Does Freedom of speech mean freedom from being fact checked?

Nice!

Super Anarchist
4,375
1,178
Victoria, BC
Freedom of speech does not mean, and never did mean, freedom from the consequences of that speech. If a customer service employee tells a customer to fuck off, there's a pretty good chance that employee will be fired. That does not mean their freedom of speech was restricted or their constitutional rights were impaired.

However, I don't think that Twitter should be in the business of fact checking. Nor should any social media company. They provide a platform for people to share things, and for other people to view those things (and it should be noted that neither of those groups are their customers).

Just like SA and ED; it's not his job to fact check posts here.

On the flip side, Twitter *should* - and is completely within their right to - remove or filter violence, threatening and hate speech. It's like if you are shopping at Costco and you tell the employee you'll punch them in the face if they don't honour your expired coupon, you should be removed from the store and asked not to come back.

Just like SA and ED; he will rightly boot you if you threaten, incite violence or insinuate peado.

 

jhc

Super Anarchist
2,352
207
Freedom of speech does not mean, and never did mean, freedom from the consequences of that speech. If a customer service employee tells a customer to fuck off, there's a pretty good chance that employee will be fired. That does not mean their freedom of speech was restricted or their constitutional rights were impaired.

However, I don't think that Twitter should be in the business of fact checking. Nor should any social media company. They provide a platform for people to share things, and for other people to view those things (and it should be noted that neither of those groups are their customers).

Just like SA and ED; it's not his job to fact check posts here.

On the flip side, Twitter *should* - and is completely within their right to - remove or filter violence, threatening and hate speech. It's like if you are shopping at Costco and you tell the employee you'll punch them in the face if they don't honour your expired coupon, you should be removed from the store and asked not to come back.

Just like SA and ED; he will rightly boot you if you threaten, incite violence or insinuate peado.
Twitter is expressing it's opinion with it's "fact check" tag. Any other response is over the top. Filtering, removing, are censorship. Adding a comment is acting like "normal".

 

Not for nothing

Super Anarchist
3,068
690
jupiter
When you hold the lives of millions of american lives in your hands , You shall be accountable for all you say and do.

Then again the man that was wrongly elected , not by a majority of the votes , who's NEVER been honest in his whole life, what do expect? He doesn't want anything thing fact check for of things he said , wrote, twittered . You elect a liar you live with a liar, he's divided this country so much , will it ever recover , or is this the end of the USA

58d92323cda7a.image.jpg


 

Sol Rosenberg

Girthy Member
93,248
10,964
Earth
I think you're missing my point.  Twitter's process for determining what's bullshit and what's not, and their behavior w/r/t that determination is what's at question.   

No one is saying that private individuals can't say what they want, for whatever reasons they want.  Twitter/FB/etc as "social media platforms" have obligations above the individual, if they want to maintain the section 230 protections, don't they?    Those protections insulate them from things that other people say on their platform -  and unless I'm badly mistaken, they don't insulate the social media platforms from things they say/do themselves. 

SO - the act of Twitter in fact censuring a comment, or not censuring a comment, has the potential to put their eligibility for that protection at risk, and as I see it, that determination hinges upon how they select content for scrutiny, and the means by which they validate the content.  

Again - if I'm mistaken in what I'm thinking, I'm open to being squared away. 
That's a contractual issue between service provider and user.  See terms of service. 

https://twitter.com/en/tos

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods now known or later developed (for clarity, these rights include, for example, curating, transforming, and translating). This license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, Retweet, promotion or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use. Such additional uses by Twitter, or other companies, organizations or individuals, is made with no compensation paid to you with respect to the Content that you submit, post, transmit or otherwise make available through the Services as the use of the Services by you is hereby agreed as being sufficient compensation for the Content and grant of rights herein.

Twitter has an evolving set of rules for how ecosystem partners can interact with your Content on the Services. These rules exist to enable an open ecosystem with your rights in mind. You understand that we may modify or adapt your Content as it is distributed, syndicated, published, or broadcast by us and our partners and/or make changes to your Content in order to adapt the Content to different media.
In order to use their platform, users have to agree to let them do whatever they want to do with the content posted. 

Twitter also has rules that deal with posting about violence, and specifically about misleading people about elections. 

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules

Safety



Violence: You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people. We also prohibit the glorification of violence. Learn more about our violent threat and glorification of violence policies. 


Election integrity: You may not use Twitter’s services for the purpose of manipulating or interfering in elections. This includes posting or sharing content that may suppress voter turnout or mislead people about when, where, or how to vote. 
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/election-integrity-policy


 


Civic integrity policy



Overview


May 2020

You may not use Twitter’s services for the purpose of manipulating or interfering in elections or other civic processes. This includes posting or sharing content that may suppress participation or mislead people about when, where, or how to participate in a civic process. 
That last bit is what has the Trump Campaign's attention, I suspect. 
 

A guy in the Chesapeake

Super Anarchist
23,965
1,167
Virginia
Not quoting to save space, but, I had missed the "modify" portion of the TOS.   Given that - it seems to me that we'd all be well informed to remember that anything posted on social media has a strong likelihood of being bullshit.   

 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
28,753
3,829
New Oak City
I don't know why they don't just give him the boot. He needs them a hell of a lot more than they need him. 
I have no great insight into Jack Dorsey. I have some insight into other SV mucks in the same way that you know FLA politics better than I would. Well, I will offer that Dorsey and Zuckerberg don't exactly like each other. With that proviso provided ...

