If you don't like something the solution is more regulation

[DireWolfM14]

Big social media platforms need to be called out for what they are.  The public needs to be informed that they are censoring information, and it's become pretty obvious to those of us with unpopular opinions. 

I think a clear distinction needs to be defined, are these companies publishers or utilities?  What makes a publisher?  Is it that they are actively filtering information?  Obviously, none of us want a free-for-all with all kinds of illegal and unethical shit posted on twitter or youtube, so at what point does their activity make them publishers?  Certainly a fair and equitable consensus can made. 

If they're going to be protected from the libel they must remain neutral.  Flagging posts you don't like for political reasons is not remaining neutral. 

Ironically the fact check that twitter applied to Trumps post is wrong according to the Texas Attorney General:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/texas-ag-ken-paxton-trump-is-right-and-twitter-is-wrong-is-saying-mail-in-ballot-fraud-is-a-real-problem

So, should twitter charged with libel in this situation?  Obviously what they did was misleading and false. 

[TECSHARE]

I see, so election interference is ok, as long as it benefits who you want it to benefit, is that it?

Please refrain from making shit up. No, election interference is not ok. Fact checking is ok. Switching to Facebook is ok if you don't like Twitter. Creating your own site is ok.

Yeah, right because how many people read whitehouse.gov?

https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/whitehouse.gov current rank #3,290

https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/twitter.com #48

Nobody "reads" the whole Twitter either. People follow content that they want on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, whatever. And Twitter has a lot more stuff on it than just Trump so obviously it's going to be more visited. But Trump could easily tweet "go to whitehouse.com to read my shit". It's not like opening twitter.com has Trump's shit on the front page anyway so he gets the exposure from elsewhere.

OOo you found a whole handful of them, I guess that means they aren't locked out, censored, silenced, and muted by all the most popular services claiming to be public forums while they act as publishers selecting who gets to have a voice. If any of you had a halfway decent argument you wouldn't be afraid to have an opposing viewpoint heard. The only people who rely on silencing opposition are ones who have no argument to stand on.

Not being popular doesn't mean you're censored. Breaking TOS of a service and getting banned doesn't mean you're censored. The government telling a private business what kind of content it must allow or not allow might be considered censorship.

I'd love to see this dispute in the Supreme Court. The pretzels of Trump-supporting free speech and anti-regulation advocates would be delicious.

Well then, I guess all you need to do is just yell "FACT CHECK!" before you burn the books containing the ideas you don't like then it makes it all A-OK! That is funny you think Facefuck is any different than Twatter, or that these companies aren't illegal monopolies that are impossible to compete against. Interesting you bring up the terms of service, because thousands of people who didn't even violate it are banned, censored, or muted in violation of that contractual agreement when not even violating any terms of the TOS. Kind of like when you see a drawing of one of your butt buddies getting made fun of and pretend it violates the rules to get it removed. There is so much wrong with what is going on here, but your pretend to not see it because you think it means you will get what you want. In the end you are going to get it in the end.

He could also have a rally, a press conference, he could write a book, address the nation from the oval office, he's got the State of the Union every year, he could pick whoever he wanted and give them an exclusive interview, he could write an op-ed, he could post on his campaign website, he could make a new website, he could create his own social network, he could make his own cable network (isn't that the plan?)  Should I go on?

I am sure you will regardless of the facts of the matter. You will note all of your examples are the equivalent of yelling out of a window in the middle of the night, while the platforms claiming to be for public use are broadcast into nearly every home globally onto multiple devices all day every day. They are not at all comparable.

Yeah.  They are comparable.  Few people in the world have a platform comparable to the President of America.  Just being the president is a platform.  If you don't like how Jack Dorsey runs the app that he literally built from scratch....go build your own or become a majority share holder?

You smug disingenuous cunts have no idea what you are doing. You think this serves you, but there is going to come a day when this machinery is turned upon you too, and then it will be too fucking late to do anything about it. It is too bad you all are too stupid to recognize a trap when you see one. Enjoy your cheese before you get your neck snapped.

