President Trump Says It is 'Very Dangerous' When Companies Like Twitter Regulate Own Content - Slashdot

President Trump Says It is 'Very Dangerous' When Companies Like Twitter Regulate Own Content - Slashdot
Close
binspam
dupe
notthebest
offtopic
slownewsday
stale
stupid
fresh
funny
insightful
interesting
maybe
offtopic
flamebait
troll
redundant
overrated
insightful
interesting
informative
funny
underrated
descriptive
typo
dupe
error
102306856
story
In an interview with Reuters on Monday, the U.S. President Donald Trump said that it is
"very dangerous" for social media companies like Twitter and Facebook to regulate
the content on their own platforms. Trump's remarks come on the backdrop of technology giants Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Spotify, and YouTube ridding select kind of content of their platforms in the recent weeks. On Saturday, Trump argued that social media companies are "closing down the opinions" of conservatives. He tweeted, "They are closing down the opinions of many people on the RIGHT, while at the same time doing nothing to others. Speaking loudly and clearly for the Trump Administration, we won't let that happen."
Further reading:
Twitter Is 'Rethinking' Its Service, and Suspending 1M Accounts Each Day
Related Links
It's Time to End the 'Data Is' vs 'Data Are' Debate
Twitter Is 'Rethinking' Its Service, and Suspending 1M Accounts Each Day
Trump Accuses Social Media Firms of 'Silencing Millions'
Staff At Gatwick Airport Use Whiteboards After Flight Information Screens Fail
This discussion has been archived.

No new comments can be posted.
President Trump Says It is 'Very Dangerous' When Companies Like Twitter Regulate Own Content
More
President Trump Says It is 'Very Dangerous' When Companies Like Twitter Regulate Own Content
Comments Filter:
All
Insightful
Informative
Interesting
Funny
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Both are dangerous
Score:
, Insightful)
by
SuperKendall
( 25149 )
writes:
on Monday August 20, 2018 @04:57PM (
#57161888
The moment any platform that allows public user comments starts meddling in who can speak, and who can say what - that is dangerous. Even more so when multiple companies collide to prevent one person from speaking as is the case with Alex Jones.
But that should, if anything, be a legal matter; someone I read somewhere said that Alex Jones may well be able to make a restraint to trade lawsuit happen against a variety of companies.
HOWEVER what is even more dangerous is letting the government have direct sway over what actions companies like Facebook or Twitter can or cannot have over users. You have to be able to let them run platforms as they see fit, then let the market of users and financial consequences dictate what actions are appropriate for a company to take.
Even though Twitter banned Alex Jones, you also see people like Will Wheaton self banning - so it's not like there is a balance naturally occurring anyway, even as things are.
For myself, I continue to use Twitter but the way to enjoy it is instantly mute anyone who goes political. Technical Twitter seems OK still.
Share
Re:Both are dangerous
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
on Monday August 20, 2018 @05:08PM (
#57161992
Alex Jones pushed violent attacks on innocent individuals named from his conspiracy theories with no bases in truth. To defend him makes you a nutter, regardless of what the individual reasons platforms game for giving him das boot.
Kendall happily defends traitors and dangerous people, so long as ideologically they agree with him. Otherwise he's for the opposite.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
burtosis
( 1124179 )
writes:
Maybe the offending videos that actually broke TOS should be removed, and the process be transparent. Too many strikes, and the person be banned temporarily or perhaps permanently from posting new content - deleting accepted content retroactively seems sketchy. But as much as I hate alex jones, it's really too easy in my opinion for this to become a slippery slope. A handful of executives overseeing the vast majority of open social forums, able to move the goalposts with unilateral authority, deciding w
Just Like Getting Bounced from a Bar
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
The question boils down to, can a platform control comments in order to push an agenda
No, the question boils down to whether a platform can establish minimum standards for behavior. Nobody would bat an eyelid if a bar bouncer kicked out a shit-talking asshole. Twitter is no different.
Its not like there aren't plenty of other places to go. Jones has his own website and ahole plebs who can't afford their own website, go to gab.ai or stormfront or whatever.
Re:
Score:
, Funny)
by
h33t l4x0r
( 4107715 )
writes:
...ahole plebs who can't afford their own website, go to gab.ai or stormfront or whatever.
Don't think of it as a ban, Alex. Think of it as being deported back to your shit-hole website.
Comment removed
Score:
, Insightful)
by
account_deleted
( 4530225 )
writes:
on Monday August 20, 2018 @06:15PM (
#57162592
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
, Informative)
by
TigerPlish
( 174064 )
writes:
I should know better than to feed an obvious troll, but..
