Twitter

[Mr. Deez]

All they are gonna do is make him into a martyr. We all know, by simple comparison to stuff they have allowed, that this isn't about principles.

And that's the problem with turning the Capitol Riot into a Reichstag Fire moment. Nobody believes it's being done in good faith, because they haven't been consistent.

In addition, though the First Amendment doesn't apply to tech companies, having a legal First Amendment loses a lot of its value if we don't have a culture of free speech. The "election is rigged" myth caused violence. However, many myths have caused violence. We had riots this summer based on a lot of misinformation. We had riots in Ferguson based on "hands up don't shoot." That had no more truth to it than the "election is rigged." Did we shut anything down for it? No. We never even considered it. We have people on Twitter calling for a literal second Holocaust. They don't do a damn thing about it, because of who it's coming from.

Also, nobody thinks this will stop with talk of election rigging. The tech bros haven't fostered the credibility for people to believe they won't be one sided.

 

[Mr. Deez]

@horninchicago , do I get credit for disagreeing with Husker on this?

 

[Seattle Husker]

And that's the problem with turning the Capitol Riot into a Reichstag Fire moment. Nobody believes it's being done in good faith, because they haven't been consistent.

In addition, though the First Amendment doesn't apply to tech companies, having a legal First Amendment loses a lot of its value if we don't have a culture of free speech. The "election is rigged" myth caused violence. However, many myths have caused violence. We had riots this summer based on a lot of misinformation. We had riots in Ferguson based on "hands up don't shoot." That had no more truth to it than the "election is rigged." Did we shut anything down for it? No. We never even considered it. We have people on Twitter calling for a literal second Holocaust. They don't do a damn thing about it, because of who it's coming from.

Also, nobody thinks this will stop with talk of election rigging. The tech bros haven't fostered the credibility for people to believe they won't be one sided.

Is anyone else having trouble reconciling the "frredom of speech" screams with the "remove section 230" screams? If you make Twitter responsible for what is being said, incited, or planned do you think we'll see more censorship or less without section 230?

From my perspective, Big Tech is aggressively trying to stop the next Kenosha planning or Kristi Wittmer kindnapping. We have a literal arsonist in the Whitehouse playing with matches all to serve some deep seded narcissism.

These platforms have been greatly criticized for allowing hate groups, white supremacists and others to fester using their platforms. They are finally stepping up to the plate.

Clearly Twitter has different rules for International leaders than within the US. Would I like them to censure China and Iran too? Yes. Does that mean they shouldn't crackdown on right-wing extremists in their own backyard? No.

Twitter has suspended Antifa and BLM accounts in the past. The difference here is that you don't have anyone joyously posting their suspension on West Mall. Clearly nobody on the left is as influential as Trump that has been permanently suspended. We're in uncharted waters here. We've also not had a POTUS hell bent on leveraging populism for the means of a coup like we just witnessed.

 

[UTChE96]

It's quite Orwellian to watch Apple, Google, and Amazon collude so efficiently to destroy a media outlet such as Parler. Apple and Google are a classic oligopoly at this point that need to be dealt with.

 

[theiioftx]

Dictators in other countries can tweet, but not conservatives in the US. Makes sense.

 

[horninchicago]

@horninchicago , do I get credit for disagreeing with Husker on this?

I have him on Ignore, so if you did, I wasn't aware. But yes, you are growing as a person if so.

 

[mchammer]

 

[Mr. Deez]

Is anyone else having trouble reconciling the "frredom of speech" screams with the "remove section 230" screams? If you make Twitter responsible for what is being said, incited, or planned do you think we'll see more censorship or less without section 230?

I favor eliminating Section 230, because I'm not a fan of special tort immunity in general. If you want to make products and sell them to the public, then you should make them safe for ordinary use. If you don't want the liabilities that come with being a publisher, then don't act like a publisher.

Most on the Right favor getting rid of it for a different reason. They want it gone, because they don't see consistency in how the rules are applied. I think they know it would mean more censorship, but they assume it would mean greater consistency. I honestly don't know if it actually would, but it would cut the social media giants down to size. And I think that's the point.

