394 replies to this topic

[Rob Randall]

After some hefty criticism Twitter finally appended a fact check link below Trump's false mail vote tweets yesterday. The link goes to a fact-check summary provided by CNN and the Washington Post which made the Marmalade Mussolini livid.

 

In retaliation, tomorrow he's going to sign an Executive Order on social media. Nobody seems to know what it's going to say. It could be another of his impotent whine-fest orders that have a lot of fierce words but no real power or actionable terms. I guess his handlers figure if he's signing things he's keeping occupied and productively distracted. 

[RFS]

Supposedly will have to do with Section 230 protections. Apparently he may repeal protections from legal liabilities they have or make some other changes. As I understand currently the social media giants have legal protection from liability for content but also get to control and ban and censor with impunity. The idea is they should either be legally liable for content on their sites, or they should be considered like a utility and not allowed to censor, ban, fact check, or anything like that. Makes perfect sense to me. You might love the politically charged soft censorship now, but that's just because it's being used against your political opponents

[G-Man]

People have to choose whether they want free speech or not. Those section 230 protections disappear and so does our ability to say what we want.

[Victoria Watcher]

i’m Not sure I follow.

the 230 change makes them choose. Publisher or platform.

they really should not be allowed to be both when they choose.

zuckerberg agrees with me.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 27 May 2020 - 06:11 PM.

[G-Man]

If they become publishers than nothing that could get them sued will be allowed. Think about it. Twitter doesn't exist in that situation. They should not be responsible for what I tweet. 

[Rob Randall]

Twitter gives Trump a pretty long leash. He can do stuff that would get us banned.

 

Say for instance one of the local Together Victoria members tweeted, "hey, that C-FAX host we hate--I hear he was hanging around parks around the time that kid disappeared 30 years ago". Crazy talk like that would get you banned immediately

. 

Edited by Rob Randall, 27 May 2020 - 07:21 PM.

[Victoria Watcher]

If they become publishers than nothing that could get them sued will be allowed. Think about it. Twitter doesn't exist in that situation. They should not be responsible for what I tweet.

they would never choose yo be publishers. Nobody would use it. that’s the point. they’d choose to be a platform and leave my tweets alone.

[Mike K.]

Twitter gives Trump a pretty long leash. He can do stuff that would get us banned.

Say for instance one of the local Together Victoria members tweeted, "hey, that C-FAX host we hate--I hear he was hanging around parks around the time that kid disappeared 30 years ago". Crazy talk like that would get you banned immediately
.

Did that not just happen this week, though?

On Monday a group of Together Victoria’s supporters called that host a sexist and a misogynist, but couldn’t procure an ounce of proof to support their assertions. Then individuals blocked him from their accounts, meaning he couldn’t directly respond to those accusations, then deleted the posts to make his tweets about their tweets look out of character and bizarre, as though he was defending himself for no reason at all.

[Rob Randall]

^No, I was using a hypothetical example of tying an innocent person to a well-known specific unsolved crime. Not simply a garden variety accusation of being a jerk. Big difference.  

[Mike K.]

Calling someone a sexist and a misogynist is not a garden variety accusation, especially when nothing about their conduct warrants such a public tarnishing of their character.

That’s pure malice, quite likely intended to silence the target, or to divert their attention to other issues out of fear of being described as a generally awful person if they keep digging.

Calling someone a jerk or a hot-head is garden variety stuff, even if it’s not warranted. But the societal implication of being labelled a misogynist is serious.

[Greg]

I assume Twitter's response will be to stop marking Trump's posts with fact checking info, but to just enforce their Terms of Service. They clearly have the right to do so, and should have been doing it all along. That would result in him being banned from the site.

 

/they won't do that because half of Twitter traffic is generated by Trump.

[Rob Randall]

Calling someone a sexist and a misogynist is not a garden variety accusation, especially when nothing about their conduct warrants such a public tarnishing of their character.

That’s pure malice, quite likely intended to silence the target, or to divert their attention to other issues out of fear of being described as a generally awful person if they keep digging.

Calling someone a jerk or a hot-head is garden variety stuff, even if it’s not warranted. But the societal implication of being labelled a misogynist is serious.

 

What happened to Adam was unfair and untrue and he deserves an apology for that hateful accusation. But I am putting that issue aside for the moment.