Are you related to slashdot_is_fake? Similar cute names with underscores, joined around the same time, only posted a little bit, and seems to only rise to the defense of Alex Jones.
Thank you for illuminating the rest of us and letting us know with whom you'd like to be counted. Now we know, and knowing's half the battle.
So.. are you from Glorious Russian Troll Factory #2?
Let's see you turn red and sputter s'more. It's totes adorbs when you lose it
Re:
Score:
by
sg_oneill
( 159032 )
writes:
This probably didn't happen, if it did, there would be videos everywhere.
It did, and there was. Pay attention.
Re:Both are dangerous
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Luckyo
( 1726890 )
writes:
on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @12:23AM (
#57164608
Are you seriously suggesting that serious news organisations do not live to expose people to total garbage?
Your political affiliation should be utterly irrelevant here. Every serious news organisation exposes people to total garbage on daily basis. It's the core of their business.
If you do not comprehend this, you're beyond gullible.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
serviscope_minor
( 664417 )
writes:
Insults are not arguments. I'll bet you're a liberal - because insults are all they have.
That's beautiful.
Re:
Score:
by
account_deleted
( 4530225 )
writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Re:Both are dangerous
Score:
, Insightful)
by
PraiseBob
( 1923958 )
writes:
on Monday August 20, 2018 @05:11PM (
#57162026
I think the courts have been pretty consistent that inciting panic (shouting "fire") and inciting violence do not qualify as free speech, and aren't under the same level of protections. Media companies are reacting in a somewhat reasonable manner in trying to curb and remove the calls for violence that Alex Jones keeps issuing on their platforms. It just so happens that most of the requests for violence are coming from right-wing talking heads. I'd HOPE for the same kind of response if left-wing talking heads kept calling for violence towards their political opponents.
I'm sure there are plenty of counterexamples, but pro-gun groups & people are much more consistent about using guns as their solution when compared to the anti-gun crowd for instance.
Parent
Share
Re:Both are dangerous
Score:
, Informative)
by
PeeAitchPee
( 712652 )
writes:
on Monday August 20, 2018 @06:21PM (
#57162656
No one on Twitter has 1A protection -- NO ONE. Twitter is a private corp, not part of the gov't, and "free speech" as defined by the 1A *only* affects the gov't ability to block said speech.
Parent
Share
That argument is utterly illogical
Score:
, Informative)
by
raymorris
( 2726007 )
writes:
The page you linked to mentions that Brandenburg (1969) held that political speech which may be politically dangerous is protected. That's because the first amendment was written with political speech in mind. Brandenburg in no affects the proverbial "shouting fire in a crowded theater".
Just five years later, SCOTUS held in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact".
Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater would be a "false statement of fact" for whi
Re:
Score:
by
Mal-2
( 675116 )
writes:
However, say you were fooled by special effects into believing there actually was a fire, and then shouted "fire!". While you might well get arrested (because the police don't have to accept your defense, that's for a court to do), there is still no crime. So perhaps Alex Jones can pull out the "I believe everything I say is true, but I can't help it if my sources are sometimes wrong" defense. Thing is, this only covers whether acts are criminal, not whether Twatter or Fecebook have to put up with it.
Re:
Score:
by
omnichad
( 1198475 )
writes:
Platforms like this quickly get overrun with spam. Any measures that deal with spam eventually move to dealing with spam created by action groups. One man's censorship is another man's garbage collection - it's only when it gets applied unfairly or unevenly that it becomes a real problem.
Let anyone speak, and let me choose who I listen
Score:
by
SuperKendall
( 25149 )
writes:
Platforms like this quickly get overrun with spam. Any measures that deal with spam eventually move to dealing with spam created by action groups.
I totally agree with both statements.
One man's censorship is another man's garbage collection - it's only when it gets applied unfairly or unevenly that it becomes a real problem.
I also agree with this, the problem is that it will always end up being applied unfairly eventually if it's the company doing the blocking.
I think the best approach is to treat it like em
Re:
Score:
by
Raenex
( 947668 )
writes:
Technical Twitter seems OK still
What's the fucking point?
It's a nice way to broadcast and listen
Score:
by
SuperKendall
( 25149 )
writes:
What's the fucking point?
The thing that keeps me on Technical twitter, is I can have this stream I follow with a lot of little minor events to keep up on easily - like releases of some development tools or software I care about, or some interesting technical tips for stuff I work with. Similarly I also at times come across some hard-won technical knowledge that I throw out on Twitter - maybe it helps someone, maybe it doesn't but at least it's out there in a lot of other heads for someone to remember in th
Re:
Score:
by
SuperKendall
( 25149 )
writes:
Epic Freudian slip...
