Twitter's alleged bias towards left-wing trolls.

timmyntc

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I don't think headbangers getting banned from Facebook is authoritarianism. In China you get a knock on the door by a pack of goons if you write the wrong thing on their social media platforms. That's authoritarianism.

Anyway after ye've had a good cry about Trump being banned from twitter, what's your solution to people using their platforms to incite violence and whatnot?

The thing about Twitter & Facebook is that in America you can class yourself as a Platform or a Publisher.

A platform is an open platform in which anyone can say anything - and will be held responsible for their own content. The platform is not liable, only the poster.

The other is a publisher, in which the publisher can choose what to publish and what not to, but as they take an editorial stance they are responsible for whatever content does get posted.

Twitter claim they are a platform (and therefore not responsible for the content people post) but are behaving like a publisher by banning certain people and removing certain posts. This is the real problem.

Something like Parler will be fine if they go for full on platform mode and let anyone post whatever no matter how reprehensible - so long as illegal content can be tackled by the authorities (presumably company will need to turn over account info in this case).

Twitter is abusing its status as a social media platform and it is a problem. If it's not tackled soon it sets a very dangerous precedent for what big tech companies can do.

ancapailldorcha

timmyntc wrote: »

The thing about Twitter & Facebook is that in America you can class yourself as a Platform or a Publisher.

A platform is an open platform in which anyone can say anything - and will be held responsible for their own content. The platform is not liable, only the poster.

The other is a publisher, in which the publisher can choose what to publish and what not to, but as they take an editorial stance they are responsible for whatever content does get posted.

Twitter claim they are a platform (and therefore not responsible for the content people post) but are behaving like a publisher by banning certain people and removing certain posts. This is the real problem.

Something like Parler will be fine if they go for full on platform mode and let anyone post whatever no matter how reprehensible - so long as illegal content can be tackled by the authorities (presumably company will need to turn over account info in this case).

Twitter is abusing its status as a social media platform and it is a problem. If it's not tackled soon it sets a very dangerous precedent for what big tech companies can do.

It's only a problem for right wing fascists who are trying to dodge responsibility. Twitter can do what it wants with its own platform. Conservatives can use their Parler safe space if they don't like it.

rossie1977

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's only a problem for right wing fascists who are trying to dodge responsibility. Twitter can do what it wants with its own platform. Conservatives can use their Parler safe space if they don't like it.

Yes I don't head much complaints that Parler are banning people...

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-predicted-parler-is-banning-users-it-doesnt-like.shtml

Silentcorner

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's only a problem for right wing fascists who are trying to dodge responsibility. Twitter can do what it wants with its own platform. Conservatives can use their Parler safe space if they don't like it.

Right...you sound reasonable!!!

Parler has been taken down.

Personally I'd love to see both twitter and parler consigned to the history books, twitter in my view has played a huge role in the increasing political violence we have witnessed over the last 4 years...remember the riots after the 2016 election...we all saw the cities in the US being destroyed over the summer months, we all say the US cities boarding up their city centre's on election week....I don't think any reasonable person can blame the parler app for any of that!!!

Junkyard Tom

timmyntc wrote: »

Twitter is abusing its status as a social media platform and it is a problem. If it's not tackled soon it sets a very dangerous precedent for what big tech companies can do.

What's the solution. That's not a rhetorical question I genuinely don't know.

Also it's axiomatic that ostensibly private corporations will stifle 'leftist' voices so if you look at it from a game theory perspective banning the likes of Q-Anon and Trumpers is largely irrelevant.

nolivesmatter

political analyst wrote: »

Why is it that Twitter shuts down the accounts of people who merely criticise left-wing social movements (e.g. Lindsay Shepherd, who criticised the transgender rights movement in Canada and was then banned from Twitter but has since got the ban overturned), while left-wing trolls who attack social conservatives are apparently let off the hook?

Aren't there certain people on the left-wing on Twitter who are just as deserving of a ban as the soon-to-be-former US president Trump?

The thing is you don't even have to be on the right, you just have to be right of the people attacking you even if that is a leftist position.

ancapailldorcha

rossie1977 wrote: »

Yes I don't head much complaints that Parler are banning people...

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-predicted-parler-is-banning-users-it-doesnt-like.shtml

Exactly. It's about free speech for the ethnonationalist upper caste and another for everyone else.

