Twitter censorship

[Hawkmoon]

According to The Gateway Pundit, Twitter gave a Benghazi defender a timeout for criticizing Obama.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/twitter-suspends-benghazi-hero-after-criticism-of-president-obama/

It's long past the time when the .gov needs to start exercising some control over Twitter, Facebook, and Google.

[dogmush]

The control should be thus:

Either you don't edit or moderate anything on the entire site, and are shielded from civil liability vis a' vis Libel or Slander suits. (ooh  ooh, and Copyright infringement suits)

or

You do edit and/or moderate and you are responsible for the entire contents of your site, because you have "published" it.


Perhaps Google/Twitter/Facebook will win the litigation, or perhaps they replace city municipalities as the ghetto lottery to play.  But I'll bet it costs them some money either way.

[DittoHead]

Either you don't edit or moderate anything on the entire site, and are shielded from civil liability vis a' vis Libel or Slander suits. (ooh  ooh, and Copyright infringement suits)

or

You do edit and/or moderate and you are responsible for the entire contents of your site, because you have "published" it.

I don't believe this would make social media any "better". I'm not necessarily opposed to this arrangement, but social media is terrible because people in general are terrible. Tinkering with the rules isn't going to fix that.

[Ben]

I don't believe this would make social media any "better". I'm not necessarily opposed to this arrangement, but social media is terrible because people in general are terrible. Tinkering with the rules isn't going to fix that.

I'm going to say that people in general are good. The problem is that you would never think that based on what is on these sites. Social media not only brings out the worst in people, it highlights the worst people. Liberals aren't all antifa and conservatives aren't all the KKK. Hard to tell that based on what seems to rise to the top (or the bottom, as it were) in viewed comments on these sites.

I do still absolutely believe that Twitter, Facebook, etc. lean toward censuring conservatives over liberals, and I think much of that is the philosophy of the workers they hire, vs any written policy or good intentions.

[Ron]

Unfortunately free speech means the wealthiest and most powerful have the most effective tools for influencing the vast majority of the people.

There is a reason that the sheep metaphor regarding “the people” has been around millennia.

[MechAg94]

Unfortunately free speech means the wealthiest and most powerful have the most effective tools for influencing the vast majority of the people.

There is a reason that the sheep metaphor regarding “the people” has been around millennia.

And people need to realize that trying to use regulations to fix that issue generally only makes it worse. 

[DittoHead]

Social media not only brings out the worst in people, it highlights the worst people. Liberals aren't all antifa and conservatives aren't all the KKK. Hard to tell that based on what seems to rise to the top (or the bottom, as it were) in viewed comments on these sites.

It's not exclusive to politics either. People are opinionated, ignorant, and belligerent about pretty much everything on social media. You're lucky if a recipe for fruit cake doesn't start a flame war.

[Perd Hapley]

The control should be thus:

Either you don't edit or moderate anything on the entire site, and are shielded from civil liability vis a' vis Libel or Slander suits. (ooh  ooh, and Copyright infringement suits)

or

You do edit and/or moderate and you are responsible for the entire contents of your site, because you have "published" it.


Perhaps Google/Twitter/Facebook will win the litigation, or perhaps they replace city municipalities as the ghetto lottery to play.  But I'll bet it costs them some money either way.

With the obvious exceptions for illegal things, like child pron, incitements to kill ICE agents for pay, etc.

[Perd Hapley]

Unfortunately free speech means the wealthiest and most powerful have the most effective tools for influencing the vast majority of the people.

There is a reason that the sheep metaphor regarding “the people” has been around millennia.

This. It's like trying to get the money out of politics. Money is power, or it wouldn't be worth anything. How are you going to keep power out of politics?

[Ben]

It's not exclusive to politics either. People are opinionated, ignorant, and belligerent about pretty much everything on social media. You're lucky if a recipe for fruit cake doesn't start a flame war.

Word. Even though I'm not on Facebook or Twitter, they seem to (especially Twitter) saturate the Internet so much, and not in a good way, that I can't avoid them. In many ways I think it would be a good thing to see them go the way of MySpace.

I recognize that they each have some good points - connecting with people from your past, getting quick news bits out in disasters, etc., but man do they have anger issues.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm going to say that people in general are good.

I don't know if I ever started a thread on that, like I planned to. The short and crudely stated form of the truth is that "conservatives" believe people are essentially bad, and leftists believe people are essentially good. That's why "conservatives" prefer a limited government that checks the worst elements, without giving anyone too much power. It's why we believe in decentralized government, and letting everyone's self-interest and greed balance each other out. It's why the Left believes we can all be shiny, happy people, once we get rid of the corrupting influences of capitalism, the patriarchy, and other such foreign elements. That's why they believe they can bring about sexual equality, if they can just get rid of the "toxic masculinity" and "sexism" that religion forces onto us. One could go on.

There are, of course, counter-theories.

[Ben]

I don't know if I ever started a thread on that, like I planned to. The short and crudely stated form of the truth is that "conservatives" believe people are essentially bad, and leftists believe people are essentially good. That's why "conservatives" prefer a limited government that checks the worst elements, without giving anyone too much power. It's why we believe in decentralized government, and letting everyone's self-interest and greed balance each other out. It's why the Left believes we can all be shiny, happy people, once we get rid of the corrupting influences of capitalism, the patriarchy, and other such foreign elements. That's why they believe they can bring about sexual equality, if they can just get rid of the "toxic masculinity" and "sexism" that religion forces onto us. One could go on.

