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

Kimsang · 01-07-2019 05:19AM #1

Montreal litigator Viva Frei discusses in his v-lawg (video law blog) about twitter's recent announcement to start censoring/flagging/or giving warnings to government officials tweets- if those tweets are deemed to be violating the terms of service, whatever those terms of service are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-svx-rFQksQ

It brings up the argument of whether social media sites like twitter are platforms where they must host everything but operate with carte blanche, or whether they are publishers, where they must censor everything and police what is said. The trouble being that their rules are poorly defined.

"Our highest priority is to protect the health of the public conversation on Twitter, and an important part of that is ensuring our rules and how we enforce them are easy to understand. In the past, we’ve allowed certain Tweets that violated our rules to remain on Twitter because they were in the public’s interest, but it wasn’t clear when and how we made those determinations. To fix that, we’re introducing a new notice that will provide additional clarity in these situations, and sharing more on when and why we’ll use it.

Serving the public conversation includes providing the ability for anyone to talk about what matters to them; this can be especially important when engaging with government officials and political figures. By nature of their positions these leaders have outsized influence and sometimes say things that could be considered controversial or invite debate and discussion. A critical function of our service is providing a place where people can openly and publicly respond to their leaders and hold them accountable.

With this in mind, there are certain cases where it may be in the public’s interest to have access to certain Tweets, even if they would otherwise be in violation of our rules. On the rare occasions when this happens, we'll place a notice – a screen you have to click or tap through before you see the Tweet – to provide additional context and clarity. We’ll also take steps to make sure the Tweet is not algorithmically elevated on our service, to strike the right balance between enabling free expression, fostering accountability, and reducing the potential harm caused by these Tweets". -TWITTER BLOG

How can a platform like twitter publicly discuss censoring government officials? Completely undermining the first amendment?
Looks to me like Jack Dorsey has gone too far.
His recent discussion with Joe Rogan and his head of Trust and safety Vijaya Gadde were very telling.
These are clips from that 3.5hour stream, where Tim Pool alleges liberal bias against twitter. I didn't like Gadde's defence here or do other's disagree?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2ouS_JF7U

"This is about, are you doing something with the intention of abusing someone on our platform? Are they viewing it that way(as harassment) and are they reporting it as such?" - Gadde

I actually agree with the rule of not abusing people; but now what people perceive to be abuse is also enough to warrant sanction.
This is quite ridiculous, as one sides argument will always reduce to ,"Oh but they said mean things," or "they made me feel bad"

"If the poster is expressing an opinion; that's fine, but if it's in a way that is targeting an individual, that's where we draw the line"-Gadde

So it seems the only difference is how much offence a person takes, or how many times something is reported.
Relevant also to whats happening between this forum and AH.

"We know that not only are people manipulating your platform, you have rules that remove honest people with 'bad opinions' who have a right to engage with public discource.. and its like you recognize it..."-Tim Pool

"There are bubbles and we've helped create and maintain them. What you see is bubbles, where people on the left only see other people on the left. Whereas people on the right see everybody"-Jack Dorsey

riffmongous · 01-07-2019 07:01AM

Nothing to do with first ammendment anyway.

Eric Cartman · 01-07-2019 07:07AM

The moment you have somebody talking about censoring somebody (and not even dressing it up as something else) and celebrating that , then you see whos the one with the real fascist tendencies. Saw this yesterday which I thought was very appropriate :

amcalester · 01-07-2019 07:08AM

OP can you explain why you think the First Amendment is in any way relevant here?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Kimsang · 01-07-2019 07:45AM

amcalester wrote: »

OP can you explain why you think the First Amendment is in any way relevant here?

Freedom of speech is the freedom to offend. Offence is personal and can be caused by a wide variety of reasons.

Twitter and other social media companies seem to be moving to regulating how people offend other people. Something that is true, can cause offense. This does not mean it should be censored.

Take Joe Rogan's example of Martina Navratalova. "Lesbians don't sleep with men"- Banned

They are circumventing the first amendment, and it might be deliberately, as a forced government breakup would arguably be a good thing for them.

ILoveYourVibes · 01-07-2019 07:49AM

Kimsang wrote: »

Freedom of speech is the freedom to offend. Offence is personal and can be caused by a wide variety of reasons.

