media platform is a “designated public forum” from which Trump cannot exclude individual plaintiffs. She went on further to state “This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, ‘block’ a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States.” “The answer to both questions is no.” With this ruling I don’t see how Twitter could censure Trump as it might just be a First Amendment issue as decided by the judge in this other case.

I guess Twitter could attempt censure, but they better apply the rules across the board or I think they will be hauled before Congress and have their brand destroyed.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

If Twitter decides to censure Trump they’ll have to probably censure millions of people who respond to his posts, first. Take a look at his twitter page… many of the responses are filled with vitriol, hate, libel and slander against the POTUS. Bottom line if Twitter continues their seemingly march to suppressing conservative/republican content, those people will start to move to another platform… Parler, in this instance. It’s already happening. If I see conservative actor James Woods who was banned by Twitter goes there, then I will also.

But the First Amendment does apparently get complicated when it comes to Twitter and Trump. I find it ironic how some claim Twitter is a private owned company and can make their own rules, but remember the outrage when Trump blocked about 150 of the most hateful followers from his private account (not the office White House account)? It went to court. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, of NY, said in her ruling that Trump is violating the U.S. Constitution by preventing certain Americans from viewing his tweets on @realDonaldTrump. Buchwald said the social media platform is a “designated public forum” from which Trump cannot exclude individual plaintiffs. She went on further to state “This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, ‘block’ a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States.” “The answer to both questions is no.” With this ruling I don’t see how Twitter could censure Trump as it might just be a First Amendment issue as decided by the judge in this other case.

I guess Twitter could attempt censure, but they better apply the rules across the board or I think they will be hauled before Congress and have their brand destroyed.

that ruling only related to what public officials can do with their twitter accounts. it has no bearing on what twitter can do to trumps account.

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that ruling only related to what public officials can do with their twitter accounts. it has no bearing on what twitter can do to trumps account.

Sure an argument can be made. The courts will have to decide as they did in the other case. But I think Twitter would think long and hard before censuring Trump. Conservatives and republicans already know Twitter unfairly targets them, and think of the ramifications if they leave. Trump leaves Twitter… Republican officials and conservatives leave Twitter… 100’s of millions of followers and others leave also. Does Twitter really want to give a fledgling competitor like Parler hundreds of millions of new users just to support a biased policy?

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

Sure an argument can be made. The courts will have to decide as they did in the other case. But I think Twitter would think long and hard before censuring Trump. Conservatives and republicans already know Twitter unfairly targets them, and think of the ramifications if they leave. Trump leaves Twitter… Republican officials and conservatives leave Twitter… 100’s of millions of followers and others leave also. Does Twitter really want to give a fledgling competitor like Parler hundreds of millions of new users just to support a biased policy?

I dont think the courts would have any input as to whether Twitter applies its rules to trump. He agreed to the same terms as everybody else when he joined. and i think you slight overestimate the population of the US.

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I dont think the courts would have any input as to whether Twitter applies its rules to trump. He agreed to the same terms as everybody else when he joined. and i think you slight overestimate the population of the US.

You might be right, but Twitter is acting in bad faith and they’re basically a monopoly at this point. All these social media and tech platforms are playing with fire, IMO. Google, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, et al, think their campaign against conservatives and republicans is covered by Section 230 of Title 47 of the US Code (which protects an internet service provider, blog host or online forum operator from liability for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.) But Trump is a fighter and he knows allowing them to continue their illicit business practices might cost him reelection in 2020, which he should win. The practice of deplatforming and banning of conservatives/republicans is not in doubt, and it results in the voting public being deprived of the information it needs to make informed judgments on all the presidential hopefuls. We already know Google intends to ensure that a “Trump situation” does not happen again, and that Trump is not re-elected. Google executive Jen Gennai makes it clear in her own words that Google is bent on restricting what those who support Donald Trump see in their searches. Trump does have the procedural means to battle this conspiracy, though. Although these entities are private businesses it does not exempt them from the application of anti-trust laws since they operate as virtual monopolies. The FTC guideline is “to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers” and to ban “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices." If Trump were to play a anti-trust legislation hand, he could bypass a hostile House and, as the law permits, go the legal path - particularly through the Department of Justice, as it could act to disband these monopolies because they are serving narrow private interests rather than the common good.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

