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

Kimsang

kunst nugget wrote: »

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.

At its inception, Twitter was designed to be a kind of radical experiment in free speech. Users could tweet anonymously, could contact high-profile users without first getting their permission, and rarely had to worry about Twitter censoring their content. In the preamble to Twitter’s original rules, the company stated, “each user is responsible for the content he or she provides … we do not actively monitor and will not censor user content, except in limited circumstances described below.”

These limited circumstances are what was alluded to earlier, already commonly accepted restrictions to freedom of speech.

Vox
https://www.vox.com/videos/2017/11/8/16624628/strikethrough-harassment-abuse-twitter-free-speech-experiment

amcalester

Kimsang wrote: »

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.

Break up Twitter into what? What are the differing constituent parts of Twitter that it could be broken up into?

Twitter doesn't have a monopoly on the Social Media industry so on what grounds would the Government attempt to break it up?

Any link to the T&C's that allow the Government to do this to any company it likes?

Kimsang

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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!

Offence is subjective. We don't have laws regarding freedom of expression, unless you're talking about new fangled hate laws. I don't accept these as proper or real laws. Just look to the garda website for the definition of hate law:

Any incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by hate, based on a person’s age, race, ethnicity, religious belief, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation’ .

Can you not see how 'perceived to be' can lead to problems, honestly?

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:

To be fair, i'm exclusively talking about in the US where twitter is dominant, and I believe that's where they're HQ is situated. I agree with your point about youtube, i follow several political channels left and right, and they are are complaining about the same thing.

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!

let me unequivocally say i don't think twitter are violating the first amendment. I believe they are enforcing rules that can be seen to violate peoples rights under the first amendment, and as such face being broken up by government.

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.

I argue that big social media are(twitter/facebook/youtube), and boards are not. Simply because boards isn't a large enough portion of society.
But when a forum such as twitter becomes so large, they must adhere to certain well moulded norms of society. Like the freedom to express oneself. Of course you can argue they don't have to do anything, they're a private company. I couldn't agree more with this. But at some stage, they must adhere to the rules of discourse within the country they operate. Otherwise they are free to circumvent laws of said country, without going through the legislature.

Kimsang

amcalester wrote: »

Break up Twitter into what? What are the differing constituent parts of Twitter that it could be broken up into?
Twitter doesn't have a monopoly on the Social Media industry so on what grounds would the Government attempt to break it up?
Any link to the T&C's that allow the Government to do this to any company it likes?

One approach would be to restrict the number of markets in which the companies can operate. That would mark a throwback to an older way of looking at the economy in which large areas of commercial activity were limited to a prescribed set of companies, said Michael Cusumano, a management professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

A second idea that has gained growing support among tech’s critics would involve splitting off monopolistic digital platforms. Supporters of this idea, such as Ms Warren, say it would address a common problem: the winner-takes-all phenomenon, where network effects produce dominant platforms.

A third option for restructuring Big Tech would involve unwinding past acquisitions, such as Facebook’s purchase of WhatsApp and Instagram, and Google’s of YouTube.
-Financial Times

https://www.ft.com/content/cb8b707c-88ca-11e9-a028-86cea8523dc2
As you can see, this is already a popular subject;

This week the shadow of drastic regulatory action was cast again over Silicon Valley after it emerged that the US Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission had divided up responsibility for potential antitrust investigations.

At the same time, the House judiciary committee announced its own inquiry into whether US antitrust laws need to be tightened up to deal with the tech giants.

The flurry of interest has emboldened the industry’s critics and prompted executives and analysts to start asking a question that until recently seemed inconceivable: What form should any forced break-ups take?
, Financial Times-7th June

DublinWriter

Anti-trust legislation was originally enacted in at the turn of the 20th century to stop large corporations having a monopoly on any particular sector.

It's a difficult argument to make that any one social-media company operates a total monopoly on social media.

is_that_so

amcalester wrote: »

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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890

Eric Cartman

DublinWriter wrote: »

Anti-trust legislation was originally enacted in at the turn of the 20th century to stop large corporations having a monopoly on any particular sector.