Twitter and other social media companies seem to be moving to regulating how people offend other people. Something that is true, can cause offense. This does not mean it should be censored.

Take Joe Rogan's example of Martina Navratalova. "Lesbians don't sleep with men"- Banned

They are circumventing the first amendment, and it might be deliberately, as a forced government breakup would arguably be a good thing for them.

But it's a private company moderating it.

It's not the US govt making a law about it.

A publisher doesn't have to publish your book. You can make your own website etc.

Boards.ie could ban me right now. Even if we were in the states.

It's very different from the US govt banning me from talking or locking me up.

The first amendment covers the govt.

If i was a govt official you can be darn right i would defend your right to be offensive.

If i was owner of a private website you can be darned right i would ban people i thought were writing horrible content.

There is breitbart for that. I am sure they select their content etc.

Kimsang · 01-07-2019 07:52AM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

But it's a private company moderating it.

It's not the US govt making a law about it.

A publisher doesn't have to publish your book. You can make your own website etc.

Boards.ie could ban me right now. Even if we were in the states.

It's very different from the US govt banning me from talking or locking me up.

The first amendment covers the govt.

Of course not, but when is a social media company a publisher, and when is it a platform.

Let's say its a platform, like that of a telecoms company. They are not allowed to cut off your telephone based on what you say or what you do.

Social media companies are supposed to be platforms, and they enjoy the perks as such( no liability).

But now they are clearly moving into the territory of publisher(ideological moderation). They should no longer enjoy the benefits of being a platform.

amcalester · 01-07-2019 07:53AM

Kimsang wrote: »

Freedom of speech is the freedom to offend. Offence is personal and can be caused by a wide variety of reasons.

Twitter and other social media companies seem to be moving to regulating how people offend other people. Something that is true, can cause offense. This does not mean it should be censored.

Take Joe Rogan's example of Martina Navratalova. "Lesbians don't sleep with men"- Banned

They are circumventing the first amendment, and it might be deliberately, as a forced government breakup would arguably be a good thing for them.

If you don't know the answer just say you don't know.

I'll give you a hint that may kick start your understanding, Twitter is not the US Government.

Kimsang · 01-07-2019 07:55AM

amcalester wrote: »

If you don't know the answer just say you don't know.

I'll give you a hint that may kick start your understanding, Twitter is not the US Government.

is_that_so · 01-07-2019 07:57AM

Kimsang wrote: »

Of course not, but when is a social media company a publisher, and when is it a platform.

Let's say its a platform, like that of a telecoms company. They are not allowed to cut off your telephone based on what you say or what you do.

Social media companies are supposed to be platforms, and they enjoy the perks as such( no liability).

But now they are clearly moving into the territory of publisher(ideological moderation). They should no longer enjoy the benefits of being a platform.

No, all service entities have T&C, which we generally never bother to read. Break them and they can take steps against you. No user owns the platform and if it's true freedom of speech you want, you get your own site or blog.

Kimsang · 01-07-2019 07:59AM

is_that_so wrote: »

No, all service entities have T&C, which we generally never bother to read. Break them and they can take steps against you. No user owns the platform and if it's true freedom of speech you want, you get your own site or blog.

Yes of course, but if you read the US governments terms and conditions carefully, you can see that they can breakup whatever company they like. Look at what Elizabeth Warren is campaigning on.

ILoveYourVibes · 01-07-2019 07:59AM

Kimsang wrote: »

Of course not, but when is a social media company a publisher, and when is it a platform.

Let's say its a platform, like that of a telecoms company. They are not allowed to cut off your telephone based on what you say or what you do.

Social media companies are supposed to be platforms, and they enjoy the perks as such( no liability).

But now they are clearly moving into the territory of publisher(ideological moderation). They should no longer enjoy the benefits of being a platform.

They can actually. If you make obscene phonecalls.

Originally Posted by is_that_so View Post
No, all service entities have T&C, which we generally never bother to read. Break them and they can take steps against you. No user owns the platform and if it's true freedom of speech you want, you get your own site or blog.