PintOfView

Someone who is charismatic and doesn't mind inventing their own facts will always get a following.
If they can keep their followers predominantly consuming the same messages they've now got a community.

In this way you can get multiple belief systems, each populated by mostly reasonable people, but each with their own 'facts'.
And you can then get a divided society, as we've seen in the US.

You can't completely eliminate this as you'll always have different political parties, religions, generations, etc.
How to mitigate the worst effects?

You need to promote real understanding of the real world, warts and all, and expose the extreme conspiracy theories which are invented to further an agenda.
A robust and independent media, unbeholden to the government, or to commercial interests, can go a long way.

Sensible regulation probably needs to play a part.
The ideal would be exposure to legal liability for knowingly misleading the audience, but it's not obvious how you would implement that!

timmyntc

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's only a problem for right wing fascists who are trying to dodge responsibility. Twitter can do what it wants with its own platform. Conservatives can use their Parler safe space if they don't like it.

Grow up. It's a problem for everyone because of the precedent they set. They try and take advantage of Platform status, but dont obey the rules. They take an editorial stance (removing some posts & not others) so that status should be revoked or Twitter should be fined.

The whole thing makes a mockery of social media "regulations" - they do what they want. And that fact the US govt won't do anything to stop it is scary.

You say it's only a problem for "right wing fascists" - well soon it will be normal people like you and me who get censored for wrongthink. And there isn't a thing we can do about it.

ancapailldorcha

timmyntc wrote: »

Grow up. It's a problem for everyone because of the precedent they set. They try and take advantage of Platform status, but dont obey the rules. They take an editorial stance (removing some posts & not others) so that status should be revoked or Twitter should be fined.

The whole thing makes a mockery of social media "regulations" - they do what they want. And that fact the US govt won't do anything to stop it is scary.

You say it's only a problem for "right wing fascists" - well soon it will be normal people like you and me who get censored for wrongthink. And there isn't a thing we can do about it.

That's just victim claiming nonsense. It's Twitter's platform, they can do what they want with it.

Do conservatives think churches should have to marry gay people? If not then this is just blatant privilege-seeking.

PintOfView

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's Twitter's platform, they can do what they want with it.

If the Twitter CEO was a Trump supporter, and he kicked Biden off, because, you know, he rigged the election, would that be ok?

How is it right that editorial control of something that has become, in effect, a public utility should rest unregulated in the hands of an arbitrary CEO?

ancapailldorcha

PintOfView wrote: »

If the Twitter CEO was a Trump supporter, and he kicked Biden off, because, you know, he rigged the election, would that be ok?

How is it right that editorial control of something that has become, in effect, a public utility should rest unregulated in the hands of an arbitrary CEO?

Of course. It's their platform.

It's not a public utility. Supermarkets could be argued to be a public utility. Same for public transport, water and electricity. Social media is not.

Do you think churches should have to perform gay weddings? If not, your concern is for loss of privilege, not equality or rights.

nolivesmatter

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's just victim claiming nonsense. It's Twitter's platform, they can do what they want with it.

Do conservatives think churches should have to marry gay people? If not then this is just blatant privilege-seeking.

What's considered acceptable speech is an ever changing landscape. What's acceptable today is hate speech tomorrow.

ancapailldorcha

nolivesmatter wrote: »

What's considered acceptable speech is an ever changing landscape. What's acceptable today is hate speech tomorrow.

Was there a point here?

PintOfView

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Of course. It's their platform.

It's not a public utility. Supermarkets could be argued to be a public utility. Same for public transport, water and electricity. Social media is not.

Do you think churches should have to perform gay weddings? If not, your concern is for loss of privilege, not equality or rights.

So you are comfortable that you will always agree with the policies that Twitter, FB, etc., implement, and that decide who they shut down?

What about the social media in other countries, eg. China?

nolivesmatter

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Was there a point here?

Your comparison is bad. Anti-gay marriage has always been the churches stance. The issue people have with twitter is the ever changing landscape of what's considered unacceptable speech based on what's being pushed from the extreme left.

ancapailldorcha

PintOfView wrote: »

So you are comfortable that you will always agree with the policies that Twitter, FB, etc., implement, and that decide who they shut down?

What about the social media in other countries, eg. China?