Left wing kooks are scarier if you are
paying attention
[oregonlive.com]. At least right wing kooks are not beating their own into submission - for the offense as grave as carrying a flag.
Re:Both are dangerous
Score:
, Insightful)
by
AmiMoJo
( 196126 )
writes:
on Monday August 20, 2018 @05:53PM (
#57162412
Homepage
Journal
I assume you mean "colluded"... But really Jones has been trying to get himself banned for a long time and given that he posts the same content on all platforms it's hardly surprising that they all banned him around the same time.
Getting banned helps him by fuelling his conspiracy theories.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
citylivin
( 1250770 )
writes:
"HOWEVER what is even more dangerous is letting the government have direct sway over what actions companies like Facebook or Twitter can or cannot have over users."
I don't know about you, but I trust someone I elected far more than a for profit corporation 9 times out of 10. Your statement is very american. You don't trust the government so you elected trump to ruin it. So I wouldn't use the broken american political system, where they are trying to elect the least qualified person possible, as an example o
Re:
Score:
by
tgrigsby
( 164308 )
writes:
Sounds like a free market problem to me. As in, if no one is willing to carry the bullshit you're peddling, perhaps you should modify your message a bit. Because Alex Jones is a bullshit peddler extraordinaire, and the market is rejecting him. Too bad for Alex.
And now Trump is mad because the BS peddlers that support him are dwindling as troll farm, fake news, and political conspiracy theory filters become more effective. Let me grab a box of industrial strength tissues for this sob story.
Ignoring my pe
Re:Both are dangerous
Score:
, Insightful)
by
HornWumpus
( 783565 )
writes:
on Monday August 20, 2018 @05:35PM (
#57162258
No common carrier status. They are all now liable for the contents of all posts.
Parent
Share
Re:Both are dangerous
Score:
, Insightful)
by
WhiplashII
( 542766 )
writes:
on Monday August 20, 2018 @06:04PM (
#57162492
Homepage
Journal
Exactly - you cannot have both common carrier status and political censoring.
Parent
Share
The meaning of Balance
Score:
by
SuperKendall
( 25149 )
writes:
To answer your question, conservatives are worried they are being pushed off various social media platforms (which they are). But liberals are also leaving the same platforms, sometimes also pushed out (like the Antifa group from England that Facebook tossed) or self-selecting out like Wheaton, because they do not believe enough people are being tossed off the platform... so there is some balance as the most extreme people end up leaving on either side, more balance than most are willing to admit.
To respon
Re:Both are dangerous
Score:
, Insightful)
by
cdsparrow
( 658739 )
writes:
on Monday August 20, 2018 @05:55PM (
#57162426
"These platforms are as critical as other utilities like Electricity or Gas"
How is twitter or facebook as important as power or gas? Many people (myself included) don't use these sites and are probably better off for it. Power and water and gas and the like are important to staying alive - facebook, not so much.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
, Informative)
by
AmiMoJo
( 196126 )
writes:
Critical to Trump. Twitter in particular is his way of bypassing the media and their scrutiny of what he says.
Re:
Score:
by
account_deleted
( 4530225 )
writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Re:
Score:
by
youngone
( 975102 )
writes:
Critical Internet Platforms such as Google Search, Facebook, Twitter, Uber, AirBnb, Netflix, etc.
None of those things are critical. I have an account with exactly one of those things, and live my life quite happily thanks.
Equating them with electricity or gas is a little bit silly.
Except I argued the opposite of what you say
Score:
by
SuperKendall
( 25149 )
writes:
It's almost like you, and whoever moderated you up, didn't bother to read the last half of my post whatsoever...
To make it REAL CLEAR for the mouth-breathers out there, I am 100% against government regulation of platforms like Twitter, and most things in general for that matter. As far as free speech goes though I don't believe in banning any speech.
Re:
Score:
by
account_deleted
( 4530225 )
writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He is right for the wrong reasons :)
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
He is more concerned that far right are being kicked off but the real concern for the companies is once they start down a route of saying what views can and can't appear they are opening a never ending problem for themselves and possibly risk changing their legal status from an open platform to a curated one and hence liable for their content
Re:
Score:
by
PopeRatzo
( 965947 )
writes:
but the real concern for the companies is once they start down a route of saying what views can and can't appear they are opening a never ending problem for themselves and possibly risk changing their legal status from an open platform to a curated one and hence liable for their content
If they're willing to take that possible risk, who are you to say they can't?
Re:He is right for the wrong reasons :)
Score:
, Informative)
by
nasch
( 598556 )
writes:
on Monday August 20, 2018 @06:24PM (
#57162684
risk changing their legal status from an open platform to a curated one and hence liable for their content
They're protected from liability for the speech of their users by the Communications Decency Act. The CDA explicitly states that moderating their platforms does not remove that protection.
