Trump misunderstands concept of free speech

[lil devils x]

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.

TWitter usually takes a while to do anything about anything. Do you realize how many reports they get a day? They usually focus their efforts on high profile accounts first and get to others whenever they get to them. Most people didn't see those, Most people,however, do see the presidents. Until someone makes some other bad post go viral, it is a non issue.

Hell some of trump's retweets that got pulled were a non issue until he made them viral.

 

[Buyetyen]

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.

Nobody is saying that Twitter is actually good at their job. They've just been publicly pressured into (half-heartedly) enforcing their terms of service on Trump for a change of pace.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

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

Nope because the Pub itself isn't publishing it's own magazine called "How the world is"

At most the landlord or staff are giving their person views as themselves which twitter staff can presently do but instead it's being done acting as the organisation as a whole.

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

Strange because it's perfectly fine to agree with other tweets calling for the death of Police officers at present.

And?

And could you try to actually address what I said rather than the strawman you want to address?

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

Does that go for everyone?

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

Oh so you're saying anyone who is marginalised should be able to just deem something as harassment and it makes it such and should be acted upon as such, is that really what you're saying?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

TWitter usually takes a while to do anything about anything. Do you realize how many reports they get a day? They usually focus their efforts on high profile accounts first and get to others whenever they get to them. Most people didn't see those, Most people,however, do see the presidents. Until someone makes some other bad post go viral, it is a non issue.

Hell some of trump's retweets that got pulled were a non issue until he made them viral.

The ISIS recruiters were so prominent and widespread most people paying any real attention knew about them

Nobody is saying that Twitter is actually good at their job. They've just been publicly pressured into (half-heartedly) enforcing their terms of service on Trump for a change of pace.

Which just gives more evidence when Trump can point to other people not facing the same level of restrictions on his tweets. Hell the supreme court ruled Trump wasn't allowed to block people on twitter because it removed their freedom of speech in the form of the right to reply to him (he was allowed to mute them) by entirely removing everyone's ability to reply to those tweets then twitter may have just actually violated the first amendment by stopping peoples freedom of speech in being able to reply.

Seems like an issue if Trump isn't allowed to stop people replying or it breaks the first amendment but twitter is there.

 

[Exley97]

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

If the Escapist bans you, a forum user, for violating its terms of services or deletes your post because it has objectionable/harmful content, does that violate its Section 230 protection?

(There's a correct answer here)

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

If the Escapist bans you, a forum user, for violating its terms of services or deletes your post because it has objectionable/harmful content, does that violate its Section 230 protection?

(There's a correct answer here)

Ah but what if as an example some-one accused me of being the next spree shooter and I responded by calling them an idiot but I was banned for calling them an idiot but they were fine for saying I was a spree shooter in the making and faced no punishment.

Would that be deemed fair or good faith application of the rules?

 

[Buyetyen]

Nope because the Pub itself isn't publishing it's own magazine called "How the world is"

Nor is Twitter.

Strange because it's perfectly fine to agree with other tweets calling for the death of Police officers at present.

Just to let you konw, all what-aboutisms from this point forward will be ignored.

Oh so you're saying anyone who is marginalised should be able to just deem something as harassment and it makes it such and should be acted upon as such, is that really what you're saying?

No, but you already knew that.

 

[Buyetyen]

Seems like an issue if Trump isn't allowed to stop people replying or it breaks the first amendment but twitter is there.

That because you don't understand the first amendment.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Nor is Twitter.

Except when they publish their own fact checking report.

Just to let you konw, all what-aboutisms from this point forward will be ignored.

Does that include your own?

No, but you already knew that.

Ok then say what you are arguing them because it seems your argument is based upon the self determination by the person claiming to be getting harassed which I'd hope you'd realise how open to abuse it is.

That because you don't understand the first amendment.

So Twitter is allowed to stop people talking or replying to a tweet but Trump isn't?

Surely that is Twitter removing peoples right to reply?


Hell if we're arguing it's a private platform so First Amendment doesn't apply them either it applies to the platform and Trump or the platform and Trump are all exempt

 

[Buyetyen]

Except when they publish their own fact checking report.

Still nope.

Ok then say what you are arguing them because it seems your argument is based upon the self determination by the person claiming to be getting harassed which I'd hope you'd realise how open to abuse it is.

I'm just generally not a fan of abusers and victimizers getting to decide what counts as abuse. I always assumed that was a popular opinion, but apparently there is a contingent of people who vocally disagree.

