Home

New Twitter "Safety" Policy
Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News


View latest: 24h 48h 72h


SixOfWands




 
 
 
 

Post Wed, Dec 01 2021, 10:40 am
Fox wrote:
I deliberately put this in the "In the News" subforum because news suppression should concern everyone, no matter her political leanings.

If your politics -- whether it's right-wing or left-wing -- leads you to think that making a handful of corporations the gatekeepers of what we know about the world is a good idea, I respectfully suggest you reevaluate your politics.

Hugs back in advance!


As we now know, notwithstanding your artful editing, this has nothing to do with presenting newsworthy items about public people, which is specifically exempted.

Your objection is that it is "news suppression" to have a rule against posting nudies of public officials. And I do have to say, for the record, that if you have a money shot of Nancy Pelosi, no one -- NO ONE -- wants to see it.

And you also claim that its news suppression to delete posts that "harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence [public officials." If you think that such posts are necessary for news, then I respectfully suggest that you reevaluate your politics.

Additionally, if your news source is social media, or indeed if you believe that social media, where anyone can post anything, with no fact checks, is a legitimate news sources, then I respectfully suggest that you reevaluate your definition of news.

Social media may POINT you to interesting news, but in that regard its usually an echo chamber. It may also provide individual information and perspective. But its not a a news source.
Back to top

naturelover




 
 
 
 

Post Wed, Dec 01 2021, 10:54 am
SixOfWands wrote:
As we now know, notwithstanding your artful editing, this has nothing to do with presenting newsworthy items about public people, which is specifically exempted.

Your objection is that it is "news suppression" to have a rule against posting nudies of public officials. And I do have to say, for the record, that if you have a money shot of Nancy Pelosi, no one -- NO ONE -- wants to see it.

And you also claim that its news suppression to delete posts that "harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence [public officials." If you think that such posts are necessary for news, then I respectfully suggest that you reevaluate your politics.

Additionally, if your news source is social media, or indeed if you believe that social media, where anyone can post anything, with no fact checks, is a legitimate news sources, then I respectfully suggest that you reevaluate your definition of news.

Social media may POINT you to interesting news, but in that regard its usually an echo chamber. It may also provide individual information and perspective. But its not a a news source.


Do you not agree there is suppression on social media? Do you think it's ok that people are banned or kicked off when they post pro-israel information?

And in today's day in age many people do use social media as a news source...its not just about commenting with friends anymore.


Last edited by naturelover on Wed, Dec 01 2021, 10:56 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top

fleetwood




 
 
 
 

Post Wed, Dec 01 2021, 10:55 am
IMHopinion wrote:
I was being very sarcastic.

I love the way my original post was reported for no reason. I get liberals are offended at the truth once again.


I didn't report you..but perhaps it's because you posted politics outside of the politics forum.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 
 

Post Wed, Dec 01 2021, 11:17 am
SixOfWands wrote:
As we now know, notwithstanding your artful editing, this has nothing to do with presenting newsworthy items about public people, which is specifically exempted.

Your objection is that it is "news suppression" to have a rule against posting nudies of public officials. And I do have to say, for the record, that if you have a money shot of Nancy Pelosi, no one -- NO ONE -- wants to see it.

And you also claim that its news suppression to delete posts that "harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence [public officials." If you think that such posts are necessary for news, then I respectfully suggest that you reevaluate your politics.

Additionally, if your news source is social media, or indeed if you believe that social media, where anyone can post anything, with no fact checks, is a legitimate news sources, then I respectfully suggest that you reevaluate your definition of news.

Social media may POINT you to interesting news, but in that regard its usually an echo chamber. It may also provide individual information and perspective. But its not a a news source.

Where to start?

The first problem is that you are apparently satisfied that social media companies will use their censorship abilities only for good. We have ample evidence to the contrary.

The second problem is that you seem to believe that mainstream media is somehow less in need of fact-checking and refutation than independent journalists. We also have ample evidence to the contrary of that.

The final problem is the elitist one: you appear believe that most people are stupid and require the guidance of their betters when it comes to selecting information sources. It's debatable whether this is true, but relying on mainstream media for information has not proven to be a solution.

Twitter and other platforms have plenty of tools already to take down posts that are legitimate invasions of privacy or put people in legitimate danger. They've shown almost no interest in doing so. It's naive to assume that making new rules is a benign act when they've been so capricious about enforcing the rules they already have.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
 
 

Post Wed, Dec 01 2021, 11:55 am
Fox wrote:
Where to start?

The first problem is that you are apparently satisfied that social media companies will use their censorship abilities only for good. We have ample evidence to the contrary.


Nope. I'm satisfied that social media is not a balanced and impartial source of news. Just like Yael is entitled not to admit my friend L, who is halachically a Jew, but has accepted Hey-zeus as her personal lord and savior, and would be glad to share why you should too; so too can other forms of social media decide who is harassing others.

