Social Ted Cruz obliterates treasonous Jack Dorsey at senate hearing

Those platforms have an interest in keeping as many people engaged as possible to the site. Allowing any speech at all can have consequences for the small minority to make the place undesirable. This would be on two different fronts though, one being if the users are forced to interact with that group in someway which isn’t usually the case if there’s a block feature or one being they are allowing the hosting of a belief that could lead to radicalization and possible violence. For example, when you say any speech, we aren’t talking about something outside of the law, right? Like “I want to kill x”?
True. But those with big followings ping to the top and it's easy to block users. Just like Instagram, you choose who you want to follow on Twitter.

Threats and the normal subjects that aren't protected from free speech will apply: obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats. Most of these can be objectively enforced.
 


If the tech CEOs aren't charged with treason the leftist Reich has won.

'Mr. Dorsey, who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American People are allowed to hear, and why do you persist in behaving as a Democratic super PAC silencing views to the contrary of your beliefs?" ~Ted Cruz

A speech platform is a a speech platform. Doesn't matter what you think your company is. Just like gender, speech isn't a social construct.

The American people want to hear the truth about the depth of Quid Pro Joe's corruption. Sadly, the MSM surprises information and tech CEOs are playing god.

right wing americans want ZERO government intervention with business but now the right wants government to intervene with twitter's TOU
 
right wing americans want ZERO government intervention with business but now the right wants government to intervene with twitter's TOU
Are you saying Twitter isn't a speech platform and we shouldn't treat it as such?

If George Soros or the Koch family bought every network, CNN, MSN, Yahoo the NYT you would have no concerns because they are just businesses?
 
Those platforms have an interest in keeping as many people engaged as possible to the site. Allowing any speech at all can have consequences for the small minority to make the place undesirable. This would be on two different fronts though, one being if the users are forced to interact with that group in someway which isn’t usually the case if there’s a block feature or one being they are allowing the hosting of a belief that could lead to radicalization and possible violence. For example, when you say any speech, we aren’t talking about something outside of the law, right? Like “I want to kill x”?

These guys mean employees of companies can't have biases at all, or that shows that the company they work for is in the exact same way biased, and thus violating American's constitutional rights.

If your company has a lot of liberals in it, you now have a liberal company, and your employees better not exercise their rights of free speech or assembly because that means the government should regulate them now.

Makes no sense, yet these people keep pushing these weird Mccarthy-esque views of the law and of the world. I think they'll get worse in their "left is the nazi socialist pigs!!" rhetoric if Trump loses....
 
True. But those with big followings ping to the top and it's easy to block users. Just like Instagram, you choose who you want to follow on Twitter.

Threats and the normal subjects that aren't protected from free speech will apply: obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats. Most of these can be objectively enforced.

I’m less worried about disinformation from media outlets than maybe communities which develop that would be seen as a hate group. We’ve been given a lense that the more common thing happening here is people are being taken out of context and punished for it. That can be true but there definitely are small very very vocal groups that what want to spread racist viewpoints and extend their reach for it. Like you said, there’s always the problem of where the overton window is. I just tend to believe those actors exist and it isn’t surprising the platforms try to clamp down on it. The problem with the less clear stuff might be that others view it that way and demand something be done with it. You end up with a large spectrum of people with higher to lesser tolerance on something they might deem offensive.

Some platforms, blocking works well but the more open ended to users it is, they less that might be true. On Facebook, it could be pretty easy to real in who you deal with but a place like Twitter seems like a lot of people could chime in.
 
Always been a big fan of Cruz.
DazzlingPeriodicGnatcatcher-small.gif

Watching this made me laugh because I’m starting to relate to know the heads of these companies feel. No matter what policy they do, they still are going to be dragged into a DC committee hearing and get yelled at. It’s either allowing disinformation to spread or stopping free speech. They are completely fucked either way. The reality to me here is the people on these committees need to pass legislation rather than lecturing the CEOs so it’s very clear what the standard/ rule of law they have to be compliant with. At the moment, it’s just this silly cycle of yelling at them and them not knowing what to do without one of the parties getting pissed off.

The real problem with social media or anything on the internet at the moment is Washington doesn’t really know what their role should or shouldn’t be with it yet it plays such a large role in our society. I don’t even think each party has real consensus on what they want either.
I even agree that on some level its worrisome that these tech companies have so much power over the public discourse but I'm not entirely sure what should be done about it.

My problem is that the interest the Republicans have on this seems entirely partisan and motivated by self interest. I thought that the power of the tech companies might wake the right wing base and lawmakers as to the problem with completely unregulated corporations but their interest in regulation here seems very narrowly aimed at big tech and even then only very narrowly as it relates to their interests around being able to post their propaganda. Unfortunate.
 
Treasonous Jack Dorsey?

Interesting definition of treason, being anything that GOP doesn't like.
 
Haha he asked some CEO guy who elected him and the shit brained TS highlighted that like it was a good line or something
 
I’m less worried about disinformation from media outlets than maybe communities which develop that would be seen as a hate group. We’ve been given a lense that the more common thing happening here is people are being taken out of context and punished for it. That can be true but there definitely are small very very vocal groups that what want to spread racist viewpoints and extend their reach for it. Like you said, there’s always the problem of where the overton window is. I just tend to believe those actors exist and it isn’t surprising the platforms try to clamp down on it. The problem with the less clear stuff might be that others view it that way and demand something be done with it. You end up with a large spectrum of people with higher to lesser tolerance on something they might deem offensive.

Some platforms, blocking works well but the more open ended to users it is, they less that might be true. On Facebook, it could be pretty easy to real in who you deal with but a place like Twitter seems like a lot of people could chime in.
Open dialogue is great.

