What? Are you fucking kidding me? New York Times posts an article advocating against free speech.
- Thread starter Specter Von Baren
- Start date
USA
What about this part?
It is funny though that articles states" although there is no evidence of any quid pro quo." you spin it to look sinister. So it is essentially saying nothing happened.. right.
I did read it. It reminds me of Rita Skeeter's whole "mere boy of 12 ..eyes glistening with the tears of his past.” bit. ( Yes that one was just for you because I KNOW how much you love it. <3)
Basically insinuation, then they turn around and say nothing happened and it was unconfirmed. So what is the problem here? Accusations without evidence. They did investigate and found no wrong doing and completely transparent financials.
Saying " this could be spun to look bad" doesn't mean any of it was actually bad.
They investigated and found that the foundation looked like a pay to play scheme and found workers who thought the same, and warned the foundation of that.
Any real push for restrictions is going to end badly for both sides.
You think it will end Qanon? Yeh but it would also mean and end to false accusations made on twitter regularly.
A better way (For the USA) would be to open the libel / slander laws up a bit so you have to have it judged as what "A sane person with the same evidence would come to the same conclusion".
Throw in the a clause for journalists to have to "Do their due diligence" E.G. you can't just report bullshit and have to show a good faith effort to get a response from those you're article is accusing.
Throw in something for publications like "Any retraction must be given the same prominence as the original story"
Then you've got people more obliged to be honest.
Also twitter very much has encouraged this whole make blind wild claims because it rewards emotional knee jerk reactions more than actual thought out arguments. If tweeted acted to enforce rules on slader or seemingly malicious claim (it has rules BTW in this regard already). It would mean acting to suspend at least two individuals who this year made accusations against and then publicly doxxed the wrong people, oh and these weren't no-ones they were twitter verified people one of which was a Disney TV star. Twitter literally has a rule for verified accounts that they can't spread obvious misinformation or misinformation out of pure malice. It keep happening though.
Also have twitter have to put in a system so if something is retracted then they put in a note (like they already have been for "fact checking") but linking to a tweet form the publication withdrawing said claims in said piece etc.
You think it will end Qanon? Yeh but it would also mean and end to false accusations made on twitter regularly.
A better way (For the USA) would be to open the libel / slander laws up a bit so you have to have it judged as what "A sane person with the same evidence would come to the same conclusion".
Throw in the a clause for journalists to have to "Do their due diligence" E.G. you can't just report bullshit and have to show a good faith effort to get a response from those you're article is accusing.
Throw in something for publications like "Any retraction must be given the same prominence as the original story"
Then you've got people more obliged to be honest.
Also twitter very much has encouraged this whole make blind wild claims because it rewards emotional knee jerk reactions more than actual thought out arguments. If tweeted acted to enforce rules on slader or seemingly malicious claim (it has rules BTW in this regard already). It would mean acting to suspend at least two individuals who this year made accusations against and then publicly doxxed the wrong people, oh and these weren't no-ones they were twitter verified people one of which was a Disney TV star. Twitter literally has a rule for verified accounts that they can't spread obvious misinformation or misinformation out of pure malice. It keep happening though.
Also have twitter have to put in a system so if something is retracted then they put in a note (like they already have been for "fact checking") but linking to a tweet form the publication withdrawing said claims in said piece etc.
I wonder how we ever got out of serfdom, then.
The investigations did not find literal contracts outlining exactly how Hillary Clinton would use her position in the government to benefit the various donors to the Clinton Foundation who were also paying Bill Clinton millions of dollars for speeches. Squeaky clean.
Well... it did involve peasants losing their rights to make use of common areas...
So you want it to be illegal to do what exactly here? Like I'm wondering what you're against here. Like the general concept of sites sharing messages like Twitter does?
To be a garbage poster. To poster jail with thee.
You're just an asshole aren't you
Like legitimately I'm asking what part of it you'd want banned because I don't get the idea of how exactly it works to stop something like it from existing reasonably. But you're so full of yourself aren't you
I’ve little presumption that a change in a single law will end capitalism, so instead of answering your silly question, I made a fun joke. My apologies for wanting some small fulfillment out of this website. I suppose I can go back to tormenting myself in the name of some pristine logos for you.
I asked what exactly the problem with the concept of Twitter is here, not how to end capitalism
If your issue is it's a company running it and you don't want some profit making company in charge of platforms because of how they'll use them that's fine and you don't need to be so full of yourself because I can't read your mind and figure out what your angle is because it's not apparent to me from your posts so I asked
It doesn’t matter if it’s a “corporation.” The government owning social media could engage in the same neo-colonialism or worse, look at China’s various state affiliated social media platforms as an example. The problem is the entire capitalist mode of production continuously finding new ways to do colonialism again in the name of infinite growth.
I wasn't suggesting that you thought it'd be fine if it's a government or something, I'm trying to guess at your reasoning.
So is your general point that anything like Twitter in the current system is going to be used for colonialism and the like?
It is a colonialism. It’s not that it “will be used for it.” Massive scale social media will always be colonialist under the current model of international capitalism.
Alright suppose that explains it enough I sorta get where you're coming from. Not that I'm particularly sure of the specifics of the problems being envisioned but the general idea at least ig.
But really, if you say just get rid of Twitter then people can genuinely actually wonder what your thought process is on it and ask because to most it seems out of the blue without elaboration
I dont think this is going to have the effect you want. Anti-Slapp laws were necessary because rich people can just claim everything is slander and keep you stuck in courts for years. Like, your addition of 'sane' person is going to cover a lot of things. Calling someone a pedophile didnt do anything to Musk. And I dont think it would change unless you really crackdown on speech, going after every insult
Lastly, it would only benefit rich people. With these sort of casee you have to prove financial harm and you and I probably will never be worth enough to make such a claim. So the rich are able to lie and insult while everyone else has to watch what they say, especially arouns rich people