Quote (Thor123422 @ 27 May 2020 06:00)

I was around for MySpace, and only barely missed Friendster.

Still, your point doesn't stand. There are dozens of websites that all fulfill similar functions and userbases. Facebook killed MySpace, but it hasn't killed Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, despite all of them having overlapping spheres such as posting and video hosting. Facebook also hasn't killed specific smaller flavors like LinkedIn, which to many people's distaste is becoming more facebook-like and less professional.

Quote

Trump was not stopped from voicing his opinion, was he? His message is still up for the world to see right?

Quote (Black XistenZ @ May 26 2020 11:14pm)

This is why I always emphasize that there is a monopoly for each different type of social media. A platform centered around short-messaging (twitter) and image-posting (instagram) is different from video-hosting (youtube) or a platform focused on the actual network aspect in 'social network' (facebook).

His free speech is not being stifled here, true. But like Goom said, Twitter is taking sides in what should be an open-ended public policy debate. Basically, they decided to exploit Trump's popularity and outreach to disseminate a partisan viewpoint with the same visibility and outreach, just because they can. They stopped being a content-neutral platform by interjecting themselves in such a partisan fashion.

Quote (Thor123422 @ May 26 2020 07:30pm)

Neutral fact checking is garbage fact checking. No facts will ever be entirely out of dispute.

Quote (Tyrantus @ May 26 2020 11:41pm)

It's pretty disingenuous to complain about the very thing he would love to enforce on his "enemies."

Quote (InsaneBobb @ May 27 2020 01:55am)

Are twitter and facebook platforms or publishers? If they're censoring, then they're a publisher, and deserve to be regulated by the FCC, the same as any other publisher, and liable for untoward use of their platform. If they're a platform and not a publisher, therefore not answerable for what they're used for, then they shouldn't be censoring based on any political ideology. Only that which is strictly illegal by US Law should be a consideration for removal, and even that not for "deletion" as that would be destruction of evidence, aka obstruction of justice.

If Social Media were to be judged as a publisher, then they can censor however they want. The problem comes in when they are acting as a publisher, but claiming the immunities of a platform.

Quote (Tyrantus @ May 27 2020 12:00am)

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/5/16855900/twitter-donald-trump-ban-explanation

Apparently Twitter agrees with your exact thoughts. He still should be subjected to fact-checking. He does sorta influence millions of lives.

Quote (InsaneBobb @ May 27 2020 02:19am)

That article is not agreement with my expressed opinion whatsoever. It doesn't address the overall whole.

You don't appear to know what you're talking about, so let me introduce you to the "platform vs publisher" argument:

Platform: A phone company provides a means for communication. Go back a few decades, and they're providing the PRIMARY means for communication. Now, people have used phones to arrange crimes, up to and including mass murder. The argument is whether the company should be held liable for the crimes committed as an accomplice, due to providing a platform where the crime(s) could be arranged. The obvious answer? No. People will speak to each other with or without that particular platform. Communications are paramount in a free society. Further, they are neither monitoring, nor censoring, nor even so much as adding input to these conversations. They're merely providing a platform for people to communicate with each other. They are not "profiting off of crime". They're profiting based on providing a platform for people to communicate.

Publisher: Newspapers have editors and such who specifically decide what can be printed. Thus, when a person submits say an OpEd, or an actual writer pens an article encouraging the public to go commit a crime (such as lynch your local black folk), then they have now incited criminal activity. And given that articles are WILLFULLY printed by the paper, nothing is "snuck through" but instead everything is printed by design, the paper, due specifically to their direct decision-making regarding the publishing of the material, are now liable for crimes committed as a result of their printing.

So, Facebook groups, for instance, have been used to organize riots, robberies, and even terrorist attacks. Should Facebook be held accountable for these actions? If they are a simple communication tool, free of censorship by the company, the simple and easy answer is "no". It is a function of law enforcement to discover these groups and accounts that are criminal in nature, and either infiltrate them, or legally request they be closed due to criminal activity. The same exact way phone lines or electrical lines would be cut by legal request from law enforcement. On the flipside, if Facebook is monitoring these groups and/or accounts and cherry picking which one can publish their content on this platform, then they're behaving the same as any other publisher. "We're sorry, your viewpoints, narrative, or activities aren't welcome in our paper, you're censored and/or banned."

So, when for instance Milo gave a bad review for a shit movie, and an actress in that movie went batshit crazy and started flinging "isms" and "ists" at him, and he said her acting and "jokes" in the movie were poor at best, and he was banned, this was a publisher's decision, not legally obligated follow through. When twitter itself chooses to "stick" a "fact check" that isn't even a fact check, merely an alternative opinion based on the same facts to his post, they're making the editorial decisions of a publisher, NOT taking the legally-obligated and requested via official channels actions of a "platform".

Once you understand the difference, and understand why platforms are NOT held accountable, while publishers ARE, then perhaps we can continue this discussion. For now, you're far too ignorant of the issues surrounding social media in general to put in an intelligent critique.

Note: This is part of why I don't have a twitter account, seldom post anything on the social media account I do have, and don't use things like Youtube as social media platforms. I'm fully away they're acting as publishers but receiving the protections of platforms.

Do I think twitter should be sticking anything to anyone's posts? No, never. They're classed as a platform. Only publishers, those subjected to oversight and regulation should have the right to pen "editor's notes". If Twitter wants to post their ideal of a fact check in response to his tweets, then they should do it not from a position of authority, but as a response to the tweet, the exact same as every other person who responds to every other tweet. Twitter and it's employees don't lose the right to freedom of speech based on being employed by the platform. But their speech is not, if it IS a platform, any more authoritative than anyone else's. :)

Quote (Tyrantus @ May 27 2020 12:34am)

I know enough to discern the difference between the "way it oughta be" and the "way it is". From now on, fact-checking will be the way it is. Just like it is, and has been for a while, on Facebook and others. Perhaps you could take your paragraphs to the people that actually work at Twitter and other platforms to try and change their minds. (Good luck.)

Otherwise, I'll continue to laugh every time something is erroneous and it is pointed out by the platformers. =)

Quote (InsaneBobb @ May 27 2020 02:41am)

So, you claim twitter "agrees" with me, and when it's clearly pointed out how they do no such thing, you dodge it.

Great stuff. You're smart. Nice helmet, bro!

And we'll see. Twitter has also chosen to ban progressive accounts for speech that was not unlawful. "How it is" regarding social media receiving the protections of a platform may very well change.

The left is incredibly notorious for eating it's own. And when too many progressives find their own content censored when no unlawful communication has taken place, the demand to regulate social media as a publisher will likely explode.

Your "the way it is" nonsense doesn't address that social media is still a relatively new phenomenon, half of legislators don't even understand it, so it's been mostly side-stepped. As were most tech platforms, initially.

Give it a couple more decades to be better understood, and the how the actions of the companies like Twitter and Facebook and Google who have captured the market share have utilized these so-called "platforms" to stifle free speech and/or insert their own views into other people's free speech, and it's all subject to change.

And LOL at the "paragraphs" comment. If you can't read, get off forums and go watch videos from your bubble, simpleton.