I'm not sure she is being entirely honest about their abilities to do that IMO. She is making it seem clear cut and easy.

is_that_so · 01-07-2019 08:01AM

Kimsang wrote: »

Yes of course, but if you read the US governments terms and conditions carefully, you can see that they can breakup whatever company they like. Look at what Elizabeth Warren is campaigning on.

What T&C would that be? And no they can't actually but what has any of that got to do with this thread?

ILoveYourVibes · 01-07-2019 08:02AM

is_that_so wrote: »

What T&C would that be? And no they can't actually but what has any of that got to do with this thread?

I think he means trump might try to break up twitter?? not sure.

amcalester · 01-07-2019 08:03AM

Kimsang wrote: »

I'm not watching that, if you have something to say then say but I'm not going to do your work for you.

The general gist, from what I've read, is that Twitter are going to better hold politicians to account when these politicians break Twitter's T&C's and you think this is an attack on the First Amendment.

It's not, move on.

Kimsang · 01-07-2019 08:04AM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

They can actually. If you make obscene phonecalls.

Yes but that's within the grounds of already commonly accepted restrictions on freedom of speech. (harrassment/threats/incitement of violence/etc..)

No one had a problem when social media companies moderated as such.

The problems began when they started increasing the threshold by which they policed free speech(moving into hate speech/offence taking).

Boards is different to social media companies. Not everyone is on boards. We must admit social media companies have too much power these days in regards them being the forums within which we debate/converse.

01-07-2019 08:06AM

Kimsang wrote: »

Montreal litigator Viva Frei discusses in his v-lawg (video law blog) about twitter's recent announcement to start censoring/flagging/or giving warnings to government officials tweets- if those tweets are deemed to be violating the terms of service, whatever those terms of service are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-svx-rFQksQ

Towards the end of the video...
Twitter is not a news service nor is it a government official communication channel. It should have no responsibility towards people not getting emergency broadcast notices.

Kimsang · 01-07-2019 08:07AM

amcalester wrote: »

I'm not watching that, if you have something to say then say but I'm not going to do your work for you.

The general gist, from what I've read, is that Twitter are going to better hold politicians to account when these politicians break Twitter's T&C's and you think this is an attack on the First Amendment.

It's not, move on.

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.

Kimsang · 01-07-2019 08:08AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Towards the end of the video...
Twitter is not a news service nor is it a government official communication channel. It should have no responsibility towards people not getting emergency broadcast notices.

But it is the age we are living in. People do get emergency notices from twitter.
I have never used twitter. Its not like I support it.

But I accept that most people do use it, and it is a public forum.

You don't get everyone to join your public forum by promising free speech, and then turn around and start policing it ideologically.

Is anyone disputing that twitter are policing their platform ideologically?

amcalester · 01-07-2019 08:17AM

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.

Genuinely wasn't trying to strawman you, but I can see that you didn't say that it was an attack on the First Amendment - that was clunky phrasing on my part, apologies.

Having said that, I still think that you don't really understand what the First Amendment is and how it applies to Twitter (and possibly other non-Government entities).

Kimsang wrote: »

Is anyone disputing that twitter are policing their platform ideologically?

Can you point to the sections of Twitter's T&C's that are based on some ideology?

01-07-2019 08:18AM

Kimsang wrote: »

But it is the age we are living in. People do get emergency notices from twitter.
I have never used twitter. Its not like I support it.

But I accept that most people do use it, and it is a public forum.

You don't get everyone to join your public forum by promising free speech, and then turn around and start policing it ideologically.

Is anyone disputing that twitter are policing their platform ideologically?

They have no responsibility to deliver that message. It's up to you if you choose to post on that service.
Boards has no responsibility, to me, to put my message out and Twitter is the same.

They can police their platform as per their terms and conditions but, up to now, politicians have been able to flout the conditions they agreed to when they signed up. If you or I said half the personal attacks that, let's call it out, Drumpf has spouted we would have been banned.

Kimsang · 01-07-2019 08:25AM

amcalester wrote: »

Genuinely wasn't trying to strawman you, but I can see that you didn't say that it was an attack on the First Amendment - that was clunky phrasing on my part, apologies.

Having said that, I still think that you don't really understand what the First Amendment is and how it applies to Twitter (and possibly other non-Government entities).

