Joe Rogan & Tim Pool Dominate Twitter Execs on Censorship

[dannno]

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Tim Pool is great. On the left, but a real straight shooter. Morons on Twitter are already calling him far right. This is going to bring a lot of heat down on him, make no mistake.

[dannno]

bump

[jkr]

THAT

WAS A FACEWASHING!

[bv3]

No. While it is cool, Joe knows Tim was sitting in Alex Jone's seat. I don't go in for podcasts, ordinarily, but that would have been...sublime. What a world Jack must live in, having to travel with his lawyer.

[dannno]

No. While it is cool, Joe knows Tim was sitting in Alex Jone's seat. I don't go in for podcasts, ordinarily, but that would have been...sublime. What a world Jack must live in, having to travel with his lawyer.

Tim Pool did a much better job than Alex Jones would have on the overall topic, he was really the best person to bring in on this one.

[Madison320]

I didn't watch the video (it's 3 hours) but it's only censorship if the government pressures twitter to ban someone. Which is entirely possible since the government was pressuring social media to ban Alex Jones.

Still I don't like the idea of using the government force to fix a problem caused by government force.

[brushfire]

I wont disagree - but I must say I have more respect for Dorsey and Gadde. Actions will speak volumes, but they seem to be genuinely interested in putting their platform community in charge. Again, we'll see, but we typically don't see executives making themselves accountable like this.

I liked the podcast a lot - very interesting.

[dannno]

I didn't watch the video (it's 3 hours) but it's only censorship if the government pressures twitter to ban someone. Which is entirely possible since the government was pressuring social media to ban Alex Jones.

Still I don't like the idea of using the government force to fix a problem caused by government force.

You are correct, we don't need to use government coercion to fix these glaring problems.

In my estimation, there are three ways to handle twitter's horrible, dangerous and destructive behavior. All three of these were discussed on the podcast.

One option is using government force, which I'm opposed to. Tim Pool believes they are big enough that it is akin to a public square and thus free speech laws should apply, and I think he is wrong about that. But they only discussed that for about 45 seconds of the 3+ hour podcast, so if that is what you take out of it you are really missing the point.

The second option is having an open discussion with twitter and informing them of their mistakes and see if they would be willing to correct them voluntarily. This is what happened in the podcast. The twitter execs stated their policies and how these things are handled but made many admissions throughout the podcast and toward the end came to the conclusion that they really have some major problems at their organization that are disenfranchising political conservatives and white males.

Jack Dorsey said that twitter will be considering employing some way for previously banned personalities to come back to the platform (Joe Rogan's idea) at some stage and they claim that they are working on making the process for banning and suspending people more transparent.

The third option is to create a new platform and have people switch, that's called competition. Tim Pool also brought this up, and Jack Dorsey himself essentially said that the twitter platform as it is currently designed scales extremely poorly and has some major flaws that he thinks can be fixed, or may even be developed by other platforms that compete with twitter.


I really urge people to watch this podcast if you have some time.

The reason this is important to watch is because the twitter executives, after hearing all these complaints, flat out admitted that they had made some egregious errors in handling these situations and that there are a lot of changes they can and are willing to make in order to fix them.

All those people who came in to similar threads and said, "Twitter can do what they want!!" or some "Womp womp" $#@! talking about how we shouldn't use government coercion really missed the point of what was going on and it has been demonstrated that they were wrong. Twitter was in fact treating certain people with certain views unfairly compared to others who had different views, and according to the execs it is not the intention of the organization as a whole to do so. Their organization grew beyond their control. Sometimes they even hire outside contractors to help review posts.

But we all know that it was in large part a product in part of having a company in a very liberal area and employees who are stuck in the leftist bubble. We all knew this. The twitter execs admitted it. I don't know why complaining about twitter censorship always results in the argument that the government shouldn't force them to not censor, when that is completely beside the point. Look at what open discussion of this issue alone has accomplished.

[donnay]

It's interesting that Jack Dorsey brought his attorney to the podcast.

[acptulsa]

I didn't watch the video (it's 3 hours) but it's only censorship if the government pressures twitter to ban someone.

No. Nothing in the definition of censorship requires any government lift a finger.

