Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 72

Thread: Twitter Plans ‘Hate Speech’ Crackdown After Backlash From Upset Employees

  1. #1

    Twitter Plans ‘Hate Speech’ Crackdown After Backlash From Upset Employees

    Twitter is planning to accelerate changes to the company’s speech policies after a backlash from its own employees who want the company to ban right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
    Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, responding to a critical tweet from a Twitter engineer, said Wednesday he is “not happy” with Twitter’s current policies, which he said need to “evolve.”
    Twitter vice president Del Harvey also sent a company-wide email Wednesday pledging to accelerate Twitter’s efforts to crack down on “dehumanizing hate speech,” in the wake of internal “conversations” about Jones.
    Harvey noted that Twitter also plans to evaluate whether the company needs to better police “off-platform behavior.”

    More at: http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/08/tw...speech-policy/
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    1/3 of East Germans were on the Stasi payroll.

    One third.

    Now, it is more focused. But the numbers are still massive.

    Bunch of legal (Sep 2013) propagandists. Paid for by us.

    Not a private company, a Deep State shell company.

    War on them all.

  4. #3

  5. #4
    Isn't Twitter as a private company free to filter content on its own website? How does this have anything to do with freedom of speech?
    "Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms." -Ron Paul

    Ron Paul 2012!

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by NickOdell View Post
    Isn't Twitter as a private company free to filter content on its own website? How does this have anything to do with freedom of speech?
    Have you heard of company towns? What Happens to Free Speech in the Public Square When It's Owned by a Private Monopoly. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ivate-Monopoly

    For the record Twitter is a public company currently traded on NYSE under TWTR - https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TWTR

  7. #6
    “There is no honor in resisting ‘outside pressure’, just to pat ourselves on the back for being ‘impartial,'” Twitter engineer Marina Zhao replied, adding: “Twitter does not exist in a vacuum, and it is wrong to ignore the serious real-world harm, and to equate that with political viewpoints.”
    She wants a left-wing safe space, and to destroy her perceived enemies.
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  8. #7
    Put 'em out of business!
    My website: https://www.theherbsofthefield.com/

    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.” ~ Charles Dickens

  9. #8
    Protest the NSA! Send encrypted e-mails!
    My PGP Key
    PGP Fingerprint: 3A2E 6218 3722 3701 09C9 54CA 9BB3 104C 5049 B6B2



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by NickOdell View Post
    Isn't Twitter as a private company free to filter content on its own website? How does this have anything to do with freedom of speech?
    From another thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Interesting question. A question that can not be easily answered with platitudes.

    My opinion is best summed-up in my sig:

    “Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex."

    Big brother is a complex. It can not be defined by simple terms like “government” or “private business”.

    There are several natural reasons for the complex to develop in this way. The first is graft and corruption. It is much more profitable to engage in graft via outsourcing government activities to corporations and businesses. It is relatively difficult for elected politicians and government bureaucrats to engage in money skimming while in office. But as a government contractor, the profits are almost endless.

    Number two is the fact that outsourced government corporatism is a loophole to bypass constitutional restrictions on government. This would be the main point of the current controversy about various forms of internet censorship.

    And finally, size and scope would be a limiting factor without a distributed structure. Government as a single, centrally controlled, hierarchical entity could not possibly effectively do what is being done now. It has to be decentralized, with some incentives to innovate and invent. New companies and technology can be absorbed when they reach a critical mass and join the complex via contracts and regulation.
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    She wants a left-wing safe space, and to destroy her perceived enemies.
    A permanently offended commie nutcase.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by NickOdell View Post
    Isn't Twitter as a private company free to filter content on its own website? How does this have anything to do with freedom of speech?
    In addition to what Brian said, there is this legal argument at 1:45




    The idea is that the social media giants have escaped legal liability for the content of their platform by saying that they don't exercise editorial restrictions over their content. They have guidelines and rules, but that's it.

    So a newspaper can be sued for slander if one of their writers slanders someone, but your niece can't sue facebook because your your grandma slandered her on facebook.

    If you have a case like Sarah Jeong from the NYT who tweets out racist tweets against white people and doesn't get banned, her tweets don't get deleted, etc.. and then you have Candace Owens who makes the same tweets but replaces "white" with "black" and then gets banned, even though she specified she was just making the same tweets Jeong did (Candace Owens is black) and we have enough of these cases (we do) then we can surmise that these companies are banning people for their political content as opposed to banning them for breaking the rules. Thus they are maintaining editorial control over the content and under current law the courts would say they would be liable for what users post.. This makes owning a social media company untenable.