Parent
Share
New services are not stopped by this
Score:
, Insightful)
by
damn_registrars
( 1103043 )
writes:
damn.registrars@gmail.com
on Monday August 20, 2018 @04:58PM (
#57161900
Homepage
Journal
Twitter is doing exactly nothing to stop people from starting their own service. If they don't like the terms at Twitter they are free to go start a new service where they can set the terms. Twitter is not obligated to bend to the whims of Trump or anyone else if they fear it would be bad for their bottom line. After all at the end of the day they exist to make money, not to be the mouthpiece of any one man.
Share
Re:New services are not stopped by this
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Tablizer
( 95088 )
writes:
on Monday August 20, 2018 @05:24PM (
#57162148
Journal
If they don't like the terms at Twitter they are free to go start a new service where they can set the terms.
Rupert Murdoch's company, of which Fox News was part of, purchased MySpace in part for that reason. But it flopped.
GOP are hypocrites: They did away with the Fairness Doctrine when radio was booming with conservative pundits. Now they want something like it
back
for Big Digital Media, which is centrist or left-leaning.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Raenex
( 947668 )
writes:
There's a handful of companies that control the online public square, by virtue of the network effect and natural monopolies. They're all based out of far-left leaning California. What does it mean to have free speech when your speech is censored by a politically biased oligarchy that controls >90% of the public square?
Would you accept the top-3 mobile companies banning you from their services because they didn't like what you were saying? Right before the midterm elections?
Re:New services are not stopped by this
Score:
, Insightful)
by
drinkypoo
( 153816 )
writes:
drink@hyperlogos.org
on Monday August 20, 2018 @06:14PM (
#57162574
Homepage
Journal
Would you accept the top-3 mobile companies banning you from their services because they didn't like what you were saying? Right before the midterm elections?
No, but I also don't try to incite violence.
The people to be really mad at are the telecoms, who have collected billions of dollars in tax money which was supposed to be used to improve our internet access but which went into the pockets of telecommunications executives. If not for them, then it would be a lot easier to host your own content. The internet we deserve, even if for no reason other than that we paid for it, would let Alex Jones continue to spout his hatred even without the cooperation of Google. P.S. #netneutrality
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Raenex
( 947668 )
writes:
You know most of those "Antifa" accounts are fake, right?
You mean like the Berkeley Antifa account? The most violent Antifa that resulted in the trend of street battles at demonstrations? Why are
any
of their accounts allowed on Twatter, when Proud Boys were banned, which never called for violence, and only engaged in self-defense against anti-First Amendment Antifa?
Stop pretending you have any semblance of standards.
Re:
Score:
by
AmiMoJo
( 196126 )
writes:
There is Gab, but because it's full of conspiracy theorists and Nazis it's not very popular. So essentially people are demanding to be on the popular services, they don't really care about freedom of speech.
Re:
Score:
by
Tailhook
( 98486 )
writes:
If they don't like the terms at Twitter they are free to go start a new service where they can set the terms.
"They" are.
And yes, this is the correct solution to corporate censorship. This is our moral panic; anything that fails to conform to prevailing "virtue" is labeled an incitement to violence and banned.
Re:
Score:
by
The Good Reverend
( 84440 )
writes:
The current prevailing "virtue" is not being a Nazi, and not advocating genocide. I'm okay with that.
Re:
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Tailhook
( 98486 )
writes:
Nazi
Self righteous name calling; classic moral panic behavior.
I'm okay with that
Said every virtuemonger ever.
Re:
Score:
by
serviscope_minor
( 664417 )
writes:
Self righteous name calling; classic moral panic behavior.
Yeah it's such a moral panic to call those people with swastika tattoos---who like chanting "blood and soil" and complain endlessly about "the jews"---Nazis.
They're not Nazis they're very naughty boys.
Re:
Score:
by
AmiMoJo
( 196126 )
writes:
That some fucked up political correctness when you can't call a Nazi a Nazi any more.
Re:
Score:
by
beernutz
( 16190 )
writes:
Pretty sure the criteria is set for what they call "Protected Classes" or "Protected Group". Political speech is not one of the classes that are protected. Race is.
[wikipedia.org]
Re:
Score:
by
BrookHarty
( 9119 )
writes:
True, but that wiki link has race AND religion, age, sex, citizenship, etc. But if your politics and religion are the same things, how do you ban Jews or Muslins for promoting laws against other protected classes? Can you ban them for hate speech if they say they don't believe in LGBT or Women's rights? Or Palenestians promoting death to Isreal if its part of their political agenda?
