Opinion Do right wingers support nationalizing Twitter?

[lsa]

You come off as old and crotchety...but I know you love to party...

I bet that dude gets mad pussy.

 

[MicroBrew]

How do you figure?

Both print and TV can disseminate information, news, propaghanda, opinions and give platforms to various persons. The phone companies don't do any of this.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Both print and TV can disseminate information, news, propaghanda, opinions and give platforms to various persons. The phone companies don't do any of this.

Thanks.

Pretty sure I can spread information, news, propaganda, and opinions with a telephone. As for providing a platform, the phone company also provides a mode of information exchange. It's just not as instantaneous and far reaching as modern tech allows. You seem to overlook the chasm of difference that is content creation. Things like magazines and television networks create content, twitter does not. Twitter provides infrastructure for communication (same as a phone or cable company).

The stronger comparison with media companies is that twitter makes money off ad revenue rather than usage or subscriptions. But I still see their core service as the most important factor.

This conversation reminds me of party lines. You old enough to remember those? I remember.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_(telephony)

When the party line was already in use, if any of the other subscribers to that line picked up the phone, they could hear and participate in the conversation. Eavesdropping opportunities abounded. If one of the parties used the phone heavily, then the inconvenience for the others was more than occasional, as depicted in the 1959 comedy film Pillow Talk.[45] Dialing one's own number and hanging up would make all phones on the network ring, resulting in the residents on the system (sometimes a half a dozen or more) all answering the phone at the same time; this was sometimes used as a form of prank call, but could also be employed as a form of early warning system for the immediate area, a user could alert all local residents at once.

 

[MicroBrew]

Thanks.

Pretty sure I can spread information, news, propaganda, and opinions with a telephone. As for providing a platform, the phone company also provides a mode of information exchange. It's just not as instantaneous and far reaching as modern tech allows. You seem to overlook the chasm of difference that is content creation. Things like magazines and television networks create content, twitter does not. Twitter provides infrastructure for communication (same as a phone or cable company).

The stronger comparison with media companies is that twitter makes money off ad revenue rather than usage or subscriptions. But I still see their core service as the most important factor.

This conversation reminds me of party lines. You old enough to remember those? I remember.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_(telephony)

A phone is not visual though, and it is really a poor medium to spread a narrative. How many people do you think will listen to you over the phone ramble on about something ? How many will remember what you talked about ? You also have to physically call individual people or have an automated system set up to call, which is extremely frowned upon . With Twitter you just post the info, which can be read by anyone anytime anywhere and then spread exponentially. Phone is just not remotely comparable to the reach and effectiveness of web media.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

A phone is not visual though, and it is really a poor medium to spread a narrative. How many people do you think will listen to you over the phone ramble on about something ? How many will remember what you talked about ? You also have to physically call individual people or have an automated system set up to call, which is extremely frowned upon . With Twitter you just post the info, which can be read by anyone anytime anywhere and then spread exponentially. Phone is just not remotely comparable to the reach and effectiveness of web media.

A phone isn't visual? What's your number? I'll send you some porn and you report back if you get wood.

Your argument falls apart quickly if it relies on making that point, and I've already agreed twitter provides a much greater scope of opportunity. That doesn't change the basic nature of their service (i.e. communications infrastructure and conduit, not content producer or digital curator). Although they have become more of a publisher, which is why there's controversy.

That's fine if you want to reject viewing it as a communications utility, but it's at least as good a comparison as television channel or magazine. As I said, that comparison is to aid in forming a circumspect view of twitter. Not some definitive proof of exactly what must be done. I'll finish by pointing out that what twitter can do, that phone lines don't, actually bolsters the argument for greater regulation rather than diminish it. As evidenced by the constant controversy.

PS: Maybe there's a case to be made they're a news wire, but I don't know enough of how those work to run though the similarities and differences.

 

[MicroBrew]

A phone isn't visual? What's your number? I'll send you some porn and you report back if you get wood.

