Jack Dorsey(Twitter) lays the groundwork to finally censor Trump

Kimsang

Montreal litigator Viva Frei discusses in his v-lawg (video law blog) about twitter's recent announcement to start censoring/flagging/or giving warnings to government officials tweets- if those tweets are deemed to be violating the terms of service, whatever those terms of service are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-svx-rFQksQ

It brings up the argument of whether social media sites like twitter are platforms where they must host everything but operate with carte blanche, or whether they are publishers, where they must censor everything and police what is said. The trouble being that their rules are poorly defined.

"Our highest priority is to protect the health of the public conversation on Twitter, and an important part of that is ensuring our rules and how we enforce them are easy to understand. In the past, we’ve allowed certain Tweets that violated our rules to remain on Twitter because they were in the public’s interest, but it wasn’t clear when and how we made those determinations. To fix that, we’re introducing a new notice that will provide additional clarity in these situations, and sharing more on when and why we’ll use it.

Serving the public conversation includes providing the ability for anyone to talk about what matters to them; this can be especially important when engaging with government officials and political figures. By nature of their positions these leaders have outsized influence and sometimes say things that could be considered controversial or invite debate and discussion. A critical function of our service is providing a place where people can openly and publicly respond to their leaders and hold them accountable.

With this in mind, there are certain cases where it may be in the public’s interest to have access to certain Tweets, even if they would otherwise be in violation of our rules. On the rare occasions when this happens, we'll place a notice – a screen you have to click or tap through before you see the Tweet – to provide additional context and clarity. We’ll also take steps to make sure the Tweet is not algorithmically elevated on our service, to strike the right balance between enabling free expression, fostering accountability, and reducing the potential harm caused by these Tweets". -TWITTER BLOG

How can a platform like twitter publicly discuss censoring government officials? Completely undermining the first amendment?
Looks to me like Jack Dorsey has gone too far.
His recent discussion with Joe Rogan and his head of Trust and safety Vijaya Gadde were very telling.
These are clips from that 3.5hour stream, where Tim Pool alleges liberal bias against twitter. I didn't like Gadde's defence here or do other's disagree?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2ouS_JF7U

"This is about, are you doing something with the intention of abusing someone on our platform? Are they viewing it that way(as harassment) and are they reporting it as such?" - Gadde

I actually agree with the rule of not abusing people; but now what people perceive to be abuse is also enough to warrant sanction.
This is quite ridiculous, as one sides argument will always reduce to ,"Oh but they said mean things," or "they made me feel bad"

"If the poster is expressing an opinion; that's fine, but if it's in a way that is targeting an individual, that's where we draw the line"-Gadde

So it seems the only difference is how much offence a person takes, or how many times something is reported.
Relevant also to whats happening between this forum and AH.

"We know that not only are people manipulating your platform, you have rules that remove honest people with 'bad opinions' who have a right to engage with public discource.. and its like you recognize it..."-Tim Pool

"There are bubbles and we've helped create and maintain them. What you see is bubbles, where people on the left only see other people on the left. Whereas people on the right see everybody"-Jack Dorsey

riffmongous

Nothing to do with first ammendment anyway.

Eric Cartman

The moment you have somebody talking about censoring somebody (and not even dressing it up as something else) and celebrating that , then you see whos the one with the real fascist tendencies. Saw this yesterday which I thought was very appropriate :

amcalester

OP can you explain why you think the First Amendment is in any way relevant here?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Kimsang

amcalester wrote: »

OP can you explain why you think the First Amendment is in any way relevant here?

Freedom of speech is the freedom to offend. Offence is personal and can be caused by a wide variety of reasons.

Twitter and other social media companies seem to be moving to regulating how people offend other people. Something that is true, can cause offense. This does not mean it should be censored.

Take Joe Rogan's example of Martina Navratalova. "Lesbians don't sleep with men"- Banned

They are circumventing the first amendment, and it might be deliberately, as a forced government breakup would arguably be a good thing for them.

