Trump misunderstands concept of free speech

[Agema]

What if it's a group call? What if you have it on speakerphone? What if you use a megaphone to blast your phonecall over a full stadium, does the phone company then get to cut your line?The public/private thing is a distinction without a difference.

The phone company's responsibility ends at the socket in a wall or the moment an EM signal comes out from a mast. If the people at either end of the call want to broadcast it further, that's all on them.

Twitter, however, is paying money to maintain a web service with content open to anyone. It is not comparable.

Twitter is kinda like a mall, it's a privately-owned public space. Like how people are freely to come and go during open hours and say anything they want to their friends and whoever around them may overhear so should they be able to function on twitter. They never stop owning the platform, they just have less than absolute control over it.

Indeed... and malls can and sometimes will remove you if they don't like what you're doing or saying, even if it were legal in a fully public space.

As for the ideological balance, it's definitely an over-reaction which I guess is to be expected when you have ideology built in to the rulesets of these sites. Take twitter's misgendering rules for example...

Twitter takes action against targetted misgendering; i.e. as a form of abuse or harassment.

not playing along with their mental illness

Hey, why not chuck homosexuals in with the "mental illness" dustbin too, or anyone else who fails to meet your standards of appropriate behaviour.

 

[Trunkage]

Not sure how you got that from what I said but it's the exact opposite actually. I just want them defanged, not censored lol.


The issue here is that bullies are being given unearned power to cancel things like they're the police of vice and virtue. In a vacuum I just find them pitiable and amusing, no need to censor them, let them be amusingly pitiable all they want.

So... your plan to defang these bullies is to make sure there are no checks on the bullies power by taking away platform holder's power. Sounds like a solid plan

Edit: I dont know why you want to give more power to cancel culture. They are as bad enough as it is

 

[Buyetyen]

Not sure how you got that from what I said but it's the exact opposite actually. I just want them defanged, not censored lol.

Which is a meaningless, arbitrary distinction. The platform either enforces their terms of service, or it doesn't. If you want the rules to be bent for you in the name of vaguely defined "free speech," then you're the problem. There is literally no law jurisprudence that a platform is breaking by saying, "We will not allow you to use our platform to talk about how much you hate Jews. That's not what our service is for."

The issue here is that bullies are being given unearned power to cancel things like they're the police of vice and virtue. In a vacuum I just find them pitiable and amusing, no need to censor them, let them be amusingly pitiable all they want.

Which is easy to say when you aren't the target of their harrassment.

Twitter having to follow the publisher guidelines, when it indeed is a publisher and not a platform, is just basic logic.

Another arbitrary distinction.

 

[Buyetyen]

Take twitter's misgendering rules for example, to even have that as a rule is to take a left wind intersectional stance politically, because newsflash, people of other views (not even necessarily right wing) don't even think it's a "thing" because to call someone the sex they are is just being accurate or not playing along with their mental illness in the same way you don't treat otherkin like they're really wolves or dragons or whatever the hell they think they are. When you take a legitimate opinion and say it's against the rules then you invite this regulation and yes regulation is a blunt instrument which is why we were against these biased conditions from the beginning.

Free advice: you really shouldn't pretend expertise in a subject you don't understand. The misgendering rules are for targeted harassment. I get that a lot of the anti-trans crowd do not consider bullying trans people to be harassment, but bullies aren't the ones who get to decide that. And as someone who does genuinely struggle with mental illness in the form of depression, anxiety and occasional suicidal ideation, I would appreciate it if in the future you took a slightly more... human attitude toward mental illness.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I never thought I'd see the day but I'm actually extremely happy with that executive order Trump signed. If you want to be in the business of policing allowable opinions you shouldn't get to benefit from the status of a platform. If you want to endorse certain political ideology and have as a bannable offense the opposite opinions, such as for example twitter's policy about misgendering people, then you are defacto not a platform and should be liable.

And it is YOUR fault if you're bulliable into suicide from the internet. Normal people aren't. They just click off and go do something else when someone's an asshole if they even use twitter at all.


Facts and truth have a liberal bias. It's why it's right to be a liberal.

Yet, you STILL don't get to censor people and be a platform. The phone company doesn't cut your lines if you lie on your phonecalls. It doesn't play a prerecorded message after every lie you utter, explaining it's falsehood. It's not a platform's job to do these things. It's the people's responsibility to shift through it instead.

Also you have people who have gone more extreme such that they're trying to create nice soundbites to make Trump see worse because it takes actual work to honestly explain why Trump is wrong or bad and some organisations think the people aren't capable of understanding the explanations so they just need to push stuff that makes Trump look cartoonishly evil or cartoonishly stupid some examples:

Trump made the Whitehouse staff make a channel all about Gorillas for him to watch (was fake)
Trump Steals and throws little boys hat (was Fake)
Trump makes little girl cry in the Oval office (was fake, she was crying but not due to Trump and the photo of him was him trying to comfort her)
Trump calls all immigrants animals (he was specifically referring to MS-13 gang member after the recent incident of them beheading a person who was still barely alive after being stabbed 100 times)
Trump makes a fool of himself by overfeeding Koi Carp in gaff during a political trip to another country (some places showed the initial footage of Trump and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe feeding the Koi then a number of organisations cut the section out that showed Prime Minister Shinzo Abe throwing the rest of his box into the pond before Trump following political etiquette follows on doing the same)
I could go on there's a fair few other instances

This isn't to say Trump and his side haven't doctored footage and misrepresented stuff either but the press wants an easy win, an easy gotcha and are willing to lie about it.