Hey we're just having a discussion.  No need to get all worked up like that.

No, they aren't. Comparing regular people to the president and small reach venues to the instantaneous information superhighway is just completely disingenuous. These platforms are enjoying the protections of public platforms while operating as publishers free from liability. They are also operating as illegal monopolies, intentionally interfering with elections, and violating user agreements with their users. None of this is acceptable and they need to be held accountable.

Yeah, no need to get upset, you are only short sighted morons selling out the precious right of free speech, the linchpin to our free society, unique to the USA and nearly unheard of in human history because orange man bad. No big deal. You are cutting your own throats regardless if you comprehend that or not, unfortunately you are taking the rest of us with you.

[suchmoon]

Big social media platforms need to be called out for what they are.  The public needs to be informed that they are censoring information, and it's become pretty obvious to those of us with unpopular opinions. 

Only "big" ones?

These are basically on-demand services, they don't broadcast the same thing to everyone - users choose what they want to see, and there is no lack of "unpopular opinions" on those sites, or other sites all the way to 8chan or whatever it's called these days.

How far do we go with regulating the content? Should we mandate that comment sections of Fox News and Huffpost give equal space for all opinions or do we accept that there will be different moderation standards on different sites? Seems like the free market should sort out what kind of media is in demand. If someone wants Dorsey's sanitized vision of Twitter they'll use that and if someone wants Zuckerbook's Russian propaganda site they'll use that.

[TwitchySeal]

Ironically the fact check that twitter applied to Trumps post is wrong according to the Texas Attorney General:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/texas-ag-ken-paxton-trump-is-right-and-twitter-is-wrong-is-saying-mail-in-ballot-fraud-is-a-real-problem

So, should twitter charged with libel in this situation?  Obviously what they did was misleading and false.  

The Attorney General of Texas gave 3 main reasons on why he disagreed with Twitter regarding voter fraud and mail in ballots:

1)
In 2007 he heard a democratic lawmaker say during a debate:

Vote by mail, that we know, is the greatest source of voter fraud in this state. In fact, all of the prosecutions by the attorney general – I shouldn’t say all, but a great majority of the prosecutions by the attorney general occur with respect to vote by mail.

The AG went on to claim:
2)

These instances are just the tip of the iceberg. Mail ballot fraud has been documented across the country. In fact, the Heritage Foundation has helpfully assembled a searchable database of over 1,000 instances of election fraud resulting in some form of plea, penalty or judicial finding.

3)

As the official now charged with prosecuting election fraud in Texas, I can say unequivocally that the legislator was right: going back more than a decade and continuing through the present day, around two-thirds of election fraud offenses prosecuted by my office have involved some form of mail-ballot fraud.
These prosecutions include instances of forgery and falsification of ballots.

1) Hearing someone else make a claim 13 years ago during a debate is not evidence of anything.  Even if it were, he didn't mention who said it, or on what date it was said.
And the Heritage Foundation has a database of over 1,000 voter fraud convictions.


2) Here's the database he's referring to: https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
There are 1,285 proven instances of proven voter fraud.  This is every conviction the foundation could find going back over 30 years.
If you click 'all data', you can filter by type of fraud: https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?combine=&state=All&year=&case_type=All&fraud_type=24489

Absentee ballot fraud accounts for ~210 of the 1250 convictions.

3) According to the heritage database that he just mentioned, Texas has had 90 voter fraud based convictions.  35 of them are for fraudulent use of absentee ballots. This is far less than the 'around two-thirds' that he claimed.

I rule that the Texas AG's claim on voter fraud is:

[PrimeNumber7]

Social media companies, including Twitter have special protection from libel lawsuits under the law. Twitter's business model is based entirely on this special protection. I don't see why a company engaging in such blatant political activism should get special treatment under the law that is worth billions.