From my perspective, Big Tech is aggressively trying to stop the next Kenosha planning or Kristi Wittmer kindnapping.

I don't see a lot of evidence of them cracking down on what happened in Kenosha. Do they fact check "hands up don't shoot" and other myths? I don't see a lot of that done on the Left.

These platforms have been greatly criticized for allowing hate groups, white supremacists and others to fester using their platforms. They are finally stepping up to the plate.

Again, it's the inconsistency that bugs people, and it's the fear that they won't stop with people everybody agrees to be white supremacists. People on the Right are called white supremacists and racists without evidence everyday. Why should they assume that they won't be treated like white supremacists? Remember, the same Mitt Romney who's bring rightly praised for condemning Trump was gonna to put black people back into chains just 8 years ago.

Clearly Twitter has different rules for International leaders than within the US. Would I like them to censure China and Iran too? Yes. Does that mean they shouldn't crackdown on right-wing extremists in their own backyard? No.

Why should they have different rules? They're a US company. They don't have to tolerate latter-day Hitlers just because they're coming from Islamic nations. You either take a principled stance against hate speech, or you don't. You can't be selective based on what country it's coming from and claim moral authority.

Twitter has suspended Antifa and BLM accounts in the past. The difference here is that you don't have anyone joyously posting their suspension on West Mall.

Suspended for what? Was everybody who said to "burn it down" banned? That kind of talk is much closer to actual incitement than anything said by Trump. And that's not a defense of Trump. He should be impeached for what he said and did, but those who called for, justified, or rationalized violence all summer long are not in a position to lecture or censor anybody.

Clearly nobody on the left is as influential as Trump that has been permanently suspended.

Probably nobody ona singular level is more influential, but is the collective left more influential on social media than the collective right? Yes.

For me, I take a different approach. I stand by rationale of people like Justice Louis Brandeis. The remedy to bad or inaccurate speech is accurate and good speech. It isn't repression or censorship. That actually gives unearned and unjustified credibility to the bad speech. Why? Because if the bad speech is really so bad, we should be able to discredit it. We shouldn't have to censor it.

 

[mchammer]

I favor eliminating Section 230, because I'm not a fan of special tort immunity in general. If you want to make products and sell them to the public, then you should make them safe for ordinary use. If you don't want the liabilities that come with being a publisher, then don't act like a publisher.

Most on the Right favor getting rid of it for a different reason. They want it gone, because they don't see consistency in how the rules are applied. I think they know it would mean more censorship, but they assume it would mean greater consistency. I honestly don't know if it actually would, but it would cut the social media giants down to size. And I think that's the point.



I don't see a lot of evidence of them cracking down on what happened in Kenosha. Do they fact check "hands up don't shoot" and other myths? I don't see a lot of that done on the Left.



Again, it's the inconsistency that bugs people, and it's the fear that they won't stop with people everybody agrees to be white supremacists. People on the Right are called white supremacists and racists without evidence everyday. Why should they assume that they won't be treated like white supremacists? Remember, the same Mitt Romney who's bring rightly praised for condemning Trump was gonna to put black people back into chains just 8 years ago.



Why should they have different rules? They're a US company. They don't have to tolerate latter-day Hitlers just because they're coming from Islamic nations. You either take a principled stance against hate speech, or you don't. You can't be selective based on what country it's coming from and claim moral authority.



Suspended for what? Was everybody who said to "burn it down" banned? That kind of talk is much closer to actual incitement than anything said by Trump. And that's not a defense of Trump. He should be impeached for what he said and did, but those who called for, justified, or rationalized violence all summer long are not in a position to lecture or censor anybody.



Probably nobody ona singular level is more influential, but is the collective left more influential on social media than the collective right? Yes.

For me, I take a different approach. I stand by rationale of people like Justice Louis Brandeis. The remedy to bad or inaccurate speech is accurate and good speech. It isn't repression or censorship. That actually gives unearned and unjustified credibility to the bad speech. Why? Because if the bad speech is really so bad, we should be able to discredit it. We shouldn't have to censor it.