Dorsey can drop the ban hammer on Shitstain anytime he wants for any reason he wants. Or not. It is his call whether and also, very importantly, when. As we saw with Pelosi impeaching Shitstain, the elk did not rise up and start singing Ding Dong The Bitch Is Burned To The Ground and embrace fiscal conservatism. They defended him tooth and nail then just as they do now. Similarly, Twitter banning Shitstain will change nothing.

Shitstain is #8 on the most followed list with 80 million and some aren't even Russian. The Kenyan is #1 and I completely agree that Shitstain needs Twitter much more than they need him, need being the operative word.

Twitter does ban people. They banned David Horowitz who is a minor nobody at this point for reasons unclear. But David Horowitz happens to be the father of Ben Horowitz, co-founder of A16Z and one of the original investors in Twitter. Ben Horowitz is a raging Dem but he pays for security at his father's appearances and is well included in his extensive social life. As a parallel,  Peter Thiel was an original investor in Facebook and sits on its board.

So Dorsey/Twitter can drop the ban hammer whenever they want. Shitstain has already dropped his maniacal EO.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

slatfatf

Super Anarchist
8,679
1,049
Well, that didn't take long to answer. Twitter flagged Trump this morn for "glorifying violence". 

 https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-hides-trump-tweet-for-glorifying-violence-11590743851?mod=djemalertNEWS

Twitter's response to the executive order is an unequivocal "Fuck you".  As Yoda might put it: "On like Donkey Kong, it is."  
Yep, I had thought you already saw that when I responded to your post. Frankly, I don't think they have any other viable options. The alternative is essentially letting him dictate how Twitter is run, at which point they are no longer really an independent company. Trump is a bully, and continuing to give in to him would only mean he will demand more and more. At the point where their top people are getting death threats, they had to take a stand.

At this point, I truly believe Trump's only chance at being in power next year would essentially be a coup, whether bloodless or bloody. His chances at winning a legitimate election are approaching zero. If that happened, media companies in general cease to be viable as independent entities, and all become creatures of the non-legitimate govt. I don't believe we will see a coup, but it would still be more likely than a legitimate reelection. 

 

Sol Rosenberg

Girthy Member
93,248
10,964
Earth
Not quoting to save space, but, I had missed the "modify" portion of the TOS.   Given that - it seems to me that we'd all be well informed to remember that anything posted on social media has a strong likelihood of being bullshit.   
But that's not the important part I see from those citations.  The election integrity policy has very real implications for the upcoming election, that apply to a great many users other than the Pride of the GOP, whether or not those users are humans or bots.

Much of what we are discussing is the difference between fact and opinion, so here is my opinion. It is that policy that has Trump riled up, not the application of it to one tweet. It has very big ramifications for his campaign. 

 

Nice!

Super Anarchist
4,375
1,178
Victoria, BC
I don't know why they don't just give him the boot. He needs them a hell of a lot more than they need him. 
It wouldn't solve anything. It would rile up the base, and armed militia idiots would probably surround the Twitter offices. The elk would incorrectly claim that the president is being censored. What Twitter is doing is much better.

But you are correct. He needs them more than they need him.

 

Ishmael

Yes, we have no bananas
50,861
11,210
Fuctifino
How would things change if Twitter moved its head office out of the US, to somewhere out of reach of the Trump/Barr axis of evil?

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
60,986
4,982
De Nile
I think you're missing my point.  Twitter's process for determining what's bullshit and what's not, and their behavior w/r/t that determination is what's at question.   

No one is saying that private individuals can't say what they want, for whatever reasons they want.  Twitter/FB/etc as "social media platforms" have obligations above the individual, if they want to maintain the section 230 protections, don't they?    Those protections insulate them from things that other people say on their platform -  and unless I'm badly mistaken, they don't insulate the social media platforms from things they say/do themselves. 

SO - the act of Twitter in fact censuring a comment, or not censuring a comment, has the potential to put their eligibility for that protection at risk, and as I see it, that determination hinges upon how they select content for scrutiny, and the means by which they validate the content.  

Again - if I'm mistaken in what I'm thinking, I'm open to being squared away. 
They didn't censure.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
60,986
4,982
De Nile
Twitter is expressing it's opinion with it's "fact check" tag. Any other response is over the top. Filtering, removing, are censorship. Adding a comment is acting like "normal".
Just to remind folks, twitter ain't congress, so the the 1st doesn't apply.

This little law limiting liability is all that's in question.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances..

 

Gouvernail

Lottsa people don’t know I’m famous
37,689
5,248
Austin Texas
I am fine with the following:

“We fact check posts made by the President of the United States because he is the President of the United States.”

 

MR.CLEAN

Moderator
45,971
4,218
Not here
Not quoting to save space, but, I had missed the "modify" portion of the TOS.   Given that - it seems to me that we'd all be well informed to remember that anything posted on social media has a strong likelihood of being bullshit.   
And we'd be smart to remember that clicking "I Agree" on a TOS is signing a contract that is no less enforceable than a purchase agreement on a house.

 

MR.CLEAN

Moderator
45,971
4,218
Not here
 Filtering, removing, are censorship. 
Not quite.  When you sign up for Twitter, you sign a contract that expressly permits Twitter to do whatever it wants with your words, including filtering and removing.  The end.

 
Top