- May 15, 2017
- Reaction score
As long as they block ALL DEAD BABY posts.I’m stating a hypothetical. If Twitter doesn’t want posts with dead babies on their site do they have the right to block those?I'm not on twitter so I don't know the photos you speak of, or the context in which they are posted.You’re doing just fine, especially with the Fajitas... damn that sounds good!Well, now we are getting into defining "what is hate speech". Well, unfortunately, that definition changes based on what political spectrum you align to. Now, that doesn't mean its an accurate definition. There is true hate speech, and then there are varying politically correct opinions of hate speech.Well let’s drill down on that a bit. Where are the conditions defined that a Platform has the right to moderate harmful content? And where is “harmful” defined? What you say makes sense but we are talking law here so these things must be written and defined... Right?Well, yes, but with reservation. When the content is obviously and blatantly harmful, yes, and when it displays personally identifiable information. On its face, that would be correct. However, with some of that, you can get into the weeds a little. For example, who decides what is offensive and violent? One side wants to label the other as a hate group. We see that all the time these days.So let’s say a business is not a publisher, they are a platform that enables social interactions... they still have a responsibility to moderate, right? For example they can make rules against posting lewd, offensive, violent, provocative, pornographic and the like... and they do have the ability and obligation to moderate their platform appropriately, right? So what’s fines the boundaries around a publisher and a platform with content guidelines.The difference is, Rush is regulated. He is considered a publisher and is responsible for the content of his show. If he says something, or allows someone else to say something slanderous or defamatory, on his show, rush can be held liable, and even sued for that.Should Rush get regulated by gov for not covering negative stories about Trump or should he get to run his show they way he wants to run it?Private company yes but all business must operate within a framework of rules and regulations and l think it high time to yank the chains on Facebook, Twitter and the like.They are a private company are they not? They can do whatever they want. Who cares?Who is surprised? Jack and his lackeys are hedging on the Dems winning and them gaining immense power and expansion within the U.S. They would lose millions of Trump supporters, but, there would be benefits for them for their loyalty.
The question is. If China succeeds in their objectives, wile Jack be spared for his high social credit score, or will he be lined up with the others?
Twitter locks official Trump campaign account over sharing Hunter Biden video
Twitter suspended the official account of the Trump campaign on Thursday, saying Team Trump’s tweet calling Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden a “liar” and posting a video about Hunter Biden’s business dealings is a violation of its policy.
The action comes just 19 days before Election Day.
“Your account has been locked,” the standard Twitter message read. “What happened? We have determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules. Specifically, for: Violating our rules against posting private information.”
I'm all for Twitter, or any social media, having those same freedoms, as long as they are held to the same legal standard.
Just because its politically in opposition to what you believe doesn't mean its hateful. Therein lies the minutiae. Twitter, being obviously left biased, is going to be much more critical of anything that a right wing person posts, and will often restrict content, just because they don't like it, even if the content is not actually bad, its just in opposition.
Its at this point when that social media platform has to make a choice. Do they want to allow their users to be able to freely post content and express their ideas, and be able to enjoy the protection that they cannot be held liable for what those users post, or do they want to give up that protection, and now have to comb through all of the posts that millions of users make on a daily basis to make sure there is nothing there that can get them in trouble?
As long as those social media outlets allow the fair and unhindered free flow of political ideas, even those you don't agree with, as long as those posts are not actually harmful, then that is a good thing.
Just because someone disagrees doesn't mean they are hating. If I say "I dont like YOU because you do x,y, and z" is not the same as "I dont like the fact that you do x,y, and z". See what I mean? One is a difference of opinion, the other could be considered hate speech.
We can disagree, vigorously, about abortion, doesnt mean i hate you because you support abortion.
Its not so much about "law" as it is about Twitter (or any other platform) using their own definition to censor content, which, as ive said before, they are completely free to do, but if they are going to moderate their content, and only allow free expression from one side, then they can't enjoy protections as a platform, if they are going to function as a publisher.
I apologize if I'm not explaining well enough, got a plate of fajitas in front of me so my attention is divided
mom not just talking about hate speech. What about photos of aborted babies? Does Twitter have the right to be a “platform” and make rules against posting photos like that?
what about profanity?