Trump Launches Website to Report Social Media Censorship

[SG854]

I thought I was done talking about Trump but I found this interesting. Trump launches a website where if you feel you are being censored unjustly for your beliefs you can report it.

Source
YouTube Video



The White House also refused International Call for Media Censorship from 18 governments saying it’s a matter of free speech concerns.

Source

 

[notimp]

This should be fun.

 

[SG854]

This should be fun.

Indeed


They now can quantify if this is a big or a small issue. If people are over exaggerating or not. Many smaller accounts on a few social media sites are saying they got shut down and don’t know why, even when they follow rules. And we don’t hear about it since they are smaller, they just brush it off aside and forget about it.

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

Social media websites censor users and then there's this.. It's a mess either way. I left Twitter like two years ago and never really liked Facebook to join it.

Most social communities online are toxic so you need to be careful which one you are willing to take part in.

 

[Burlsol]

These sites are privately owned. Free Speech protections do not apply for very good reason.

 

[notimp]

They now can quantify if this is a big or a small issue. If people are over exaggerating or not. Many smaller accounts on a few social media sites are saying they got shut down and don’t know why, even when they follow rules. And we don’t hear about it since they are smaller, they just brush it off aside and forget about it.

Havent thought about it from that angle - but if thats where you are coming from, a facebook co founder already has your solution:
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/9/1...s-hughes-breakup-regulation-ftc-us-government

(Facebook too powerful, does what it wants (two speps forward violating privacy rights, one step back excusing themselves profusely), no public accountability, bias towards "promoting what sells", having an issue with counterspeech to even be visible - for any issue. Needs to be broken up. Also constantly lies about the viability of AI for their platform policing. Of course while not making algorithms public. So doing fb censorship watch is kind of a logical conclusion from that angle.

To be honest, I'm so over them as a platform...

Politicians dont tend to agree though, because to the its a tool for public relations. Just as cynical - because also micro targeted.)

 

[SG854]

These sites are privately owned. Free Speech protections do not apply for very good reason.

That argument might not hold water anymore. There was a case a while back (I forgot the name of it, I’ll have to re-track it down) where government ruled in favor of the 1st amendment over privately owned companies. So this sets precedent of the what they will do about free speech.


The problem with free speech in privately owned social media is that internet is a recent new thing, so government doesn’t really know what to do about it. But they are becoming too big and too influential especially over politics to be ignored. They can sway elections in a big way. Lots of people get information from Twitter. People are debating whether it should be seen as a public utility and then regulated with free speech protections.

Havent thought about it from that angle - but if thats where you are coming from, a facebook co founder already has your solution:
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/9/1...s-hughes-breakup-regulation-ftc-us-government

(Facebook too powerful, does what it wants (two speps forward violating privacy rights, one step back excusing themselves profusely), no public accountability, bias towards "promoting what sells", having an issue with counterspeech to even be visible - for any issue. Needs to be broken up. Also constantly lies about the viability of AI for their platform policing. Of course while not making algorithms public. So doing fb censorship watch is kind of a logical conclusion from that angle.

To be honest, I'm so over them as a platform...

Politicians dont tent to agree though, because to the its a tool for public relations. Just as cynical - because also micro targeted.)

Jack Dorsey himself said that Twitter has a problem where their rules targets 1 side more then the other. And admits they have a problem they need to address. But I have yet still to see them do anything about it.

 

[Clydefrosch]

millions of eyes rolling unconrollably.

because that's the type of problem that -TRULY- requires the president to launch a website to take action...
i hope people use it to report actual problems, like that suicide plan for the economy...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Jack Dorsey himself said that Twitter has a problem where their rules targets 1 side more then the other. And admits they have a problem they need to address. But I have yet still to see them do anything about it.

i think you misunderstood the problem there.
the algorithm indeed would target one side more likely, but not because it's biased against that side, but because that side has a much bigger habit of writing stuff that is objectively against their terms of service.

which is why they're not employing that algorithm. which feels kind of bullshitty. but isn't surprising at all, jack has always made sure that white nationalists can feel at home on his platform...


so basically, their current actions are much more in favor of that one side. people can call for the most thinly veiled genocide without issue, but dare pointing out how much of a nazi that makes them and you're in 'give us your phone number' purgatory.

 

[SG854]

millions of eyes rolling unconrollably.

because that's the type of problem that -TRULY- requires the president to launch a website to take action...
i hope people use it to report actual problems, like that suicide plan for the economy...

If free speech wasn’t such a problem then we wouldn’t have a first amendment to protect it.


Banning people is a bad idea, because that would shut down dissenting opinions, radicalize people because they would have no where turn and the only people that would accept them would be racist white nationalist, justify their anger and justify they are being targeted and shut down. This is what Jack Dorsey also said was a problem he didn’t want happen.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

millions of eyes rolling unconrollably.

because that's the type of problem that -TRULY- requires the president to launch a website to take action...
i hope people use it to report actual problems, like that suicide plan for the economy...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



i think you misunderstood the problem there.
the algorithm indeed would target one side more likely, but not because it's biased against that side, but because that side has a much bigger habit of writing stuff that is objectively against their terms of service.

which is why they're not employing that algorithm. which feels kind of bullshitty. but isn't surprising at all, jack has always made sure that white nationalists can feel at home on his platform...


so basically, their current actions are much more in favor of that one side. people can call for the most thinly veiled genocide without issue, but dare pointing out how much of a nazi that makes them and you're in 'give us your phone number' purgatory.