I know is a deeply complicated issue, I'm not trying to present it as anything else.
But at the end of the day twitter also operates within the US and any country it operates in it must abide by their laws, or risk being banned from operating, or possibly broken up as a company within the US.

It looks like twitter know exactly what they're doing. If they get broken up as Warren suggest, it could be a huge pay day. Imagine they were using this ideological war as a weapon just to make more money. Would be disgusting, eh.

One eyed Jack · 01-07-2019 08:26AM

Kimsang wrote: »

Yes but that's within the grounds of already commonly restrictions on freedom of speech. (harrassment/threats/incitement of violence/etc..)

No one had a problem when social media companies moderated as such.

The problems began when they started increasing the threshold by which they policed free speech(moving into hate speech/offence taking).

Plenty of people had a problem with it, and that’s why they decided to change their policies. That’s because in spite of what you think (and your right to freedom of conscience is protected) - freedom of speech absolutely does not imply the freedom to offend.

Boards is different to social media companies. Not everyone is on boards. We must admin social media companies have too much power these days in regards them being the forums within which we debate/converse.

Boards is a social media platform no different to any other social media platform? Not everyone is on Facebook, Twitter, Wechat and the hundreds of other social media platforms there are globally! The irony that you argue Government should censor Twitter because you think they’re censoring Government is just... I don’t know what to make of it actually

Meanwhile, take a look at the list of countries where the Government censors Twitter -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Twitter

That’s what you’re arguing for when you argue that social media companies have what you think is so much power that they’re censoring people’s right freedom of speech. They’re not, they can’t. Obligations to protect the right to freedom of speech only apply to Government, not private companies which have every right to restrict, edit or delete content on their platforms which violates their policies and terms of use or could cause offence to other people using their platform.

Kimsang · 01-07-2019 08:30AM

amcalester wrote: »

Can you point to the sections of Twitter's T&C's that are based on some ideology?

No. They have broad rules around offence. But they do not get specific in their rules. What reveals their ideology is the way in which they police.

"The commonality of these groups that are being targeted is their politics, and you don't see it on the other side as much," D.C. McAllister, a columnist for conservative news service PJ Media and The Federalist, said in an interview.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/11/18/conservatives-accuse-twitter-of-liberal-bias/94037802/

This article details my case.

Kimsang · 01-07-2019 08:37AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Plenty of people had a problem with it, and that’s why they decided to change their policies. That’s because in spite of what you think (and your right to freedom of conscience is protected) - freedom of speech absolutely does not imply the freedom to offend.

Plenty of the loudest people, all coming from one particular ideology, yes. Of course it implies freedom to offend. Offence is a subjective thing.

Boards is a social media platform no different to any other social media platform? Not everyone is on Facebook, Twitter, Wechat and the hundreds of other social media platforms there are globally!

Ok fair enough, but I still think there is a difference between twitter where most of a population are on it.

The irony that you argue Government should censor Twitter because you think they’re censoring Government is just... I don’t know what to make of it actually

I never made this argument, this is a misrepresentation. I said it looks like twitter are trying to get broken up by the government. I also said I think they are going too far in the way they police.

[that] they’re censoring people’s right freedom of speech. They’re not, they can’t. Obligations to protect the right to freedom of speech only apply to Government, not private companies which have every right to restrict, edit or delete content on their platforms which violates their policies and terms of use or could cause offence to other people using their platform.

You're wrong here. Twitter enjoy all the advantages of being a platform. They should act as such. They are and they can censoring people's right of speech. Martina Navratalova was banned for saying lesbians don't sleep with men, or something.

ohnonotgmail · 01-07-2019 08:45AM

Kimsang wrote: »

Plenty of the loudest people, all coming from one particular ideology, yes. Of course it implies freedom to offend. Offence is a subjective thing.

Ok fair enough, but I still think there is a difference between twitter where most of a population are on it.

I never made this argument, this is a misrepresentation. I said it looks like twitter are trying to get broken up by the government. I also said I think they are going too far in the way they police.

You're wrong here. Twitter enjoy all the advantages of being a platform. They should act as such. They are and they can censoring people's right of speech. Martina Navratalova was banned for saying lesbians don't sleep with men, or something.

