Twitter allows state controlled People's Daily China news agency to spread unproven claims about Coronavirus originating outside of China

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
760
118
And when the president of the USA flagrantly lies, that's not manipulating the populace and trying to swing elections?
Another tu quoque instead of engaging with the argument presented.

I think you're missing Houseman's point. Trump should never be allowed to be critical of anyone or anything based on Houseman's version of Free Speech. Because he called a whole bunch of things FAKE NEWS. Trump told them they shouldn't believe the media.
Another strawman instead of engaging with the argument presented.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,684
2,879
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Another strawman instead of engaging with the argument presented.
I'm quoting you. I'm pointing out what Trump says. Apparently that's a strawman?

Trump literally said 'don't believe the media.' You got your wish.

Imagine if a candidate running for President had his or her tweets tagged with "you should not believe this". Think of how many people use Twitter and how that might influence how they vote? Oh wait, we don't have to imagine it, it's happening.
Here I'll quote you specifically. THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED. In real life. Right now and the last 4 year. We don't have to imagine. It's here, right now. (Can I make this any clearer.)

We just have to point out how you treat Trump claims of fake news. Because you seem to be cool with Trump saying everyone else lies.

Also, didn't the definition of strawman change? You used an example. I pointed out that example in real life. And that's a strawman? I'm refuting one of the claims you made not one I'm pretending you made
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,027
5,795
118
Country
United Kingdom
You have nothing to say about the real potential for causing harm, swinging elections, and manipulating the populace. That's what I'm against, and why I'm against it. There's a potential for REAL HARM when you allow powerful interests to manipulate your thinking. Even if it's just a "this is disputed!" warning.
There's a potential for REAL HARM uncritically giving a platform to misinformation, as well.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
760
118
I'm quoting you.
You are? When did I say: "Trump should never be allowed to be critical of anyone or anything"?

THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED. In real life. Right now and the last 4 year. We don't have to imagine. It's here, right now.
Yes, that is exactly what I said. That's why I said "Oh wait, we don't have to imagine it, it's happening".
Why did you quote me saying "this is actually happening", in order to say "GOTCHA! THIS IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING"?

We just have to point out how you treat Trump claims of fake news.
How do I treat those claims?

Also, didn't the definition of strawman change? You used an example. I pointed out that example in real life. And that's a strawman? I'm refuting one of the claims you made not one I'm pretending you made
What are you talking about? Seriously, your gotchas are so fundamentally broken it's like you're translating what I say into 6 different languages and back to English. You seem to have no understanding of what I say, and what you say in reply has no relation to it.

There's a potential for REAL HARM uncritically giving a platform to misinformation, as well.
Not if you have an equal playing field. Anyone else can say "no, you're wrong" and tell their own version of the truth. Nobody is elevated over anyone else, and everyone has the same "power".

But when you have the system itself marking, suppressing, disputing, or censoring certain speech, then it's not an equal playing field anymore.

Giving a platform to misinformation, which is to say, allowing it, is an inherent and accepted danger that goes along with free speech. You cannot have it without opening yourself up to danger in this way. The goal is not to eliminate all danger. It never was.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,027
5,795
118
Country
United Kingdom
Not if you have an equal playing field. Anyone else can say "no, you're wrong" and tell their own version of the truth. Nobody is elevated over anyone else, and everyone has the same "power".
Nobody, including you, actually believes the President of the United States and a random nobody are on an equal playing field on Twitter. Anything the President tweets will be seen by hundreds of thousands of people.

Access to that reach comes with responsibility. And if the President won't take responsibility, then the platform-holder should.

But when you have the system itself marking, suppressing, disputing, or censoring certain speech, then it's not an equal playing field anymore.

Giving a platform to misinformation, which is to say, allowing it, is an inherent and accepted danger that goes along with free speech. You cannot have it without opening yourself up to danger in this way. The goal is not to eliminate all danger. It never was.
If free speech requires all platforms to allow anyone to spout whatever bullshit they want, then free speech doesn't exist anywhere on earth. This nonsensical absolutist interpretation is a relatively new invention.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
760
118
Nobody, including you, actually believes the President of the United States and a random nobody are on an equal playing field on Twitter.
Imagine a stage, like an amphitheater.
The stage itself doesn't decide how many people show up for a play or a speech. How many people show up is entirely dependent on the performance.
In this manner, the stage is neutral.

That's what I mean by equal playing field.

If free speech requires all platforms to allow anyone to spout whatever bullshit they want, then free speech doesn't exist anywhere on earth.
Nobody lives up to the ideal? What a shocker! Next you'll be telling me that nobody is ever a true Christian!
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,027
5,795
118
Country
United Kingdom
Imagine a stage, like an amphitheater.
The stage itself doesn't decide how many people show up for a play or a speech. How many people show up is entirely dependent on the performance.
In this manner, the stage is neutral.

That's what I mean by equal playing field.
The proprietor of the amphitheatre, of course, does decide who gets to actually put on a play, and what the capacity of the venue is. The platform is not neutral.

