RIP Twitter

#276
#276
utvolpj said:
Because they're just not. A visiting fan whose sole purpose is to trash UT won't last long. Many posters in here seem to view that as unfair and a violation of their free speech
Click to expand...

It's not a violation of free speech by any stretch and I understand the distinction. I just think it's not an applicable comparison to what twitter is doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123
#277
#277
Kristy* said:
"Publishing is the activity of making information, literature, music, software and other content available to the public for sale or for free."

If it's my bar, I'm not responsible for what people say, because my bar allows free speech.
Click to expand...

Whether or not you allow free speech has nothing to do with whether or not you're responsible for what people say. The two ideas are barely even related.

The reason that websites are not a traditional publisher and have always been treated differently is because we want a functional internet and we want people to have a voice. You want to go back to the days when the only way to get your ideas out there was to write an op-ed and hope the NYT published it, great. I personally am over the stone age of information.
 
#278
#278
hog88 said:
It's not a violation of free speech by any stretch and I understand the distinction. I just think it's not an applicable comparison to what twitter is doing.
Click to expand...
They are just moderating site content yet on a massive scale. Doesn't make them a "publisher" any more than VN
 
#279
#279
n_huffhines said:
The reason that websites are not a traditional publisher and have always been treated differently is because we want a functional internet and we want people to have a voice. You want to go back to the days when the only way to get your ideas out there was to write an op-ed and hope the NYT published it, great. I personally am over the stone age of information.
Click to expand...

Lol.
 
#281
#281
utvolpj said:
I know they have yet still allow some to stay. Who is more dangerous - Trump or Khamenei?

It was political. They wanted to drive him crazy while pushing a Dem agenda and he simply couldn't stop.
Click to expand...
If it was purely political, they would have banned him a long time ago.
 
#282
#282
Ttucke11 said:
Irrelevant. I already agreed with you about 230. Calling someone a POS is not against their user agreement that I'm aware of. Theoretically, I'm entitled to say anything that does not go against their terms of service. If they want to say that I was harassing him then fine, but they clearly do not follow their own rules they have made equally.
Click to expand...

No, you are not. It's their platform. You're not entitled to anything that is not yours. You're not entitled to enjoy anybody else's tech. You're entitled to whatever you own and that's where the line is drawn.

Where are the boomers when you need them to call out how entitled this generation is?
 
#284
#284
hog88 said:
If they are editing and putting commentary on certain posts ie "fact checking", wouldn't that fall into the publishing category?
Click to expand...
So is VN publishing by adding Rumor to thread titles or having mods commenting on posts?
 
#285
#285
ajvol01 said:
Twitter refused to remove child porn because it didn’t ‘violate policies’: lawsuit
Click to expand...
utvolpj said:
They are just moderating site content yet on a massive scale. Doesn't make them a "publisher" any more than VN
Click to expand...
How Twitter chooses to moderate seems to be the main problem for most on the right.

Suspending/banning thousands of accounts has become commonplace for Twitter. The Twitter purge on 1/8 was allegedly 70,000 accounts. When they do this all of the content is removed/inaccessible.

Do you consider this moderating?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kristy* and Ttucke11
#286
#286
ajvol01 said:
How Twitter chooses to moderate seems to be the main problem for most on the right.

Suspending/banning thousands of accounts has become commonplace for Twitter. The Twitter purge on 1/8 was allegedly 70,000 accounts. When they do this all of the content is removed/inaccessible.

Do you consider this moderating?
Click to expand...
I have no clue about their reasoning but it's their site and their content.
 
#287
#287
hog88 said:
If they are editing and putting commentary on certain posts ie "fact checking", wouldn't that fall into the publishing category?
Click to expand...

But what would you sue them for in this case? Social media sites definitely publish some stuff. They have their own accounts and they give people updates about changes. Just making a privacy policy technically makes them a publisher. By that definition, literally every company that puts an idea on paper becomes a publisher. What people are specifically saying they should be sued for is not publishing, tho. It's censorship, which is the opposite of publishing.
 
#288
#288
utvolpj said:
So is VN publishing by adding Rumor to thread titles or having mods commenting on posts?
Click to expand...

There is a line and I will admit that I have no idea where that line is. I don't think a website like VN or a social media entity like twitter should be subject to a lawsuit for what a member posts in other words there shouldn't need to be a section 230.
 