You do not have a right of speech on twitter. They are a private company. this has been said to you numerous times now and you just dont seem to get it.

amcalester · 01-07-2019 08:53AM

Kimsang wrote: »

No. They have broad rules around offence. But they do not get specific in their rules. What reveals their ideology is the way in which they police.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/11/18/conservatives-accuse-twitter-of-liberal-bias/94037802/

This article details my case.

Taken from the article linked and the same person you quoted in your post.

They are a private company and they can do what they want," she said. But, "people have their biases and it comes through in their work.

It really isn't a First Amendment issue.

One eyed Jack · 01-07-2019 08:54AM

Kimsang wrote: »

Plenty of the loudest people, all coming from one particular ideology, yes. Of course it implies freedom to offend. Offence is a subjective thing.

Offence isn’t a subjective thing. Our own laws regarding freedom of expression have limitations and restrictions so as to prohibit causing offence to other people!

Ok fair enough, but I still think there is a difference between twitter where most of a population are on it.

Neither in Ireland or the US are most of the population on Twitter. For what it’s worth, I can’t stand either Twitter or Facebook, Youtube is alright, but they too have been accused of censoring content creators by one of the platforms most subscribed content creators - PewdiePie! Almost every second one of his videos now is complaining about YouTube’s latest attempt to censor content creators :rolleyes:

I never made this argument, this is a misrepresentation. I said it looks like twitter are trying to get broken up by the government. I also said I think they are going too far in the way they police.

Oh come on, you were making the argument that what Twitter are doing was a violation of the first amendment of the US Constitution and that they shouldn’t have so much power! Your whole argument is based around the idea that Twitter are a public platform so they shouldn’t get to decide what content they host. The only body who can enforce that restriction upon Twitter, are Governments!

You're wrong here. Twitter enjoy all the advantages of being a platform. They should act as such. They are and they can censoring people's right of speech. Martina Navratalova was banned for saying lesbians don't sleep with men, or something.

Censoring content on their platforms is in no way a violation of the right to freedom of speech, or in Irish law at least since your argument is that it is a reflection on what’s going on with Boards and this forum and AH - Boards aren’t violating anyone’s right to freedom of expression either by censoring, editing, deleting or restricting people’s use of their platform.

amcalester · 01-07-2019 08:57AM

Kimsang wrote: »

Yes of course, but if you read the US governments terms and conditions carefully, you can see that they can breakup whatever company they like. Look at what Elizabeth Warren is campaigning on.

is_that_so wrote: »

What T&C would that be? And no they can't actually but what has any of that got to do with this thread?

Any chance you could provide a link to the US Government's T'&C's that allow it to break up any company it wants?

kunst nugget · 01-07-2019 09:05AM

Kimsang wrote: »

But it is the age we are living in. People do get emergency notices from twitter.
I have never used twitter. Its not like I support it.

But I accept that most people do use it, and it is a public forum.

You don't get everyone to join your public forum by promising free speech, and then turn around and start policing it ideologically.

Is anyone disputing that twitter are policing their platform ideologically?

Most people don't use Twitter. It has about a tenth of the users that facebook has. I don't think Twitter has ever promised free speech either - it has a pretty prescriptive set of terms and conditions for using its platform.

Kimsang · 01-07-2019 09:09AM

amcalester wrote: »

Taken from the article linked and the same person you quoted in your post.

It really isn't a First Amendment issue.

Could the us government use it as a reason for breaking up twitter(flying in the face of the 1st amendment)? Lets say Elizabeth Warren gets elected. I don't think this would be the worst candidate.

Kimsang · 01-07-2019 09:13AM

kunst nugget wrote: »

Most people don't use Twitter. It has about a tenth of the users that facebook has. I don't think Twitter has ever promised free speech either - it has a pretty prescriptive set of terms and conditions for using its platform.

At its inception, Twitter was designed to be a kind of radical experiment in free speech. Users could tweet anonymously, could contact high-profile users without first getting their permission, and rarely had to worry about Twitter censoring their content. In the preamble to Twitter’s original rules, the company stated, “each user is responsible for the content he or she provides … we do not actively monitor and will not censor user content, except in limited circumstances described below.”