It's a difficult argument to make that any one social-media company operates a total monopoly on social media.

Very true, the argument with google and search holds muster but social media is such a trend based industry, sure where is myspace and bebo gone, facebook and twitter will crumble at some point.

amcalester

is_that_so wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890

You'll have to direct me to the part where it allows the US Government break up any company it wants, which was the OP's claim.

is_that_so

amcalester wrote: »

You'll have to direct me to the part where it allows the US Government break up any company it wants, which was the OP's claim.

It can't but Legacy gives examples of where it has tried.

ohnonotgmail

Kimsang wrote: »

let me unequivocally say i don't think twitter are violating the first amendment. I believe they are enforcing rules that can be seen to violate peoples rights under the first amendment, and as such face being broken up by government.

The first amendment only covers actions by the government. So they cannot, by the definition of the first amendment, violate peoples rights under the first amendment.

Kimsang

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Very true, the argument with google and search holds muster but social media is such a trend based industry, sure where is myspace and bebo gone, facebook and twitter will crumble at some point.

I hope this is what happens. There is already signs with Bitchute and Gab.

ohnonotgmail

Kimsang wrote: »

I hope this is what happens. There is already signs with Bitchute and Gab.

Gab also have terms and conditions about what you can post. are they violating first amendment rights as well?

Kimsang

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Gab also have terms and conditions about what you can post. are they violating first amendment rights as well?

This point has been made and addressed.

We already accept violations of first amendment rights as you put it, in the form of slander/incitement to violence/abuse/harassment/etc..

Everyone agrees on these, because they infringe on other people's rights.

The discussion regarding hate laws infringes on other people's right to think. This should not be acceptable.

amcalester

Kimsang wrote: »

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.

Kimsang wrote: »

https://www.ft.com/content/cb8b707c-88ca-11e9-a028-86cea8523dc2
As you can see, this is already a popular subject;

You're shifting the goalposts here, first you were talking about breaking up Twitter because it was flying in the face of the First Amendment (despite it not applying to Twitter), and now you're introduced Anti-trust laws into the mix.

As another poster has said, it would be very difficult to establish that Twitter holds a monopoly over a market.

Even Twitter's acquisitions seem more designed to enhance the user experience and increase data gathering rather than monopolise the market (IMO, from a very cursory glance on a list of their acquisitions).

Kimsang

amcalester wrote: »

You're shifting the goalposts here, first you were talking about breaking up Twitter because it was flying in the face of the First Amendment (despite it not applying to Twitter), and now you're introduced Anti-trust laws into the mix.

As another poster has said, it would be very difficult to establish that Twitter holds a monopoly over a market.

Even Twitter's acquisitions seem more designed to enhance the user experience and increase data gathering rather than monopolise the market (IMO, from a very cursory glance on a list of their acquisitions).

I'm honestly not sure what goalposts you're talking about. I'm not talking about breaking up twitter. I'm talking about the US considering it, from a few different angles. As this news is announced about , twitter releases new guidelines that they might censor politicans! Is the timing coincidental?? It seems like they are poking the bear.

Look at it from twitter's point of view. They either have to start policing everything(way too much work), or let nearly completely freedom(if they do that they lose the collective). If however they give into the frenzied mob every-time, they risk being broken up- but keep most people happy. Its win-win for them.

I just wish they operated more ethically.

ohnonotgmail

Kimsang wrote: »

This point has been made and addressed.

We already accept violations of first amendment rights as you put it, in the form of slander/incitement to violence/abuse/harassment/etc..

Everyone agrees on these, because they infringe on other people's rights.

The discussion regarding hate laws infringes on other people's right to think. This should not be acceptable.

Just to be clear, they are not violations of first amendment rights as i put it. They are violations of first amendment rights as you put it. that is your claim not mine.

There no laws regarding what you can think. there are laws regarding what you can say. quite different things.