You might be right, but Twitter is acting in bad faith and they’re basically a monopoly at this point. All these social media and tech platforms are playing with fire, IMO. Google, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, et al, think their campaign against conservatives and republicans is covered by Section 230 of Title 47 of the US Code (which protects an internet service provider, blog host or online forum operator from liability for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.) But Trump is a fighter and he knows allowing them to continue their illicit business practices might cost him reelection in 2020, which he should win. The practice of deplatforming and banning of conservatives/republicans is not in doubt, and it results in the voting public being deprived of the information it needs to make informed judgments on all the presidential hopefuls. We already know Google intends to ensure that a “Trump situation” does not happen again, and that Trump is not re-elected. Google executive Jen Gennai makes it clear in her own words that Google is bent on restricting what those who support Donald Trump see in their searches. Trump does have the procedural means to battle this conspiracy, though. Although these entities are private businesses it does not exempt them from the application of anti-trust laws since they operate as virtual monopolies. The FTC guideline is “to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers” and to ban “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices." If Trump were to play a anti-trust legislation hand, he could bypass a hostile House and, as the law permits, go the legal path - particularly through the Department of Justice, as it could act to disband these monopolies because they are serving narrow private interests rather than the common good.

well here is the thing. If he tried to use the government to go after twitter that WOULD be a first amendment violation. corporations have the same protections as citizens under the first amendment. And i'm not sure where this monopoly thing comes from. Twitter are not a monopoly. Not even close. they also dont do anything prevent competition. anybody is free to setup their own social media platform. Trump could quit twitter tomorrow and go to Gab though i suspect he would be preaching to the converted.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Kimsang wrote: »

Nice way to strawman my argument, but you're going to have to do better than that.

I'm not saying its an attack on the first amendment. I'm saying they are circumventing it, and skating on thin ice by doing so. Now if you have anything to argue, please don't be so snarky.

The first amendment is pretty weak sauce really. It doesn’t protect against private censorship. Nor is twitter a public platform in law. It’s a publisher. And publishers can publish what they want or censor what they want.

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well here is the thing. If he tried to use the government to go after twitter that WOULD be a first amendment violation. corporations have the same protections as citizens under the first amendment. And i'm not sure where this monopoly thing comes from. Twitter are not a monopoly. Not even close. they also dont do anything prevent competition. anybody is free to setup their own social media platform. Trump could quit twitter tomorrow and go to Gab though i suspect he would be preaching to the converted.

No it wouldn’t. The US government has broken up companies in the past like Standard Oil and AT&T. Those companies had competitors but they were rather immaterial… just like the situation in Twitter, Facebook, Google and such.

The anti-trust laws against monopolies not protecting the common good started with the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, then the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the Clayton Antitrust Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, and the Celler-Kefauver Act of 1950.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

notobtuse wrote: »

No it wouldn’t. The US government has broken up companies in the past like Standard Oil and AT&T. Those companies had competitors but they were rather immaterial… just like the situation in Twitter, Facebook, Google and such.

The anti-trust laws against monopolies not protecting the common good started with the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, then the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the Clayton Antitrust Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, and the Celler-Kefauver Act of 1950.

Still it’s hard to argue that twitter is a monopoly even under those abridged terms, Facebook perhaps is.

Not sure what warren thinks about Apple but I assume (as with Amazon) she wants to make the stores more competitive or something.

Eric Cartman

Kimsang wrote: »

I hope this is what happens. There is already signs with Bitchute and Gab.

the reality of it is that those will not be the 'money makers'

these sites are funded off advertising, data that drives sales and transactions on site. Women are responsible for over 80% of consumer spending, LGBT people are a an almost trillion dollar buying force worldwide , these are the two groups least likely to be conservative. Conversely conservatives are most likely to be white straight men, who as a group are least likely to click internet ads, least likely to use an online charitable donation platform and are responsible for single digit percentage consumer spending in the US despite representing over 35% of the population.

This is why all of these things have occured, outraged millenial women of made up genders are infinitely more likely to donate to an animal shelter and buy a mug with a rainbow flag through facebook market place, much more likely to watch a sponsored video about how the environment is being killed and only a 10 euro bracelet can clean the oceans.

