- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 84,402
- Reaction score
- 77,336
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced the policy change Wednesday, saying the company will no longer accept political advertising that promotes candidates or particular hot-button issues.
Dorsey said that "political message reach should be earned, not bought."
"Paying for reach removes that decision, forcing highly optimized and targeted political messages on people," he wrote in a lengthy thread explaining the policy change. "We believe this decision should not be compromised by money."
A business should be allowed to make decisions it believes are correct.
However, any rational thinking person should be very concerned when those actions amount to censorship.
This slippery slope the left is racing down is a danger to the fundamental ideals this Nation was founded on.
I wonder how the term "political" will be interpreted.
Will the posting of messages, not advertising, be unaffected by this?
There is no censorship going on here. Twitter is a privately owned company, entitled to operate as it pleases.A business should be allowed to make decisions it believes are correct.
However, any rational thinking person should be very concerned when those actions amount to censorship.
This slippery slope the left is racing down is a danger to the fundamental ideals this Nation was founded on.
I suspect this is a temporary solution until the problem of bots can be solved through better algorithms.
There is no censorship going on here. Twitter is a privately owned company, entitled to operate as it pleases.
A business should be allowed to make decisions it believes are correct.
However, any rational thinking person should be very concerned when those actions amount to censorship.
This slippery slope the left is racing down is a danger to the fundamental ideals this Nation was founded on.
It doesn't change the fact that subjective censorship is becoming the norm for people on the left.
That posses a clear and present danger to the fundamental rights our Constitution protects.
Bot, algorithm, or human, when unknown and unseen forces decide what people are allowed to see, we as a Nation are in danger.
There is no censorship going on here. Twitter is a privately owned company, entitled to operate as it pleases.
Go ahead and prove me wrong.Not true.
But do read the first sentence of my post.
Thanks.
Exactly what the left wanted. Now Twitter can run its Marxist newsfeed without any dissenting views. This is why the big push for so-called CFR.
All of the social media applications are participating in the creation of a new "Marketplace of Ideas".
If they are controlling and rejecting ideas, they will soon be regulated into a less "Wild West" brand of freedom.
Giving tyrants the ability to control the masses hardly equates to freedom.
Employing this internal rule may be the opening to a First Amendment law suit.
Exactly what the left wanted. Now Twitter can run its Marxist newsfeed without any dissenting views. This is why the big push for so-called CFR.
and I am fine with all of that, as long as humans are doing the communicating
Right now light AI is being weaponized and that needs to be fought until the problem can be studied and systems adapted to be more resilient.
Agreed.
These questions of subjective censorship being deployed by these dominate social media platforms raises some real Constitutional issues.
On one hand, a business/corporation should have a right to make business decisions that it feels best suit it's objectives.
On the other hand, given their dominance as a means of social discourse, should they be allowed to manipulate the information they allow their consumers to see?
It seems obvious these questions will need to be hammered out in the courts.
What is concerning to me is the endorsement of censorship on the part of so many people.
Interesting claim, but the result is still censorship, as it assumes consumers don't know any better, and some unknown, unseen person/program does.
If twitter has that kind of power, then they should be broke up using monopoly rules so there can be competing services.
There has been talk about breaking up these massive social media operations.
Not sure I favor that.
My concern is what I have been commenting on.
That's where I disagree. If generative algorithms are shaping a political message instead of a human, that is no longer a censorship question because its not a message coming from people.
Here is an interesting read on how good AI is getting in this space: This A.I. Bot Can Convincingly '''Write''' Entire Articles. It'''s So Dangerously Good, the Creators Are Scared to Release It | Inc.com
Well, I disagree.
The assumption, to put it bluntly, is that people are too stupid to know any better, so some outside force is going to decide what people are allowed to see. Whether that was generated by bots, or humans.
That is presumptuous, and it's another stake in the heart of the fundamental protections and rights contained in the US Constitution.
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?