- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Here's a pretty clear example. If you're Jewish and right-of-center Twitter will ban you. If you're on the left and prone to hateful pronouncements you get promoted and praised.
Why Is Sarah Jeong on Twitter and Not Laura Loomer?
Michelle Malkin, Townhall
This is a tale of two young, outspoken women in media.
One is a liberal tech writer. The other is an enterprising conservative new media reporter. One has achieved meteoric success and now works at a top American newspaper. The other has been de-platformed and marginalized. Their wildly different fates tell you everything you need to know about Silicon Valley's free speech double standards.
Some smug elites will downplay Twitter's disparate treatment of these users by arguing that private tech corporations can do whatever they want and that no First Amendment issues have been raised. But this battle is about much more than free speech rights. It's about whether the high-and-mighty progressives who monopolize global social media platforms truly believe in nurturing a free speech culture.
By punishing politically incorrect speech and making punitive examples of free thinkers, tech titans are enforcing their own authoritarian version of Silicon Valley sharia -- a set of both written and unwritten codes constricting expressions of acceptable thought in the name of "safety" and "civility.". . . .
Considering that most of what we hear from the White House is via Twitter, your point falls completely flat.
I did not realize deference to the WH invalidates the rights of the rest of us. When did that happen?
No rights here have been violated. The article you cited very specifically questioned culture, not rights.
I did not realize deference to the WH invalidates the rights of the rest of us. When did that happen?
The OP's conclusion:
Every day that blue check marked hate-monger Sarah Jeong gets to tweet while Laura Loomer remains silenced reminds us of how powerful social media conglomerates have rigged the free speech playing field. It's no fantasy. It's a nightmare.
If they were as anti-right as you'd like to paint it, Trump would have been banned by now.
It's not free speech infringement. It may be dumb, it may be unfair, but it's not an infringement of free speech.
It is a rigged playing field, as described.
Here's a pretty clear example. If you're Jewish and right-of-center Twitter will ban you. If you're on the left and prone to hateful pronouncements you get promoted and praised.
Why Is Sarah Jeong on Twitter and Not Laura Loomer?
Michelle Malkin, Townhall
This is a tale of two young, outspoken women in media.
One is a liberal tech writer. The other is an enterprising conservative new media reporter. One has achieved meteoric success and now works at a top American newspaper. The other has been de-platformed and marginalized. Their wildly different fates tell you everything you need to know about Silicon Valley's free speech double standards.
Some smug elites will downplay Twitter's disparate treatment of these users by arguing that private tech corporations can do whatever they want and that no First Amendment issues have been raised. But this battle is about much more than free speech rights. It's about whether the high-and-mighty progressives who monopolize global social media platforms truly believe in nurturing a free speech culture.
By punishing politically incorrect speech and making punitive examples of free thinkers, tech titans are enforcing their own authoritarian version of Silicon Valley sharia -- a set of both written and unwritten codes constricting expressions of acceptable thought in the name of "safety" and "civility.". . . .
It's not a "rigged free speech playing field" as described because it doesn't have anything to do with the rights of free speech. There's nothing stopping anyone from making a conservative-leaning variant of twitter.
So because some one can actually follow the rules Twitter has, it is leftist tyranny? Your argument is that rightists cannot manage to follow simple rules?
If they were as anti-right as you'd like to paint it, Trump would have been banned by now.
Sure. There's nothing stopping anyone from rounding up capital and founding a new company.:roll:
Reminds me of the old claim about hunger: both rich and poor have the same right to pick through garbage for scraps.
Your objection is silly.
It's just an internet shouting post. If there's demand, you can make it. Is that not America? You can round up capital if you want. I mean, it's easier to play victim, sure. But it's not impossible for some conservative group to make their own variant of twitter.
Or one can just sit around, doing nothing but bitching, and pretending it's a free speech issue when it's not.
It should not be necessary to establish a new company to be treated fairly in a communications sphere based on public airwaves.
On the contrary. The objection is that the rules apply unevenly.
References to mass murder, violent events, or specific means of violence where protected groups have been the primary targets or victims
We prohibit targeting individuals with content that references forms of violence or violent events where a protected category was the primary target or victims, where the intent is to harass. This includes, but is not limited to sending someone:
media that depicts victims of the Holocaust;
media that depicts lynchings.
Inciting fear about a protected category
We prohibit targeting individuals with content intended to incite fear or spread fearful stereotypes about a protected category, including asserting that members of a protected category are more likely to take part in dangerous or illegal activities, e.g., “all [religious group] are terrorists”.
It's just an internet shouting post. If there's demand, you can make it. Is that not America? You can round up capital if you want. I mean, it's easier to play victim, sure. But it's not impossible for some conservative group to make their own variant of twitter.
Or one can just sit around, doing nothing but bitching, and pretending it's a free speech issue when it's not.
We believe in free expression and think every voice has the power to impact the world.
If it's a rigged playing field, Twitter would have shutdown Trump's account in 2015.It is a rigged playing field, as described.
As has been pointed out, it's not a legal free speech issue, but it's problematic for free speech culture, which Twitter itself claims to cherish:
https://about.twitter.com/en_us/values.html
Which is the actual criticism against them. Pointing to the First Amendment doesn't absolve them of not living up to what they say they're about.
One can be about the promotion of free expression while holding people to standards of what is acceptable discourse.As has been pointed out, it's not a legal free speech issue, but it's problematic for free speech culture, which Twitter itself claims to cherish:
https://about.twitter.com/en_us/values.html
Which is the actual criticism against them. Pointing to the First Amendment doesn't absolve them of not living up to what they say they're about.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?