Kimsang

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Just to be clear, they are not violations of first amendment rights as i put it. They are violations of first amendment rights as you put it. that is your claim not mine.
There no laws regarding what you can think. there are laws regarding what you can say. quite different things.

"let me unequivocally say i don't think twitter are violating the first amendment. I believe they are enforcing rules that can be seen to violate peoples rights under the first amendment, and as such face being broken up by government."

This is my post from the last page. What exactly are you arguing?

ohnonotgmail

Kimsang wrote: »

This is my post from the last page. What exactly are you arguing?

"let me unequivocally say i don't think twitter are violating the first amendment. I believe they are enforcing rules that can be seen to violate peoples rights under the first amendment, and as such face being broken up by government."

let me post again something i only quite recently but you seem to have missed.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The first amendment only covers actions by the government. So they cannot, by the definition of the first amendment, violate peoples rights under the first amendment.

Corporations cannot violate peoples rights under the first amendment. I'm not sure how much clearer i can make that.

One eyed Jack

Kimsang wrote: »

Offence is subjective. We don't have laws regarding freedom of expression, unless you're talking about new fangled hate laws. I don't accept these as proper or real laws. Just look to the garda website for the definition of hate law:
Can you not see how 'perceived to be' can lead to problems, honestly?

Ahhh jesus Kimsang, come on now!


Freedom of expression

You have a right to freely express your convictions and opinions (Article 40.6.1.i). However, the Constitution asserts that the State should try to make sure that the radio, the press and the cinema are not used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State. It also states that it is an offence to publish or utter blasphemous, seditious or indecent matter.

Following a referendum in May 2018, the Thirty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution (Repeal of offence of publication or utterance of blasphemous matter) Act 2018 has removed the word “blasphemous” from the Constitution.

There are some limitations on your freedom of expression. For example, the Censorship of Publications Acts and the Censorship of Films Acts allow censorship of publications like books, films and DVDs.


Fundamental rights under the Irish Constitution

To be fair, i'm exclusively talking about in the US where twitter is dominant, and I believe that's where they're HQ is situated. I agree with your point about youtube, i follow several political channels left and right, and they are are complaining about the same thing.

let me unequivocally say i don't think twitter are violating the first amendment. I believe they are enforcing rules that can be seen to violate peoples rights under the first amendment, and as such face being broken up by government.

You’re clearly not exclusively talking about the US though? You’re flipping back and forth between Ireland and the US about social media companies which are obligated to adhere to the laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate. Where their headquarters are located makes no difference in terms of what laws do or do not apply. This is one of the problems with consuming US-centric content on social media - people become so entrenched in it they swallow any old codswallop taken completely out of context and presented to them as fact.

Twitter aren’t enforcing rules that have the potential to violate anyone’s first amendment rights, because they can’t. Its been explained to you numerous times already, that the first amendment only applies to restrict US Government from making laws which restrict people’s fundamental freedoms -


The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which respect an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.


First Amendment to the United States Constitution

I argue that big social media are(twitter/facebook/youtube), and boards are not. Simply because boards isn't a large enough portion of society.
But when a forum such as twitter becomes so large, they must adhere to certain well moulded norms of society. Like the freedom to express oneself. Of course you can argue they don't have to do anything, they're a private company. I couldn't agree more with this. But at some stage, they must adhere to the rules of discourse within the country they operate. Otherwise they are free to circumvent laws of said country, without going through the legislature.

You mean like your earlier assertion that you don’t accept how hate crimes are defined by Gardai in Ireland which is based on Irish legislation that already exists, and has for some time now, which you’re not talking about because you’re exclusively talking about the US to be fair, because according to you we don’t have freedom of expression laws in Ireland...


Fcuk this, I’m going for coffee, too early to be trying to get my head around this shìte

batgoat

Kimsang wrote: »

I hope this is what happens. There is already signs with Bitchute and Gab.