Truth may have a liberal bias but some news organisations have given up being liberal it seems to me and letting the public decide and instead think it's their job to tell the public what to think entirely.

Hell I've seen some coverage of UK topics by some US news organisation are it was hilariously awful on about how if the President of the USA stepped down there would be an immediate election and so the UK PM stepping down and the party being able to elect the new leader (based on elected MP) would be seen as Treason against the people if it happened in the USA, ignoring apparently the USA has a Vice-President who normally takes over in the event the President isn't able to carry on.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Another arbitrary distinction.

Not really.

When users are publishing their own info it's a platform.

When the platform is choosing to publish it's own info (like say fact checking info) then it's not a platform being used by others in that case but a publisher.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Its not a violation of free speech when a company chooses to ban people off their platform. This on the other hand, a government dictating what can be on a privately owned platform? This is literally a violation of twitters free speech.

This is deeply ironic considering every time a conservative trump follower gets banned for slurs they incorrectly cry free speech and thought Trump was their champion of fighting for their right to their misunderstood version of free speech....

If a newspaper were forced to put up an article against their wishes, or were left without the right to add a note to the bottom of an article, that's just as much a violation of their free speech as forcing them NOT to run a story. If Twitter is not allowed to put their own comments on their own website then Twitter is kind of like the fictional newspaper I mentioned.

Ah but here's an argument for you

If a company doesn't have to comply with the laws regarding the liberties of people then why does the company get to claim the protections the same as person in said state should?

Deeming Twitter a publisher wouldn't remove their free speech. They would still be free to say what they like. They'd just be able to be held accountable for anything published by them which would include user comments etc.

Newspapers, book publishers and others still exist as would twitter. It no longer having liability protection isn't silencing it anymore than it's silencing the New York Times or CNN

 

[Worgen]

Neither. I'm saying that, if someone wants to abuse their power while also making it look legitimate, they would justify the removal of an "incorrect political opinion" under the justification of "harassment". This could happen in the first scenario as well as the second, especially if the moderator believes that "misinformation is being spread that does damage to the world as a whole"

That's just a hypothetical scenario that stems from the question of "if we start censoring content based on 'fact-checking', who decides what 'truth' is, and can they be trusted?", and how such a power can be abused or spiral out of control.

Ok, well if you are going to give an example then you need to actually give an example since I am not aware of someone just being banned for saying there are 2 genders, generally there is something more involved. Because misinformation does to damage to the world as a whole, look at the anti-vaxxer movement, we started seeing fucken measles showing up in our country again after it had been eradicated. Granted, now they seem kinda quiet, but it took a global pandemic for that to happen. Then we also see bad actors like goop, that sells damaging products under the guise of them being all natural health products, I'm sure you have heard of the vagina egg and that it can cause.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2018/09/05/gwyneth-paltrows-goop-touted-benefits-putting-jade-egg-your-vagina-now-it-must-pay/

There are entire industries based around misinformation and not being fact checked. You can't just have someone make bank then try and hold them accountable after the damage has been done.

 

[lil devils x]

I pretty much view Facebook, reddit, Twitter or any forums or other social media like a pub. Everyone is usually welcome until they start making an arse of themselves and pissing people off and then the pub owner can decide to toss them on their arse at will. I have seen customers tossed over insulting the home team, and much less than Trump has done. Trump or anyone else for that matter is only allowed to use Twitter at the discretion of the owner. Him throwing a big o man baby fit about not liking what they say is only further proving why he has shown he is not mature or well behaved enough to use it in the first place.

 

[Buyetyen]

Not really.

When users are publishing their own info it's a platform.

When the platform is choosing to publish it's own info (like say fact checking info) then it's not a platform being used by others in that case but a publisher.

Nope, still pretty arbitrary. Still just a weak justification for wanting to be difficult or abusive. You want to use a service, you follow the rules. Can't follow the rules, no service. Them's the breaks.

 

[lil devils x]

Ah but here's an argument for you

If a company doesn't have to comply with the laws regarding the liberties of people then why does the company get to claim the protections the same as person in said state should?

Deeming Twitter a publisher wouldn't remove their free speech. They would still be free to say what they like. They'd just be able to be held accountable for anything published by them which would include user comments etc.

