it's a stupid gossip site for morons who want to partake in a stupid culture war. who cares about any of this anyways? just let twitter die and laugh when it does cause it'll be funny as fuck
Right and there was no suggestion the government was using the judicial branch to force twitter to do anything, it appears Twitter did this voluntarily & for added measure the democrats weren't in government at the time of the Hunter Biden tweet removal.You're both wrong, but smf is at least on the right track. The speech clause of the United States' 1A states that "Congress shall make no law...": but it has since morphed into a general free speech clause via the power of the judicial branch.
The particular example you were using was reported during the Trump administration, so the government didn't abuse it. What tweets did Trumps administration ask to be removed? That would seem more pertinent to your argument.Twitter shouldn’t have made the tool in the first place, and the government shouldn’t have abused it to remove inconvenient material from public discourse.
The report tool was used by both republicans and democrats (while they were either in or out of government) to highlight tweets that violated Twitters terms. It doesn't sound particularly fascist to want twitter to enforce it's terms, but if it is then both parties are facists. As is Twitter and Elon Musk for preventing Kanye posting swastikas.Indeed. But, as I said: fascists are gonna fascist. What's better for fascists to gain power with a constitution like the United States? Government control of corporations, or corporate control of government? It's the second option. Twitter's elite had discretion on what they did - which is why they complied only with requests from their little fascist buddies. If any non-fascists tried to even the score, they'd beat them down with the US Constitution.
The intersection of government and private business should be under non-stop scrutiny by the public at large. The state *shouldn’t be allowed* to suggest what content should be removed if there is no court ruling or warrant that makes the information unfit for dissemination. At present, there are precious few rules that restrict the government from influencing the flow of information online. In the past, when the government tried to influence what’s being printed (by private news corporations, I might add), the judiciary branch sided with the people. It is high time that social media reach the same point of reckoning. Nobody will convince me that such notifications weren’t considered to be threatening in nature if Twitter’s legal team was involved in the process - the possibility of being subject to legal repercussions must’ve been very real and on the table. From where I’m sitting, all I can see is a URL that the state wants to “go away” and a corporation going along with it. The tool very well may have been created in good faith, to allow the platform to better comply with the law, but I can’t help but feel that the danger and the potential for misuse is too great to ignore.Indeed. But, as I said: fascists are gonna fascist. What's better for fascists to gain power with a constitution like the United States? Government control of corporations, or corporate control of government? It's the second option. Twitter's elite had discretion on what they did - which is why they complied only with requests from their little fascist buddies. If any non-fascists tried to even the score, they'd beat them down with the US Constitution.
That *is* the reason, the government has no business highlighting or fast-tracking anything in that space.I'm not sure why you think a report tool shouldn't exist though, my understanding is that it was used to fast track tweets to be moderated as Twitter don't have enough employees to monitor them all.
Again, democrats weren't in government when the hunter biden tweets were reported.That *is* the reason, the government has no business highlighting or fast-tracking anything in that space.
I've never noticed anyone convince you of anything ever.Nobody will convince me that such notifications weren’t considered to be threatening in nature if Twitter’s legal team was involved in the process - the possibility of being subject to legal repercussions must’ve been very real and on the table. From where I’m sitting, all I can see is a URL that the state wants to “go away” and a corporation going along with it.
I don’t care which political party used the tool, I care that it exists and the state uses it. This isn’t about Trump or Biden, it’s about the state influencing moderation decisions with a dedicated tool explicitly created to highlight information the government wants to disappear from public discourse. Moderation decisions should be unbiased - a report made by a random user and a report made by the *government* do not carry the same weight.Again, democrats weren't in government when the tweets were reported.
It's dumb as fuck to say that as soon as you get into government you aren't allowed to report tweets that violate twitters terms of service.
Decisions were unbiased, the reports could be made by democrats and republicans. Random users are idiots, it is ridiculous to suggest that everyone should have the same access. You might feel shitty because they have more power than you, well that's just life. That certainly isn't a 1st amendment issue.I don’t care which political party used the tool, I care that it exists and the state uses it. This isn’t about Trump or Biden, it’s about the state influencing moderation decisions with a dedicated tool explicitly created to highlight information the government wants to disappear from public discourse. Moderation decisions should be unbiased - a report made by a random user and a report made by the *government* do not carry the same weight.
You can think that - my opinion on this is unshaken and will not change. The government shouldn’t be telling social media platforms which posts it thinks should be removed, for the same reason why it shouldn’t tell news agents which newspapers they should be selling or TV stations which programs they should be airing - that’s an interference in public discourse.Decisions were unbiased, the reports could be made by democrats and republicans.
WHEN THESE TWEETS WERE REPORTED, THE "STATE" WAS BUSY EATING CHICKEN WINGS AND GRABBING PUSSIES.
Crimes can and should be reported. On the flip side, if Joe Biden “called the police” and ordered them to “pacify” someone talking about something he didn’t like with no legal justification, yeah, I’d have a big problem with that.You'll be arguing Joe Biden can't call the cops to report a crime soon, because it's state interference. The police would feel threatened etc.