Your argument falls apart quickly if it relies on making that point, and I've already agreed twitter provides a much greater scope of opportunity. That doesn't change the basic nature of their service (i.e. communications infrastructure and conduit, not content producer or digital curator). Although they have become more of a publisher, which is why there's controversy.

That's fine if you want to reject viewing it as a communications utility, but it's at least as good a comparison as television channel or magazine. As I said, that comparison is to aid in forming a circumspect view of twitter. Not some definitive proof of exactly what must be done. I'll finish by pointing out that what twitter can do, that phone lines don't, actually bolsters the argument for greater regulation rather than diminish it. As evidenced by the constant controversy.

PS: Maybe there's a case to be made they're a news wire, but I don't know enough of how those work to run though the similarities and differences.

Communication by phone is primarily verbal and text. Social media , print and TV are both visual media.

If Twitter is forced to feature all narratives, then all media should be . That means Fox News , Breitbart, World Net Daily, conservative talk radio and countless conservative leaning publications must be forced to give a platform to lefists. But the rightwing only wants to force media they perceive as not favorable to the right.

If Twitter is forced to give a platform to everyone, should they be forced to give a platform to ISIS, Al Qaeda, neo Nazis, Islamists, CCP , Assad etc... ? You can't draw a line and say some views should not be censored but it is ok to censor other views, because we come back to the argument of censorship. The Federal government should just bankroll a public owned social media that can not censor views because that would violate the 1st amendment.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Communication by phone is primarily verbal and text. Social media , print and TV are both visual media.

If Twitter is forced to feature all narratives, then all media should be . That means Fox News , Breitbart, World Net Daily, conservative talk radio and countless conservative leaning publications must be forced to give a platform to lefists. But the rightwing only wants to force media they perceive as not favorable to the right.

If Twitter is forced to give a platform to everyone, should they be forced to give a platform to ISIS, Al Qaeda, neo Nazis, Islamists, CCP , Assad etc... ? You can't draw a line and say some views should not be censored but it is ok to censor other views, because we come back to the argument of censorship. The Federal government should just bankroll a public owned social media that can not censor views because that would violate the 1st amendment.

You just said the phone wasn't visual. Now it's not "primarily" visual. Move those goalposts. The bottom line is whatever I can post on twitter I can communicate to you via telephone.

You're ignoring that those outlets are content creators, unlike twitter. Their job is to be the provider of content specifically narrowed to a target audience. Twitter's job is to provide a conduit for 3rd parties to share information.

I've stated previously in this thread that I believe the 1st Amendment should guide what content is allowed. If it's not illegal then it's up to the user to ignore, avoid, block, and filter whatever they find upsetting.

 

[MicroBrew]

You just said the phone wasn't visual. Now it's not "primarily" visual. Move those goalposts. The bottom line is whatever I can post on twitter I can communicate to you via telephone.

You're ignoring that those outlets are content creators, unlike twitter. Their job is to be the provider of content specifically narrowed to a target audience. Twitter's job is to provide a conduit for 3rd parties to share information.

I've stated previously in this thread that I believe the 1st Amendment should guide what content is allowed. If it's not illegal then it's up to the user to ignore, avoid, block, and filter whatever they find upsetting.

You are splitting hairs here because you know what I mean when I say a phone isn't visual , as far as talking with someone. Only since the advent of the smartphone have phones become less visual, When you talk to someone, which is a phone's primary purpose, it is verbal. A phone conversation is between 2 individuals or sometimes more than 2 if you are conferecce calling. To disseminate propaghanda via the phone is order of magnitude less effective and far far more laborious than you posting something on social media because you , or an automated program, has to physically contact individuals.

Those outlets also provide a platform for pundits and ideologically alinged compatriots. The rightwing blogs / media are not exclusively content creators, they feature syndicated columnists or just pundits who happen to share ideological views. In this sense they are like Twitter , in that they provide a platform for 3rd parties to provide content / commentary. Pat Buchanan for example is featured on multiple websites, typically the sites are right leaning.

If Twitter is forced to give a platform to conservatives, then why shouldn't Fox be forced to give a platform to Islamists ?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

If Twitter is forced to give a platform to conservatives, then why shouldn't Fox be forced to give a platform to Islamists ?