ILoveYourVibes

Kimsang wrote: »

Freedom of speech is the freedom to offend. Offence is personal and can be caused by a wide variety of reasons.

Twitter and other social media companies seem to be moving to regulating how people offend other people. Something that is true, can cause offense. This does not mean it should be censored.

Take Joe Rogan's example of Martina Navratalova. "Lesbians don't sleep with men"- Banned

They are circumventing the first amendment, and it might be deliberately, as a forced government breakup would arguably be a good thing for them.

But it's a private company moderating it.

It's not the US govt making a law about it.

A publisher doesn't have to publish your book. You can make your own website etc.

Boards.ie could ban me right now. Even if we were in the states.

It's very different from the US govt banning me from talking or locking me up.

The first amendment covers the govt.

If i was a govt official you can be darn right i would defend your right to be offensive.

If i was owner of a private website you can be darned right i would ban people i thought were writing horrible content.

There is breitbart for that. I am sure they select their content etc.

Kimsang

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

But it's a private company moderating it.

It's not the US govt making a law about it.

A publisher doesn't have to publish your book. You can make your own website etc.

Boards.ie could ban me right now. Even if we were in the states.

It's very different from the US govt banning me from talking or locking me up.

The first amendment covers the govt.

Of course not, but when is a social media company a publisher, and when is it a platform.

Let's say its a platform, like that of a telecoms company. They are not allowed to cut off your telephone based on what you say or what you do.

Social media companies are supposed to be platforms, and they enjoy the perks as such( no liability).

But now they are clearly moving into the territory of publisher(ideological moderation). They should no longer enjoy the benefits of being a platform.

amcalester

Kimsang wrote: »

Freedom of speech is the freedom to offend. Offence is personal and can be caused by a wide variety of reasons.

Twitter and other social media companies seem to be moving to regulating how people offend other people. Something that is true, can cause offense. This does not mean it should be censored.

Take Joe Rogan's example of Martina Navratalova. "Lesbians don't sleep with men"- Banned

They are circumventing the first amendment, and it might be deliberately, as a forced government breakup would arguably be a good thing for them.

If you don't know the answer just say you don't know.

I'll give you a hint that may kick start your understanding, Twitter is not the US Government.

Kimsang

amcalester wrote: »

If you don't know the answer just say you don't know.

I'll give you a hint that may kick start your understanding, Twitter is not the US Government.

is_that_so

Kimsang wrote: »

Of course not, but when is a social media company a publisher, and when is it a platform.

Let's say its a platform, like that of a telecoms company. They are not allowed to cut off your telephone based on what you say or what you do.

Social media companies are supposed to be platforms, and they enjoy the perks as such( no liability).

But now they are clearly moving into the territory of publisher(ideological moderation). They should no longer enjoy the benefits of being a platform.

No, all service entities have T&C, which we generally never bother to read. Break them and they can take steps against you. No user owns the platform and if it's true freedom of speech you want, you get your own site or blog.

Kimsang

is_that_so wrote: »

No, all service entities have T&C, which we generally never bother to read. Break them and they can take steps against you. No user owns the platform and if it's true freedom of speech you want, you get your own site or blog.

Yes of course, but if you read the US governments terms and conditions carefully, you can see that they can breakup whatever company they like. Look at what Elizabeth Warren is campaigning on.

ILoveYourVibes

Kimsang wrote: »

Of course not, but when is a social media company a publisher, and when is it a platform.

Let's say its a platform, like that of a telecoms company. They are not allowed to cut off your telephone based on what you say or what you do.

Social media companies are supposed to be platforms, and they enjoy the perks as such( no liability).

But now they are clearly moving into the territory of publisher(ideological moderation). They should no longer enjoy the benefits of being a platform.

They can actually. If you make obscene phonecalls.

Originally Posted by is_that_so View Post
No, all service entities have T&C, which we generally never bother to read. Break them and they can take steps against you. No user owns the platform and if it's true freedom of speech you want, you get your own site or blog.