Case in point, yesterday, Mark Zuckerburg was interviewed on Fox News and said he didn't believe private companies should be arbiters of truth, and not long after "delete facebook" and other hashtags that reflect negatively on Facebook were trending on Twitter. I don't think Zuckerburg's position is radical enough that anyone would react by wanting to delete their Facebook account. I think more likely, someone at twitter put their thumb on the scale to make those hashtags trend. This is probably a good example as to why Twitter is a publisher.

The above special protection was intended to allow platforms to serve as a neutral place for people to voice their opinions, but Twitter especially is far from neutral.

Ignoring the executive order, what Twitter did was reckless, and was a major blow to its credibility as a platform. Tech companies in social media have been very profitable in recent years, with the exception of Twitter. Twitter has been focused on "orange man bad" and has been distracted from making money.

It is very difficult to catch specific cases of voter fraud because the standard is so low to vote in many areas (often you only need to state your name/address, which is public in voter registration rolls), and there is very little if any trace that fraud occurred after the fact. Often the only reason someone is convicted of voter fraud is they blabbed about what they did and were convicted based on their statements. Sometimes prosecutors will use voter records to confirm the statements are true, but someone looking at voter records alone would not produce evidence the person engaged in voter fraud.

[TwitchySeal]

Social media companies, including Twitter have special protection from libel lawsuits under the law. Twitter's business model is based entirely on this special protection. I don't see why a company engaging in such blatant political activism should get special treatment under the law that is worth billions.

Case in point, yesterday, Mark Zuckerburg was interviewed on Fox News and said he didn't believe private companies should be arbiters of truth, and not long after "delete facebook" and other hashtags that reflect negatively on Facebook were trending on Twitter. I don't think Zuckerburg's position is radical enough that anyone would react by wanting to delete their Facebook account. I think more likely, someone at twitter put their thumb on the scale to make those hashtags trend. This is probably a good example as to why Twitter is a publisher.

The above special protection was intended to allow platforms to serve as a neutral place for people to voice their opinions, but Twitter especially is far from neutral.

Ignoring the executive order, what Twitter did was reckless, and was a major blow to its credibility as a platform. Tech companies in social media have been very profitable in recent years, with the exception of Twitter. Twitter has been focused on "orange man bad" and has been distracted from making money.

Are you ok with twitter fact checking the Chinese government?  Or Trump blaming twitter for not deleting their tweets about the corona virus earlier?



I think I'm ok with them fact checking anyone that they decide to bend the rules on.  If Trump were treated as a normal Twitter user, he would've been banned long ago for threats of violence.  And probably for the Joe Scarborough killed his staffer bc he got her pregnant thing.

But I wish they would be consistent.

It is very difficult to catch specific cases of voter fraud because the standard is so low to vote in many areas (often you only need to state your name/address, which is public in voter registration rolls), and there is very little if any trace that fraud occurred after the fact. Often the only reason someone is convicted of voter fraud is they blabbed about what they did and were convicted based on their statements. Sometimes prosecutors will use voter records to confirm the statements are true, but someone looking at voter records alone would not produce evidence the person engaged in voter fraud.

You're right, I've never had to do anything other than give my name, address and a signature.
But it's even harder to prove that there is not wide spread election fraud.
1200 convictions over 30 years seems extremely low and basically irrelevant.

Trump claims as fact that 3-5 million votes were cast illegally in 2016 and they were all for Hillary.  That's a lie.
He claims as fact that the governor of CA is sending ballots to "anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there", that's not true.

[PrimeNumber7]

It is very difficult to catch specific cases of voter fraud because the standard is so low to vote in many areas (often you only need to state your name/address, which is public in voter registration rolls), and there is very little if any trace that fraud occurred after the fact. Often the only reason someone is convicted of voter fraud is they blabbed about what they did and were convicted based on their statements. Sometimes prosecutors will use voter records to confirm the statements are true, but someone looking at voter records alone would not produce evidence the person engaged in voter fraud.

You're right, I've never had to do anything other than give my name, address and a signature.
But it's even harder to prove that there is not wide spread election fraud.
1200 convictions over 30 years seems extremely low and basically irrelevant.