These 'havens' of free speech like Gab etc... allow opinions and posts that upset the big spenders, it drives them to other platforms where they feel better and more included. The future of popular social media platforms is pretty much guaranteed to be a vacuous hub of groupthink that lines up with the centre left / left and whatever swindle theyre playing on a given week. Remember these sites rely on people who follow trends for money, youre unlikely to find opinions that don't follow trends or find them being welcomed on it, its not who they want.

notobtuse

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Still it’s hard to argue that twitter is a monopoly even under those abridged terms, Facebook perhaps is.

Not sure what warren thinks about Apple but I assume (as with Amazon) she wants to make the stores more competitive or something.

I don't know of an alternative to Twitter, beside Parler who I just heard of this weekend. I bet most in the US don't know of an alternative to Twitter, either.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

No it wouldn’t. The US government has broken up companies in the past like Standard Oil and AT&T. Those companies had competitors but they were rather immaterial… just like the situation in Twitter, Facebook, Google and such.

AT&T was an actual monopoly. It controlled all local phonecalls in the united states. Standard Oil had a vertical monopoly on the oil business in the states. Twitter is not a monopoly. To compare the market position of twitter to AT&T or Standard oil is just nonsense.

notobtuse wrote: »

The anti-trust laws against monopolies not protecting the common good started with the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, then the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the Clayton Antitrust Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, and the Celler-Kefauver Act of 1950.

censoring some of the presidents tweets is not "acting against the common good" for even a very broad application of that term.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

I don't know of an alternative to Twitter, beside Parler who I just heard of this weekend. I bet most in the US don't know of an alternative to Twitter, either.

you're not familiar with social media then?

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

AT&T was an actual monopoly. It controlled all local phonecalls in the united states. Standard Oil had a vertical monopoly on the oil business in the states. Twitter is not a monopoly. To compare the market position of twitter to AT&T or Standard oil is just nonsense.



censoring some of the presidents tweets is not "acting against the common good" for even a very broad application of that term.

Many localities here had their own phone companies before the breakup of AT&T. I grew up in a town that had their own phone company (and still does). They provided phone service, hardware, phone lines and equipment. They were a competitor of AT&T.

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you're not familiar with social media then?

I'm probably as familiar with social media as is the majority of Americans. I know there's Twitter and then there's ??????????.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

I'm probably as familiar with social media as is the majority of Americans. I know there's Twitter and then there's ??????????.

knock yourself out. Twitter are not even close to the top of the list.

https://www.dreamgrow.com/top-15-most-popular-social-networking-sites/

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

knock yourself out. Twitter are not even close to the top of the list.

https://www.dreamgrow.com/top-15-most-popular-social-networking-sites/

I'd like to see the scores for voting adults in the US. I think the leaders would come out to be Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. I do know the media here in the US appears to be dominated by Trump's Twitter posts, and reports on it ad nauseam.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

Many localities here had their own phone companies before the breakup of AT&T. I grew up in a town that had their own phone company (and still does). They provided phone service, hardware, phone lines and equipment. They were a competitor of AT&T.

AT&T were the dominant phone company in the US. And your local company may have provided the hardware but AT&T made it. They made most of the phone hardware at the time.

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

AT&T were the dominant phone company in the US. And your local company may have provided the hardware but AT&T made it. They made most of the phone hardware at the time.

Perhaps AT&T was the manufacturer (or AT&T had other companies manufacture it) of some of the equipment, but the local phone company set the prices for service and equipment and we didn't see AT&T's name on anything. The point is AT&T did have some competitors, but they were essentially still a monopoly... like Google, Twitter and Facebook is today. I hated party lines, though... don't know if AT&T had them.

Calhoun

I see any move Jack makes against Trump is going to really end up screwing twitter and even face book long term.

Just over the past weekend you have bluechecks essentially advocating and supporting real violence and nothing being done because of their political affiliation.

Jack is playing right into the hands of the likes of trump and authoritarian type folk who want to control more of the internet.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

Perhaps AT&T was the manufacturer (or AT&T had other companies manufacture it) of some of the equipment, but the local phone company set the prices for service and equipment and we didn't see AT&T's name on anything. The point is AT&T did have some competitors, but they were essentially still a monopoly... like Google, Twitter and Facebook is today. I hated party lines, though... don't know if AT&T had them.