#289
#289
n_huffhines said:
Whether or not you allow free speech has nothing to do with whether or not you're responsible for what people say. The two ideas are barely even related.

The reason that websites are not a traditional publisher and have always been treated differently is because we want a functional internet and we want people to have a voice. You want to go back to the days when the only way to get your ideas out there was to write an op-ed and hope the NYT published it, great. I personally am over the stone age of information.
Click to expand...
Yes. I agree. I want EVERYONE to have a voice. I often wished Trump would have shut up. It could have done him a lot of service IMO. But it's not right for him to be silenced. If people want to listen or not to what he has to say, that should be their choice.
 
#290
#290
ajvol01 said:
Tell that to all the union members working on the keystone xl pipeline who just lost their job
Click to expand...
A State Department report found that no more than 50 jobs would be required to maintain the pipeline. The majority of the jobs you must be referring to were seasonal construction work, which is somewhere between 10K and 11K jobs... which would have lasted between 6 to 8 months. The impact of this on the labor market has been grossly exaggerated by the right. Per the Bureau of Labor Statistics, since Trump took office in January of 2017, approximately 4 million Americans have lost their jobs. Cutting the Keystone Pipeline is a drop in the bucket to the real problems facing this country right now.
 
#291
#291
utvolpj said:
So is VN publishing by adding Rumor to thread titles or having mods commenting on posts?
Click to expand...
You see no difference?

Nearly every tweet Trump made from 11/4 to 1/8 had a Twitter warning/disclaimer on it.

It was blatantly pushing the narrative that no one was allowed to question the possibility of fraud or the results of the election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ttucke11
#293
#293
hog88 said:
There is a line and I will admit that I have no idea where that line is. I don't think a website like VN or a social media entity like twitter should be subject to a lawsuit for what a member posts in other words there shouldn't need to be a section 230.
Click to expand...
I ask because just adding (rumor) to a recent FF thread got us compared to twitter in a 4 paragraph rant.

I don't necessarily have to line their policies to think they have the right to do it. It sucks and should be driving of customers in droves
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kristy*
#295
#295
Kristy* said:
Yes. I agree. I want EVERYONE to have a voice. I often wished Trump would have shut up. It could have done him a lot of service IMO. But it's not right for him to be silenced. If people want to listen or not to what he has to say, that should be their choice.
Click to expand...

In a perfect world, we would all have an equal voice. Don't get me wrong. I scoff at Parler but I also am disgusted with big tech freezing them out. I took Twitter off my phone in protest of all this. They are ****ing up big time. But I don't want to kill the internet just to spite twitter. I'd rather live with the problem until we find a smarter solution than removing section 230 protection, which websites of all sizes need, not just big tech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and Kristy*
#296
#296
ajvol01 said:
You see no difference?

Nearly every tweet Trump made from 11/4 to 1/8 had a Twitter warning/disclaimer on it.

It was blatantly pushing the narrative that no one was allowed to question the possibility of fraud or the results of the election.
Click to expand...
And? I don't disagree but they have a right to handle content as they see fit just like every other social media outlet

Trump's use of twitter was a big part of his loss
 
  • Like
Reactions: BenGrimm
#298
#298
utvolpj said:
I ask because just adding (rumor) to a recent FF thread got us compared to twitter in a 4 paragraph rant.

I don't necessarily have to line their policies to think they have the right to do it. It sucks and should be driving of customers in droves
Click to expand...

It did drive off customers. That's when Big Tech had to team up and shut down it's competitor. Whether legally right or wrong, Twitter is an extremely unethical business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kristy* and allvol123
#299
#299
n_huffhines said:
No, you are not. It's their platform. You're not entitled to anything that is not yours. You're not entitled to enjoy anybody else's tech. You're entitled to whatever you own and that's where the line is drawn.

Where are the boomers when you need them to call out how entitled this generation is?
Click to expand...

Then hold them libel for every single false claim from any user on their platform. They should be treated no different than the news or local paper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kristy*, allvol123 and Ttucke11
#300
#300
ajvol01 said:
You see no difference?

Nearly every tweet Trump made from 11/4 to 1/8 had a Twitter warning/disclaimer on it.

It was blatantly pushing the narrative that no one was allowed to question the possibility of fraud or the results of the election.
Click to expand...
They were addendums to claims which were provably false. Trump was lying, and trying to sow discord and distrust.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top