- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
What are online idea platforms if they aren’t “for free speech”?
Posted on 11/30/21 at 8:31 am
Posted on 11/30/21 at 8:31 am
I see this in a lot of discussions about these platforms and their censorship. It sort of came to a head again with this new Twitter guy and his statement along the lines of ‘we need to move beyond the idea of free speech.’ In reply, you can always be sure to see some ninny sniping about how THEY AREN’T BOUND BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT OR SUBJECT TO FREE SPEECH!!!
That’s all well and good I suppose, but what do they actually philosophically mean by making such a point? What’s the current ideas they are proposing we should embrace (or that they are saying they embrace) in sharing ideas instead?
That’s all well and good I suppose, but what do they actually philosophically mean by making such a point? What’s the current ideas they are proposing we should embrace (or that they are saying they embrace) in sharing ideas instead?
8
Posted on 11/30/21 at 8:33 am to Y.A. Tittle
Sharing propaganda and proselytizing people in Marxist thought.
Posted on 11/30/21 at 8:35 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
It sort of came to a head again with this new Twitter guy and his statement along the lines of ‘we need to move beyond the idea of free speech.’
Not really. Did you get to read the excerpt of the interview I posted yesterday?
quote:
In reply, you can always be sure to see some ninny sniping about how THEY AREN’T BOUND BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT OR SUBJECT TO FREE SPEECH!!!
Hey that’s exactly what I said yesterday!
Posted on 11/30/21 at 8:37 am to Decatur
quote:
Not really. Did you get to read the excerpt of the interview I posted yesterday?
No. Can you post it again?
quote:
Hey that’s exactly what I said yesterday
Yes
Posted on 11/30/21 at 8:38 am to Y.A. Tittle
I actually agree that online platforms aren’t subject to the First Amendment, and the function of them isn’t “free speech”. Private parties shouldn’t be able to sue Twitter, for example, if Twitter bans them contending their free speech rights are violated. Twitter isn’t a state actor, and the 1A only applies to actions taken by some government entity.
That said. Twitter is NOT entitled to special protection for instances where it violates its own terms of service by applying them unevenly depending on who is doing the tweeting. it wouldn’t ordinarily be immune from breach of contract actions, but the law provides it with immunity. And it’s unjustified.
Social media company should NOT be immune from actions that other publishers make. (Defamation, unfair competition, etc). Repealing that protection would allow private citizens to police social media.
That said. Twitter is NOT entitled to special protection for instances where it violates its own terms of service by applying them unevenly depending on who is doing the tweeting. it wouldn’t ordinarily be immune from breach of contract actions, but the law provides it with immunity. And it’s unjustified.
Social media company should NOT be immune from actions that other publishers make. (Defamation, unfair competition, etc). Repealing that protection would allow private citizens to police social media.
Posted on 11/30/21 at 8:40 am to Wednesday
My questions were more purely philosophical than anything having to do with legality at all.
Posted on 11/30/21 at 8:42 am to Y.A. Tittle
Here’s the interview.
I think some of y’all are digging pretty deep to get rustled about something.
quote:
Lichfield: You're caught in a bit of a hard place as somebody in the audience is also pointing out, that you're trying to combat misinformation, you also want to protect free speech as a core value, and also in the U.S. as the first amendment. How do you balance those two?
Agrawal: Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation and our moves are reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation. The kinds of things that we do about this is, focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed. One of the changes today that we see is speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard. The scarce commodity today is attention. There's a lot of content out there. A lot of tweets out there, not all of it gets attention, some subset of it gets attention. And so increasingly our role is moving towards how we recommend content and that sort of, is, is, a struggle that we're working through in terms of how we make sure these recommendation systems that we're building, how we direct people's attention is leading to a healthy public conversation that is most participatory.
I think some of y’all are digging pretty deep to get rustled about something.
Posted on 11/30/21 at 8:45 am to Y.A. Tittle
To influence the minds of the unassuming.
Slowly and quietly censor wrongthink. Those who aren't censored....label them as something negative.
Promote and encourage all speech from a certain side. Even death threats and calls to arms. Label this side as heroic.
