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

[Madison320]

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.

It would be a helluva stretch to think that all of those sites suddenly overnight decided to become leftist ideology echo chambers. They almost certainly started banning sites as a direct result of the public threats made by congress.

[Brian4Liberty]

It would be a helluva stretch to think that all of those sites suddenly overnight decided to become leftist ideology echo chambers. They almost certainly started banning sites as a direct result of the public threats made by congress.

Certainly government has something to do with this, probably in more ways than the public threats. The Atlantic Council, who is telling Facebook who to ban, is funded by governments and consists of ex-government officials.

But if you pay attention to public statements by Twitter employees, and see some of the undercover video, there is no doubt that there are many SJW leftist types who do want to censor. The various departments at these companies dedicated to moderation and censorship didn’t spring up over night. And it isn’t freedom loving individuals that are hired and drawn towards those departments.

In the Molyneux video, his hypothesis is that the timing is directly related to upcoming elections. Maybe. Note that it is freedom caucus and anti-war types that are being effected by some of these bans. If Mitch McConnell and Chucky Schumer could agree on anything, it would be their desire to go after those groups. MIC approved.

[timosman]

But if you pay attention to public statements by Twitter employees, and see some of the undercover video, there is no doubt that there are many SJW leftist types who do want to censor. The various departments at these companies dedicated to moderation and censorship didn’t spring up over night. And it isn’t freedom loving individuals that are hired and drawn towards those departments.

Freedom loving individuals are not promoted within these companies ranks. Heavy SJW ideology on the other hand puts you on a fast track to career advancement so anybody able to figure out what's going on lines up on the SJW side in great numbers. The libertarians are portrayed as sore losers, unable to function in a modern workplace, as they lack the necessary flexibility to know when to abandon their principles and engage in heavy ass kissing as any normal person would.

[tod evans]

Gosh!

Wonder if I can profit by being butt-hurt when these fine city-folk refer to me or mine as backwoods, hillbillies, yokels etc....

It's not worth the headache and I could care less about their opinions of me or mine....

[DamianTV]

So now disobeying corporate policy and making a reasonable objection is Hate Speech? Just the way the title is phrased, but we know how corporations are... Hopefully they figure out the only people they are hurting is themselves.

[timosman]

So now disobeying corporate policy and making a reasonable objection is Hate Speech? Just the way the title is phrased, but we know how corporations are... Hopefully they figure out the only people they are hurting is themselves.

Look, dude. You were not hired to disobey our policies. It is true they keep on changing every few years and often do not make sense, but ...... this is not something you should be worrying about. And by the way, why the $#@! are you so attached to the stupid policy anyway? Can't you just pretend like everybody else? It is going to be good for you, trust me.

[r3volution 3.0]

A judge ruled that Twitter was a public domain. So which it is?

The judge is a bolshevik, obviously.

Twitter is no more a "public domain" than my back porch is.

...where, I might add, Alex Jones is also not welcome.

[TheCount]

But do they control or edit what people put in the comments section?

Yes. They control the distribution of all of the information on their site. Sites have gotten in varying levels of legal trouble while attempting to claim that they were only hosting content and not producing it. Torrents, revenge porn, threats of violence, etc.

[Brian4Liberty]

Yes. They control the distribution of all of the information on their site. Sites have gotten in varying levels of legal trouble while attempting to claim that they were only hosting content and not producing it. Torrents, revenge porn, threats of violence, etc.

They probably have. Is it fair? What can we all agree upon as being the standard?

So for a comments section, forum or social networking app, the only way for it to be completely controlled for "legal" jeopardy is to manually OK every single post. Is that realistic? How long would it take? How much money would it cost? Who would make the decisions? Would such a platform even be able to compete against some "rouge" platform that allowed real time and open usage?

If someone were to post a blatantly illegal comment on the New York Times website, would they be liable for that?

[TheCount]

They probably have. Is it fair? What can we all agree upon as being the standard?

If a newspaper allowed its readers to pay to print death threats or solicit murders in the classified section, do you think that they should be liable for that content?

[Pauls' Revere]

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.

Summed up as "The Corporate Hippie"

[Anti Federalist]

Does prove one thing to me, once again:

Freedom is not popular.

[Brian4Liberty]

If a newspaper allowed its readers to pay to print death threats or solicit murders in the classified section, do you think that they should be liable for that content?

That’s a tangent. What do you think? Explain how that differs from other examples discussed so far.

[TheCount]

That’s a tangent. What do you think? Explain how that differs from other examples discussed so far.