I suspect your point is, censorship is only a First Amendment violation if the U.S. government does it. Which brings up an interesting question. We know government entities created (or, at the very least, bankrolled the creation of) fedbook and screwgle. What about twitbird?

[jmdrake]

I didn't watch the video (it's 3 hours) but it's only censorship if the government pressures twitter to ban someone. Which is entirely possible since the government was pressuring social media to ban Alex Jones.

Still I don't like the idea of using the government force to fix a problem caused by government force.

I didn't see this as government force. I saw this as the free market at work. Joe Rogan has one of the biggest podcasts / YouTube channels out there. Twitter just got a crapload of bad publicity from this. A free market solution to a problem requires first exposure of the problem. The other issue is contract law. Libertarians are always talking about contracts and property rights correct? Terms of service agreements are contracts and if you have contracted to be on someone's social media platform then you have a property interest in that platform. If Twitter says up front "We are a left leaning platform that censors conservative speech" then okay. That's their right. But if they say "We are a neutral platform that lets everyone speak unless they violate terms of service" but they are kicking off people who haven't violated terms of service and yet they are allowing people to stay on who have, that's a breach of contract as well as of public trust. Among other things there is something called "opportunity cost." If I know up front you are going to treat me unfairly then maybe I will choose a different platform to begin with. Alex Jones was big on MySpace before it went defunct. He's been big on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter etc. People like him bring large followings too various social media platforms. They are not like "twitter-famous" people who would not have had followings "but for" the platforms they are on. Jones could have spent his time building up Twitter's competition.

[dannno]

Joe Rogan is a comic, and man, this podcast did not disappoint with the laughter, another good reason to watch.. I was laughing for about 5 minutes straight last night and couldn't stop, had to rewind the podcast a few times I was laughing so hard..

The female twitter exec was in charge of bringing the research and reading some of the tweets on air, and some of the tweets were pretty racey as you can imagine. The best was when she was reading one of Alex Jones' tweets complaining about a CNN journalist looked like a possum that climbed out of the rear end of a dead cow, lol..

Joe Rogan was defending some of the tweets she was reading throughout the podcast, saying stuff like, "well, that's pretty bad, but it sounds like they were joking to me.." and how people like comedy and sometimes comedy crosses lines and could be misconstrued.

For example, one guy got banned in part for saying he wanted to throw someone out of a helicopter.. Joe was like, "wow, can you imagine killing somebody by throwing them out of the helicopter??" Then he smiled and looked at Jack and said, "First you gotta get 'em into the helicopter.." and they pan over to Jack and he lowered his head, covered his face and was cracking up.. I think he got the point.

[jmdrake]

Would you put forcing Twitter to abide by their on contractual obligations under option 1 "government force" or some other unnamed option?

As far as alternatives, people should move to Mastedon. It's an open source replacement for twitter that let's people create their own social networking servers that communicate with other Mastedon based servers.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/04/07/...ers-wakeup-ca/

https://joinmastodon.org/

You are correct, we don't need to use government coercion to fix these glaring problems.

In my estimation, there are three ways to handle twitter's horrible, dangerous and destructive behavior. All three of these were discussed on the podcast.

One option is using government force, which I'm opposed to. Tim Pool believes they are big enough that it is akin to a public square and thus free speech laws should apply, and I think he is wrong about that. But they only discussed that for about 45 seconds of the 3+ hour podcast, so if that is what you take out of it you are really missing the point.

The second option is having an open discussion with twitter and informing them of their mistakes and see if they would be willing to correct them voluntarily. This is what happened in the podcast. The twitter execs stated their policies and how these things are handled but made many admissions throughout the podcast and toward the end came to the conclusion that they really have some major problems at their organization that are disenfranchising political conservatives and white males.

Jack Dorsey said that twitter will be considering employing some way for previously banned personalities to come back to the platform (Joe Rogan's idea) at some stage and they claim that they are working on making the process for banning and suspending people more transparent.

The third option is to create a new platform and have people switch, that's called competition. Tim Pool also brought this up, and Jack Dorsey himself essentially said that the twitter platform as it is currently designed scales extremely poorly and has some major flaws that he thinks can be fixed, or may even be developed by other platforms that compete with twitter.


I really urge people to watch this podcast if you have some time.

The reason this is important to watch is because the twitter executives, after hearing all these complaints, flat out admitted that they had made some egregious errors in handling these situations and that there are a lot of changes they can and are willing to make in order to fix them.