Fox wrote:
The second problem is that you seem to believe that mainstream media is somehow less in need of fact-checking and refutation than independent journalists. We also have ample evidence to the contrary of that.


Mainstream media is indeed in need of fact checking. For the most part they do fact check. For the most part they get it correct. On the left. On the right. In the center. They may slant. They may leave things out. But the facts reported are generally true.

Fox wrote:

The final problem is the elitist one: you appear believe that most people are stupid and require the guidance of their betters when it comes to selecting information sources. It's debatable whether this is true, but relying on mainstream media for information has not proven to be a solution.


Patently untrue, of course. It is you who believes that if the "news" isn't broken down to tiny little bytes of 280 characters and digested for them on Twitter, they're just too darned stupid to go to read a newspaper, or go to an actual news site, or read a blog, or go to another forum.

Fox wrote:

Twitter and other platforms have plenty of tools already to take down posts that are legitimate invasions of privacy or put people in legitimate danger. They've shown almost no interest in doing so. It's naive to assume that making new rules is a benign act when they've been so capricious about enforcing the rules they already have.


Policing Twitter is exceedingly difficult, of course. There are approximately 500 million tweets a day, 6000 per second. Algorithms are heavy handed because they lack context. And reliance on reports are always subject to politics. There is very little I couldn't get away with saying on Twitter for the simple reason that I have 19 followers, and the last thing I tweeted was a call for book donations to my high school, about 2 years ago; it turns out that if you scream in an empty forest, no one actually hears you. If Justin Bieber says it, otoh, it will be heard.

That's right. Most twitter followers, in order. Barrack Obama. Justin Bieber. Katy Perry. Rhianna. Cristiano Renaldo. Taylor Swift. Arianna Grande. Lady Gaga. Ellen DeGeneres. YouTube. Narendra Modi. Kim Kardashian. Selena Gomez. Elon Musk. Justin Timberlake. So only 2 out of the top 15 in any way political.

But none of that is relevant. If you don't like it, you go elsewhere. If enough people leave, it will change. Parler is up and running. But you might not like them very much. Their first rule: "Parler will not knowingly allow itself to be used as a tool for crime, civil torts, or other unlawful acts. We will remove reported user content that a reasonable and objective observer would believe constitutes or evidences such activity. We may also remove the accounts of users who use our platform in this way." What are those "civil torts"? Certainly that would include information intended to harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence others.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 
 

Post Wed, Dec 01 2021, 2:05 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
It is you who believes that if the "news" isn't broken down to tiny little bytes of 280 characters and digested for them on Twitter, they're just too darned stupid to go to read a newspaper, or go to an actual news site, or read a blog, or go to another forum.

You continue to miss the point with this straw man argument. It's not about whether people can or should rely exclusively on social media for news. Of course they shouldn't. No one suggests otherwise.

The danger of Twitter's new policy is that it makes it harder for independent journalists. If I understand you correctly, you feel that mainstream, legacy media organizations do a fine job and that there is no need for independent journalism. Forgive me for being dubious.

Nor is the point that new organizations and independent journalists have biases. Again, a straw man argument. No one disagrees.

Nor is anyone arguing that independent journalists are all good. Some are good, and some are lousy.

The point -- the only point -- is that Twitter's new policy makes it harder for independent journalists to get their work into the public sphere. This is completely apolitical. Both MSNBC and Fox News are on the same side here. I am opposed to anything that makes it easier for what we see and hear to be controlled by a handful of corporations. You apparently think this is just fine.

As for your sudden conversion to extreme libertarian views on competition, that too seems irrelevant. Of course there are alternatives, though Substack is far closer to what I envision than Parler, which is really just a data-gathering instrument for the Mercer family interests. But it remains a question as to why you want independent journalists silenced on popular platforms and why you are happy to have your information filtered through a handful of gatekeepers.
Back to top

imorethanamother




 
 
 
 

Post Wed, Dec 01 2021, 2:15 pm
Did anyone watch A Social Dilemma on Netflix?

The IT geniuses from all platforms - twitter, google, instagram, facebook - all had deep, deep misgivings about all this. This isn't coming from any one side, this is a global issue, with very important ramifications.

Watch it.
Back to top
Previous  1, 2 Recent Topics

Page 2 of 2 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News

Related Topics Replies Last Post
"White sugar"
by amother
2 Today at 2:37 am View last post
Stores in NY or NJ with sofas or sectionals "in stock"?
by amother
10 Yesterday at 11:54 pm View last post
I dont want solid walls and dont like wallpaper, whats "in"?
by amother
23 Thu, Jan 20 2022, 11:24 pm View last post
Does anyone use "The pink stuff" from Amazon for cleaning? 13 Thu, Jan 20 2022, 7:58 pm View last post
Are print and tone on tone fabrics "OUT" for "MODERN" sofas?
by amother
15 Fri, Jan 14 2022, 12:50 am View last post