It's not a tangent, and it doesn't differ from the examples discussed thus far. It provides an old media example to show that this is not a new phenomenon, it merely appears to be new. Newspapers also print letters to the editor; those letters were not written by them, but they are hosting and distributing that content, as well as profiting from it. The newspaper profits by hosting content, but that content was written by others, and not by them. And if the newspaper was to print an letter to the editor which incited the populace to violence, saying 'oh but we didn't write that, we only published it and profited from its publication' would not be an adequate defense.

[Brian4Liberty]

It's not a tangent, and it doesn't differ from the examples discussed thus far. It provides an old media example to show that this is not a new phenomenon, it merely appears to be new. Newspapers also print letters to the editor; those letters were not written by them, but they are hosting and distributing that content, as well as profiting from it. The newspaper profits by hosting content, but that content was written by others, and not by them. And if the newspaper was to print an letter to the editor which incited the populace to violence, saying 'oh but we didn't write that, we only published it and profited from its publication' would not be an adequate defense.

So why did you quote me and exclude the portion that exactly addressed that?

So for a comments section, forum or social networking app, the only way for it to be completely controlled for "legal" jeopardy is to manually OK every single post. Is that realistic? How long would it take? How much money would it cost? Who would make the decisions? Would such a platform even be able to compete against some "rouge" platform that allowed real time and open usage?

If someone were to post a blatantly illegal comment on the New York Times website, would they be liable for that?

Obviously, classifieds and letters to the editor are old tech examples of content that would be individually manually edited. It does not address the modern internet.

[Swordsmyth]

It's not a tangent, and it doesn't differ from the examples discussed thus far. It provides an old media example to show that this is not a new phenomenon, it merely appears to be new. Newspapers also print letters to the editor; those letters were not written by them, but they are hosting and distributing that content, as well as profiting from it. The newspaper profits by hosting content, but that content was written by others, and not by them. And if the newspaper was to print an letter to the editor which incited the populace to violence, saying 'oh but we didn't write that, we only published it and profited from its publication' would not be an adequate defense.

The newspaper had to read, select, and set the type for each letter, that doesn't happen online.

[timosman]

Does prove one thing to me, once again:

Freedom is not popular.

Being your own boss is an option for like 3% of the population. The rest needs to be a part of the machine.

[TheCount]

So why did you quote me and exclude the portion that exactly addressed that?

You asked what should be, and then you asked what is technically feasible. Since the second question is unanswerable, I decided to focus on the first.

The newspaper had to read, select, and set the type for each letter, that doesn't happen online.

So what?

[Swordsmyth]

So what?

So a website is not like a newspaper, the owner can't be expected to be strictly responsible for everything random users write in a comments section or on a communication platform like twitter.

[parocks]

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?

Kind of like how the telephone companies, Ma Bell, were allowed to cut you off from service if, when they were spying on your conversations, they heard something they didn't like?

[parocks]

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?

Kind of like how the telephone companies, Ma Bell, were allowed to cut you off from service if, when they were spying on your conversations, they heard something they didn't like? I don't remember that being ok.

[TheCount]

So a website is not like a newspaper, the owner can't be expected to be strictly responsible for everything random users write in a comments section or on a communication platform like twitter.

Why not?

[TheCount]

Kind of like how the telephone companies, Ma Bell, were allowed to cut you off from service if, when they were spying on your conversations, they heard something they didn't like? I don't remember that being ok.

Telephone companies were regulated as utilities delivering a public service and were not allowed to cut service.

Your ISP absolutely can cut off your service based upon what you do on it.

[specsaregood]

Why not?

For many years these big websites have argued for and lobbied to be considered safe harbor, just like the ISPs.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Safe_harbor_(law)
https://infogalactic.com/info/Digita..._Copyright_Act

[TheCount]

For many years these big websites have argued for and lobbied to be considered safe harbor, just like the ISPs.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Safe_harbor_(law)
https://infogalactic.com/info/Digita..._Copyright_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#MegaUpload_arrest_and_extradition_proce edings

[Swordsmyth]

Why not?

Don't play stupid, the comments appear on their platforms without their control or specific consent.

[Swordsmyth]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#MegaUpload_arrest_and_extradition_proce edings

One injustice doesn't justify others.

[Swordsmyth]

For many years these big websites have argued for and lobbied to be considered safe harbor, just like the ISPs.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Safe_harbor_(law)
https://infogalactic.com/info/Digita..._Copyright_Act

They also advertised freedom of speech and are therefore required to provide it until they give public notice of a change in policy and stop advertising that way.

[specsaregood]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#MegaUpload_arrest_and_extradition_proce edings

Doesn't apply because megaupload actively encouraged using their systems for illegal behavior.

[TheCount]

Doesn't apply because megaupload actively encouraged using their systems for illegal behavior.

Doesn't matter because the result is the same.