These limited circumstances are what was alluded to earlier, already commonly accepted restrictions to freedom of speech.

Vox
https://www.vox.com/videos/2017/11/8/16624628/strikethrough-harassment-abuse-twitter-free-speech-experiment

amcalester · 01-07-2019 09:24AM

Kimsang wrote: »

Could the us government use it as a reason for breaking up twitter(flying in the face of the 1st amendment)? Lets say Elizabeth Warren gets elected. I don't think this would be the worst candidate.

Break up Twitter into what? What are the differing constituent parts of Twitter that it could be broken up into?

Twitter doesn't have a monopoly on the Social Media industry so on what grounds would the Government attempt to break it up?

Any link to the T&C's that allow the Government to do this to any company it likes?

Kimsang · 01-07-2019 09:26AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Offence isn’t a subjective thing. Our own laws regarding freedom of expression have limitations and restrictions so as to prohibit causing offence to other people!

Offence is subjective. We don't have laws regarding freedom of expression, unless you're talking about new fangled hate laws. I don't accept these as proper or real laws. Just look to the garda website for the definition of hate law:

Any incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by hate, based on a person’s age, race, ethnicity, religious belief, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation’ .

Can you not see how 'perceived to be' can lead to problems, honestly?

Neither in Ireland or the US are most of the population on Twitter. For what it’s worth, I can’t stand either Twitter or Facebook, Youtube is alright, but they too have been accused of censoring content creators by one of the platforms most subscribed content creators - PewdiePie! Almost every second one of his videos now is complaining about YouTube’s latest attempt to censor content creators :rolleyes:

To be fair, i'm exclusively talking about in the US where twitter is dominant, and I believe that's where they're HQ is situated. I agree with your point about youtube, i follow several political channels left and right, and they are are complaining about the same thing.

Oh come on, you were making the argument that what Twitter are doing was a violation of the first amendment of the US Constitution and that they shouldn’t have so much power! Your whole argument is based around the idea that Twitter are a public platform so they shouldn’t get to decide what content they host. The only body who can enforce that restriction upon Twitter, are Governments!

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.

Censoring content on their platforms is in no way a violation of the right to freedom of speech, or in Irish law at least since your argument is that it is a reflection on what’s going on with Boards and this forum and AH - Boards aren’t violating anyone’s right to freedom of expression either by censoring, editing, deleting or restricting people’s use of their platform.

I argue that big social media are(twitter/facebook/youtube), and boards are not. Simply because boards isn't a large enough portion of society.
But when a forum such as twitter becomes so large, they must adhere to certain well moulded norms of society. Like the freedom to express oneself. Of course you can argue they don't have to do anything, they're a private company. I couldn't agree more with this. But at some stage, they must adhere to the rules of discourse within the country they operate. Otherwise they are free to circumvent laws of said country, without going through the legislature.

Kimsang · 01-07-2019 09:36AM

amcalester wrote: »

Break up Twitter into what? What are the differing constituent parts of Twitter that it could be broken up into?
Twitter doesn't have a monopoly on the Social Media industry so on what grounds would the Government attempt to break it up?
Any link to the T&C's that allow the Government to do this to any company it likes?

One approach would be to restrict the number of markets in which the companies can operate. That would mark a throwback to an older way of looking at the economy in which large areas of commercial activity were limited to a prescribed set of companies, said Michael Cusumano, a management professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

A second idea that has gained growing support among tech’s critics would involve splitting off monopolistic digital platforms. Supporters of this idea, such as Ms Warren, say it would address a common problem: the winner-takes-all phenomenon, where network effects produce dominant platforms.

A third option for restructuring Big Tech would involve unwinding past acquisitions, such as Facebook’s purchase of WhatsApp and Instagram, and Google’s of YouTube.
-Financial Times

https://www.ft.com/content/cb8b707c-88ca-11e9-a028-86cea8523dc2
As you can see, this is already a popular subject;

This week the shadow of drastic regulatory action was cast again over Silicon Valley after it emerged that the US Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission had divided up responsibility for potential antitrust investigations.

