Topic: If you don't like something the solution is more regulation - page 3. (Read 1004 times)

I just explained why, but you enjoy being full of shit and pretending like I didn't anyway.


"33 Examples of Twitter’s Anti-Conservative Bias"

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/techwatch/nb-staff/2020/05/28/33-examples-twitters-anti-conservative-bias

I don't know who. You said there are criminals. Why doesn't Trump order to prosecute the criminals but instead creates more regulation for everyone? Even if you accept the ridiculous premise that this is a better way of dealing with crime, it's not going to be faster. It will get tied up in courts just the same.

Well since you are full of shit, that doesn't mean much.
Prosecute who? The corporation? Meanwhile they have the opportunity to interfere in the results of the upcoming election while it works its way through the courts for years? Good plan.

False.


Wouldn't it make more sense to prosecute the supposed criminals instead of creating more red tape?

You are a liar that thinks the ends justify the means. The government wouldn't need to tell private companies these things if they weren't run by criminals subverting free speech while screaming that it is being violated when forced to actually be the neutral platforms they pretend to be so they can enjoy protections set out for public platforms of under the law. These companies are illegal monopolies intentionally seeking to interfere with the election process and subverting free speech. They need to suffer consequences.


https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/nj-naacp-leader-calls-for-paterson-mail-in-vote-to-be-canceled-amid-fraud-claims/2435162/

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndwv/pr/pendleton-county-mail-carrier-charged-attempted-election-fraud

Weird, the "fact checkers" assured me this doesn't happen. Must be fake news!

No, I don't think that censorship is great, therefore I don't like the government attempting to tell private business what kinds of otherwise lawful speech they must allow or disallow.

I am very much on topic. You think all this censorship is great so you pretend it doesn't exist. You are too dense to realize once this is a permanent precedent, that standard is going to be turned around to censor you too, then no one will be able to speak freely. Of course that is not important, what is important is you defeat Trump at all costs, even if you have to burn down the country and destroy all of our freedoms to do so. Of course when that happens, that will be Trump's fault too of course.

Think! There isn't anybody in the world that does 100% right or 100% wrong. Smart crooks make themselves look as good as they can, so that behind the scenes, they can get away with as much as they can.

Sounded like it, that's why I'm asking. Trump is trying to implement regulation to deal with something he doesn't like, and you said that's why crooks get into government. So is he a crook or not?

Did I call Trump a crook? Where? Got a link?     

Since I already realize that I can do that, then someone telling me so wouldn't be surreal. A bit redundant perhaps.


Fascinating. Any chance you can get back on topic? How about limiting your outbursts to one vituperative diatribe per page, would that work for you?


Are you calling Trump a crook?

You know what is really surreal? The actual entitled assholes in each and every one of these platforms telling you that you have the option of going to the other place with the same assholes who think they are entitled to tell you what you can and can not say. You are a mob of idiots cutting your own throats never once questioning your correctitude. Unfortunately you aren't going to realize this until just before you bleed out.

If you don't like something the solution is more regulation.


This is exactly why the REAL crooks get into government.

No one is disputing that the Internet as a whole offers diversity and whatnot. But this statement (in the "findings", not the "policy" BTW) definitely doesn't mean that every site must offer "true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity". If that were the policy then we should start by closing Bitcointalk since it doesn't have a knitting circle and a chess club.


Twitter didn't remove Trumps tweets, he got triggered merely by the presence of other info next to his tweets, so your contrived example fails right there. If Twitter linked to a fact check proving that I am indeed a convicted thief (or not) I don't think I would have a case. If Twitter removed a tweet saying that I'm not a thief and threatening my accusers with violence I don't think I would have a case.

---

It quite surreal to have this discussion on a forum where most people (except for a few entitled assholes) seem to realize that if they don't like the way it's moderated they can go to Reddit or wherever.

Well, at least we'll have a lot of new government jobs to review every tweet and Bitcointalk post and judge their neutrality.

The platforms should divide their content into two parts:
1. Things that they readily accept;
2. Things that they would like to censor.

But they should let it all go through.