If I don't agree with one of them, I'll close my account and they'll lose the ability to flog my data for ads which is their revenue source.

Your second question doesn't really have any meaning in this context. China can do what it wants with its social media firms.

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Your comparison is bad. Anti-gay marriage has always been the churches stance. The issue people have with twitter is the ever changing landscape of what's considered unacceptable speech based on what's being pushed from the extreme left.

No, it isn't.

The issue conservatives have with Twitter is that its becoming ever more reluctant to host their hate speech and their calls to violence. Changing landscape has nothing to do with it.

Silentcorner

Comparing churches to twitter....Jesus Christ!!!!

nolivesmatter

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The issue conservatives have with Twitter is that its becoming ever more reluctant to host their hate speech and their calls to violence. Changing landscape has nothing to do with it.

Do you believe there's a grey area between what is and isn't considered hate speech, and that some people in that grey area will be wrongfully attacked or shut down?

Snickers Man

Whatever side of the argument you are whinging from, has it never occurred to you just to leave Twitter the hell alone?

Who says that Twitter is an Individual Right of Man, like The Law, to whom everybody should have equal access?
Who says it should be an authoritative source of facts and truth?
Who says you have to take your cues from it?
Who in their right ****ing mind thinks that a medium whose messages are restricted to only a few dozen characters is a good forum for debates?

How DUMB are you all?

Twitter is a global insidious virus. Jack Dorsey, its founder and CEO, is the intellectual equivalent of the Wuhan Bat Eater, that probably apocryphal person who consumed a bat purchased in a so-called wet market thereby instigating the species jump of the Coronavirus from avians to humans with devastating results. At the time of writing the global death toll is just short of 2 million.
That's people, by the way, not bats.

Twitter, on the other hand, is something that we can reduce to irrelevance by ignoring it.
It needs a Circuit Break!!
Apart from being a brain-laming waste of time, it is a vector for innuendo and misunderstanding, as hard to rid from your email inbox as coal dust is from a miner's fingernails and an incentive for indolent so-called professional journalists to concoct the most inconsequential news stories simply by picking up on the latest outrageous comments that some keyboard warrior, or dare I say it: Bot, has launched into the Twittersphere.

**** Twitter!
**** Jack Dorsey!
**** anyone who thinks that any daft opinion that appears there should be newsworthy!

Just say NO!!!!
That's my New Year's Resolution.

nolivesmatter

Snickers Man wrote: »

Whatever side of the argument you are whinging from, has it never occurred to you just to leave Twitter the hell alone?

Who says that Twitter is an Individual Right of Man, like The Law, to whom everybody should have equal access?
Who says it should be an authoritative source of facts and truth?
Who says you have to take your cues from it?
Who in their right ****ing mind thinks that a medium whose messages are restricted to only a few dozen characters is a good forum for debates?

How DUMB are you all?

Twitter is a global insidious virus. Jack Dorsey, its founder and CEO, is the intellectual equivalent of the Wuhan Bat Eater, that probably apocryphal person who consumed a bat purchased in a so-called wet market thereby instigating the species jump of the Coronavirus from avians to humans with devastating results. At the time of writing the global death toll is just short of 2 million.
That's people, by the way, not bats.

Twitter, on the other hand, is something that we can reduce to irrelevance by ignoring it.
It needs a Circuit Break!!
Apart from being a brain-laming waste of time, it is a vector for innuendo and misunderstanding, as hard to rid from your email inbox as coal dust is from a miner's fingernails and an incentive for indolent so-called professional journalists to concoct the most inconsequential news stories simply by picking up on the latest outrageous comments that some keyboard warrior, or dare I say it: Bot, has launched into the Twittersphere.

**** Twitter!
**** Jack Dorsey!
**** anyone who thinks that any daft opinion that appears there should be newsworthy!

Just say NO!!!!
That's my New Year's Resolution.

That's not going to happen unfortunately. But I'd be only too happy for it to go away entirely and silence everyone for awhile.

Akesh

Angela Merkel attacks Twitter over Trump ban

We know some self professed 'liberals' are happy to censor those whom they simply disagree with but it's good to have someone like Merkel challenge Twitter and use a bit of logic instead of emotion on the implications of decisions like this.

I think it's become obvious that the time to regulate these very important platforms is long overdue.