Nothing is really binary logic in these discussions, its up to the moderator for the business to make that call. If you are
Re:
Score:
by
beernutz
( 16190 )
writes:
Anti-abortion is not really religious speech. It might have roots based there, but it is not -in itself- religious. There are courts that decide those kind of things though.

The point was that the GP choosing "restaurant owners in the South" choosing to not serve African Americans, is a very different circumstance.
But not dangerous for bakers to regulate cakes?
Score:
, Insightful)
by
JoeyRox
( 2711699 )
writes:
on Monday August 20, 2018 @05:03PM (
#57161934
As in who they decide is allowed to buy one? Either you allow all private companies to select who can use their service or you allow none of them to do so.
Share
Re:
Score:
, Informative)
by
quantaman
( 517394 )
writes:
As in who they decide is allowed to buy one? Either you allow all private companies to select who can use their service or you allow none of them to do so.
The baker was asking for the right to discriminate against a specific viewpoint because of their religious beliefs. The question was whether the baker's religious freedom was impinged enough to justify the violation of anti-discrimination laws.
Twitter and Facebook are trying to formula viewpoint neutral policies in order to get rid of toxic content and maintain healthy communities.
It's a tricky issue, but kind of unavoidable, and they're arguably doing it in a way that would be compatible with the US 1st am
Re:But not dangerous for bakers to regulate cakes?
Score:
, Insightful)
by
jensend
( 71114 )
writes:
on Monday August 20, 2018 @06:11PM (
#57162558
That's baloney, and I think you know better and are just trying to be provocative (flamebait).
The bakers were perfectly happy to sell those people standard bakery items. They were unwilling to expend their creative and artistic effort to make a custom cake to support an event they have moral objections to. Similarly, one might expect a Jewish bakery to sell rolls and muffins to neo-Nazis but one ought not expect them to create custom cakes for a neo-Nazi rally.
Parent
Share
Tricky territory
Score:
by
vakuona
( 788200 )
writes:
This is quite tricky territory for companies such as Twitter, Google etc.
If they now censor speech as a matter of course, does this mean they are making editorial decisions? If so, does this make them liable for all speech on their platforms. Or will they only use this power to stop speech they don't agree with even if the speech is not illegal / defamatory etc.
Re:
Score:
by
MightyMartian
( 840721 )
writes:
If that's the case, then it would apply to any online forum where any kind of moderation happens. But the reality is that for anyone, even the government, to go after a social media site for illegal or defamatory posts would require them to demonstrate intent. If someone makes a death threat via Twitter, in a criminal trial clearly no one could accuse Twitter of being an accessory. It had no intent, it's just basically a message service. It's get dicier for civil suits, and I suppose it's possible that some
Re:
Score:
by
R3d M3rcury
( 871886 )
writes:
One could say that Twitter is a distributor. They have every right to decide what they want to distribute. An analogy here would be a film distributor. No, Disney's distribution company doesn't have to distribute your pornographic film in the interests of fairness. They can decide that they're not interested due to the content of the film.
Twitter can decide not to distribute your content for whatever reason they choose. You can find another distributor for your content.
Re:
Score:
by
Raenex
( 947668 )
writes:
One could say that Twitter is a distributor. They have every right to decide what they want to distribute. An analogy here would be a film distributor.
A film distributor would be responsible for what they distribute. Twatter and the other Big Tech oligarchies want to curate their content but not be responsible for what they publish.
Re:
Score:
by
nasch
( 598556 )
writes:
No, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants immunity from liability for the speech of users, even if the owner of the service moderates/censors content on that service.
"Opinions"
Score:
by
pots
( 5047349 )
writes:
There was a person in another forum who denigrated Youtube's effort at fact-checking videos (Youtube recently started publishing links to Wikipedia articles on climate change, next to videos skeptical about the existence of climate change) - this poster was claiming that fact checking was tantamount to silencing alternative viewpoints. It's... an interesting corruption of the notion of truth. This person was equating "being incorrect" with "having a different opinion."
Re:
Score:
by
aitikin
( 909209 )
writes:
...this poster was claiming that fact checking was tantamount to silencing alternative viewpoints. It's... an interesting corruption of the notion of truth. This person was equating "being incorrect" with "having a different opinion."
In an era when we have The President of the United States of America having a personal lawyer who says, "Truth isn't truth anymore!" that's not as much of a corruption...
Re:
Score:
by
bluefoxlucid
( 723572 )
writes:
Someone told me yesterday that the thirteenth amendment prohibits free healthcare. He actually knew what was in the thirteenth amendment.
Trolls and moderation.
