BREAKING: Twitter Censors Trump By Completely Removing His Tweets For First Time - The Donald - America First

submitted by christnmusicreleases from thedonald.win

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]justcool393 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (21 children)

side note related to the users in the thread:

why do people actually want Section 230 removed? like... that'd make every site owner liable for anyone some idiot says on there. if some guy threatens to shoot up a place or something on <your favorite website here that has a commenting feature>, the site owner shouldn't be liable for that stuff.

removing section 230 protections would basically require either

a) multitudes of whole websites to shut down completely, especially those in which controversial viewpoints are discussed, which is way more egregious censorship than Twitter trendbanning some people.

b) every piece of content to be humanly moderated and the operator would have to be absolutely perfect at it. as an example, I don't want saidit taken offline because someone posted or commented something libelous or someone issued a threat of violence or something.

I think Twitter can be eyerollworthy at the times I choose to visit but I don't want this to happen. because the day that Twitter is declared a "publisher" is the day that Trump and pretty much everyone that has any bit of controversy at all are kicked off.

[–]flugegeheimen 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

that'd make every site owner liable for anyone some idiot says on there.

And they should be liable IF they already engage in censoring on their own. The whole "I'm just a provider of a platform, I can't be blamed for anything" only makes sense when you are just a provider and nothing else. As soon as you unilaterally start to decide what content is allowed and not allowed, it's kind of hard to argue that you can't be held accountable for whatever content you allow.

[–]christnmusicreleases[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

Hence why we need to nationalize Big Tech.

[–]justcool393 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I have a few points to respond to with this

  1. what qualifies as "Big Tech?" I assume most people would agree Facebook and Twitter are included, but reddit? Discord? saidit? some random person's forum? what about a wordpress blog? sites and services rise and die all the time, etc, so what about these?

  2. why should someone be compelled to host your speech? we are provided with a platform to speak our mind, but just like in real life, if someone's causing trouble and I have the right to tell people to leave, it's my right to tell them to do so. I'd be more convinced if a site like saidit, which has over 250,000 posts and 1,000,000 comments so far couldn't be hosted for $50/month. there are also plenty of free web hosts if you're into that, or you can host off your computer directly.

  3. content moderation can be pretty difficult to do at scale and it isn't a solved problem. you have people posting outright spam which, which is a cat and mouse game of itself (for example reddit has better spam filters than Facebook or Twitter, and reddit's spam filters are notoriously fickle and annoying to deal with at times. but you also have outside agents from whereever. even just enforcing the bare minimum of rules is downright impossible in many instances. how could something like this be enforced fairly, especially when it comes to political speech?

[–]christnmusicreleases[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Question 1:

  1. Google 2. Apple 3. Microsoft 4. Facebook 5. Twitter 6. Paypal 7. Instagram 8. YouTube 9. Vimeo 10. Linkedin

And maybe some of the major image hosting companies like Flickr and Imgur. Also you have to consider CDNs and large hosting platforms. I think this could be quantified very easily by an industry study.

Question 2:

Nobody is compelled to host anything, but if they operate as a platform, they must not censor your speech. If they want to be a publisher, they must be liable for the content. If it's a platform then the person posting it is legally liable for it. There is no middle ground here.

Question 3:

So that is why you make them public utilities. Spam is easily downvoted and detectable by algorithms. Political speech is very different.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

LOL

Big Brother already has it's claws covertly controlling Big Tech.

Welcome to the /s/Surveillance /s/Corporatocracy and their /s/Agenda21_Agenda2030 /s/Illusions and /s/PsyOps.

[–]christnmusicreleases[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

Agreed, but deep state.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

It's all connected.

[–]christnmusicreleases[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Search "Operation Lockstep"

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

I've been posting on it:
/s/Coronavirus/comments/3zj0/lock_step_2010_rockefeller_foundation_paper_laid/
/s/Coronavirus/comments/3ziw/the_lock_step_scenario_rockefeller_reports/
/s/Coronavirus/comments/3ziu/lock_step_this_is_no_futuristic_scenario_panic/
/s/Coronavirus/comments/46kq/rockefeller_blue_print_for_police_state_triggered/
/s/Unrest/comments/4p8b/final_technocratic_lock_step_plan_is_here_as/

[–]christnmusicreleases[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Thank you for this. I discovered about Operation Lock Step via Trunews, a show I generally watch. Here is the episode: https://www.trunews.com/stream/economic-lockdown-is-the-club-of-rome-imposing-limits-to-growth

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks for that. You should post it (add the 2020-05-19 date too) if you haven't already.

There's a few more not from me: https://saidit.net/s/censorship/search?q=lock+step

Also, more than in just /s/Coronavirus is /s/911truth, /s/Bill_Gates_is_Evil, /s/Billionaires, /s/ClimateSkeptics, /s/Coronavirus, /s/CorruptScience, /s/Gaslighting, /s/Illusions, /s/LockdownSkepticism, /s/OpenScience_Scientism, /s/PsyOps, /s/pushback, /s/Unrest, /s/VaccineSkepticism.

[–]christnmusicreleases[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I'm glad I'm not the only one posting about this collusion. Thank God.

[–]Dragonerne 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

230 needs to go so social media gets completely destroyed.

[–]Overdrive 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Twitter is already kicking people off for minute amounts of controversy and very little of anything to do with "hate speech". The banning is happening, and I think it's wrong to call them a platform. I understand that maybe we need to do something else besides abolish 230. Is it possible for companies to self elect the protections that they receive and to enforce their decisions onto them?

Saidit obviously deserves those protections, and many other sites. They deserve them because of their actions. They don't ban people based on beliefs or even faulty news/evidence. I see the problem with getting rid of it, I'm interested in reading from people any ideas.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

They need to clarify the distinctions between administrating, moderating, editing, and censoring content, and to maybe add more than just the binary platform or publisher criteria for the new digital age (a few decades old).

One of Lionel's Laws applies: The laws always lag behind the technology. I'd add, intentionally so.

Just like their terms of service are ambiguous and always shifting, they don't really want an authentic solution to keep them responsible and legit.

[–]Trajan 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

This is a post that should be read by anybody thinking that messing with 230 is the solution. 230 is why sites like Saidit are feasible to operate in the US. Does anybody seriously believe that either party would modify 230 to favour freedom of expression? No, it’ll be geared towards corporate and governmental interests.

[–]One_Jack_Move 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm totally willing to sacrifice Saidit if it means more freedom of expression on the net. But I agree, the politicians aren't going to do shit.

[–]Trajan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I’m afraid we’d see far less freedom of expression. Everybody who operates a site would be liable for comments and content posed by users. Only companies with deep pockets and the ability to screen would be feasible. It’d be as if the entire Internet were a particularly censorious AOL.

230 is the best thing that ever happened to the Internet.

[–]One_Jack_Move 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Couldn't websites just not censor content at all? Except for illegal stuff of course.

[–]Trajan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The situation on illegal acts won’t really change. Sites like Facebook are liable if they don’t take reasonable steps to prevent criminal activity. The difference is that without 230 there is no inherent protection against civil suits. If you libel somebody on Facebook then it would be as if they were a publisher. The same would apply to sites like Saidit, Kiwi Farms, or BitChute.

As much as I despise social media, I don’t need to use them or care about what they do. I have alternatives. I’d like to keep them.

[–]SeasideLimbs 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

why do people actually want Section 230 removed?

Because people are retarded. You have people in this thread calling Trump a jewish puppet. Some people will always be retards.

Section 230 needs to be more specific, have less exceptions in which platforms are allowed to intervene without being declared publishers, and needs to actually be enforced strictly. That's literally it. That's a perfect solution that would allow for such large, centralized services to keep existing while preventing them from blatantly enforcing their biases.