So Twitter is allowed to stop people talking or replying to a tweet but Trump isn't?

Surely that is Twitter removing peoples right to reply?

You don't actually have a right to reply to someone on social media. You have the option to.

 

[Worgen]

So Twitter is allowed to stop people talking or replying to a tweet but Trump isn't?

Surely that is Twitter removing peoples right to reply?


Hell if we're arguing it's a private platform so First Amendment doesn't apply them either it applies to the platform and Trump or the platform and Trump are all exempt

Oh holy crap, you really don't understand do you. Ok, the reason that twitter can do this but trump can't is because trump is the president and turned his private twitter account into a public platform, not the twitter website itself, but his account. People have to be able to interact with their elected officials and for as shit as he is, he is an elected official.

"These tweets are published by a public official clothed with the authority of the state using social media as a tool of governance and as an official channel of communication on an interactive public platform," the judge wrote. "Excluding people from an otherwise public forum such as this by blocking those who express views critical of a public official is, we concluded, unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination."

Appeals court won't revisit ruling saying Trump can't block Twitter users

A federal appeals court is standing by its ruling that President Donald Trump can't block Twitter users from viewing his social media account.

www.cnn.com

It will be interesting to see what happens after hes out of office, its totally possible that his personal twitter account may not be allowed to return to his private use.

 

[Houseman]

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.

I'm not accusing twitter of banning people based on their opinions about gender, so I don't see why I should need to provide examples of such.

I'm just saying a rule against "spreading false information", can lead to very bad outcomes. My hypothetical was an example of that, because you seem to disagree with the claim.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Still nope.

So you're arguing they don't self publish their own fact checking?

I'm just generally not a fan of abusers and victimizers getting to decide what counts as abuse. I always assumed that was a popular opinion, but apparently there is a contingent of people who vocally disagree.

What if you got it wrong as to who was who?

I mean the Johnny Depp situation I'd think would make people think a bit here.

You don't actually have a right to reply to someone on social media. You have the option to.

ah but the present application of the first amendment is Trump cannot deny people that right by blocking them but apparently Twitter can deny that ability which means for one person the first amendment applies and must be respected on the platform but also it's being argued that it's a private company and private space where those laws don't apply. Doesn't seem consistent there.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Oh holy crap, you really don't understand do you. Ok, the reason that twitter can do this but trump can't is because trump is the president and turned his private twitter account into a public platform, not the twitter website itself, but his account. People have to be able to interact with their elected officials and for as shit as he is, he is an elected official.

"These tweets are published by a public official clothed with the authority of the state using social media as a tool of governance and as an official channel of communication on an interactive public platform," the judge wrote. "Excluding people from an otherwise public forum such as this by blocking those who express views critical of a public official is, we concluded, unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination."

Appeals court won't revisit ruling saying Trump can't block Twitter users

A federal appeals court is standing by its ruling that President Donald Trump can't block Twitter users from viewing his social media account.

www.cnn.com

It will be interesting to see what happens after hes out of office, its totally possible that his personal twitter account may not be allowed to return to his private use.

Ah but the platform isn't public that's the argument here so Trump's platform on there isn't public it's still within the private platform.

How can it be a public platform when the whole thing is being deemed private now?

People can interact with Trump. They can send a letter lol.

 

[Exley97]

Ah but what if as an example some-one accused me of being the next spree shooter and I responded by calling them an idiot but I was banned for calling them an idiot but they were fine for saying I was a spree shooter in the making and faced no punishment.

Would that be deemed fair or good faith application of the rules?

1. I'm not sure why you think this hypothetical scenario has any bearing on the current issue of Trump's executive order.

2. The "good faith" leeway is quite broad here. The forum provider in your example could make a number of arguments, including that the member who made the accusation against you did so in jest and wasn't meant to be taken literally (after all, how would an anonymous forum member know anything about another anonymous forum member?). You could argue that it's "unfair" you got banned and the other guy didn't, but again, discretion for content moderation is extremely broad.