At the same time, the House judiciary committee announced its own inquiry into whether US antitrust laws need to be tightened up to deal with the tech giants.

The flurry of interest has emboldened the industry’s critics and prompted executives and analysts to start asking a question that until recently seemed inconceivable: What form should any forced break-ups take?
, Financial Times-7th June

DublinWriter · 01-07-2019 09:46AM

Anti-trust legislation was originally enacted in at the turn of the 20th century to stop large corporations having a monopoly on any particular sector.

It's a difficult argument to make that any one social-media company operates a total monopoly on social media.

is_that_so · 01-07-2019 09:49AM

amcalester wrote: »

Any chance you could provide a link to the US Government's T'&C's that allow it to break up any company it wants?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890

Eric Cartman · 01-07-2019 09:52AM

DublinWriter wrote: »

Anti-trust legislation was originally enacted in at the turn of the 20th century to stop large corporations having a monopoly on any particular sector.

It's a difficult argument to make that any one social-media company operates a total monopoly on social media.

Very true, the argument with google and search holds muster but social media is such a trend based industry, sure where is myspace and bebo gone, facebook and twitter will crumble at some point.

amcalester · 01-07-2019 09:54AM

is_that_so wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890

You'll have to direct me to the part where it allows the US Government break up any company it wants, which was the OP's claim.

is_that_so · 01-07-2019 09:55AM

amcalester wrote: »

You'll have to direct me to the part where it allows the US Government break up any company it wants, which was the OP's claim.

It can't but Legacy gives examples of where it has tried.

ohnonotgmail · 01-07-2019 10:00AM

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.

The first amendment only covers actions by the government. So they cannot, by the definition of the first amendment, violate peoples rights under the first amendment.

Kimsang · 01-07-2019 10:00AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Very true, the argument with google and search holds muster but social media is such a trend based industry, sure where is myspace and bebo gone, facebook and twitter will crumble at some point.

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

ohnonotgmail · 01-07-2019 10:03AM

Kimsang wrote: »

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

Gab also have terms and conditions about what you can post. are they violating first amendment rights as well?

Kimsang · 01-07-2019 10:08AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Gab also have terms and conditions about what you can post. are they violating first amendment rights as well?

This point has been made and addressed.

We already accept violations of first amendment rights as you put it, in the form of slander/incitement to violence/abuse/harassment/etc..

Everyone agrees on these, because they infringe on other people's rights.

The discussion regarding hate laws infringes on other people's right to think. This should not be acceptable.

amcalester · 01-07-2019 10:08AM

Kimsang wrote: »

Could the us government use it as a reason for breaking up twitter(flying in the face of the 1st amendment)? Lets say Elizabeth Warren gets elected. I don't think this would be the worst candidate.

Kimsang wrote: »

https://www.ft.com/content/cb8b707c-88ca-11e9-a028-86cea8523dc2
As you can see, this is already a popular subject;

You're shifting the goalposts here, first you were talking about breaking up Twitter because it was flying in the face of the First Amendment (despite it not applying to Twitter), and now you're introduced Anti-trust laws into the mix.

As another poster has said, it would be very difficult to establish that Twitter holds a monopoly over a market.

Even Twitter's acquisitions seem more designed to enhance the user experience and increase data gathering rather than monopolise the market (IMO, from a very cursory glance on a list of their acquisitions).

Kimsang · 01-07-2019 10:15AM

amcalester wrote: »

You're shifting the goalposts here, first you were talking about breaking up Twitter because it was flying in the face of the First Amendment (despite it not applying to Twitter), and now you're introduced Anti-trust laws into the mix.

As another poster has said, it would be very difficult to establish that Twitter holds a monopoly over a market.

Even Twitter's acquisitions seem more designed to enhance the user experience and increase data gathering rather than monopolise the market (IMO, from a very cursory glance on a list of their acquisitions).

I'm honestly not sure what goalposts you're talking about. I'm not talking about breaking up twitter. I'm talking about the US considering it, from a few different angles. As this news is announced about , twitter releases new guidelines that they might censor politicans! Is the timing coincidental?? It seems like they are poking the bear.