All those people who came in to similar threads and said, "Twitter can do what they want!!" or some "Womp womp" $#@! talking about how we shouldn't use government coercion really missed the point of what was going on and it has been demonstrated that they were wrong. Twitter was in fact treating certain people with certain views unfairly compared to others who had different views, and according to the execs it is not the intention of the organization as a whole to do so. Their organization grew beyond their control. Sometimes they even hire outside contractors to help review posts.

But we all know that it was in large part a product in part of having a company in a very liberal area and employees who are stuck in the leftist bubble. We all knew this. The twitter execs admitted it. I don't know why complaining about twitter censorship always results in the argument that the government shouldn't force them to not censor, when that is completely beside the point. Look at what open discussion of this issue alone has accomplished.

[dannno]

Would you put forcing Twitter to abide by their on contractual obligations under option 1 "government force" or some other unnamed option?

As far as alternatives, people should move to Mastedon. It's an open source replacement for twitter that let's people create their own social networking servers that communicate with other Mastedon based servers.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/04/07/...ers-wakeup-ca/

https://joinmastodon.org/

I would call it government force, but I wouldn't necessarily call it illegitimate government force (upholding contracts).

Telling twitter they need to abide by something other than what they and their customers have agreed upon would be illegitimate government force.

[jmdrake]

I would call it government force, but I wouldn't necessarily call it illegitimate government force (upholding contracts).

Telling twitter they need to abide by something other than what they and their customers have agreed upon would be illegitimate government force.

I agree. What do you think of Mastedon?

[dannno]

I agree. What do you think of Mastedon?

I haven't tried it, only been on GAB. Looking at their website, it looks really nice. I'll probably signup.

[jmdrake]

I haven't tried it, only been on GAB. Looking at their website, it looks really nice. I'll probably signup.

Cool! I am familiar with GAB but I know they go kicked off the appstore. Mastedon seems to be impervious to this as it is a protocol and not just a platform. Banning Mastedon would be like trying to ban email apps. That's my understanding anyway.

[Grandmastersexsay]

I would call it government force, but I wouldn't necessarily call it illegitimate government force (upholding contracts).

Telling twitter they need to abide by something other than what they and their customers have agreed upon would be illegitimate government force.

And the next day Twitter changes it's terms and conditions and there wont be any contract dispute.

[bv3]

Tim Pool did a much better job than Alex Jones would have on the overall topic, he was really the best person to bring in on this one.

No. Since we were going to get a spectacle, I'd rather we got a spectacular spectacle.

[dannno]

No. Since we were going to get a spectacle, I'd rather we got a spectacular spectacle.

It was spectacular, and much more informative with Tim Pool there. I really like Alex Jones, but he wasn't the best person to bring on for this one.

[Madison320]

No. Nothing in the definition of censorship requires any government lift a finger.

I suspect your point is, censorship is only a First Amendment violation if the U.S. government does it. Which brings up an interesting question. We know government entities created (or, at the very least, bankrolled the creation of) fedbook and screwgle. What about twitbird?

That's true, when I said "censorship" I was implying the government version of it. That's the only time it's a 1st amendment violation.

[Madison320]

All those people who came in to similar threads and said, "Twitter can do what they want!!" or some "Womp womp" $#@! talking about how we shouldn't use government coercion really missed the point of what was going on and it has been demonstrated that they were wrong. Twitter was in fact treating certain people with certain views unfairly compared to others who had different views, and according to the execs it is not the intention of the organization as a whole to do so. Their organization grew beyond their control. Sometimes they even hire outside contractors to help review posts.

I'm one of those who is saying "Twitter can do what they want". How am I missing the point?

[Madison320]

And the next day Twitter changes it's terms and conditions and there wont be any contract dispute.

Yup.

My only issue is whether Twitter was pressured by the government to ban someone like they did with Alex Jones in those congressional hearings about a year ago.

I can just picture some government departments pressuring Twitter to "ban" right wingers and other government departments pressuring Twitter to "unban" them!

Either way the solution is for government to stay out of it.

[acptulsa]

Yup.

My only issue is whether Twitter was pressured by the government to ban someone like they did with Alex Jones in those congressional hearings about a year ago.