Here's an example from personal experience -- a while back an Escapist forum member not-so-subtly accused me of driving another forum member to a suicide attempt (true story!). It was ludicrous then, and it still is. In fact, it was SO ludicrous that no one really took it seriously (except for a couple forum members who *really* hate me), and while I was initially pretty upset someone accused me of such a thing, I eventually laughed it off. I did not ask for the original post and subsequent posts repeating the claim to be taken down, though I think I flagged one so the offending shitposter would get a mark against them (hard to verifiy since the discussion occured in infamous, contentious and now very dead GamerGate mega-thread). But let's say I did get super pissed and called the shitposter a, well, shitposter, and I got a warning or a ban and the shitposter didn't. Section 230 would still protect the Escapist, and I'm fairly certain any lawsuit I filed against the publication in retaliation would be doomed. Regardless, it is NOT grounds for "revoking" the Escapist's Section 230 protection, which is not a thing. It's not a license. It's a LAW.

 

[lil devils x]

Ah but the platform isn't public that's the argument here so Trump's platform on there isn't public it's still within the private platform.

How can it be a public platform when the whole thing is being deemed private now?

People can interact with Trump. They can send a letter lol.

The platform isn't publicly owned, however, Trump IS a public official, the law applies to Trump, not whatever private service he used. Twitter is under no obligation to let Trump use it, but whatever private platform he chooses to use as president of the United States has the law apply to HIS choice of communicating with the public. The law will never apply to the service Trump uses, just to him, as his role as President.

 

[Buyetyen]

So you're arguing they don't self publish their own fact checking?

Nope. I'm arguing that Twitter is a platform.

ah but the present application of the first amendment is Trump cannot deny people that right by blocking them but apparently Twitter can deny that ability which means for one person the first amendment applies and must be respected on the platform but also it's being argued that it's a private company and private space where those laws don't apply. Doesn't seem consistent there.

What seems to you through your facile misunderstanding of constitutional law is immaterial.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

1. I'm not sure why you think this hypothetical scenario has any bearing on the current issue of Trump's executive order.

2. The "good faith" leeway is quite broad here. The forum provider in your example could make a number of arguments, including that the member who made the accusation against you did so in jest and wasn't meant to be taken literally (after all, how would an anonymous forum member know anything about another anonymous forum member?). You could argue that it's "unfair" you got banned and the other guy didn't, but again, discretion for content moderation is extremely broad.

Here's an example from personal experience -- a while back an Escapist forum member not-so-subtly accused me of driving another forum member to a suicide attempt (true story!). It was ludicrous then, and it still is. In fact, it was SO ludicrous that no one really took it seriously (except for a couple forum members who *really* hate me), and while I was initially pretty upset someone accused me of such a thing, I eventually laughed it off. I did not ask for the original post and subsequent posts repeating the claim to be taken down, though I think I flagged one so the offending shitposter would get a mark against them (hard to verifiy since the discussion occured in infamous, contentious and now very dead GamerGate mega-thread). But let's say I did get super pissed and called the shitposter a, well, shitposter, and I got a warning or a ban and the shitposter didn't. Section 230 would still protect the Escapist, and I'm fairly certain any lawsuit I filed against the publication in retaliation would be doomed. Regardless, it is NOT grounds for "revoking" the Escapist's Section 230 protection, which is not a thing. It's not a license. It's a LAW.

1) as much bearing as your hypothetical does.

2) It's very easy to turn round and claim it's Jest after the fact which is part of the issue so it would have to be insanely clear it was jest to begin with not done out of malice.

3) However there have been cases of people suing the escapist in the past because when it publishes articles etc or claims about people itself it isn't protected by section 230 on those. It's protected here on the forums from what we say

The platform isn't publicly owned, however, Trump IS a public official, the law applies to Trump, not whatever private service he used. Twitter is under no obligation to let Trump use it, but whatever private platform he chooses to use as president of the United States has the law apply to HIS choice of communicating with the public. The law will never apply to the service Trump uses, just to him, as his role as President.

So you can walk right into the Whitehouse and yell and the president directly?

If not then he's denying your free speech right?


but not when it directly publishes things.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Nope. I'm arguing that Twitter is a platform.

But also a publisher like Escapist in in one respect vs another.

Various aspects here would come under different classifications as such.

What seems to you through your facile misunderstanding of constitutional law is immaterial.

I don't think it's me showing a facile misunderstanding here.

 

[Buyetyen]

But also a publisher like Escapist in in one respect vs another.

In this case, the wrong respect. Bottom line, this is not a free speech issue. A spoiled brat who got away with some grotesque bullshit is finally getting a taste of accountability and he's freaking the fuck out over it. Twitter is a shitty fucking platform, but it's not because they're some kind of fifth column. They're just incompetent. They're finally being pressured into making an effort to enforce their terms of service.