The Nal

Akesh wrote: »

Angela Merkel attacks Twitter over Trump ban


We know some self professed 'liberals' are happy to censor those whom they simply disagree with but it's good to have someone like Merkel challenge Twitter and use a bit of logic instead of emotion on the implications of decisions like this.

Bit sensationalist from the FT. She hardly "attacked" Twitter. Her spokesman said they "bear great responsibility for political communication not being poisoned by hatred, by lies and by incitement to violence.”

He said it's right not to “stand back” when such content is posted, for example by flagging it.

But Seibert also said that the freedom of opinion is a fundamental right of “elementary significance.”

“This fundamental right can be intervened in, but according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators — not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms,” he told reporters in Berlin. “Seen from this angle, the chancellor considers it problematic that the accounts of the U.S. president have now been permanently blocked.”

His point makes no sense either. The law defined by legislators means that Twitter can absolutely ban anyone according to a decision by their management.

Akesh wrote: »

I think it's become obvious that the time to regulate these very important platforms is long overdue.

Regulated by who?

Akesh

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Of course. It's their platform.

It's not a public utility. Supermarkets could be argued to be a public utility. Same for public transport, water and electricity. Social media is not.

Do you think churches should have to perform gay weddings? If not, your concern is for loss of privilege, not equality or rights.

Nothing but nonsense whataboutery. I think if you think that is an appropriate comparison then there probably isn't much point in engaging with you any further.

How many same sex couples are fighting to get married in a church?

Do you see any difference in using one of the biggest platforms for news/politics/speech and where you can and can't get married?

Do you understand the importance of censorship or are you only supporting this because it censors your perceived political opposition?

Your thought process on this is very interesting as you seem to dislike conservatives and 'the right' yet are actively supporting and advocating for censorship which is right out of the Nazi playbook.

You can also argue social media is a public utility. It is not simply cut-and-dry as you are suggesting above, but I suspect this is just another facet of your argument that exists simply because it reinforces your political ideology.

Akesh

The Nal wrote: »

Bit sensationalist from the FT. She hardly "attacked" Twitter. Her spokesman said they "bear great responsibility for political communication not being poisoned by hatred, by lies and by incitement to violence.”

He said it's right not to “stand back” when such content is posted, for example by flagging it.

But Seibert also said that the freedom of opinion is a fundamental right of “elementary significance.”

“This fundamental right can be intervened in, but according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators — not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms,” he told reporters in Berlin. “Seen from this angle, the chancellor considers it problematic that the accounts of the U.S. president have now been permanently blocked.”

His point makes no sense either. The law defined by legislators means that Twitter can absolutely ban anyone according to a decision by their management.



Regulated by who?

Did you read the article? Perhaps you missed the bit you quoted above:

“free speech was a fundamental right of vital importance” that could be restricted, “but only in accordance with the laws and within a framework defined by the legislator — not by the decision of the management of social media platforms”.

By whom? Is that a serious question?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

For Forks Sake wrote: »

The Titania McGrath parody account has been suspended a few times. “Permanently suspended” which seems like an oxymoron. The suspensions have always been lifted but in that case, why did the suspensions happen in the first place? And does a parody account really fall into the “You’re probably being a dick” column?

The Nal

Akesh wrote: »

Did you read the article? Perhaps you missed the bit you quoted above:

Nope saw that

Akesh wrote: »

By whom? Is that a serious question?

Yep, how is it regulated?

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Statements like this were often labelled as communism only a few years ago by the libertarians who used to frequent this site. That sort of thinking has, until very recently been the primary right wing ideology in the UK and the US.

Libertarians and communists are two peas in a pod for me. Great ideas in theory but terrible in practice

timmyntc

The Nal wrote: »

Nope saw that



Yep, how is it regulated?

Should be regulated by the legislator - i.e. government.
It shouldn't be up to social media management to determine what is and isn't OK on these platforms, legislators should set clear rules as to whats ok and what is not.

The situation now is that social media management can decide arbitrarily based on anything.

timmyntc

Deleted User wrote: »

Libertarians and communists are two peas in a pod for me. Great ideas in theory but terrible in practice

Yup - all well and good expecting the market to fix things (or the government to run everything) until you create something too big that you can't control.

An authoritarian government, or a corporate behemoth - both results of idealist politics.