Newspapers, book publishers and others still exist as would twitter. It no longer having liability protection isn't silencing it anymore than it's silencing the New York Times or CNN

It isn't a publisher though, they do not review and edit content prior to it's release, it is more like a social Gathering place like a pub,and like a pub, they can toss people for being annoying as well.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

It isn't a publisher though, they do not review and edit content prior to it's release, it is more like a social Gathering place like a pub,and like a pub, they can toss people for being annoying as well.

They do review their own fact checking. They do edit said content prior to it's release.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Nope, still pretty arbitrary. Still just a weak justification for wanting to be difficult or abusive. You want to use a service, you follow the rules. Can't follow the rules, no service. Them's the breaks.

Sorry but are you accusing me of wanting twitter more open to allow me to be abusive towards people?

The issues at present is often over equal application of said rules towards everyone.

 

[lil devils x]

They do review their own fact checking. They do edit said content prior to it's release.

That isn't their primary business though. It is no different than a pub changing their drink specials on the board that day. That doesn't make a pub a publisher either though. Changing notice boards available to public view does not change their primary business. Hell if they did become a publisher they would be forced to ban Trump all together or get sued into nonexistence like Alex Jones did due to his constant lying.

 

[Buyetyen]

They do review their own fact checking. They do edit said content prior to it's release.

Twitter doesn't edit tweets before they go live.

Sorry but are you accusing me of wanting twitter more open to allow me to be abusive towards people?

The issues at present is often over equal application of said rules towards everyone.

You said it, not me. And yes, I am aware that the issue is that conservatives feel they are being unfairly targeted when they launch harassment campaigns against trans people and other marginalized groups and that they consider it unfair that they are fact-checked when they knowingly use a platform to spread disinformation against the terms of service, which is a legally binding contract they agreed to when creating their account.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

That isn't their primary business though. It is no different than a pub changing their drink specials on the board that day. That doesn't make a pub a publisher either though.

No it's not but the law doesn't state it their primary business has to be that.

Also they just removed the ability for people to reply to or interact with one of Trump's tweets which won't go down well considering they're now being seen to curate what people are and aren't allowed to reply to.

Twitter doesn't edit tweets before they go live.

I was rather specific in pointing out they likely edit their own fact checking before putting it live.

You said it, not me.

No pretty sure it was you

Nope, still pretty arbitrary. Still just a weak justification for wanting to be difficult or abusive. You want to use a service, you follow the rules. Can't follow the rules, no service. Them's the breaks.

I mean you were quoting me and then were on about me wanting to use the service so that accusation does seem very specifically directed at me there.

And yes, I am aware that the issue is that conservatives feel they are being unfairly targeted when they launch harassment campaigns against trans people and other marginalized groups and that they consider it unfair that they are fact-checked when they knowingly use a platform to spread disinformation against the terms of service, which is a legally binding contract they agreed to when creating their account.

Considering some people claim or try to present people saying anything about them not even directed at them just talking about them is harassment it is rather easy for people to claim harassment these days.

Also seems you only care about dis-information that doesn't serve YOUR cause.

 

[Buyetyen]

No it's not but the law doesn't state it their primary business has to be that.

By this standard, the pub in devils' situation becomes a publisher under the law the instant they remove a patron for uncouth behavior.

Also they just removed the ability for people to reply to or interact with one of Trump's tweets which won't go down well considering they're now being seen to curate what people are and aren't allowed to reply to.

If someone's upset that they can't publicly agree with a call to violence, it's probably because they're a bad person.

 

[lil devils x]

No it's not but the law doesn't state it their primary business has to be that.

Also they just removed the ability for people to reply to or interact with one of Trump's tweets which won't go down well considering they're now being seen to curate what people are and aren't allowed to reply to.

They should have forced him to comply with the rules all together a long time ago instead of making him above the rules in the first place. As it is, leaving trumps tweets up about Joe Scarborough are illegal in countries like Germany and can still get them sued like Alex Jones has been for lying about Sandy Hook, Parkland and Pizzagate BS did here.
Tbh, they should just say screw it, put the rules back the way they were and ban his arse and let him throw his temper tantrums elsewhere.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

They should have forced him to comply with the rules all together a long time ago instead of making him above the rules in the first place. As it is, leaving trumps tweets up about Joe Scarborough are illegal in countries like Germany and can still get them sued like Alex Jones has been for lying about Sandy Hook, Parkland and Pizzagate BS.

And so they should with others too but apparently it's perfectly fine for a load of Chinese bot accounts to try and spread the claim that Coronovirus was started in the USA. Hell it was only when 4chan started hacking the account that Twitter bothered trying to actually do anything about the ISIS recruiters.

 

[Buyetyen]

I was rather specific in pointing out they likely edit their own fact checking before putting it live.

And?

No pretty sure it was you

I mean you were quoting me and then were on about me wanting to use the service so that accusation does seem very specifically directed at me there.

Can't follow the rules, no service. Point stands.

Considering some people claim or try to present people saying anything about them not even directed at them just talking about them is harassment it is rather easy for people to claim harassment these days.

Again, unless you're the one being marginalized, you don't get to decide that.