Eventually it creates the illusion that the whole country thinks a certain way... and in the minds of the unassuming, it conditions them to get on board. Get on board and be recognized as heroes and brave. Refuse to get on board and run the risk of being targeted by not only that platform itself, but the entirety of that certain side.
Slowly and quietly censor wrongthink. Those who aren't censored....label them as something negative.
Promote and encourage all speech from a certain side. Even death threats and calls to arms. Label this side as heroic.
Eventually it creates the illusion that the whole country thinks a certain way... and in the minds of the unassuming, it conditions them to get on board. Get on board and be recognized as heroes and brave. Refuse to get on board and run the risk of being targeted by not only that platform itself, but the entirety of that certain side.
Posted on 11/30/21 at 8:45 am to Decatur
I don’t get the “times have changed” point. Or at least I don’t understand what he’s referencing.
Posted on 11/30/21 at 8:45 am to Y.A. Tittle
I get it.
Philosophically, I don’t believe that these platforms are in business to create free speech, or provide access to it. They are in business to make money, not promote free speech. They can enter into contracts with anyone they want.
People get pissed off at being banned bc they think they are Twitter/Facebook’s customers. They’re wrong. We aren’t their customers. We’re what they are selling to their customers.
Philosophically, I don’t believe that these platforms are in business to create free speech, or provide access to it. They are in business to make money, not promote free speech. They can enter into contracts with anyone they want.
People get pissed off at being banned bc they think they are Twitter/Facebook’s customers. They’re wrong. We aren’t their customers. We’re what they are selling to their customers.
Posted on 11/30/21 at 8:47 am to Y.A. Tittle
They want you to discuss, share, and reinforce their ideas.
Posted on 11/30/21 at 8:58 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
I don’t get the “times have changed” point.
It looks like he’s generally describing their challenge when they recommend certain content in an age when anyone can post their thoughts online. Painting a pretty broad stroke with his answer but he’s giving a magazine interview. I can’t find anything wrong with his answer.
This post was edited on 11/30/21 at 8:59 am
Posted on 11/30/21 at 9:06 am to Decatur
Can you define “healthy public conversation”? Thanks
Posted on 11/30/21 at 9:49 am to Y.A. Tittle
Groupthink only in my book.
Think like me or you'll be silenced. Why do people continue to use that shite app anyway?
Think like me or you'll be silenced. Why do people continue to use that shite app anyway?
Posted on 11/30/21 at 9:54 am to Decatur
quote:You are right.
I think some of y’all are digging pretty deep to get rustled about something.
It isn’t as if the guy just banned the posting of “private” individuals in images and videos unless it conforms to the idea of “important for a national discussion”.
Y’all truly have this idea that your insane stances will never be applied to you.
Posted on 11/30/21 at 9:54 am to Y.A. Tittle
If I'm not mistaken, didn't the CIA create something like Twitter as a subversion tool?
Posted on 11/30/21 at 9:56 am to Decatur
quote:Because you hold the same general views.
I can’t find anything wrong with his answer.
“Times have changed”
The First Amendment is a relic created by old men and isn’t applicable in a modern society.
You progressives are all the same. You understand that this will be applied to only certain viewpoints and not others (specifically ones you support).
Your attempts to wave it off as if he was really saying something besides what he actually said is nothing but gaslighting.
This post was edited on 11/30/21 at 9:57 am
Posted on 11/30/21 at 9:58 am to Scruffy
quote:
It isn’t as if the guy just banned the posting of “private” individuals in images and videos unless it conforms to the idea of “important for a national discussion”.
Which I’ve noted seems like a hairy idea. This guy’s comments about Twitter’s recommendation system seem pretty innocuous though (personally I think their recommendation algorithm is crap).
This post was edited on 11/30/21 at 9:59 am
Posted on 11/30/21 at 10:00 am to Scruffy
quote:
“Times have changed”
I mean yeah we don’t live in the AOL Nineties any more.
Posted on 11/30/21 at 10:02 am to Decatur
quote:
how we direct people's attention is leading to a healthy public conversation that is most participatory.
That is not what has been happening. It will happen even less, if that is possible, in the future.
quote:
I think some of y’all are digging pretty deep to get rustled about something.
You represent George Orwell's biggest fears.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News