And the DC police shouldn’t have screwed up by minimizing their presence. If there were enough deterrence, the protestors wouldn’t be in the capitol. So, was the problem free speech or someone screwed up with a rally of 400k protestors who were planning to march to the capital? What’s next ? Banning assembly for folks who are conservative?

 

[horninchicago]

And the DC police shouldn’t have screwed up by minimizing their presence. If there were enough deterrence, the protestors wouldn’t be in the capitol. So, was the problem free speech or someone screwed up with a rally of 400k protestors who were planning to march to the capital? What’s next ? Banning assembly for folks who are conservative?

I saw video, pretty sure it was linked somewhere on here, of the Capitol Police moving barriers aside to allow people to pass by. Then, they say those same people "stormed" the building? Certainly, it seems from videos, there were some idiots who did damage. But again, none of the media and liberals who embraced the destruction of property in Seattle, Portland, and the cities, have jack **** to say about that because of their coverage of the aforementioned destruction in those cities.

Remember the BLM or Antifa people saying it's only property, so who cares? But these people who hate the government now suddenly find the Capitol to be some sacred ground? What a load of ********.

 

[nashhorn]

Banning assembly for folks who are conservative?

yep

 

[horninchicago]

 

[2003TexasGrad]

Yep. Twitter and Facebook have hardly acted equitably (to use a favorite leftist term) in their handling of inciteful or hateful speech. It's utterly laughable to argue otherwise.

 

[horninchicago]

Yep. Twitter and Facebook have hardly acted equitably (to use a favorite leftist term) in their handling of inciteful or hateful speech. It's utterly laughable to argue otherwise.

But, they will....

 

[PecosBill]

Stacey Abrams lost the GA Gov race to Kemp with many, many irregularities that SofS Kemp ignored. Two years later GA goes blue with EC to Biden and 2 incumbent Republican US Senators defeated swinging the US Senate to Democrat control.
Gov Kemp should be preparing for a competitive Gov election in 2022 when Abrams runs against him.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Gov Kemp should be preparing for a competitive Gov election in 2022 when Abrams runs against him.

And Trump uses his $250M war chest gained on the back of "stolen election" claims to be Political Executioner for anyone he holds a grudge against. Before he was muted, he openly claimed he would work against Kemp.

As an aside, WSJ is reporting that the Northern GA Federal Attorney was pressured to resign by the Whitehouse because he wouldn't do their bidding.

Trump deserves the Rob Blagojevich treatment after his shameful antics in GA.

 

[WorsterMan]

And Trump uses his $250M war chest gained on the back of "stolen election" claims to be Political Executioner for anyone he holds a grudge against. Before he was muted, he openly claimed he would work against Kemp.

As an aside, WSJ is reporting that the Northern GA Federal Attorney was pressured to resign by the Whitehouse because he wouldn't do their bidding.

Trump deserves the Rob Blagojevich treatment after his shameful antics in GA.

You dont care that Northern GA Fed Atty DIDN'T DO HIS JOB?

He took no action to stop an illegal and fraudulent election & certification, because you like the results of the election in GA.

He should resign.

 

[Seattle Husker]

You dont care that Northern GA Fed Atty DIDN'T DO HIS JOB?

He took no action to stop an illegal and fraudulent election & certification, because you like the results of the election in GA.

He should resign.

Nice claim you have there. Have any facts or evidence to back it up? Not holding my breath.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Let's talk for a minute about what Twitter was responding when they said they were permanently suspending Trump do to his behavior on the platform but also how his tweets were being received off the platform.

Here is an example of Parler.


It should be noted that this **** was RAMPANT leading up to Jan 6th too.

 

[WorsterMan]

Nice claim you have there. Have any facts or evidence to back it up? Not holding my breath.

Guess you dont get out much. Did you see the hours and hours of state hearings in GA? With multiple GA poll workers witnesses that spoke to state officials. All signed affidavits - gave very credible verbal testimony what they saw to the state panel. Statements included seeing many election workers cheating the process in many forms. I'm not going waste time naming all the forms and their testimonies. You dont care and it would not convince you anyway.