Against terms of service Jack Dorsey himself said is flawed.

 

[Clydefrosch]

If free speech wasn’t such a problem then we wouldn’t have a first amendment to protect it.


Banning people is a bad idea, because that would shut down dissenting opinions, radicalize people because they would have no where turn and the only people that would accept them would be racist white nationalist, justify their anger and justify they are being shut down. This is what Jack Dorsey also said was a problem he didn’t want happen.

free speech means you can't be persecuted by the government for your opinion or you voicing that opinion.

it doesn't mean you have a constitutional right to make any platform your platform or that everyone needs to listen to your bs.

this is not about freedom of speech is the point. literally nothing that would ever be reported to that side will even tangentially clash with the first amendment.

 

[SG854]

free speech means you can't be persecuted by the government for your opinion or you voicing that opinion.

it doesn't mean you have a constitutional right to make any platform your platform or that everyone needs to listen to your bs.

this is not about freedom of speech is the point.

You are more focused on Racist White Nationalist. And nobody likes them. They have no governmental or social support. I’m talking more about one political side being targeted because of rules they set up that doesn’t respect their political beliefs that are not as extreme as a White Nationalist.

 

[zomborg]

I'm very impressed. Yes yes, I know. fb is privately owned and supposedly the first amendment doesn't apply (which I disagree with) but hopefully this will be the beginning of finally being able to reign in those wild horses (fb, Twitter, etc)
Major problem is they can and have influenced elections and popular opinion.
From where I sit it's a brilliant move on Trumps part

 

[SG854]

I'm very impressed. Yes yes, I know. fb is privately owned and supposedly the first amendment doesn't apply (which I disagree with) but hopefully this will be the beginning of finally being able to reign in those wild horses (fb, Twitter, etc)
Major problem is they can and have influenced elections and popular opinion.
From where I sit it's a brilliant move on Trumps part

The fact that the White House declined the international call for social media censorship because it violates the first amendment rights shows that they take action and are not all talk.

 

[Clydefrosch]

You are more focused on Racist White Nationalist. And nobody likes them. They have no governmental or social support. I’m talking more about one political side being targeted because of rules they set up that doesn’t respect their political beliefs that are not as extreme as a White Nationalist.

i know that's what you're talking about. but it's not the reality of things. that's the false pretense that racists and white nationalists on twitter want you to believe.

neither facebook, nor twitters rules target conservatives arguing conservative politics and viewpoints any more or less than they target liberals arguing libteral politcs or viewpoints.
but they do target people inciting violence against say migrants. the same they would target anyone inciting violence against literal nazis. or republicans.

here's the thing: if you're 'conservative' and a racist and you share both sides of your character on twitter, being 'conservative' can not be a shield that protects you against punshment for racism.
though in jacks eyes, it should be.



and you know why this is an issue for trump? and one that he is blowing out of propotions like this? with an official meeting to complain to Jack personally? and a website? and a string of tweets by the president who has cast out journalists and news organizations from presidential press meetings, insisting there is a constitutional crisis happening?

because he's angry that his follower count fluctuates when racists and bots are deleted once in a blue moon.
a thing that happens, not because twitter targets conservatives (on the contrary) but because, and it shouldn't surprise you, bots and nationalists and racists are a seizable part of his online support base.

 

[tech3475]

I wonder how long before the internet takes the p*** out of it and crashes it?

 

[Clydefrosch]

one more thing to think about.
you know who also 'censors' opposing views on their websites with a passion?
right wing media like breitbart.
and right-leaning subreddits.
and right-leaning facebook groups.


but i have a feeling, even if the overwhelming number of reports were made for those places, it wouldn't be what this administration would focus on...

 

[Joe88]

one more thing to think about.
you know who also 'censors' opposing views on their websites with a passion?
right wing media like breitbart.
and right-leaning subreddits.
and right-leaning facebook groups.


but i have a feeling, even if the overwhelming number of reports were made for those places, it wouldn't be what this administration would focus on...

Two of those arnt even social media.
This more has to do with the companies themselves censoring content not the random people running the groups, ie: facebook removing right leaning groups or not allowing the groups to show up in searches, etc...

I can also create list of 100 far left sites that censor other opinions into oblivion, but it has nothing to do with this.

 

[Clydefrosch]

Two of those arnt even social media.
This more has to do with the companies themselves censoring content not the random people running the groups, ie: facebook removing right leaning groups or not allowing the groups to show up in searches, etc...

I can also create list of 100 far left sites that censor other opinions into oblivion, but it has nothing to do with this.

the point being that on one side of the spectrum, 'censoring' happens to suppress things like racism. and on the other side of the spectrum, it happens to suppress actual legitimate opinion.

 

[zomborg]

the point being that on one side of the spectrum, 'censoring' happens to suppress things like racism. and on the other side of the spectrum, it happens to suppress actual legitimate opinion.

But what if you are a conservative who is not racist and whose only offense, for example was having a picture of the cross as your profile picture?

Believe it or not my friend but by the 1990s or perhaps earlier, most conservatives had moved past racism. It's only resurfaced in recent years in an attempt to divide.

When I talk to my average black fellow citizen in the deep south they know nothing about all of these stories being propagated to stir people up. We are just as friendly as always.

 

[The Real Jdbye]

I don't think people submitting reports on this website is gonna make any difference whatsoever. But hey, it was a nice sentiment. I guess Trump's not all bad. Just mostly bad.