I'm not sure she is being entirely honest about their abilities to do that IMO. She is making it seem clear cut and easy.

is_that_so

Kimsang wrote: »

Yes of course, but if you read the US governments terms and conditions carefully, you can see that they can breakup whatever company they like. Look at what Elizabeth Warren is campaigning on.

What T&C would that be? And no they can't actually but what has any of that got to do with this thread?

ILoveYourVibes

is_that_so wrote: »

What T&C would that be? And no they can't actually but what has any of that got to do with this thread?

I think he means trump might try to break up twitter?? not sure.

amcalester

Kimsang wrote: »

I'm not watching that, if you have something to say then say but I'm not going to do your work for you.

The general gist, from what I've read, is that Twitter are going to better hold politicians to account when these politicians break Twitter's T&C's and you think this is an attack on the First Amendment.

It's not, move on.

Kimsang

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

They can actually. If you make obscene phonecalls.

Yes but that's within the grounds of already commonly accepted restrictions on freedom of speech. (harrassment/threats/incitement of violence/etc..)

No one had a problem when social media companies moderated as such.

The problems began when they started increasing the threshold by which they policed free speech(moving into hate speech/offence taking).

Boards is different to social media companies. Not everyone is on boards. We must admit social media companies have too much power these days in regards them being the forums within which we debate/converse.

Kimsang

Kimsang wrote: »

Montreal litigator Viva Frei discusses in his v-lawg (video law blog) about twitter's recent announcement to start censoring/flagging/or giving warnings to government officials tweets- if those tweets are deemed to be violating the terms of service, whatever those terms of service are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-svx-rFQksQ

Towards the end of the video...
Twitter is not a news service nor is it a government official communication channel. It should have no responsibility towards people not getting emergency broadcast notices.

Kimsang

amcalester wrote: »

I'm not watching that, if you have something to say then say but I'm not going to do your work for you.

The general gist, from what I've read, is that Twitter are going to better hold politicians to account when these politicians break Twitter's T&C's and you think this is an attack on the First Amendment.

It's not, move on.

Nice way to strawman my argument, but you're going to have to do better than that.

I'm not saying its an attack on the first amendment. I'm saying they are circumventing it, and skating on thin ice by doing so. Now if you have anything to argue, please don't be so snarky.

Kimsang

Deleted User wrote: »

Towards the end of the video...
Twitter is not a news service nor is it a government official communication channel. It should have no responsibility towards people not getting emergency broadcast notices.

But it is the age we are living in. People do get emergency notices from twitter.
I have never used twitter. Its not like I support it.

But I accept that most people do use it, and it is a public forum.

You don't get everyone to join your public forum by promising free speech, and then turn around and start policing it ideologically.

Is anyone disputing that twitter are policing their platform ideologically?

amcalester

Kimsang wrote: »

Nice way to strawman my argument, but you're going to have to do better than that.

I'm not saying its an attack on the first amendment. I'm saying they are circumventing it, and skating on thin ice by doing so. Now if you have anything to argue, please don't be so snarky.

Genuinely wasn't trying to strawman you, but I can see that you didn't say that it was an attack on the First Amendment - that was clunky phrasing on my part, apologies.

Having said that, I still think that you don't really understand what the First Amendment is and how it applies to Twitter (and possibly other non-Government entities).

Kimsang wrote: »

Is anyone disputing that twitter are policing their platform ideologically?

Can you point to the sections of Twitter's T&C's that are based on some ideology?

Kimsang

Kimsang wrote: »

But it is the age we are living in. People do get emergency notices from twitter.
I have never used twitter. Its not like I support it.

But I accept that most people do use it, and it is a public forum.

You don't get everyone to join your public forum by promising free speech, and then turn around and start policing it ideologically.

Is anyone disputing that twitter are policing their platform ideologically?

They have no responsibility to deliver that message. It's up to you if you choose to post on that service.
Boards has no responsibility, to me, to put my message out and Twitter is the same.