I can just picture some government departments pressuring Twitter to "ban" right wingers and other government departments pressuring Twitter to "unban" them!

Either way the solution is for government to stay out of it.

But government does not stay out of social media. Government bankrolls the creation of social media, then lets or encourages it to censor protected speech.

[Grandmastersexsay]

But government does not stay out of social media. Government bankrolls the creation of social media, then let's or encourages it to censor protected speech.

Twitter never got any government money.

[dannno]

I'm one of those who is saying "Twitter can do what they want". How am I missing the point?

The problem isn't having that opinion, I have that opinion.. so does everybody else here if you haven't noticed. The problem is coming into these threads where a serious discussion is being had and making that point to dissuade people from having the discussion about what the problems are. Ignoring what the real problems are.

I wrote a long-ass 1 page reply to you earlier about what the problem is. I said forcing twitter to change is the wrong solution. I said twitter can do what they want, too, but I don't come into these threads and say that on a regular basis because that isn't the $#@!ing point of the discussion. The only reason it is brought up is by people who are too blinded to see there is a real problem occurring and thinking that it doesn't really matter anyway, or they like seeing white conservatives they have slight disagreements with banned from twitter and so they just say let twitter do whatever they are doing. Well, it does matter, and it is important that twitter changes their attitude and ends their bias against conservatives and white males.

Clearly what twitter is doing is not best for everybody, and it could easily be argued that what twitter is doing is not best for twitter. Yet the troll brigade loves to come in here and say we just need to shut up and let them do whatever they are doing.

I've always said the reason for these threads is that we all need to have a discussion, which is precisely what is happening - watch the $#@!ing video, that is what the whole point is. If you don't think what twitter is doing is a major problem, you really aren't paying attention and you need to watch it. You know why??? Because Jack Dorsey and his lawyer ADMITTED there is a problem. They admitted they were wrong. They admitted they need to make major changes and not be so one-sided all the time. They admitted I was right, and $#@!s who can't add anything to the discussion besides "twitter can do what they want" didn't know what the $#@! they were talking about. Because twitter wasn't even doing what the owners of twitter wanted, unbeknownst to them, because the mainstream media $#@!ing sucks and it takes them going onto Joe Rogan and Sam Harris to learn what is actually going on.. they didn't realize that they and their employees were in such an leftist echo chamber that was feeding them bull$#@! day after day.

Joe Rogan and Tim Pool clued them in to the farce they live in day after day.. Hundreds of Trump supporters have been beaten and harassed, yet the media never reports it.. yet they will lie about Trump supporters and conservatives constantly to make them out to be the violent ones.

You can't even walk down the street with a MAGA hat, because the $#@!ing media lies about conservatives everyday. This is dangerous $#@!, you need to pay attention and get your $#@! together if you really think this isn't a problem.

[Cleaner44]

I haven't tried it, only been on GAB. Looking at their website, it looks really nice. I'll probably signup.

Cool! I am familiar with GAB but I know they go kicked off the appstore. Mastedon seems to be impervious to this as it is a protocol and not just a platform. Banning Mastedon would be like trying to ban email apps. That's my understanding anyway.

This is cool and new to me. Is there a libertarian instance yet?

[jmdrake]

And the next day Twitter changes it's terms and conditions and there wont be any contract dispute.

You can't cure a breach of contract by changing the contract after the breach. But let's say that's the case. And? Everybody knows that if you post on a forum like DemocraticUnderground.com what to expect. Same goes for Redstate.com. It's false advertising for Twitter to act like it's a platform open to all ideas if, in fact, it is not. Platforms can die once people realize that they are biased. Look what happened to Digg.com. Once they pulled the mask off and admitted the were burying stories they didn't like they died as a platform. And that's the value that I see of what Tim Pool and Joe Rogan are doing. As a critical mass people become aware of their biased practices, eventually enough people will migrate away from their platform to truly open platforms like Mastedon and Twitter will lose market share. Free flow of information is vital for free markets to work.

Something else. YouTube is biased as well. It's time for a serious discussion about RonPaulForums.com updating its software so that it's as easy to embed videos from DailyMotion.com and Vimeo.com as it is from YouTube.

[jmdrake]

This is cool and new to me. Is there a libertarian instance yet?

Yes there is! https://liberdon.com/about