Virtue signaling, cancel culture and the woke mob only has it's power due to the catering by tech giants that operate speech platforms: Facebook, Insta, Twitter, etc... Had subjectivity and bias not entered the picture there would be no strength in the whiney 16 year old white privileged liberal yelling, "hate speech!"
 
These guys mean employees of companies can't have biases at all, or that shows that the company they work for is in the exact same way biased, and thus violating American's constitutional rights.

If your company has a lot of liberals in it, you now have a liberal company, and your employees better not exercise their rights of free speech or assembly because that means the government should regulate them now.

Makes no sense, yet these people keep pushing these weird Mccarthy-esque views of the law and of the world. I think they'll get worse in their "left is the nazi socialist pigs!!" rhetoric if Trump loses....

I mean there’s a lot of elements going on, private vs public, calling for company policy change vs calling for new legislation to regulate that company, the grip any of these companies have on the “community square”, a users speech vs what the platform should be held liable for, etc. Tbh, it is very messy and I don’t see a clear good solution for it. I think the industry is still fractured enough though that no one site can put a stop to a public figure or pundits views.
 


If the tech CEOs aren't charged with treason the leftist Reich has won.

'Mr. Dorsey, who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American People are allowed to hear, and why do you persist in behaving as a Democratic super PAC silencing views to the contrary of your beliefs?" ~Ted Cruz

A speech platform is a a speech platform. Doesn't matter what you think your company is. Just like gender, speech isn't a social construct.

The American people want to hear the truth about the depth of Quid Pro Joe's corruption. Sadly, the MSM surprises information and tech CEOs are playing god.


tenor.gif
 
I mean there’s a lot of elements going on, private vs public, calling for company policy change vs calling for new legislation to regulate that company, the grip any of these companies have on the “community square”, a users speech vs what the platform should be held liable for, etc. Tbh, it is very messy and I don’t see a clear good solution for it. I think the industry is still fractured enough though that no one site can put a stop to a public figure or pundits views.

It's easy to see who lacks measure here, too. And what side is eager to initiate their own Mccarthy era. Quite ironic, given it's been the GOP traditionally fighting to create corporate monoliths, give them the rights of humans, then having an admin strip the rights of the public to sue them for criminal conduct.

A weird push by the right in US government.
 
Open dialogue is great.

Virtue signaling, cancel culture and the woke mob only has it's power due to the catering by tech giants that operate speech platforms: Facebook, Insta, Twitter, etc... Had subjectivity and bias not entered the picture there would be no strength in the whiney 16 year old white privileged liberal yelling, "hate speech!"

Open dialogue can be great but at times it doesn’t work well if it’s to an endless number of users which I suppose is why we agree on blocking. For example, if I’m trying start a conversation about what schools people recommend as I want a good education for my kid and there’s people chiming in that my kid needs to go to school
X because they are race Y and should be desegregated, that isn’t really open dialogue that helps at all. I’m not suddenly enlightened more cause internet jackass #25 believes that or committing to cancel culture in not wanting to engage that view imo. That might be a poorer example because it sounds more like a Facebook thing than a twitter thing which is less open ended but you can see my point. There’s really really substantial benefits you can get if a platform is tweaked the correct way. Sometimes that’s more open or less depending of the social environment you are trying to cater too. I think with more open, you get more range but a lot more static/ chaos in directing a conversation.
 
Dorsey should ban Cruz just to troll him. Trump too. These guys are such prima donnas you have to admit it would be fun to see their reaction.
 
It's easy to see who lacks measure here, too. And what side is eager to initiate their own Mccarthy era. Quite ironic, given it's been the GOP traditionally fighting to create corporate monoliths, give them the rights of humans, then having an admin strip the rights of the public to sue them for criminal conduct.

A weird push by the right in US government.

I don’t think it’s that clear. For example, when Trump got pissed at twitter and called for removing the protections that prevents social media companies from being liable as a publisher (section 230), that actually was something Biden also was calling for (different reasons, same call to repeal) and Harris as well I believe. That’s why I’m saying the CEOs probably are sick of all this at this point because they can’t even figure out the battle lines between parties here.
 
DazzlingPeriodicGnatcatcher-small.gif


I even agree that on some level its worrisome that these tech companies have so much power over the public discourse but I'm not entirely sure what should be done about it.

My problem is that the interest the Republicans have on this seems entirely partisan and motivated by self interest. I thought that the power of the tech companies might wake the right wing base and lawmakers as to the problem with completely unregulated corporations but their interest in regulation here seems very narrowly aimed at big tech and even then only very narrowly as it relates to their interests around being able to post their propaganda. Unfortunate.

Maybe. I haven’t really seen any serious legislation pushed at this point which again is why I find these hearing really odd yet funny. I think a lot of times politicians don’t entirely know what they want or need but that will not stop them from pretending to, especially by grilling a CEO during committee hearings. Section 230 is the main thing I’ve heard being brought up and the parties aren’t even aligned on that because Trump went all in on it recently.
 
DazzlingPeriodicGnatcatcher-small.gif


I even agree that on some level its worrisome that these tech companies have so much power over the public discourse but I'm not entirely sure what should be done about it.

My problem is that the interest the Republicans have on this seems entirely partisan and motivated by self interest. I thought that the power of the tech companies might wake the right wing base and lawmakers as to the problem with completely unregulated corporations but their interest in regulation here seems very narrowly aimed at big tech and even then only very narrowly as it relates to their interests around being able to post their propaganda. Unfortunate.


Whats not to like about him?
 
Back
Top