Already explained (and it's not just about giving a platform to conservatives). If you disagree that's cool.

Cheers.

 

[blaseblah]

Seems like this idea is getting more traction due to recent events

 

[White Whale]

When big companies combine to shutdown smaller competitors that is a problem. Parlor getting removed was such an underhanded tactic.

Twitter claims to be a public square which means they some government benefits because of it but they are acting like publishers.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Nationalizing private media companies has never resulted in them becoming state run propaganda machines.

Never.

 

[Jack V Savage]

There's you doing what you earlier accused me of. Of course it's bullshit, because I never said anything of the sort. Now if you can map out the implication from what I've actually posted, like how I showed your accusation to be wrong, I'll take look.

You didn't show any accusation to be wrong. You said that Twitter fixing a glitch and acknowledging it was the same as admitting some kind of attack on conservatives. That's clearly dishonest.

Sure they do. Otherwise they wouldn't have a list of rules, which you posted the other day. The concept of free speech isn't limited to our Constitutional protection from government. For example.

They don't have the power to restrict free speech because they're only one of billions of sites on the Internet (which itself is only one way of disseminating speech). They don't intend to restrict it because their whole business is facilitating it.

Impose and protect are two sides of the same coin. We can say the 1st Amendment protects the civil liberties of all by imposing restrictions on government.

But it doesn't impose freedom of speech on people. It protects it from a possible source of infringement.

Now how about answering if the Civil Rights Act is illiberal, since it also undermines the rights of business owners in favor of the rights of the people.

Protecting people's civil rights is liberal. See above.

 

[ineverpost]

They're literal fucking nazis (national). Not even Antifa is calling for nationalizing businesses.

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

No, they support using the government to stop Twitter from doing what it wants...right before they run to SCOTUS to tell the government that it can't stop other companies from doing what they want.

Is it a bill of rights thing. Nope. Twitter speech? Government should act. Hobby Lobby religion? Government should stay out.

They're inconsistent fucks. Right wingers, not conservatives.

Right: anyone who gets their information from social media are fucking morons

Also the right: stop censoring information on social media!

 

[cooks1]

There are a lot of right wingers against Twitter censorship and social media censorship in general. But Twitter regulating their own platform is what the free market dictates. The first amendment protects free speech from the government, not from businesses.

The way to get free speech protected on Twitter would be to nationalize it. Make it a public utility, regulated by the government. This would allow the free expression of most ideas, even crazy right wing conspiracies.

But right wingers are also against government regulation. They see nationalizing as socialism and they despise that. So where do they stand on this issue? Let Twitter censor far right opinions or socialism?

I think censorship is a loaded word that should be avoided when discussing Social media. For 2 reasons

First- because it is in no way censorship. You can still say the things you can't say on Twitter. And there are many other places besides twitter where you can not say certain things. You do not have a right to unfettered free speech in my house or place of business for example. There are any number of things you could say in either place that would leave you 'banned'. The 1st amendment only protects people from government actions.

Second- It makes useful discussion more difficult.

How about inverting the scenario and make the argument as to why things should be allowed on Twitter.

I will start with one. Demonstrably false lies. Should people be able to go on Twitter and repeat over demonstrably false outrageous lies over and over again? Should social media platforms permit that to go on from all sides completely unchecked? Should the government force them to permit it?

Personally, I don't like that idea. No other media platform can do that without consequence. And as a nation, we are currently dealing with some of the consequences of Twitter allowing that. But if someone can show the efficacy of that, I am open to listening. You are going to need to explain why the recent outrageousness is useful and healthy though.

 

[K1levelgrappler]

Love to see the right get devoured by the corporate dystopia they worked tirelessly to create for decades

 

[boxingskills]

I'm not against Twitter banning Trump. I'm against the fact that they won't ban other people for doing the exact same thing.

 

[blaseblah]

I'm not against Twitter banning Trump. I'm against the fact that they won't ban other people for doing the exact same thing.

Who do you think should be banned?