To continue the analogy, imagine a conman arrives and requests the theatre proprietor put on his play, billed as a re-enactment of a true story. The proprietor knows it's the most spurious drivel. The conman also intends to solicit donations afterwards, which will not go to the stated recipient.

Is your preferred scenario that the proprietor must stand aside, accept the falsified billing and the fraudulent solicitation, and stand aside as his patrons are scammed?

Nobody lives up to the ideal? What a shocker! Next you'll be telling me that nobody is ever a true Christian!
My point being that it's not considered an "inherent and accepted danger" to the rest of us, or to society at large, that we allow con-artists and fraudsters to peddle their cons and fraud without restriction.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
And when the president of the USA flagrantly lies, that's not manipulating the populace and trying to swing elections?
Only an estimated 36% of the USA use twitter.
Even then how many of them actually follow Trump?
Trump's actually twitter following is likely less than 5% of the US population and half of them are only following him to shout at him or say "Sir this is Wendy's" reply to his newest tweet every time anyway.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
760
118
The proprietor of the amphitheatre, of course, does decide who gets to actually put on a play, and what the capacity of the venue is. The platform is not neutral.
In my hypothetical example, it's a public amphitheatre, so all you need to do is sign and reserve a time. It's neutral. Don't try to twist my own hypothetical.

Is your preferred scenario that the proprietor must stand aside, accept the falsified billing and the fraudulent solicitation, and stand aside as his patrons are scammed?
Given a public amphitheatre, yes.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
Another tu quoque instead of engaging with the argument presented.
Logical consistency in the way you view the world is not non-negligible. You want to, for instance, argue that the press is inherently untrustworthy, yet you're there in other threads uncritically passing on information from a clearly biased "analyst" to make a point about election fraud. You argue that a media organisation has a moral duty to neutrally inform the public about reality, but are trying to run away from thinking about whether the USA's highest ranking public servant does. It's not that you don't have the right to believe what you want, but if what you argue is underpinned by nothing more than sheer whim, it has low to zero persuasiveness.

You might be a fan of Socratic argument, but no-one actually has to respond to you in precisely the manner you want them to respond. Those of us who are aware of Socratic dialogues know that's how Socrates tries to trick people into coming to conclusions that are basically false; it can as easily be a way of not trying to honestly explore the world, but to drive an argument to an intended, predefined conclusion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SupahEwok

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
There's a potential for REAL HARM uncritically giving a platform to misinformation, as well.
Oh you mean like claiming a virus can't spread from human to human?

The issue is only some claims are being scrutinised and the people being put in charge of this seem to be the same kind of idiots who claimed an I.C.E. employee was a Neo-Nazi because of his tattoo which turned out to be a US army platoon emblem Tattoo and he was an ex serviceman and ex member of said platoon.

I mean in the UK GCHQ is having to tackle online Russian troll groups claiming the UK vaccine is dangerous and can reverse evolution turning people back into apes.........bet twitter is doing fuck all about it lol
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,684
2,879
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
What are you talking about? Seriously, your gotchas are so fundamentally broken it's like you're translating what I say into 6 different languages and back to English. You seem to have no understanding of what I say, and what you say in reply has no relation to it.
Could not agree more with this. We are using different definition for words

Houseman, when you say 'strawman', what do you mean?
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,684
2,879
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Make it so the employees are the ones speaking not a faceless corporation..........
So... how are you going to do that?

Let's say Twitter employee Joe Blow put a disputed think on Trump's tweet. Now Twitter doesn't have to worry about any blowback. But... Twitter still controls what things are disputed because it controls the employee.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
So... how are you going to do that?

Let's say Twitter employee Joe Blow put a disputed think on Trump's tweet. Now Twitter doesn't have to worry about any blowback. But... Twitter still controls what things are disputed because it controls the employee.
Simple the employee / fact checkers name has to be put by the dispute indication. If they want to dispute something they should be willing to stand by it.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,027
5,795
118
Country
United Kingdom
Given a public amphitheatre, yes.
Alright. And who benefits, here? The con-man, or the conned? And why is it preferable?

I'm just glad that modern platforms don't operate like your mythical wild-west amphitheatre, and that you'd be hard pressed to find one that does.

Oh you mean like claiming a virus can't spread from human to human?
Yes, exactly like that. That's a statement with the propensity to cause harm.

The issue is only some claims are being scrutinised and the people being put in charge of this seem to be the same kind of idiots who claimed an I.C.E. employee was a Neo-Nazi because of his tattoo which turned out to be a US army platoon emblem Tattoo and he was an ex serviceman and ex member of said platoon.

I mean in the UK GCHQ is having to tackle online Russian troll groups claiming the UK vaccine is dangerous and can reverse evolution turning people back into apes.........bet twitter is doing fuck all about it lol
Yeah, inconsistency is definitely an issue here. Twitter had to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting any level of responsibility at all. Now that they've finally started enforcing rules against disinformation, they have to do so consistently and not preferentially.