7 ms·

Please explain the noteworthy parts of a private entity giving political entities special treatment. I’ll take my answer off the line. Thanks.

by _eht 4y ago

fundad 4y ago
Not to mention it’s not reliable because they held back all emails from the Trump White House about removing content.
adamsb6 4y ago
The noteworthiests bits are government entities directing censorship of private speech. Yes, Twitter is a private platform. But is it legal for the government to aid them in their censorship effort? Suppose Twitter had a policy against religious speech. Would it be legal for the government to identify instances of religious speech on the platform and forward it on to Twitter moderators, knowing it will certainly be removed? If you think that would be legal, would your mind be changed if the government helped Twitter to develop its rules against religious speech?
- _eht 4y ago
  Be specific. What was specifically noteworthy about this that you want to see reported and known to the world. Don’t make up an imaginary scenario of deep dark government suppression of religion. Or use a real example. Dicks. Dicks were censored.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    I don't want any social media company meeting with the administration weekly to discuss subjects and people that should be suppressed or boosted. > Dicks. Dicks were censored. Dicks for the big guy.
  - adamsb6 4y ago
    Can you link me to anything showing the New York Post published pictures of Hunter's dick? I can't find any. The closest I can find is reporting from this year on a sex tape published by Radar Online that shows some non-full-frontal stills. The reporting in 2020 had emails that showed Hunter arranging meetings with Joe that Joe denied, texts telling associates not to refer to Joe Biden by name, as well as an email where Hunter would be holding money for "the big guy." It looks like this could be quid pro quo official corruption, but there's not enough there yet to be sure. It needs to be investigated. We appointed a special prosecutor to investigate Bill Clinton because it looked like his real estate investment was too good to be true and he had a dodgy tax deduction. We appointed a special prosecutor to investigate Trump based on non-specific allegations of collusion. The evidence here is at least as strong as it was in those cases.
    - nickthegreek 4y ago
      The biden campgain, who wasnt part of the government (not that that matters), asked Twitter to remove posts that were of Hunter Biden's penis. No evidence has been presented that the non governement entity, the Biden Campaign, asked for them to remove the Post story. Which, again, is not illegal. If you have evidence otherwise, please present.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  > But is it legal for the government to aid them in their censorship effort? Since it's the government(s) actually telling them what to censor, yeah? > Suppose Twitter had a policy against religious speech. Would it be legal for the government to identify instances of religious speech on the platform and forward it on to Twitter moderators, knowing it will certainly be removed? Yeah? But they can't TELL twitter to do so, because that would be a violation of freedom of religion. So they - like many other parties - can report tweets just like everyone else. > If you think that would be legal, would your mind be changed if the government helped Twitter to develop its rules against religious speech? You mean like what China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc are doing already? That's all legal - according to the country's laws, anyway. Moral however, that's a different matter. But I never considered either Twitter or the US government to be moral.
- p0pcult 4y ago
  Is this a good analogy? Religion is a protected class. Being the kid of a guy running for president is not.
  - adamsb6 4y ago
    With narrow exceptions, all speech is protected. I used religion because I think it makes it easier to set aside partisan instincts. Change it to a knitting forum that bans crochet posting, the principle is the same. Is it government censorship if the government helps the knitting forum to develop the anti-crochet rule, and then acts as watchdogs?

Please explain the noteworthy parts of a private entity giving political entities special treatment. I’ll take my answer off the line. Thanks.

by _eht 4y ago

Please explain the noteworthy parts of a private entity giving political entities special treatment. I’ll take my answer off the line. Thanks.

fundad 4y ago

Not to mention it’s not reliable because they held back all emails from the Trump White House about removing content.

adamsb6 4y ago

The noteworthiests bits are government entities directing censorship of private speech. Yes, Twitter is a private platform. But is it legal for the government to aid them in their censorship effort? Suppose Twitter had a policy against religious speech. Would it be legal for the government to identify instances of religious speech on the platform and forward it on to Twitter moderators, knowing it will certainly be removed? If you think that would be legal, would your mind be changed if the government helped Twitter to develop its rules against religious speech?

_eht 4y ago
Be specific. What was specifically noteworthy about this that you want to see reported and known to the world. Don’t make up an imaginary scenario of deep dark government suppression of religion. Or use a real example. Dicks. Dicks were censored.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  I don't want any social media company meeting with the administration weekly to discuss subjects and people that should be suppressed or boosted. > Dicks. Dicks were censored. Dicks for the big guy.
- adamsb6 4y ago
  Can you link me to anything showing the New York Post published pictures of Hunter's dick? I can't find any. The closest I can find is reporting from this year on a sex tape published by Radar Online that shows some non-full-frontal stills. The reporting in 2020 had emails that showed Hunter arranging meetings with Joe that Joe denied, texts telling associates not to refer to Joe Biden by name, as well as an email where Hunter would be holding money for "the big guy." It looks like this could be quid pro quo official corruption, but there's not enough there yet to be sure. It needs to be investigated. We appointed a special prosecutor to investigate Bill Clinton because it looked like his real estate investment was too good to be true and he had a dodgy tax deduction. We appointed a special prosecutor to investigate Trump based on non-specific allegations of collusion. The evidence here is at least as strong as it was in those cases.
  - nickthegreek 4y ago
    The biden campgain, who wasnt part of the government (not that that matters), asked Twitter to remove posts that were of Hunter Biden's penis. No evidence has been presented that the non governement entity, the Biden Campaign, asked for them to remove the Post story. Which, again, is not illegal. If you have evidence otherwise, please present.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
> But is it legal for the government to aid them in their censorship effort? Since it's the government(s) actually telling them what to censor, yeah? > Suppose Twitter had a policy against religious speech. Would it be legal for the government to identify instances of religious speech on the platform and forward it on to Twitter moderators, knowing it will certainly be removed? Yeah? But they can't TELL twitter to do so, because that would be a violation of freedom of religion. So they - like many other parties - can report tweets just like everyone else. > If you think that would be legal, would your mind be changed if the government helped Twitter to develop its rules against religious speech? You mean like what China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc are doing already? That's all legal - according to the country's laws, anyway. Moral however, that's a different matter. But I never considered either Twitter or the US government to be moral.
p0pcult 4y ago
Is this a good analogy? Religion is a protected class. Being the kid of a guy running for president is not.
- adamsb6 4y ago
  With narrow exceptions, all speech is protected. I used religion because I think it makes it easier to set aside partisan instincts. Change it to a knitting forum that bans crochet posting, the principle is the same. Is it government censorship if the government helps the knitting forum to develop the anti-crochet rule, and then acts as watchdogs?