No, absolutely nothing like Twitter, facebook et al are today. You had one choice of phone company. that one choice was usually AT&T. you could not move to another phone company. that is absolutely nothing like social media.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the reality of it is that those will not be the 'money makers'

these sites are funded off advertising, data that drives sales and transactions on site. Women are responsible for over 80% of consumer spending, LGBT people are a an almost trillion dollar buying force worldwide , these are the two groups least likely to be conservative. Conversely conservatives are most likely to be white straight men, who as a group are least likely to click internet ads, least likely to use an online charitable donation platform and are responsible for single digit percentage consumer spending in the US despite representing over 35% of the population.

Sounds a bit nuts. Source?

Calhoun

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Sounds a bit nuts. Source?

Even if it is true is misses out on one fundamental and critical thing, once it becomes apparent that big business is setting what is being consumed and thought people will look to other places for community.

Especially if the likes of trump or authoritarian type people fix the likes of twitter and facebook.

Eric Cartman

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Sounds a bit nuts. Source?

women consumer spending : https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/329780
LGBT market power : https://www.forbes.com/sites/debtfreeguys/2018/08/14/the-1-trillion-marketing-executives-are-ignoring/#50206537a97f
women 83% more likely to spend on virtual goods (in app purchases etc..): https://www.thedailybeast.com/who-spends-the-most-money

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No, absolutely nothing like Twitter, facebook et al are today. You had one choice of phone company. that one choice was usually AT&T. you could not move to another phone company. that is absolutely nothing like social media.

Saying 'that one choice was usually AT&T' is correct and a validation AT&T did have competition. I only had one choice and it was the phone company owned by my town, not AT&T.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

Saying 'that one choice was usually AT&T' is correct and a validation AT&T did have competition. I only had one choice and it was the phone company owned by my town, not AT&T.

and they got their equipment from AT&T. Listen, i'm not going to continue this line with you as you clearly have no intention of actually listening to what i'm saying. Ironic username FTW.

Quin_Dub

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Twitter say that they wouldn't be deleting the content (certainly of big name posters like Trump) , but simply flagging it as having breached the TOS but leaving the tweets in place as they would be of "public interest".

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Twitter say that they wouldn't be deleting the content (certainly of big name posters like Trump) , but simply flagging it as having breached the TOS but leaving the tweets in place as they would be of "public interest".

Yes, you are correct... that's what they said. But they'll be putting the mark of shame on his posts. Call me crazy but I highly doubt they will be handing out their cards fairly. And the press will be jumping on these marked tweets by Trump non-stop in their efforts to take him down by any methods available?

Eric Cartman

notobtuse wrote: »

Yes, you are correct... that's what they said. But they'll be putting the mark of shame on his posts. Call me crazy but I highly doubt they will be handing out their cards fairly. And the press will be jumping on these marked tweets by Trump non-stop in their efforts to take him down by any methods available?

almost certainly , theyll start a story with "this symbol is used on twitter for flagging hate speech and racism, these neo nazis had posts flagged, tommy robinson had posts flagged and trump had posts flagged "
when the same symbol is used for a wide ranging variety of reasons and can even just be automated by enough 'report button clicks'

itll be twisted to lump him in with people literally advocating for gassing minorities or equally offensive content.

Calhoun

As long as they lump antifa in with it as well that could be there get out clause.

If they only have the right groups and bot the left ones it will be problematic.

Kimsang

Calhoun wrote: »

As long as they lump antifa in with it as well that could be there get out clause.

If they only have the right groups and bot the left ones it will be problematic.

Herein lies the problem. There seems to be only one side making all the complaints. Both twitter and boards have alluded to this. The point was made in another thread about moderation that it was encouraging conservative people to report more. That this could become a race to the report button, and will become a nightmare to moderate. I believe extreme liberals are knowingly using it as a tactic in the culture wars.(this among many)

What we're seeing though, is not huge increases in conservative objections. Only one ideology is objecting to 'words' on their own,-completely out of context, general held principles of freedom of speech and suppressing discussion.

I guess only time will tell.