Score:
, Insightful)
by
RyanFenton
( 230700 )
writes:
on Monday August 20, 2018 @05:04PM (
#57161968
Trolls do tend to say that whenever moderation starts removing abuse dominating a conversation channel.
The other top response is saying that they wouldn't be trolling of only the other side would stop being so wrong.
But to never moderate those things would mean that everything becomes rhetoric - all noise and no signal. It defeats the purpose of having having a channel of communication... which is kind of the point of this modern form of trolling, isn't it?
Ryan Fenton
Share
But not when the Govenment does it.
Score:
, Insightful)
by
SeaFox
( 739806 )
writes:
on Monday August 20, 2018 @05:10PM (
#57162012
I'm sure he's perfectly fine with the government regulating social media, and the press for that matter.
Things will be full of the correct facts then... just like in China and North Korea.
Share
He means Alex Jones
Score:
, Insightful)
by
rsilvergun
( 571051 )
writes:
on Monday August 20, 2018 @05:11PM (
#57162018
And Jones was fine for years until he started doing borderline incitement to violence. It doesn't help that he caters to an extreme right wing base that's been shown to act on the kind of crazy conspiracy theories he specializes in.
BTW, does anyone else think in the "two minutes of hate" from 1984 when watching Jones rant? Serious, that creeped me out more than anything he's done (yes, more than the references to blood libel whenever he criticized someone Jewish).
Share
Re:
Score:
, Insightful)
by
nwaack
( 3482871 )
writes:
You know he/she is totally fine with it because liberals can do anything they want, as long as they scream "RACIST" or "BIGOT" at their victim while doing it.
Re:
Score:
by
Cyberax
( 705495 )
writes:
Can you provide a couple of links on Youtube? From a public person and comparable with Jones rants.
Nope, I am definitely not
Score:
by
rsilvergun
( 571051 )
writes:
antifa is the American equivalent of soccer hooligans. Just a bunch of Angry men. I haven't seen a lot of Black Lives Matters violence since, well, the entire point of the movement is to _stop_ violence, but I suppose it's possible. Again, if any such exists they should be prosecuted as normal.
I really, really wish those antifa schmucks would stop already, btw. The Left is way, way worse at violence than the right. They're not as well organized (what with being an anti fascism movement and all) and they
Re:
Score:
by
PeeAitchPee
( 712652 )
writes:
Fair enough.
Disreputable source of information.
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Gravis Zero
( 934156 )
writes:
If it were any other president, it would be worth debating this. However, President Trump is a compulsive liar, criminal and derides all content he doesn't like by calling it "fake news". Twitter should have booted him long ago but refused to do so because it would hurt their business.
I have no sympathy for sources of disinformation.
Re:
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
NYT just hired a blatent racist editor.
Another NYT editor went on TV to say Trump is going to round up people and murder them.
Fake News is appropriate. Or you are a racist bigot that thinks lying about people is acceptable, and since you are likely a liberal I will assume you are a racist.
Irony
Score:
by
CanHasDIY
( 1672858 )
writes:
The Left: "The internet is a public utility, and Service Providers have
no right
to control what content we see on their platform!"
Also the Left: "Service Providers have
an absolute right
to control what content is allowed on their platform!"
The Right: "The internet is
NOT
a public utility, it is a business tool for commerce, and you have no free speech on private platforms!"
Also the Right: "Businesses on the internet have
no right
to censor speech on their platforms!"
No wonder we're going to hell in a hand
Re:
Score:
, Informative)
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
Uhh you have your terms mixed up. Twitter provides a service, but isn't an internet service provider. This falls exactly in line with pro net neutrality views.
Re:
Score:
by
TomR teh Pirate
( 1554037 )
writes:
This is exactly right, and I wish I had points to mod you up. Twitter != Internet. Comcast on the other hand does play the role of internet provider and the argument there isn't about which content they carry, but whether they grant performance preferences to some content over others.
How Free Speech Works
Score:
, Informative)
by
hduff
( 570443 )
writes:
hoytduff AT gmail DOT com
on Monday August 20, 2018 @06:50PM (
#57162826
Homepage
Journal
The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution just keeps the government from censoring your speech. Since social media is not the government, they can do whatever they want: allowing you to speak unfettered, closing your account, censoring what you say. There's NOTHING illegal or wrong about that; it's only a problem when the government starts censoring your speech.
Share
Re:You all agree with him you know
Score:
, Informative)
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
on Monday August 20, 2018 @04:54PM (
#57161868
Your Comcast analogy is highly flawed. But then, you knew that.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Raenex
( 947668 )
writes:
Your Comcast analogy is highly flawed. But then, you knew that.