On top of that, there is video evidence of election workers being told to leave the counting room, a few election workers stayed behind - they then pulled multiple large black bags out from under tables. Several giving testimony stated they estimated THOUSANDS of ballots in each bag. The remaining few workers worked those ballots. Sometimes they could be seen scanning the same batches of ballots multiple times.

Now give me evidence why this was not outright election fraud, ballot tampering, etc.?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Guess you dont get out much. Did you see the hours and hours of state hearings in GA? With multiple GA poll workers witnesses that spoke to state officials. All signed affidavits - gave very credible verbal testimony what they saw to the state panel. Statements included seeing many election workers cheating the process in many forms. I'm not going waste time naming all the forms and their testimonies. You dont care and it would not convince you anyway.

On top of that, there is video evidence of election workers being told to leave the counting room, a few election workers stayed behind - they then pulled multiple large black bags out from under tables. Several giving testimony stated they estimated THOUSANDS of ballots in each bag. The remaining few workers worked those ballots. Sometimes they could be seen scanning the same batches of ballots multiple times.

Now give me evidence why this was not outright election fraud, ballot tampering, etc.?

I said evidence and facts. Every thing put up in court were flimsy claims that wilted like a Husker defense playing the Buckeyes come gametime. That "hours and hours state hearings in GA" were a charade. A show for the cameras that were debunked on 12/23 when they actually gave the election officials a chance to respond. Did you watch that hearing? If not you're only hearing one side of the story and making up your mind off that? That hearing Raftensberger dubbed the Guiliani claims a "tsunami of disinformation". Here is another local GA article on the response to the "hack".

This is the reason Trump and surrogates finished 1-62 in court. If you take Guiliani, Powell and their unchallenged claims with no responses then it looks like fraud. Of course, when actually in court the defendants get to respond. In nearly every case the courts have ridiculed the allegations out of court because when you hold up the plaintiffs claims against the defendants responses it's clear the former is CRAZY and DISINGENUOUS.

 

[OUBubba]

I said evidence and facts. Every thing put up in court were flimsy claims that wilted like a Husker defense playing the Buckeyes come gametime. That "hours and hours state hearings in GA" were a charade. A show for the cameras that were debunked on 12/23 when they actually gave the election officials a chance to respond. Did you watch that hearing? If not you're only hearing one side of the story and making up your mind off that? That hearing Raftensberger dubbed the Guiliani claims a "tsunami of disinformation". Here is another local GA article on the response to the "hack".

This is the reason Trump and surrogates finished 1-62 in court. If you take Guiliani, Powell and their unchallenged claims with no responses then it looks like fraud. Of course, when actually in court the defendants get to respond. In nearly every case the courts have ridiculed the allegations out of court because when you hold up the plaintiffs claims against the defendants responses it's clear the former is CRAZY and DISINGENUOUS.

The Georgia SOS and Election Manager are impressive.

 

[iatrogenic]

The Georgia SOS and Election Manager are impressive.

Okie, you think Buford T. Justice is impressive so your affinity for certain folks leaves much to be desired.

 

[Joe Fan]

The difference is that there are MULTIPLE social media options. Parler is a great example.

The new American fascists are attempting to remove Parler from the internet entirely

 

[OUBubba]

The swastika of social media.

 

[Joe Fan]

The difference is that there are MULTIPLE social media options. Parler is a great example.

The swastika of social media.

Tech giants Amazon, Google and Apple have combined to destroy Parler

Amazon Is Booting Parler Off Of Its Web Hosting Service

CBS News consumer investigative correspondent Anna Werner asked Roose, "Do you think this is the end of Parler?"

"I think losing your app store privileges and losing your web host is about as close to a 'kiss of death' as you can get in the world of apps," Roose replied.​

Amazon Is Suspending Parler From AWS

Apple and Google had already kick Parler off
Apple and Google Play suspend Parler for failure to moderate posts that incite violence

Turns out the people pointing fingers and calling everyone else 'fascists' are the ones acting like Fascists

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Monahorns]

Gab has a huge opportunity if they can build their infrastructure to scale now. They can't handle all the new traffic. If they resolve that, then that might be the option.

 

[Seattle Husker]

@Monahorns Angela Merkel agrees with you on Trump's twitter banning, if at least partially.