There are, of course, counter-theories.

I have to say that I've always carried the opposite theory (I'm open to being educated). Small government works because people are good. They mind their own business, they give to charity, they follow the golden rule. Big government is so that people can mind each other's business, tell people who the "right" people are to help (and not help), and to basically keep in line "bad" people who think the wrong way. They force "shiny and happy".

If liberals think people are basically good, they sure do have a long list of "bad" people that need to be reeducated or die off.

[MechAg94]

I think the idea goes that if people are basically good, that means any evil they do is because of external corrupting influences such as a bad environment, poverty, a bad childhood, capitalism, etc, etc...  If people are basically good, then they cannot be forced to take responsibility for their bad deeds and if you just be nice to them and give them stuff, they will be good, shiny, happy people.  That doesn't mean people are naturally bad, just that we don't default to "good".  

Last I heard it discussed was an interview with Dennis Prager.  Here is a video of his that covers the basic issue pretty good.  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phwHEE-Zz_A

[Ron]

I don't know if I ever started a thread on that, like I planned to...(are people generally good?)

That could be an interesting discussion.

[Scout26]

It's not exclusive to politics either. People are opinionated, ignorant, and belligerent about pretty much everything on social media. You're lucky if a recipe for fruit cake cornbread doesn't start a flame war.

Fixed that for you.... (Narrator: It does.)

[Scout26]

This. It's like trying to get the money out of politics. Money is power, or it wouldn't be worth anything. How are you going to keep power out of politics?

Get the money out of government.  If there's no money there, no one will give a crap.

[Scout26]

I have to say that I've always carried the opposite theory (I'm open to being educated). Small government works because people are good. They mind their own business, they give to charity, they follow the golden rule. Big government is so that people can mind each other's business, tell people who the "right" people are to help (and not help), and to basically keep in line "bad" people who think the wrong way. They force "shiny and happy".

If liberals think people are basically good, they sure do have a long list of "bad" people that need to be reeducated or die off.

I agree with Ben.  People for the most part are good and try to do the right thing most times.   The problem with Big government is that people with bad intentions then have power (and remember that .gov is the monopoly on force) to enact their evil intentions.  Whereas if .gov is small and ineffectual, then should someone with evil intentions take over, there is very little they can do to make a small government harm the people. 

[Pb]

This. It's like trying to get the money out of politics. Money is power, or it wouldn't be worth anything. How are you going to keep power out of politics?

I think federalism is the best solution... when the states are in charge of the large majority of day-to-day affairs, people will have a larger influence on what those policies are, rather than having to force the whole nation into one scheme for welfare, education or health care....

It will also make it easy for people to move to the state that matches their values the most.

We actually used to have a system like that.   

[DittoHead]

Williamson is certainly familiar with being "deplatformed".

Republicans here are coming dangerously close to the Democrats’ game: abusing prosecutorial powers to bully their political opponents on issues such as climate change, under the transparent and risible pretense that they are investigating securities fraud or consumer-safety laws.

Earlier this year, I sat on a panel with Pete Wilson and a few other conservative activists. Wilson was part of Prager’s legal team. With me as the sole exception, the panel was unanimously in favor of regulating social-media companies in such a way as to keep them from disadvantaging conservative-leaning content. On what constitutional grounds? Somebody will think of one, I am sure. It was quite something to hear Republicans sounding like Elizabeth Warren on a trust-busting bender, but it is difficult to take seriously the proposition that what’s at work here is concern about monopoly power, Supreme Court precedents, or anything of the sort: This is about friends and enemies, and Republicans have decided that Silicon Valley is the enemy.

[MechAg94]

I agree with Ben.  People for the most part are good and try to do the right thing most times.   The problem with Big government is that people with bad intentions then have power (and remember that .gov is the monopoly on force) to enact their evil intentions.  Whereas if .gov is small and ineffectual, then should someone with evil intentions take over, there is very little they can do to make a small government harm the people.  

Bad people are often attracted to power.  If you concentrate it somewhere (BigGov), bad people will end up there no matter what your intentions.  

And IMO, people are not good for the most part and don't try to do the right thing most of the time.  IMO, people are for the most part TAUGHT to be good and TAUGHT to do the right thing most of the times.  They are taught that either by parents or by society in some way.  However, that doesn't mean everyone is taught the same way or they are taught at all.  And I think part that is also perception in that most people act that way when they know other people will notice.  It is what people do when no one else will find out that is the real test.  

[Ben]

It is what people do when no one else will find out that is the real test. 

Regardless of whether you are of the "people are good" or "people are bad" persuasion, this is very true.

[Scout26]

I don't understand why they don't use the 1A standard.  As long as you don't threaten to physically harm someone, then post away.  But it seems that if you post conservative/rightwing/libertarian ideas, then you get shut-down.  Prager University as an example.

I should be up to me as to whether I click on the InfoWars link/video/etc. or not.  (That would not, but I should still have the option.)

[bedlamite]

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/twitter-blocks-posts-that-use-phrase-illegal-alien-as-hateful-content/