Gab literally houses the worst of the Internet and has notoriety more than success. Eg the synagogue shooter used it for racist rants. These are genuinely the users who tend to manage to get banned on Facebook.

Kimsang

I believe they are enforcing rules that can be seen to violate peoples rights under the first amendment, and as such face being broken up by government."

I don't know what you think you are arguing against, but I never said that.

They are seen as violating peoples rights.
They are possibly facing being broken up by the government.

batgoat

Kimsang wrote: »

I don't know what you think you are arguing against, but I never said that.

They are seen as violating peoples rights.
They are possibly facing being broken up by the government.

They are not possibly being broken up the government. They are not breaching anyone's rights by enforcing their policy of use. If one perceives it as such, then it's a general issue of intelligence of the individual who believes that.

Kimsang

batgoat wrote: »

Gab literally houses the worst of the Internet and has notoriety more than success. Eg the synagogue shooter used it for racist rants. These are genuinely the users who tend to manage to get banned on Facebook.

Of course that is what it will be labelled as. Look at how Brett Weinstein is labelled, or James Damore, or Roger Scruton, or Majiid Nawaz, or Eoin Lenihan, or Sam Harris, or.....

There is one ideology particularly fond of labeling others.

The christchurch shooter used facebook for its shootings, does this mean facebook houses the worst of the internet?

amcalester

Kimsang wrote: »

I don't know what you think you are arguing against, but I never said that.

They are seen as violating peoples rights.
They are possibly facing being broken up by the government.

Are they though? Has any current Government official with any real power suggested this?

You mentioned Elizabeth Warren above, and while she has suggested breaking up Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google, has she actually mentioned Twitter?

amcalester

Kimsang wrote: »

The christchurch shooter used facebook for its shootings, does this mean facebook houses the worst of the internet?

It kind of does, I mean, he killed 51 people. If that doesn't make him the worst then I don't know what does.

Facebook doesn't solely house the worst, but some on there are the worst.

batgoat

Kimsang wrote: »

Of course that is what it will be labelled as. Look at how Brett Weinstein is labelled, or James Damore, or Roger Scruton, or Majiid Nawaz, or Eoin Lenihan, or Sam Harris, or.....

There is one ideology particularly fond of labeling others.

The christchurch shooter used facebook for its shootings, does this mean facebook houses the worst of the internet?

Gab literally formed as a result of users who engaged in hate speech being banned. The synagogue shooter behaviour on the platform was not a minority issue, he represents viewpoints that are commonly expressed on the platform.

ohnonotgmail

Kimsang wrote: »

I don't know what you think you are arguing against, but I never said that.

They are seen as violating peoples rights.
They are possibly facing being broken up by the government.

that is a direct quote from you.

Kimsang wrote: »

let me unequivocally say i don't think twitter are violating the first amendment. I believe they are enforcing rules that can be seen to violate peoples rights under the first amendment, and as such face being broken up by government.

what rights are they

Kimsang

amcalester wrote: »

Are they though? Has any current Government official with any real power suggested this?

You mentioned Elizabeth Warren above, and while she has suggested breaking up Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google, has she actually mentioned Twitter?

Possibly, I'd say unlikely alright in the extreme. It might be attempted though.

I think Trump spoke about it aswell.

I don't think twitter was specifically mentioned, but I guess big-tech would include them.
What is being spoken about more is market regulation. Mandatory competition and the likes.

Kimsang

batgoat wrote: »

Gab literally formed as a result of users who engaged in hate speech being banned. The synagogue shooter behaviour on the platform was not a minority issue, he represents viewpoints that are commonly expressed on the platform.

Have you got evidence of this?

batgoat

Kimsang wrote: »

Possibly, I'd say unlikely alright in the extreme. It might be attempted though.

I think Trump spoke about it aswell.

I don't think twitter was specifically mentioned, but I guess big-tech would include them.
What is being spoken about more is market regulation. Mandatory competition and the likes.

If attempted, it would be more of a sign of an authoritarian government rather than rights being violated. Similar to social media in China.