    Now, should it be that way? Probably not.. But what that means is that if I started a social media company with a clear conservative bias, my company could be sued if we maintained editorial control over the content. So it's important to treat these big leftist companies the way you would treat their smaller competition until the laws are changed.
    Last edited by dannno; 08-10-2018 at 05:16 PM.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  14. #12
    One of the interesting things about all of this hullabaloo is how the left has now gone totally pro-corporate. Corporations used to have an image of stodgy, conservative capitalists in suits. Now they bow to the progressive party line and are often run by progressives, social media conglomerates especially. Now big tech is leftoid approved! What a relief. I know I feel safer.
    NeoReactionary. American High Tory.

    The counter-revolution will not be televised.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by NickOdell View Post
    Isn't Twitter as a private company free to filter content on its own website? How does this have anything to do with freedom of speech?
    They are taking it beyond their own website.
    Harvey noted that Twitter also plans to evaluate whether the company needs to better police “off-platform behavior.”
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by NickOdell View Post
    Isn't Twitter as a private company free to filter content on its own website? How does this have anything to do with freedom of speech?
    Yeah I thought this place was all about the Free Market.

    🤔

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by VIDEODROME View Post
    Yeah I thought this place was all about the Free Market.

    ��
    please point out the many people here arguing for the govt to step in and stop them via laws?

  18. #16
    Gavin McInnes was just banned from Twitter, so was the official Proud Boys account..
    NeoReactionary. American High Tory.

    The counter-revolution will not be televised.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17

    Interesting. And yet Spencer and the actual alt-right are still on Twitter....
    NeoReactionary. American High Tory.

    The counter-revolution will not be televised.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePaleoLibertarian View Post
    Interesting. And yet Spencer and the actual alt-right are still on Twitter....
    It seems pointing out hypocrisy of the left is a no-no.

  22. #19
    SJW millennials employees call this corporate democratization. Ultimately, they would like to vote in their own bosses and company policies, compensations, etc...
    PLEASE DONATE to Cindy Lake for Clark County, Nevada, Commissioner
    - Good Name recognition, ran in 2014 and only lost by 1% to a million dollar campaign
    - Has active support of the county GOP
    - Opponent, Jim Gibson, is vulnerable and has a history losing due to the same scandal
    - 2018 GOP primary result was 72%
    - For liberty in Vegas

    >>>CLICK>>> to learn more about this epic liberty candidate https://cindylake.net/donate

    How to plug a TWEET in post [ TWEET] [/TWEET ]

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by eleganz View Post
    SJW millennials employees call this corporate democratization. Ultimately, they would like to vote in their own bosses and company policies, compensations, etc...
    Whatever it takes to keep your job. You can't be too enthusiastic about the company policies.
    Last edited by timosman; 08-10-2018 at 10:03 PM.

  24. #21
    1. These are private enterprises. You are entirely free to not use them. Use them on their conditions, or don't. Stop bitching.

    2. If you are dumb enough to use these advertising-data-gathering-services, and don't like the result, tough titty.

    3. Read a book, jackass.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    1. These are private enterprises. You are entirely free to not use them. Use them on their conditions, or don't. Stop bitching.

    2. If you are dumb enough to use these advertising-data-gathering-services, and don't like the result, tough titty.

    3. Read a book, jackass.
    4. Invite somebody to your shelter under a bridge.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    4. Invite somebody to your shelter under a bridge.
    I'll have you know, I have thousands of facebook friends bra...

    Course, I never met any of them....

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    1. These are private enterprises. You are entirely free to not use them. Use them on their conditions, or don't. Stop bitching.

    2. If you are dumb enough to use these advertising-data-gathering-services, and don't like the result, tough titty.

    3. Read a book, jackass.
    But they're private enterprises being threatened by the government. Have you seen the video of the congressional hearing where Facebook is threatened? By the way Ron Paul was censored recently as well. Facebook is not the problem, government is. I seriously doubt Facebook would voluntarily do that much censoring.

    I'm hoping that some of the people being censored will sue the government for 1st amendment violations.


    30 second mark shows congressional threats:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2vVc4abqKI
    Last edited by Madison320; 08-11-2018 at 08:28 AM.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post

    The idea is that the social media giants have escaped legal liability for the content of their platform by saying that they don't exercise editorial restrictions over their content. They have guidelines and rules, but that's it.