 

The definition of misogyny is vague and difficult to refute. A few think that using terms like "mankind" and "spokesman" makes you a misogynist. 

 

My hypothetical example was accusing someone of a well-known and specific heinous crime. My point is that Trump got away with it with the Scarborough murder accusation.

 

What if Justin Trudeau accused controversial reporter Ezra Levant of direct involvement in an famous Ottawa unsolved murder?

 

What if a Victoria politician used Twitter to publicly accuse a specific C-FAX reporter of the murder of that well-known little boy 30 years ago?

 

My question is at what level of power does Twitter's censorship capabilities kick in?

[Victoria Watcher]

it should never kick in. if I say something untrue about you on twitter then sue me. if it’s illegal arrest me.

no different than if I “say” things about you in a flyer or over the telephone or with a loudspeaker.

“I think joe Scarborough might have committed murder” is not untrue or illegal to say.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 28 May 2020 - 05:56 AM.

[Mike K.]

What happened to Adam was unfair and untrue and he deserves an apology for that hateful accusation. But I am putting that issue aside for the moment.

 

That's mostly why Twitter/Facebook and the rest of these massive social platforms are such trash, because 99.9% of socially inappropriate and spiritually draining conduct is put aside because it's not politically expedient to be dealt with, or you're a "nobody" to Twitter to even be on their radar.

[Mike K.]

it should never kick in. if I say something untrue about you on twitter then sue me. if it’s illegal arrest me.

no different than if I “say” things about you in a flyer or over the telephone or with a loudspeaker.

“I think joe Scarborough might have committed murder” is not untrue or illegal to say.

 

Sue whom? @Billy6585_442?

 

Twitter and Facebook have zero interest in helping you, or acting as a judge in disputes. In fact, a leaked memo from Facebook has confirmed what we've all suspected, that their goal is to divide, split us into groups and have us spend hours in heated debates, day in, day out to sell you some trinkets and cars.

 

Facebook Executives Shut Down Efforts to Make the Site Less Divisive

https://www.wsj.com/...2817006adb124df

[Victoria Watcher]

you see billy3565 has no credibility. he can’t hurt your good name. no more so than a child or a homeless nut job screaming mike k. is a murderer.

[Rob Randall]

So anything goes now I guess.

 

Recall back in the 1980s when cartoonist Bob Bierman depicted Premier Vander Zalm picking the wings off flies, the Premier won his libel case in court but it was overturned on appeal and Vander Zalm did not pursue it further. Bierman said he was illustrating his policy, not his personality. But legitimate satire is a protective cloak. Social media is replacing newspapers but without the same checks and balances.

[Mike K.]

you see billy3565 has no credibility. he can’t hurt your good name. no more so than a child or a homeless nut job screaming mike k. is a murderer.

 

You're wrong. Billy3565 could be inundating your social media channels with lies about you, and he could even be using a name that sounds very credible, like Lloyd Smith, or Henry Goldman, or Linda Brown.

 

And unlike the nutjob screaming stupid things, a social media platform gives anyone the opportunity to broadcast information to massive audiences. That nutjob is out of mind when you can't hear him.

[Mike K.]

So anything goes now I guess.

 

Recall back in the 1980s when cartoonist Bob Bierman depicted Premier Vander Zalm picking the wings off flies, the Premier won his libel case in court but it was overturned on appeal and Vander Zalm did not pursue it further. Bierman said he was illustrating his policy, not his personality. But legitimate satire is a protective cloak. Social media is replacing newspapers but without the same checks and balances.

 

And the worst part about it is Facebook/Twitter have anonymized so much of their platforms, so you don't always know who to point the finger at to pursue a legal challenge should one be warranted. Some people will also create duplicate accounts in an attempt to tarnish your reputation by making it look like you're the one saying something that you'd never say. And whose account is legit if the Facebook platform doesn't care to "validate" your account?

[RFS]

What Twitter did to Trump is the same as if Trump sent out a bunch of mailer flyers and the post office stapled a 'fact check' addendum to each flyer before sending it out. Or if the phone company cut into his phone conversation to counter a point he just made. If Twitter doesn't want to be viewed this way than they should be made liable for everything they publish. The social media giants can't have their cake and eat it too. This should be bi partisan but leftists cant bring themselves to give up this advantage