The intent of the law is clearly that service providers should be neutral platforms. Twitter and others have hidden behind their ability to remove content they deem “objectionable”, however this is an incorrect reading of the law.

I am sure there is at least one person who is willing to say that Suchmoon is a thief (I have no reason to believe you are a thief). In an extreme example, if Twitter only allowed people to tweet that SM is a thief and tweets that say you are not are removed, they would and should be liable for damages (provided that saying SM is a thief is false and caused you damages). They would clearly be using editorial discretion.

Further, separate from section 230, the actions of Twitter likely qualifies as “in kind” political contributions, which has long been regulated and is subject to additional reporting requirements.

Jack Dorsey decided to risk it and be the guy who tells the big bully that he is an indecent asshole. Its just that the method he used turned out to be a self-goal. Trump's hurt ego wouldn't let this go.

The intent of the order per se doesn't seem all that bad considering the fact that a lot of people have been claiming censorship. The problem as usual is deciding what is right to be censored and what is wrong to be censored. This is where this should be an interaction between Twitter and the person/ organization being censored, with costs to both sides. These corporation shouldn't have unlimited powers to censor depending on their own viewpoints. The main thing in the executive order seems to be the definition of

I think it is duty of the platform to provide opportunity for explanation if they feel (or their algorithm decides) that some political opinion can be censored in good faith. Or whether some information is fake. Unilateral censorship is far easier to them as a company than actually trying to have a fair argument with these people with "differing opinions".It will take a lot of work, time and money to conclude what is right or what is wrong on a case-wise basis. Yet, Haven't these "Social Media" platforms (FB/Google/ Twitter) making millions by giving every idiot a megaphone to spout bullshit? If this "regulation" leads them to put more effort in actually verifying "fake news", well then, its oughtta be done.

Trump is a narcissistic asshole who has only shown the world that America isn't all that great indeed. America has long enjoyed a cultural hegemony through its widely prevalent media houses. Media houses like BBC, CNN highlight to not end that "Indians practice caste system, Women are treated unequally" but they do nothing to actually explore the biases and prejudices that lead a police officer to press a knee on to a man's neck for five minutes, choking him to death. To its credit, liberal media seems to stand for "humanist" values. Yet, it seems more like a propagation of consumerism with a focus on sexualizing everything. Encouraging a whole generation of young people that they must flaunt their bodies in the name of "liberation", Women should be "careerists" because male patriarchy etc. The liberal media can easily be blamed for raking up non-issues to boost consumerism. They aren't without blame completely and if this regulation leads to a little bit of self-correction, it wouldn't be all that bad.

In my opinion, lets just get rid of post 2000's social media so people can go back to talking confidently only about the shit they actually practice rather than saying the most wild-ass thing to cater to the prejudices and biases of society.

Here is CDA section 230, which is what Trump is trying to reinterpret with his executive order:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Which part of it requires moderation decisions to be neutral?

This is an old way for the governments to stop things that they do not like.
First they start with a lite regulation and then the regulation becomes harder.
One measure they use is also taxation... If they don't like something they raise taxes. An example is also, cryptocurrencies where they have made it difficult to the people that they are not involved in the crypto area to understand how to buy BTC or other currencies.

Out of the top three platforms (Facebook, Insta, Twitter), firmly believe Twitter that's the only problem. Facebook and it's subsidiary Instagram have already taken approaches that don't include censorship and Zuckerberg has said it doesn't want Facebook to be the arbitrator of truth. It's not their place to do so. Twitter on the other hand is a leftist cesspool that is actually littered with communists. Their demographic is to the left and it's no surprise they suppress conservative voices.


I agree with you that they need to be neutral but I don't consider Twitter publishers. Twitter does not endorse the content its users put out and anyone is free to sign up. They can't be held liable for the content their users post and they're a private company, so dabbling in the business of government intervention into these private companies is a huge mistake. Take Trump out of the picture and imagine the next democratic President and the potential abuses that could derive from a bad precedent like this. You can bet if Trump is successful in censoring Twitter that it's going to bite conservatives in the ass when Democrats use it to start censoring right wing media outlets.