Trump goes after social media

Post Reply New Topic

No it’s a law already passed in the 90s it lays out how platforms ap must act to get the protection. Censoring those you don’t like isn’t a platform. It’s be like if twitter owned a public square and went around punching anyone who said something they didn’t like.
In order to be considered a platform they have to allow free speech even from those they hate.

This is a complete misrepresentation of both the law and, less importantly, what Twitter in particular actually do.

The law permits internet platforms - like Twitter, Facebook, or WrongPlanet - to engage in post-moderation without being responsible for the material that appears on their platform.

Removing this exemption would effectively force the internet to be entirely “pre-moderated”, with only “approved” content appearing.

Again, this is wrong. Removing content that is illegal or against a service’s TOS does not make you a publisher. In fact it’s the opposite. You are only legally a platform with no responsibility for what your users post if you have some post moderation e.g. you react to reports.

Not my favourite commenter, but decent enough.

^ Again, that’s complete rubbish.

Take, for example, this sentence from the description:

This is simply untrue. Twitter has repeatedly taken special effort to avoid targeting Trump! They literally changed their rules so that Trump’s comments which break the rules are allowed to stay on the site. Again, this is even made clear in the message they stuck on Trump’s tweet where they say it breaks their rules but think it is in the public interest for it to stay up. If anyone who wasn’t a world leader had said that then their Tweet would certainly have been removed and they would probably have been banned. Users of all political stripes have been banned from Twitter for much less than that.

Attaching a Fact-Check notice or other warning to someone else's post is not censorship -- removing the post is.  No one has removed any of Mr. Trump's posts, they have only attached the aforementioned warnings.

If The_Walrus or any other moderator tells me that one of my posts breaks one or more of The Rules and deletes the post, that is not censorship either; neither is editing the post to conform to The Rules.  Replying to the post (or the entire thread) and warning me that it could provoke someone else to behave badly is not censorship, either -- it is just a moderator doing his or her job.  The same applies to the moderators at Facebook, Twitter, and any of the other big-name social network services.

Mr. Trump has not been censored!

Deal with it.

I'm with Trump on this one, even if J don't trust his motives.I think it's hilarious that CNN and MSNBC pushed a conspiracy theory for nearly three years, but Twitter thought that was perfectly fine. *Snicker*

It is only human to have biases,
And some organisations enlist like thinking people.
The Australian ABC, as an example.

I haven't looked into this Twitter bias subject myself,
But I have heard commentary from sources I respect.

<learning mode activated>

There are inconsistent, errr, inconsistencies.
Critical thinkers can expose them.
Rational non-partisan people will accept the findings.

The problem is we have very few non-partisan types in this country. Everybody's stuck in the left/right paradigm.

Not directing this at anyone in particular but the Australian Broadcasting Commission is known to be impartial and has been under the thumb of the presiding Conservative coalition for some years given they have unethically interfered with the management of the broadcaster by appointed pro-conservative managing directors.

The majority of Australians have been asking the conservative government to keep their grubby hands of the broadcaster to maintain impartiality. The conservative mantra that the ABC is "hotbed" of left wing bias has been demonstrated to be propoganda reflective of the Trump inspired "fake news".

You mean the ABC has been “partial.”

Being “impartial” is a desirable trait,

I just think it's funny that Trump's precious Twitter has turned against his unfounded conspiracy theories and hateful rants!

I feel a definite sense of schadenfreude knowing that Trump's love-affair with Twitter has gone sour.

I'm not too sure of your definition of impartiality here:

While having heard many times from those on the right of partisan reporting from the ABC, I don't recall hearing many such complaints from the left.

Similarly, on political shows like "Q and A" and insiders, I am hard pressed to think of a time where the "right"\conservative side of an argument was made up of more than a single person, compared to 4 from the left.

There is also the defence I have seen from the left of the ABC that "other broadcasters" are right\conservative in reporting, so the ABC has to be there to represent the left, which is also hardly an indicator of impartiality.

Then, looking into the way the ABC has expanded from broadcasting into things like "fact checking" and diversifying into other online activities, driving out other existing business, and using these new expansion areas to lobby for more money, something which the conservative side has also tried to stop.

Sadly, everyone has their own biases\prejudices, and seemigly once they find a media organisation which meets their personal preferences they will start to watch only it (or similarly aligned sources) and so start to feel that this is "neutral"\normal, with anything that does not fit their personal belief system being "biased"\partisan.

I'd suggest that a media organisation is approaching impartiality when BOTH sides are complaining about their coverage by it...If one side is complaining while the other finds no problems, then it is likely that it is partial. If you can't see this partiality, then it is likely because you share the same views\opinions as the broadcaster.

My personal thoughts on this would be that there is already a wide range of options available to people now (particulalrly with the advent of the internet), and as such the need for a national braodcaster (at least within Australia) has decreased considerably. Arguably, the easiest option would be for the government to gradually seek to seperate the internal sections of the ABC from those focussed on representing Australia overseas. This internal section could then be permitted to start accepting advertising, providing an additional funding source (whilst keeping current levels of governement funding), and then after 2-3 years be "privatised", with an equal distribution of shares to each taxpayer (and former, living taxpayer) residing in Australia rather than being sold off. At that point, the ABC would be free to be as partial/impartial as it wishes, with the public able to contribute to it as they wish, just as all the "competition" the ABC faces already is...If the right (or left) like it (or dislike it), they are free to buy or sell shares in it, and as it starts from a neutral state, with all Australians owning it equally, there can't be claims of it having been forced to change it's stance in order to maximise an initial share price.

So I have noticed.
Presumably, it was like this pre-Trump, was it?