    So a newspaper can be sued for slander if one of their writers slanders someone, but your niece can't sue facebook because your your grandma slandered her on facebook.

    If you have a case like Sarah Jeong from the NYT who tweets out racist tweets against white people and doesn't get banned, her tweets don't get deleted, etc.. and then you have Candace Owens who makes the same tweets but replaces "white" with "black" and then gets banned, even though she specified she was just making the same tweets Jeong did (Candace Owens is black) and we have enough of these cases (we do) then we can surmise that these companies are banning people for their political content as opposed to banning them for breaking the rules. Thus they are maintaining editorial control over the content and under current law the courts would say they would be liable for what users post.. This makes owning a social media company untenable.

    Now, should it be that way? Probably not.. But what that means is that if I started a social media company with a clear conservative bias, my company could be sued if we maintained editorial control over the content. So it's important to treat these big leftist companies the way you would treat their smaller competition until the laws are changed.
    That's a good point however do you really think Facebook decided to implement "guidelines" on their own? We've already seen videos of Facebook being dragged in front of congress and threatened to take down "bad" content.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    1. These are private enterprises. You are entirely free to not use them. Use them on their conditions, or don't. Stop bitching.

    2. If you are dumb enough to use these advertising-data-gathering-services, and don't like the result, tough titty.

    3. Read a book, jackass.
    A judge ruled that Twitter was a public domain. So which it is?
    “Force the normies into taking sides. At the moment they are just like "meh, I am minding my own business" retreating culturally into their private bubbles and "safe-spaces" since they don't understand what is going on. When the actual "us vs them" starts, they will be forced to fight or they'll die.” - Anonymous Poster

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    A judge ruled that Twitter was a public domain. So which it is?
    It all depends on what matter is currently at hand. You are clearly not flexible enough to hold an executive position.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    That's a good point however do you really think Facebook decided to implement "guidelines" on their own? We've already seen videos of Facebook being dragged in front of congress and threatened to take down "bad" content.
    That would sorta make this a first amendment issue again then wouldn't it?
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    In addition to what Brian said, there is this legal argument at 1:45

    I’ve heard the public forum vs. “editorial control” in the form of censorship argument before. Not sure that it holds water though.

    A media outlet certainly controls what it’s writer’s publish. But do they control or edit what people put in the comments section?

    Likewise, a platform like Twitter does not create the content, it is all created by the users. Banning someone for something that is against the law is a pretty common and basic usage rule. Does that equal “editorial control”? It doesn’t seem like it.

    Let’s go further. Suppose the platform is called “Democrats Unite”, and the content is created by users. Now suppose that Republicans go there and post press releases from all GOP members of Congress, and other assorted GOP politicians. Should that be allowed? Is it ”editorial control” to not only ban those who advocate illegal activities, but also ban those who are from the “competition”?

    The biggest problem is that Twitter has never called itself “The Leftist Ideology Echo Chamber”. If they had done that from the beginning, would there be an issue right now? Instead, Twitter explicitly called itself an open public forum, and with that as the premise, fully took over that market niche. Nearly every politician, pundit, musician, business, celebrity, tv personality and newscaster created and promoted an account on the open, “free speech” Twitter platform.

    Now they seem to have decided that they want to be “The Leftist Ideology Echo Chamber”. This is the root issue at hand. Should they do that? Is this a violation of any law? Should this be a violation of law?

    Add to that the fact that the industry as a whole seems to be working to prevent competition, exemplified by Microsoft threatened to close down Twitter’s right wing competition “Gab”.

    How involved is government? At that point, the applicability of the First Amendment does come into play.
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    That would sorta make this a first amendment issue again then wouldn't it?
    Of course. My point is that the complex argument Molyneux was making was unnecessary. Congress openly threatened Facebook to shutdown certain sites. Boom. That's a violation of the 1st. End of story.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 66
    Last Post: 10-27-2018, 12:46 PM
  2. New US Law Blurs The Line Between Hate Speech And Hate Crime
    By Swordsmyth in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-16-2017, 04:56 PM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-17-2015, 07:37 AM
  4. Fail: NYPD Photo Contest on Twitter Triggers Huge Backlash
    By Cissy in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-23-2014, 05:45 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-22-2012, 10:42 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •