Twitter Crackdown
Twitter's stated actions under the guise of preventing "behavior that has the potential to lead to offline harm": 1. Permanently suspending accounts involved in spreading QAnon beliefs. 2. No longer show QAnon content in trends and recommendations. 3. Block URLs associated with QAnon from being shared. If this movement is so unfounded and believes in fake things, then what's the issue Twitter?
Ah yes, WSO's own QAnon poster whining about twitter banning QAnon bullshit.
The Off Topic forum never ceases to amaze. The FBI has literally labeled QAnon a "domestic terrorism threat." Lots of pro-terror people in this thread it seems.
I'm sorry you don't like hearing different perspectives, let's hope you're never unnecessarily censored for trying to do good for society. EDIT: Nice job tweaking your comment
You seem to forget that ANTIFA has literally been labeled a terrorist organization, too.
Donald Trump proclaiming something for political purposes is not the same as the FBI.
Try to be more intelligent, please.
because it gives stupid people a way to confirm their stupid presupposition that the government's got aliens in it or something.
Also didn't a guy grab the strap and visit that pizza place in DC over this exact bullshit?
Any kind of movement has the potential to promote violence, but are we going to judge something off of one event? Where's the censorship for Antifa? Also where the hell did aliens come from, that's not what QAnon is about...
C'mon man, ANTIFA has some weird political views but they don't believe in, what's charitably described as a well-oiled metapolitical machination on the part of the elite, and what Alex jones says is literal pedophilic demons. How outrageous does something have to be before we just say enough?
Didn't people in Germany demonstrate in public and spread COVID over this exact same bullshit? People keep jeopardizing the lives of others over a mystery even Nicholas Cage wouldn't try and solve on screen.
If there really was a conspiracy it would have been on debtwire by now
I just think it’s dangerous for social media platforms, which there are very few, to dominate the entirety of public discourse. FB and Twitter have a history of suspending conservatives and people with non-pc perspectives. Sure, banning QAnon seems pretty reasonable, but should we really let social media platforms continue to censor people with the already awful precedents they’ve set?
I'd argue that the public discourse on social media isn't that worth saving. It's mostly the same hot takes that become the great mighty MS when they happen over here. Weird twitter and Qanon may influence undecided voters, but the real discourse is happening on the policy level where those people are pretty much just background noise.
I also think twitter should be exclusively for E-girls to post promotional material but that's just me.
Qanon is fucking stupid, but Twitter is setting a dangerous precedent and is going to fuck its self by effectively becoming a publisher and then losing protection from libel lawsuits.
I am sure that they will ban the NYT, CNN and all those liberal media for making lists of statues to tear down, doxing the Covington kids alongside a bunch of other conservative public figures that were harassed by Antifa at their homes.
Or all tose blue check marks inciting racial hatred against ''white people''.
Oh but who am I kidding? Liberals never respect their own rules.
1) Twitter as a private enterprise should be allowed to do business however they please.
2) Twitter as social "media" company is simply following the trend of being biased towards certain groups just like the rest of the media including Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and the likes. I find this despicable, but everyone does it anyways. It's not illegal to voice your biased opinions. You can't and shouldn't force them not to do it.
What country are you from?
It's the type of libertarianism that would give a tax cut to companies which then bow down to CCP demands and promote the equivalent ideology in the US, then wonder why the country is moving to left and waning in terms of influence. Unfortunately,itseems to be the predominant creed in most center-righ parties.
The lack of concern for the left erasure of Western culture as if the capitalism is not the result of it, is equally concerning.
Finally,the fundamental logic flaw of being fine with monopolies... so long that they are not government monopolies.
A free(r) market moves away from monopolies, yet I seem to meet plenty of self-proclaimed libertarians who are perfectly ok with them, they are just anti-government.I generally give up talking to them, because if you can't understand that the threat from government comes from monopoly of power (that's why ''small government'') rather than government itself, then you are missing the point completely.
As much as I agree that Twitter is a private company and can do what it wants, it also acts as an online platform that allows individuals to express their ideas. The problem with saying that Twitter can do what it wants is that it begs the imperitive Section 230 discussion. Once moderation happens, the question really becomes whether or not the moderation falls under the ruling from Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Servs. Co. The courtfound that Prodigy's moderating and deleting messages that were "offensive" made it look like they were a publisher, which opened the company up to defemation lawsuits. This meant that the Prodigy's message boards opened them up to liability for user comments unless they stopped moderating. Section 230 was created to ensure that platforms weren't held liable for user posts. However, the underlying question is what is considered content moderation in the case of Twitter. Is disabling the QAnon account because it may insight violence the same as allowing any other user to make threats against pick your target here with impunity.
I've posted about this before, but the entire issue here is whether Twitter's rules and policies shift it away from being a content neutral platform (Caveat: obvious exceptions apply such as direct threat of loss of life, doxxing, etc.), to a content moderated platform. By all accounts, if it's not content neutral, then it should open them up to Section 230 lawsuits. Companies can't claim protection under the law and go ahead and remove content they disagree with (again - the obvious caveat applies here). Whether I agree with, disagree with, or even read the shit that Leftists, QAnon, Antifa, the Far Right, or celebrities publish on twitter, once the company starts applying different standards for its userbase based on ideology, it should immediately be cause for concern as to whether or not it violates Section 230.
I think you need to keep that in mind here, because it gets such a powerful exemption under the law.
Voluptatum repellat quo dolores vel inventore incidunt voluptates ipsum. Delectus optio soluta non facilis quasi. Et tempore voluptatem necessitatibus iusto sint. Tenetur et itaque vitae id aut blanditiis eius dignissimos. Sequi est odio quia doloremque possimus sed sunt. Vero modi dolorem fugit illum.
Accusantium cum quo iure magnam sit dolorem beatae. Vero vel autem facilis iste odio omnis voluptatem ut. Voluptatem quis et ut voluptas officia et sint. Quis enim eaque et necessitatibus alias. Illum ut asperiores beatae reprehenderit. Aspernatur ut veritatis molestiae consequuntur ullam. Rerum commodi necessitatibus praesentium est asperiores voluptas culpa.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...