Not like this wasn’t in the news for quite awhile following Twitter’s partisan censorship.
Congratulations! You found one. Is it not clear why they might pull an unverified report?
That’s fine in a thread about politics. But a political rant in a thread about, say, the latest Star Wars movie, just makes everyone who actually wants to talk about the movie quit in disgust.
When I talk about my favorite musicians, and I do that a lot on Twitter, I do not want to hear about politics in any form.
“Wahhh. I’m not allowed to post white power, Nazi bullshit. Wahh. I’m not allowed to post deadly misinformation about a pandemic. Wahhh.”
Save it for people who care. About your opinions, we don’t.
It’s not their job to selectively censor based on partisan bias. Well, perhaps it is their job but that’s why those who believe in fundamental freedoms disagree with the approach of such a powerful corporation.
‘we’? How presumptuous.
And who exactly are you quoting?
Which they admitted was wrong and reversed themselves on. What else you got?
Which is why we need to take the power away from big corporations and… give it to literally the richest person to ever live?
Since when has “the ability for corporations and other groups to spend money as they wish…including the creation of content that has a clear political purpose” been a problem for you?
Stranger
Since they got woke and grew a spine.
I don’t get that for a couple of reasons. Twitter is a private company, and a conservative mainstay is that private business should be allowed to do what they want (like refuse to make cakes for certain people), and Elon sure as hell subscribes to the thought that no one gets to tell you how to run your business.
So when Twitter does what they want, why’s it an outrage? The same billions that would buy Twitter could start a rival that the oppressed can flock to in droves. Competition is what it’s all about, right?
Second - haven’t their been rumblings about holding social media legally responsible for misinformation posted on their platforms?
Pretty good find and I still agree with that to the extent that a particular corporation isn’t claiming to be a platform. One should be able to publish or not what one would wish. One should be able to bake the cakes or not as one wishes. But when a corporation has few if any competitors in a space and also pretends to be a neutral platform but acts in a partisan form I feel that it’s fair to be able to critique that.
That’s pretty funny but it’s a bit farcical to claim jumping on the PC bandwagon is growing a spine.
Standing up to racist, misogynistic, misanthropic bullies is growing a spine.
I’m trying to read the text but I see are flailing tentacles.
Stranger
It’s one milistranger of a post. It shouldn’t be TLDR.
I mostly agree with this, although I don’t put freedom of visual expression (whether cakemaking or pornography) in the same category as freedom of speech. Baking, like publicly distributed explicit sex video, are both reasonably regulated by a government that cares about values. Want to present discrimination against gays, or violent sex, in a exciting or positive light? I hope you do not, but if you must, stick to text.
One thing about Twitter is — you can post there just like you do here. This might be debatable, but I think you can probably get away with a bit more over there than here.
Also, although I think privately owned forums should, of their own volition, tolerate a wide range of views, it would be much worse if government tried to enforce this.
As for Musk, he might let Trump come back, but only only so long as he plays by Elon’s rules. Consider:
Timeouts for Trump. How does that sound to conservatives?
Musk has saved billions on advertising (versus competitors) by occasionally saying or behaving in ways designed to attract attention and that some people find shocking. Although the strategy saves money and has become more popular following Trump, that does not mean I have to like it. I don’t Twit. The questionable legitimacy offered by prominent people trolling just seems to bring out the worst in some people with more venom and fewer skills.
People should be able to speak freely. In private conversations. They should also be able to speak freely in public. And be held responsible for what they say when it is clearly unreasonable to expect a degree of privacy.
I do not think partisan bias should be a basis for censorship. I do think intolerance can be. This can be pretty hard to define, obviously. Yet they seem to manage it tolerably well at the SDMB. And they do not (yet) have the funding and dominance of major influential tech companies.
This is not sophisticated analysis but it makes me laugh.
Too bad Republicans have spent the last forty years gutting anti-trust laws, otherwise we might have been able to do something about this.