Is it? Is there another "Facebook" that you can practice free speech on if Facebook decides it doesn't like your politics? What happens when Facebook, Google/YouTube, and Twitter all decide it doesn't like your politics, and censors you? Right before the midterm elections?
You have free speech, go talk in the dark alleyway! Build your own social media network, become part of the oligarchy, and
then
you will have the free speech you desire!
Democracy Matters
[duckduckgo.com]: Strategic Plan for Action":
"Generally speaking and
Re:
Score:
, Informative)
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
Is there another "Facebook" that you can practice free speech on if Facebook decides it doesn't like your politics?
Is this a joke? Yes, there are tens of thousands of them. You posted your question right here on one of the (formerly?) more popular ones.
What happens when Facebook, Google/YouTube, and Twitter all decide it doesn't like your politics, and censors you?
Well, they don't have the capacity to censor me, even if they all ganged up and worked together to try. But I assume you're actually asking about
Re: You all agree with him you know
Score:
, Insightful)
by
nasch
( 598556 )
writes:
on Monday August 20, 2018 @06:16PM (
#57162594
Hillary also did not have an agenda, all she did was attack Trump.
Maybe she didn't publicize it well enough, but she definitely had an agenda.
[hillaryclinton.com]
Trump on the other hand HAD an AGENDA "Make America Great Again"
That's a slogan, not an agenda.
The only people who voted for her were airheads who thought having a vagina was a requirement for the white house.
Now you're just being stupid.
The Economy woke up and got in gear the day after the election
Citation needed.
Parent
Share
Re: You all agree with him you know
Score:
, Insightful)
by
DaHat
( 247651 )
writes:
on Monday August 20, 2018 @10:25PM (
#57164056
but Trump did not legitimately win (electoral college).
He didn't legitimately win by... winning in the only way that matters per the system we have today?
How does that work again?
Parent
Share
Re: You all agree with him you know
Score:
, Insightful)
by
c6gunner
( 950153 )
writes:
on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @12:55AM (
#57164740
Homepage
The electoral college is itself illegitimate, an arcane abomination that was imposed centuries ago, when it ostensibly served some purpose (but never did) and which still fools people into thinking it protects smaller states or some other bullshit.
That's hilarious. I would argue that, given recent history, it's more important now than it's ever been before. Any system which keeps a handful of cities from dictating terms to the rest of the nation is a valuable one.
Parent
Share
Re:You all agree with him you know
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
on Monday August 20, 2018 @05:04PM (
#57161950
OK, so can the crazy. On the actual, non-conspiracy hand, it is Trump who decries the "lying media" and "fake news" whenever he does something stupid, outlandish, against current cultural norms, etc. They aren't lying; he is. But HE would like to regulate what they can say like in China. Who is dangerous here? Facebook for taking a raging nutbag like Alex Jones off for telling people to get their guns ready? Or Trump who would like to stop the press from being mean to him?
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
OYAHHH
( 322809 )
writes:
> But HE would like to regulate what they can say like in China.
Huh?
Re: You all agree with him you know
Score:
by
MidnightBrewer
( 97195 )
writes:
As in heâ(TM)d like to regulate free speech similar to the way they do in China.
Re:You all agree with him you know
Score:
, Insightful)
by
sheph
( 955019 )
writes:
on Monday August 20, 2018 @06:24PM (
#57162686
The thing with Alex Jones is that it's fairly obvious that he's off his nut. Do we really need Facebook to protect us from him? Are you incapable of listening to people and coming to the determination as to whether or not they're full of crap? And if not, who would the appropriate party be? Facebook? The government? Some agency? All have potential for abuse. I'd rather hear and see everything and make up my own mind.
Parent
Share
Re: You all agree with him you know
Score:
by
jd
( 1658 )
writes:
It's obvious Trump is off his nut, but he still got elected Resident of the White House.
It was obvious there was only ever going to be less money for the NHS on leaving the EU, but a side of the bus slogan still swung the Brexit referendum.
It was obvious the Internet was originally Title 2, but many Americans still naively believe Obama created network neutrality by executive order.
It is obvious that the planet is warming faster than it has ever done in the past 250 million years, and that the isotopes show
Re:
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
You can compare websites to ISPs when I have more than one viable option for my ISP
Re:You all agree with him you know
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Dan667
( 564390 )
writes:
on Monday August 20, 2018 @05:12PM (
#57162038
your comment is so wrong, you don't have an understanding at all. You don't like twitter don't use it. You don't like the internet, well tough there is only one.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
MrLint
( 519792 )
writes:
Net neutrality is about the transport method not the end point presentation method. But I guess that distinction gets lost in the series of tubes.