The The number of election fraud cases most likely is a very small percentage of total instances.

Trump claims as fact that 3-5 million votes were cast illegally in 2016 and they were all for Hillary.  That's a lie.

I am not sure what his source is on this claim. He tried to study election fraud early in his presidency, but democratic governors and secretaries of state would not corporate.

He claims as fact that the governor of CA is sending ballots to "anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there", that's not true.

The standard for registering to vote is very low in CA, and the number of registered voters is higher than it should be. It also allows for same-day registration if for some reason you thought you didn't need to register, and somehow did not get automatically registered to vote (multiple times); this was part of the rationale that Jack Dorsey gave to issuing the "fact check" on the tweets. CA most likely has a lot of registrations that are invalid/duplicate.

The specific claim may be inaccurate, but the correct metric is just as concerning.

I have read some articles about how political activists game the system. According to articles I have read, activists would send mail to every registered voter, and compile a list of mail that is returned for various reasons. They would then request absentee ballots for voters whose mail was returned and steal the ballots.

CA also allows for political activists to "gather" absentee ballots from people's homes, and deliver these ballots to election officials. The potential for abuse is huge. Activists could pressure people to vote a certain way. They could observe how a person vote, and "lose" ballots that don't contain the votes they want. They could collect ballots from voters with certain party affiliations and "lose" those ballots. The list goes on.

Are you ok with twitter fact checking the Chinese government?  Or Trump blaming twitter for not deleting their tweets about the corona virus earlier?

This is news to me.

If twitter wants to fact check tweets, they a) need to be accurate, b) need to be objective (the tweet history of the person in charge of site integrity shows he is incapable of being objective), c) need to be consistent across viewpoints and d) the fact checks should not contain opinions

I don't have a link to that tweet. What are the circumstances in which the warning was put on that tweet? It is my understanding tweets making the claim the coronavirus originated in the US by Chinese propaganda remained unencumbered for a long time.

[Gyfts]

Big social media platforms need to be called out for what they are.  The public needs to be informed that they are censoring information, and it's become pretty obvious to those of us with unpopular opinions.

Out of the top three platforms (Facebook, Insta, Twitter), firmly believe Twitter that's the only problem. Facebook and it's subsidiary Instagram have already taken approaches that don't include censorship and Zuckerberg has said it doesn't want Facebook to be the arbitrator of truth. It's not their place to do so. Twitter on the other hand is a leftist cesspool that is actually littered with communists. Their demographic is to the left and it's no surprise they suppress conservative voices.

I think a clear distinction needs to be defined, are these companies publishers or utilities?  What makes a publisher?  Is it that they are actively filtering information?  Obviously, none of us want a free-for-all with all kinds of illegal and unethical shit posted on twitter or youtube, so at what point does their activity make them publishers?  Certainly a fair and equitable consensus can made. If they're going to be protected from the libel they must remain neutral.  Flagging posts you don't like for political reasons is not remaining neutral.  

I agree with you that they need to be neutral but I don't consider Twitter publishers. Twitter does not endorse the content its users put out and anyone is free to sign up. They can't be held liable for the content their users post and they're a private company, so dabbling in the business of government intervention into these private companies is a huge mistake. Take Trump out of the picture and imagine the next democratic President and the potential abuses that could derive from a bad precedent like this. You can bet if Trump is successful in censoring Twitter that it's going to bite conservatives in the ass when Democrats use it to start censoring right wing media outlets.

[Naida_BR]

Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservative voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265601611310739456

That's right, let's close down businesses we don't like, fuck the constitution and all its amendments. A wonderful caricature of what the Republican party used to stand for... pretended to stand for... something like that.

Edit May 28: Trump has signed an executive order aimed at creating regulations for social media: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/

This is an old way for the governments to stop things that they do not like.
First they start with a lite regulation and then the regulation becomes harder.
One measure they use is also taxation... If they don't like something they raise taxes. An example is also, cryptocurrencies where they have made it difficult to the people that they are not involved in the crypto area to understand how to buy BTC or other currencies.