They can police their platform as per their terms and conditions but, up to now, politicians have been able to flout the conditions they agreed to when they signed up. If you or I said half the personal attacks that, let's call it out, Drumpf has spouted we would have been banned.

Kimsang

amcalester wrote: »

Genuinely wasn't trying to strawman you, but I can see that you didn't say that it was an attack on the First Amendment - that was clunky phrasing on my part, apologies.

Having said that, I still think that you don't really understand what the First Amendment is and how it applies to Twitter (and possibly other non-Government entities).

I know is a deeply complicated issue, I'm not trying to present it as anything else.
But at the end of the day twitter also operates within the US and any country it operates in it must abide by their laws, or risk being banned from operating, or possibly broken up as a company within the US.

It looks like twitter know exactly what they're doing. If they get broken up as Warren suggest, it could be a huge pay day. Imagine they were using this ideological war as a weapon just to make more money. Would be disgusting, eh.

One eyed Jack

Kimsang wrote: »

Yes but that's within the grounds of already commonly restrictions on freedom of speech. (harrassment/threats/incitement of violence/etc..)

No one had a problem when social media companies moderated as such.

The problems began when they started increasing the threshold by which they policed free speech(moving into hate speech/offence taking).

Plenty of people had a problem with it, and that’s why they decided to change their policies. That’s because in spite of what you think (and your right to freedom of conscience is protected) - freedom of speech absolutely does not imply the freedom to offend.

Boards is different to social media companies. Not everyone is on boards. We must admin social media companies have too much power these days in regards them being the forums within which we debate/converse.

Boards is a social media platform no different to any other social media platform? Not everyone is on Facebook, Twitter, Wechat and the hundreds of other social media platforms there are globally! The irony that you argue Government should censor Twitter because you think they’re censoring Government is just... I don’t know what to make of it actually

Meanwhile, take a look at the list of countries where the Government censors Twitter -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Twitter

That’s what you’re arguing for when you argue that social media companies have what you think is so much power that they’re censoring people’s right freedom of speech. They’re not, they can’t. Obligations to protect the right to freedom of speech only apply to Government, not private companies which have every right to restrict, edit or delete content on their platforms which violates their policies and terms of use or could cause offence to other people using their platform.

Kimsang

amcalester wrote: »

Can you point to the sections of Twitter's T&C's that are based on some ideology?

No. They have broad rules around offence. But they do not get specific in their rules. What reveals their ideology is the way in which they police.

"The commonality of these groups that are being targeted is their politics, and you don't see it on the other side as much," D.C. McAllister, a columnist for conservative news service PJ Media and The Federalist, said in an interview.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/11/18/conservatives-accuse-twitter-of-liberal-bias/94037802/

This article details my case.

Kimsang

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Plenty of people had a problem with it, and that’s why they decided to change their policies. That’s because in spite of what you think (and your right to freedom of conscience is protected) - freedom of speech absolutely does not imply the freedom to offend.

Plenty of the loudest people, all coming from one particular ideology, yes. Of course it implies freedom to offend. Offence is a subjective thing.

Boards is a social media platform no different to any other social media platform? Not everyone is on Facebook, Twitter, Wechat and the hundreds of other social media platforms there are globally!

Ok fair enough, but I still think there is a difference between twitter where most of a population are on it.

The irony that you argue Government should censor Twitter because you think they’re censoring Government is just... I don’t know what to make of it actually

I never made this argument, this is a misrepresentation. I said it looks like twitter are trying to get broken up by the government. I also said I think they are going too far in the way they police.

[that] they’re censoring people’s right freedom of speech. They’re not, they can’t. Obligations to protect the right to freedom of speech only apply to Government, not private companies which have every right to restrict, edit or delete content on their platforms which violates their policies and terms of use or could cause offence to other people using their platform.

You're wrong here. Twitter enjoy all the advantages of being a platform. They should act as such. They are and they can censoring people's right of speech. Martina Navratalova was banned for saying lesbians don't sleep with men, or something.

ohnonotgmail

Kimsang wrote: »

Plenty of the loudest people, all coming from one particular ideology, yes. Of course it implies freedom to offend. Offence is a subjective thing.