Re:You all agree with him you know
Score:
, Informative)
by
Desler
( 1608317 )
writes:
on Monday August 20, 2018 @06:16PM (
#57162600
No, what I do agree with is Alex Jones'
Terms of Service of InfoWars
[infowars.com]:
If you violate these rules, your posts and/or user name will be deleted.
Remember: you are a guest here. It is not censorship if you violate the rules and your post is deleted. All civilizations have rules and if you violate them you can expect to be ostracized from the tribe.
Funny how Alex Jones is being a huge hypocrite when he gets banned from other websites and then claims he's being censorwd.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
Revek
( 133289 )
writes:
No need to be use bigoted imagery to describe a bigot.
Re:
Score:
by
Locke2005
( 849178 )
writes:
[theguardian.com]
Re:
Score:
by
Rick Schumann
( 4662797 )
writes:
Because Trump knows (because he purchased them) most of his followers are
Russian
'bots. He's feeling threatened that his number is going to get smaller like his hands.
Fixed that for you.
Re:
Score:
by
MightyMartian
( 840721 )
writes:
It would solve some of the problems. At the end of the day, any social media company is going to be caught between the rock and a hard place. Unless they go to a full-on subscription model (which I doubt would ever be able to sustain itself, or at least see anywhere near the membership of, say, Twitter), they're going to need advertising dollars. And when you're the CEO of your "no limits on speech" social networking site gets a call from the marketing department reporting Big Corps 1, 2 and 3, which make u
Re:
Score:
by
nwaack
( 3482871 )
writes:
Twitter is a colossal cesspool and no amount of regulation or non-regulation, internal or external, will fix it. I long for the day when Tweets weren't newsworthy.
This. Exactly this. Every time I'm presented with some HuffPost list-of-random-people's-tweets-masquerading-as-news my blood boils.
Re:
Score:
by
drinkypoo
( 153816 )
writes:
you're worse than Trump
If you mean the monospace text, I totally agree
Re:
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Z80a
( 971949 )
writes:
Hate speech is a vague term that can mean anything, but it's definition is generally enforced by the one that screams the loudest until a corporation take control of it, then everything they don't like will be hate speech.
Bad mouth Comcast for delivering 1/100 of the advertised speed? hate speech. Complain about the apple device that blew your face up? hate speech.
They're just letting you build the tools they will use to fuck you later.
Re:
Score:
, Insightful)
by
fuqck_slashdot
( 5496476 )
writes:
Seriously, goolag search "anti white racism on twitter".
The legal definition doesn't exist in this country, so you must be referencing a definition de facto vulgaris.
In which case there's a negative qualification: white people.
Did you miss that whole Sara Jeong thing?
Re:
Score:
by
Z80a
( 971949 )
writes:
It's not defined anywhere and kept vague on purpose so it can be used to persecute anyone that go against the group.
And when it gets taken over, it will be kept just as vague.
Re:The RIGHT puts out more obvious lies.
Score:
, Informative)
by
Man On Pink Corner
( 1089867 )
writes:
on Monday August 20, 2018 @09:29PM (
#57163780
How about 2,300 examples and counting?
[thestar.com]
Parent
Share
Re:The RIGHT puts out more obvious lies.
Score:
, Interesting)
by
Man On Pink Corner
( 1089867 )
writes:
on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @01:30AM (
#57164848
Yeah, I don't doubt that you could compile a huge list of lies for just about any politician, from Obama ("You can keep your doctor") all the way back to that time when George Washington promised his troops that there would be cake on the other side of the Delaware.
But the thing about Trump is, he lies by
default
. He lies reflexively. He lies about shit that doesn't matter. "Biggest
inaugural crowd
[independent.co.uk] in history," that kind of thing. Trump would literally piss on your shoes and tell you it's raining.
That part is new and disturbing. It suggests that he's not only a typical lying politician, but some sort of psychopath.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
iMadeGhostzilla
( 1851560 )
writes:
CNN along with the sea of left media and celebrities is more addicted to, and obsessed by, Trump's tweets than any of Trump's followers.
Related Links
Top of the:
day
week
month
393
comments
Americans Are Leaving the US in Record Numbers
381
comments
Scott Adams, Creator of the 'Dilbert' Comic Strip, Dies at 68
359
comments
'America's Elite Universities Have Lost Their Way'
341
comments
A Hellish 'Hothouse Earth' Getting Closer, Scientists Say
339
comments
The US Is Flirting With Its First-Ever Population Decline
next
Staff At Gatwick Airport Use Whiteboards After Flight Information Screens Fail
50
comments
previous
It's Time to End the 'Data Is' vs 'Data Are' Debate
248
comments
Slashdot Top Deals
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
-- Bertrand Russell
Close
Working...