Look at it from twitter's point of view. They either have to start policing everything(way too much work), or let nearly completely freedom(if they do that they lose the collective). If however they give into the frenzied mob every-time, they risk being broken up- but keep most people happy. Its win-win for them.

I just wish they operated more ethically.

ohnonotgmail · 01-07-2019 10:18AM

Kimsang wrote: »

This point has been made and addressed.

We already accept violations of first amendment rights as you put it, in the form of slander/incitement to violence/abuse/harassment/etc..

Everyone agrees on these, because they infringe on other people's rights.

The discussion regarding hate laws infringes on other people's right to think. This should not be acceptable.

Just to be clear, they are not violations of first amendment rights as i put it. They are violations of first amendment rights as you put it. that is your claim not mine.

There no laws regarding what you can think. there are laws regarding what you can say. quite different things.

Kimsang · 01-07-2019 10:24AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Just to be clear, they are not violations of first amendment rights as i put it. They are violations of first amendment rights as you put it. that is your claim not mine.
There no laws regarding what you can think. there are laws regarding what you can say. quite different things.

"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."

This is my post from the last page. What exactly are you arguing?

ohnonotgmail · 01-07-2019 10:30AM

Kimsang wrote: »

This is my post from the last page. What exactly are you arguing?

"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."

let me post again something i only quite recently but you seem to have missed.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The first amendment only covers actions by the government. So they cannot, by the definition of the first amendment, violate peoples rights under the first amendment.

Corporations cannot violate peoples rights under the first amendment. I'm not sure how much clearer i can make that.

One eyed Jack · 01-07-2019 10:42AM

Kimsang wrote: »

Offence is subjective. We don't have laws regarding freedom of expression, unless you're talking about new fangled hate laws. I don't accept these as proper or real laws. Just look to the garda website for the definition of hate law:
Can you not see how 'perceived to be' can lead to problems, honestly?

Ahhh jesus Kimsang, come on now!

Freedom of expression

You have a right to freely express your convictions and opinions (Article 40.6.1.i). However, the Constitution asserts that the State should try to make sure that the radio, the press and the cinema are not used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State. It also states that it is an offence to publish or utter blasphemous, seditious or indecent matter.

Following a referendum in May 2018, the Thirty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution (Repeal of offence of publication or utterance of blasphemous matter) Act 2018 has removed the word “blasphemous” from the Constitution.

There are some limitations on your freedom of expression. For example, the Censorship of Publications Acts and the Censorship of Films Acts allow censorship of publications like books, films and DVDs.

Fundamental rights under the Irish Constitution

To be fair, i'm exclusively talking about in the US where twitter is dominant, and I believe that's where they're HQ is situated. I agree with your point about youtube, i follow several political channels left and right, and they are are complaining about the same thing.

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.

You’re clearly not exclusively talking about the US though? You’re flipping back and forth between Ireland and the US about social media companies which are obligated to adhere to the laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate. Where their headquarters are located makes no difference in terms of what laws do or do not apply. This is one of the problems with consuming US-centric content on social media - people become so entrenched in it they swallow any old codswallop taken completely out of context and presented to them as fact.

Twitter aren’t enforcing rules that have the potential to violate anyone’s first amendment rights, because they can’t. Its been explained to you numerous times already, that the first amendment only applies to restrict US Government from making laws which restrict people’s fundamental freedoms -

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which respect an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

I argue that big social media are(twitter/facebook/youtube), and boards are not. Simply because boards isn't a large enough portion of society.
But when a forum such as twitter becomes so large, they must adhere to certain well moulded norms of society. Like the freedom to express oneself. Of course you can argue they don't have to do anything, they're a private company. I couldn't agree more with this. But at some stage, they must adhere to the rules of discourse within the country they operate. Otherwise they are free to circumvent laws of said country, without going through the legislature.

You mean like your earlier assertion that you don’t accept how hate crimes are defined by Gardai in Ireland which is based on Irish legislation that already exists, and has for some time now, which you’re not talking about because you’re exclusively talking about the US to be fair, because according to you we don’t have freedom of expression laws in Ireland...

Fcuk this, I’m going for coffee, too early to be trying to get my head around this shìte

batgoat · 01-07-2019 10:44AM

Kimsang wrote: »

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

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.

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

Comments