You're commenting on a thread about a situation when the government didn't tell social media platforms which they think should be removed. A point you repeatedly have refused to accept.You can think that - my opinion on this is unshaken and will not change. The government shouldn’t be telling social media platforms which posts it thinks should be removed,
The report portal has an explicit function. I oppose that function. The details are almost immaterial - to me, it’s the existence of that pipeline that’s the big story. We’ve known about it for a while, and we know Facebook has a similar system - this story only offers a glimpse into how it is (mis)used. That’s all there is to it. It is a loaded gun, one that can be pointed at anyone for any reason, and the government should not be allowed to wield it. The government is not a “typical user” - deciding what does and does not violate rules set out by a private company is not its job and it cannot do so without the appearance of impropriety. If actual users find something worthy of reporting, they can do so - the government should not without an accompanying legal justification.You're commenting on a thread about a situation when the government didn't tell social media platforms which they think should be removed. A point you repeatedly have refused to accept.
But you're entitled to your opinion, it doesn't mean it violates the 1st amendment.
All the made up stuff about legal threats doesn't help your argument either.
A DMCA takedown request and a "report tweet that violates twitter terms portal" are two entirely different things.
So you've known about it for a while, but you only think it's worth mentioning when hunter biden is attached to it.The report portal has an explicit function. I oppose that function. The details are almost immaterial - to me, it’s the existence of that pipeline that’s the big story. We’ve known about it for a while, and we know Facebook has a similar system - this story only offers a glimpse into how it is (mis)used. That’s all there is to it. It is a loaded gun, one that can be pointed at anyone for any reason, and the government should not be allowed to wield it. The government is not a “typical user” - deciding what does and does not violate rules set out by a private company is not its job and it cannot do so without the appearance of impropriety. If actual users find something worthy of reporting, they can do so - the government should not without an accompanying legal justification.
https://www.businessinsider.com/fac...-to-request-content-be-suppressed-2022-11?amp
Only if he's in a sexy bikiniApparently... Republicans who scream "NO HOMO!" all the time, really -really- want to see Hutner's dick pics.
Aw fuck yea Oreo's. I like the Vannila ones better, the chocklate cookies are shit in my opinionProve it.
And I’ve had a problem with it for a while also. I don’t care about the specific story being memory holed, I care that the government has a pipeline it can use to influence moderators.So you've known about it for a while, but you only think it's worth mentioning when hunter biden is attached to it.
The government shouldn’t be doing that, and should not be using the portal. That is not its job.The government isn't deciding whether it's does or does not violate the rules. The portal merely points the twitter employees at the tweets, the portal isn't limited to the government.
Actual users with actual accounts on the platform, not the government. I’ll ignore the rest of the statement since it’s make-believe."actual users"? You mean you want any republican imbecile to be able to sit there reporting any tweet they don't like just to tie the twitter employees up in knots.
That’s not an “issue”, that’s a well-justified check on the power of the government. It shouldn’t, and was never intended to, control speech. Any attempts, no matter how minuscule, of exerting pressure on public discourse when no laws were violated should be squashed immediately.The issue with 1st amendment is it assumes the government are the bad guys and the normal people can't do any particular harm by talking.
There’s a built-in system for updating the Constitution, should it need updating. In the case of the 1st, it does not - the sentiment is pretty clear, and it’s “hands off”.It's woefully outdated & if they were writing the constitution and amendments now they would write them differently for sure.
If there was actual evidence of that, then sure.
The way the republicans have acted over hunter biden's laptop makes me think there is nothing to see.
It's not. The speech was allowed, they weren't prosecuted for it. The first amendment doesn't say anything about deleting social media content.
The reporting system was used by democrats and republicans.
AFAICT it was voluntarily set up by Twitter.
Whether you think it's ok or not is irrelevant to whether it's a 1st amendment issue.
When the hunter biden tweet was removed in 2020, the democrats weren't in government. What "or else" are you imagining?
You clearly don't understand tampering.
Now you're trying to assume shit and attempting defamation against me. People get sued over that shit, you know. Alex Jones is a fine example of that.
Ultimately it makes no difference though, it's up to the business in question whether they follow through on any given report. Even Musk can't afford to have conservatives plastering Hunter's dick pics all over Twitter. There's always going to be a need for a line drawn in the sand, and new Twitter is slowly working itself back to the exact same place old Twitter was in that regard.a report made by a random user and a report made by the *government* do not carry the same weight.
Ultimately it makes no difference though, it's up to the business in question whether they follow through on any given report. Even Musk can't afford to have conservatives plastering Hunter's dick pics all over Twitter. There's always going to be a need for a line drawn in the sand, and new Twitter is slowly working itself back to the exact same place old Twitter was in that regard.
I've seen the photos of him with the crack cocaine.Nobody's come forward with the pedo evidence. That's why.You said that you don't care about Biden's private life and you use phrasing that suggests that being a "cokehead" is the concern, and not the pedophilia.
I've seen the photos of him with the crack cocaine.Nobody's come forward with the pedo evidence. That's why.