Ok fair enough, but I still think there is a difference between twitter where most of a population are on it.



I never made this argument, this is a misrepresentation. I said it looks like twitter are trying to get broken up by the government. I also said I think they are going too far in the way they police.




You're wrong here. Twitter enjoy all the advantages of being a platform. They should act as such. They are and they can censoring people's right of speech. Martina Navratalova was banned for saying lesbians don't sleep with men, or something.

You do not have a right of speech on twitter. They are a private company. this has been said to you numerous times now and you just dont seem to get it.

amcalester

Kimsang wrote: »

No. They have broad rules around offence. But they do not get specific in their rules. What reveals their ideology is the way in which they police.



https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/11/18/conservatives-accuse-twitter-of-liberal-bias/94037802/

This article details my case.

Taken from the article linked and the same person you quoted in your post.

They are a private company and they can do what they want," she said. But, "people have their biases and it comes through in their work.

It really isn't a First Amendment issue.

One eyed Jack

Kimsang wrote: »

Plenty of the loudest people, all coming from one particular ideology, yes. Of course it implies freedom to offend. Offence is a subjective thing.

Offence isn’t a subjective thing. Our own laws regarding freedom of expression have limitations and restrictions so as to prohibit causing offence to other people!

Ok fair enough, but I still think there is a difference between twitter where most of a population are on it.

Neither in Ireland or the US are most of the population on Twitter. For what it’s worth, I can’t stand either Twitter or Facebook, Youtube is alright, but they too have been accused of censoring content creators by one of the platforms most subscribed content creators - PewdiePie! Almost every second one of his videos now is complaining about YouTube’s latest attempt to censor content creators :rolleyes:

I never made this argument, this is a misrepresentation. I said it looks like twitter are trying to get broken up by the government. I also said I think they are going too far in the way they police.

Oh come on, you were making the argument that what Twitter are doing was a violation of the first amendment of the US Constitution and that they shouldn’t have so much power! Your whole argument is based around the idea that Twitter are a public platform so they shouldn’t get to decide what content they host. The only body who can enforce that restriction upon Twitter, are Governments!

You're wrong here. Twitter enjoy all the advantages of being a platform. They should act as such. They are and they can censoring people's right of speech. Martina Navratalova was banned for saying lesbians don't sleep with men, or something.

Censoring content on their platforms is in no way a violation of the right to freedom of speech, or in Irish law at least since your argument is that it is a reflection on what’s going on with Boards and this forum and AH - Boards aren’t violating anyone’s right to freedom of expression either by censoring, editing, deleting or restricting people’s use of their platform.

amcalester

Kimsang wrote: »

Yes of course, but if you read the US governments terms and conditions carefully, you can see that they can breakup whatever company they like. Look at what Elizabeth Warren is campaigning on.

is_that_so wrote: »

What T&C would that be? And no they can't actually but what has any of that got to do with this thread?

Any chance you could provide a link to the US Government's T'&C's that allow it to break up any company it wants?

kunst nugget

Kimsang wrote: »

But it is the age we are living in. People do get emergency notices from twitter.
I have never used twitter. Its not like I support it.

But I accept that most people do use it, and it is a public forum.

You don't get everyone to join your public forum by promising free speech, and then turn around and start policing it ideologically.

Is anyone disputing that twitter are policing their platform ideologically?

Most people don't use Twitter. It has about a tenth of the users that facebook has. I don't think Twitter has ever promised free speech either - it has a pretty prescriptive set of terms and conditions for using its platform.

Kimsang

amcalester wrote: »

Taken from the article linked and the same person you quoted in your post.

It really isn't a First Amendment issue.

Could the us government use it as a reason for breaking up twitter(flying in the face of the 1st amendment)? Lets say Elizabeth Warren gets elected. I don't think this would be the worst candidate.