Twitter is better

[Mike Parrish]

35 minutes ago, jross said:

Twitter was a public company then, and I was a part-owner when this BS was happening.

1. Head of legal policy and trust lied when they said, "We do not shadow ban.  And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.”
2. They blocked searches of individual users; limited the scope of a particular tweet’s discoverability; blocked select users’ posts from ever appearing on the “trending” page; and blocked content from inclusion in hashtag searches.  All without the user's knowledge.

Read the unroll; can you also spot the continued use of racist terminology? [hint: its a label]

And?

You're intimating that there's some sort of illegal behavior here.

I don't see it.

I see a company protecting its property.

[Mike Parrish]

More to the point, what cause of action, either civil or criminal, for any of the 'wronged' do you see in this release?

I see a company protecting their private property from brand damage by right wing whackadoodles.

[jross]

Dorsey may have lied to congress

[jross]

But that's not the point

The point is trust and fairness.  The user base will eventually grow beyond where it has been, and the company may become profitable for the first time.  The public is informed.  More democrats like Tulsi Gabbard and independents (me) may recognize the shady behavior and move center-right.  More people will be skeptical of big tech, presidential debates, elections, and mainstream news.  Big tech is going to be regulated for sure.

Watching people exposed for lack of integrity and who defends it is enlightening.

[Mike Parrish]

Too bad we don't have an eyeroll emoji.

[MPhillips]

8 hours ago, jross said:

Watching people exposed for lack of integrity and who defends it is enlightening.

4 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

Too bad we don't have an eyeroll emoji.

[Ban Basketball]

My apologies if I missed it in this thread,  but I'm listening to one of the enraged AM radio personalities, screaming at the top of his lungs about apparent censorship of information being shared on Twitter. Specifically,  he's screaming about Hunter Biden and believes there should be a criminal prosecution.

Does anyone know what Twitter could be charged with?

[jross]

 

[Mike Parrish]

51 minutes ago, Ban Basketball said:

My apologies if I missed it in this thread,  but I'm listening to one of the enraged AM radio personalities, screaming at the top of his lungs about apparent censorship of information being shared on Twitter. Specifically,  he's screaming about Hunter Biden and believes there should be a criminal prosecution.

Does anyone know what Twitter could be charged with?

Content moderation on a website?

Zip and nada.

[Ban Basketball]

52 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

Content moderation on a website?

Zip and nada.

I was completely mystified what he was ranting about.  

[BobDole]

23 hours ago, jross said:

The Intermat is not comparable and no reason for goernement regulation.  The best government is the least government as my general principle.  FWIW: publishing who is banned and the reason is something I would choose to do if I was running the forum.  I'd have forum rules posted like 'don't dox other users.'  I'd warn or ban someone that did it, and post it "Johnie is on probation for 10 days for violating the rule on doxing users.'  

Couple things here...

First if you want the government to monitor Twitter, then it can and surely will trickle down.

Don't disagree with less government, unfortunately we can't just live by the ten commandments and have no need for other laws.

Publishing who is banned and why gets tricky especially when it's for polluting the forum. It's easy if they post explicit pictures or does something like that. However, when you are annoying or abrasive and make the community less enjoyment it's hard to exactly mark it down. Most people on here will likely be banned for being annoying or abrasive such as our friend Dan. 

[mspart]

Section 230 allows social media to not censor content, they cannot be sued.  If they censor content, then they are a publisher of content and then are liable to those laws.   Social media has shown they want to censor content and stay applicable to section 230.  

They want it both ways.   Sooner or later that will end.  They would do well not to censor content other than illegal stuff like child pornography etc. 

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

Section 230 allows social media to not censor content, they cannot be sued.  If they censor content, then they are a publisher of content and then are liable to those laws.   Social media has shown they want to censor content and stay applicable to section 230.  

They want it both ways.   Sooner or later that will end.  They would do well not to censor content other than illegal stuff like child pornography etc. 

mspart

That's not how Section 230 works.

[jross]

Unroll 

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1601352083617505281.html

 

 

 

[jross]

This thread is still unrolling... 

[BerniePragle]

On 12/8/2022 at 6:22 PM, jross said:

 Why is it that when a company goes public, it must share financial earnings regularly?  They must follow the strict rules laid out by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the government body which oversees capital markets and protects investors. 

There have been many, many cases where the rules were not strict enough, yet the rich guys always want them rolled back even more.  Many, many cases where large companies, generally financials, have been fined 10s of millions for screwing investors, customers, and employees out of billions.  I like those odds, where can I get some of that action?

[jross]

Okay.  Now Twitter is getting annoying again.  Even with biased heavy left, surely there are examples of censorship on the left at the instruction of the right. This needs addressed because the truth is as awful as it looks, or it isn’t.

[jross]

This latest example has a narrative that the kings of Twitter make up rules on the fly to ban people they don't like.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1601720455005511680?refresh=1670729472

[Mike Parrish]

11 minutes ago, jross said:

This latest example has a narrative that the kings of Twitter make up rules on the fly to ban people they don't like.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1601720455005511680?refresh=1670729472

Let's assume that every thing you are wailing about here is completely and utterly true, there is still no cause of action.

[Theo Brixton]

LMAO

 

[Mike Parrish]

Yeah, I'm sure that will drive the advertisers back to Twitter.

[Le duke]

LMAO
 

That’s the sound of yet more advertisers running away from Twitter as fast as they can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mike Parrish]

Elmo spent $44B to be that weird kid wiping his boogers on the window.

[BerniePragle]

Somehow this reminds me of the Ross Perot, Roger Smith, EDS, GM thing back in the early 80s.  It was a lesson in big egos and corporate politics.  The bottom line was GM paid Perot $750 million to stop saying bad things about Smith, GM CEO.  That's how I saw it, but I'm a simple guy.

A refesher course for the older guys, a lesson for the younger:

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2019/07/09/ross-perot-gm-roger-smith/1682342001/
 

[jross]

The latest insight says that Twitter couldn't find a reason to ban Trump, but they did anyways because employees demanded it.

Fire!  Fire!  Wake up!  You were asleep!  Wake up!

Twitter Files

1. Free speech used to matter: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1533972260062736385.html
2. The Twitter files: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1598822959866683394.html
3. The Twitter files supp: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1600243405841666048.html
4. Secret exclusion lists: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1601007575633305600.html
5. Removing Trump Jan6: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1601352083617505281.html
6. Removing Trump Jan7: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1601720455005511680.html
7. Removing Trump Jan8: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1602364197194432515.html