[suchmoon]

The above special protection was intended to allow platforms to serve as a neutral place for people to voice their opinions, but Twitter especially is far from neutral.

Here is CDA section 230, which is what Trump is trying to reinterpret with his executive order:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Which part of it requires moderation decisions to be neutral?

[amishmanish]

Jack Dorsey decided to risk it and be the guy who tells the big bully that he is an indecent asshole. Its just that the method he used turned out to be a self-goal. Trump's hurt ego wouldn't let this go.

The intent of the order per se doesn't seem all that bad considering the fact that a lot of people have been claiming censorship. The problem as usual is deciding what is right to be censored and what is wrong to be censored. This is where this should be an interaction between Twitter and the person/ organization being censored, with costs to both sides. These corporation shouldn't have unlimited powers to censor depending on their own viewpoints. The main thing in the executive order seems to be the definition of

" the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith”...if they are:
(B). taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard

I think it is duty of the platform to provide opportunity for explanation if they feel (or their algorithm decides) that some political opinion can be censored in good faith. Or whether some information is fake. Unilateral censorship is far easier to them as a company than actually trying to have a fair argument with these people with "differing opinions".It will take a lot of work, time and money to conclude what is right or what is wrong on a case-wise basis. Yet, Haven't these "Social Media" platforms (FB/Google/ Twitter) making millions by giving every idiot a megaphone to spout bullshit? If this "regulation" leads them to put more effort in actually verifying "fake news", well then, its oughtta be done.

Trump is a narcissistic asshole who has only shown the world that America isn't all that great indeed. America has long enjoyed a cultural hegemony through its widely prevalent media houses. Media houses like BBC, CNN highlight to not end that "Indians practice caste system, Women are treated unequally" but they do nothing to actually explore the biases and prejudices that lead a police officer to press a knee on to a man's neck for five minutes, choking him to death. To its credit, liberal media seems to stand for "humanist" values. Yet, it seems more like a propagation of consumerism with a focus on sexualizing everything. Encouraging a whole generation of young people that they must flaunt their bodies in the name of "liberation", Women should be "careerists" because male patriarchy etc. The liberal media can easily be blamed for raking up non-issues to boost consumerism. They aren't without blame completely and if this regulation leads to a little bit of self-correction, it wouldn't be all that bad.

In my opinion, lets just get rid of post 2000's social media so people can go back to talking confidently only about the shit they actually practice rather than saying the most wild-ass thing to cater to the prejudices and biases of society.

[PrimeNumber7]

The above special protection was intended to allow platforms to serve as a neutral place for people to voice their opinions, but Twitter especially is far from neutral.

Here is CDA section 230, which is what Trump is trying to reinterpret with his executive order:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Which part of it requires moderation decisions to be neutral?

(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity

The intent of the law is clearly that service providers should be neutral platforms. Twitter and others have hidden behind their ability to remove content they deem “objectionable”, however this is an incorrect reading of the law.

I am sure there is at least one person who is willing to say that Suchmoon is a thief (I have no reason to believe you are a thief). In an extreme example, if Twitter only allowed people to tweet that SM is a thief and tweets that say you are not are removed, they would and should be liable for damages (provided that saying SM is a thief is false and caused you damages). They would clearly be using editorial discretion.

Further, separate from section 230, the actions of Twitter likely qualifies as “in kind” political contributions, which has long been regulated and is subject to additional reporting requirements.

[BADecker]

The above special protection was intended to allow platforms to serve as a neutral place for people to voice their opinions, but Twitter especially is far from neutral.

Here is CDA section 230, which is what Trump is trying to reinterpret with his executive order:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Which part of it requires moderation decisions to be neutral?

(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity

The intent of the law is clearly that service providers should be neutral platforms. Twitter and others have hidden behind their ability to remove content they deem “objectionable”, however this is an incorrect reading of the law.

I am sure there is at least one person who is willing to say that Suchmoon is a thief (I have no reason to believe you are a thief). In an extreme example, if Twitter only allowed people to tweet that SM is a thief and tweets that say you are not are removed, they would and should be liable for damages (provided that saying SM is a thief is false and caused you damages). They would clearly be using editorial discretion.

Further, separate from section 230, the actions of Twitter likely qualifies as “in kind” political contributions, which has long been regulated and is subject to additional reporting requirements.

The platforms should divide their content into two parts:
1. Things that they readily accept;
2. Things that they would like to censor.

But they should let it all go through.

[suchmoon]

Which part of it requires moderation decisions to be neutral?

(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity

No one is disputing that the Internet as a whole offers diversity and whatnot. But this statement (in the "findings", not the "policy" BTW) definitely doesn't mean that every site must offer "true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity". If that were the policy then we should start by closing Bitcointalk since it doesn't have a knitting circle and a chess club.

I am sure there is at least one person who is willing to say that Suchmoon is a thief (I have no reason to believe you are a thief). In an extreme example, if Twitter only allowed people to tweet that SM is a thief and tweets that say you are not are removed, they would and should be liable for damages (provided that saying SM is a thief is false and caused you damages). They would clearly be using editorial discretion.

Twitter didn't remove Trumps tweets, he got triggered merely by the presence of other info next to his tweets, so your contrived example fails right there. If Twitter linked to a fact check proving that I am indeed a convicted thief (or not) I don't think I would have a case. If Twitter removed a tweet saying that I'm not a thief and threatening my accusers with violence I don't think I would have a case.


It quite surreal to have this discussion on a forum where most people (except for a few entitled assholes) seem to realize that if they don't like the way it's moderated they can go to Reddit or wherever.

Well, at least we'll have a lot of new government jobs to review every tweet and Bitcointalk post and judge their neutrality.

[BADecker]

If you don't like something the solution is more regulation.


This is exactly why the REAL crooks get into government.

[TECSHARE]

It quite surreal to have this discussion on a forum where most people (except for a few entitled assholes) seem to realize that if they don't like the way it's moderated they can go to Reddit or wherever.

You know what is really surreal? The actual entitled assholes in each and every one of these platforms telling you that you have the option of going to the other place with the same assholes who think they are entitled to tell you what you can and can not say. You are a mob of idiots cutting your own throats never once questioning your correctitude. Unfortunately you aren't going to realize this until just before you bleed out.

[suchmoon]

You know what is really surreal? The actual entitled assholes in each and every one of these platforms telling you that you have the option of going to the other place with the same assholes who think they are entitled to tell you what you can and can not say.

Since I already realize that I can do that, then someone telling me so wouldn't be surreal. A bit redundant perhaps.

You are a mob of idiots cutting your own throats never once questioning your correctitude. Unfortunately you aren't going to realize this until just before you bleed out.

Fascinating. Any chance you can get back on topic? How about limiting your outbursts to one vituperative diatribe per page, would that work for you?

If you don't like something the solution is more regulation.


This is exactly why the REAL crooks get into government.

Are you calling Trump a crook?

[BADecker]

If you don't like something the solution is more regulation.


This is exactly why the REAL crooks get into government.

Are you calling Trump a crook?

Did I call Trump a crook? Where? Got a link?     

[suchmoon]

Did I call Trump a crook? Where? Got a link?     

Sounded like it, that's why I'm asking. Trump is trying to implement regulation to deal with something he doesn't like, and you said that's why crooks get into government. So is he a crook or not?

[BADecker]

Did I call Trump a crook? Where? Got a link?     

Sounded like it, that's why I'm asking. Trump is trying to implement regulation to deal with something he doesn't like, and you said that's why crooks get into government. So is he a crook or not?

Think! There isn't anybody in the world that does 100% right or 100% wrong. Smart crooks make themselves look as good as they can, so that behind the scenes, they can get away with as much as they can.