RIP Twitter

[n_huffhines]

I want consistency. Either they are a publisher and are responsible for their content across the board, or they aren't and should allow free speech. They want it both ways. Not me.

The only way for things to work with any sensibility at all is for them to be allowed to moderate while not being responsible for what people say on their platform. First of all, as a matter of principle, this makes sense. If I say something offensive in your bar and you tell me not to do that, and an opposing person says something insensitive, should I be able to sue you? It's a complete frivolity.

I know this inconvenient for us that they can be biased in moderation, but we want to make things better not worse, and making them responsible for what others say on their platform will OBVIOUSLY lead to more censorship. Maybe as drastic as no instant posting. Anything you try to put on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, hell, Volnation would have to await moderation. How does that sound?

 

[n_huffhines]

They are acting like a publisher. During the ACB stuff some blue check (not worth mentioning the racists' name) posted "Some White colonizers "adopted" Black children. They "civilized" these "savage" children in the "superior" ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity." in reference to her family. I responded in his comments that he was a race baiting piece of ****, and I got locked out of my account until I agreed to delete it. No extremism in calling a spade a spade IMO.

Moderation does not make you a publisher.

Look at it this way...Parler didn't allow bad language or pornographic material and you're saying that because they censor certain types of material, this makes them a publisher and they should be accountable for what people say on their platform. Under this line of reasoning, no website is safe. They are all vulnerable and will all restrict more speech.

You think you are entitled to call people a name like "POS" on somebody else's web property. I have a fundamental problem with that. The mods here at VN would probably get you for that. Parler would have moderated that.

 

[C-south]

With Donald Trump out of office, and removed from Twitter for good, he has lost his omnipresence. You can already tell a difference. Outside of his upcoming Senate Trial, Trump's relevancy is fading fast. I don't think it's going to be easy for Trump to maintain his popularity from Florida. Unless Trump wants to do regular interviews on Fox News (whom he has been feuding with recently), he will have to find a new medium quickly.

And Trump being out of the limelight helps show just what a f***ed up choice Biden has already proven to be. You can’t claim buyers remorse when you vote out of spite and have almost half a century of failure, corruption, and ineptness to go by.

 

[BowlBrother85]

And Trump being out of the limelight helps show just what a f***ed up choice Biden has already proven to be. You can’t claim buyers remorse when you vote out of spite and have almost half a century of failure, corruption, and ineptness to go by.

Only someone who didn't vote for Biden in the first place would have a problem with any of his executive orders or cabinet choices so far. Why would there be any "buyer's remorse" ?

 

[C-south]

Only someone who didn't vote for Biden in the first place would have a problem with any of his executive orders or cabinet choices so far. Why would there be any "buyer's remorse" ?

Lol. Less than a week and tens of thousands of jobs gone with more to come. Trannies back in the military to make it weaker. Eminent tax increases for everyone in an already struggling economy. After promising to eradicate Covid he now says tough s**t he can’t do anything. I’m sure I left plenty out.

 

[Ttucke11]

Moderation does not make you a publisher.

Look at it this way...Parler didn't allow bad language or pornographic material and you're saying that because they censor certain types of material, this makes them a publisher and they should be accountable for what people say on their platform. Under this line of reasoning, no website is safe. They are all vulnerable and will all restrict more speech.

You think you are entitled to call people a name like "POS" on somebody else's web property. I have a fundamental problem with that. The mods here at VN would probably get you for that. Parler would have moderated that.

You obviously don't Twitter if you think me calling a POS a POS in a comment was in the top 1 million offensive posts that happened that day that are still up. Just look up any conservative check marks twitter and read the comments. They are biased, and only "moderate" speech from one side. I'm not really arguing your point about 230. I actually agree for the most part. But they use "moderation" as a guise to delete whatever they want.

 

[Kristy*]

The only way for things to work with any sensibility at all is for them to be allowed to moderate while not being responsible for what people say on their platform. First of all, as a matter of principle, this makes sense. If I say something offensive in your bar and you tell me not to do that, and an opposing person says something insensitive, should I be able to sue you? It's a complete frivolity.

I know this inconvenient for us that they can be biased in moderation, but we want to make things better not worse, and making them responsible for what others say on their platform will OBVIOUSLY lead to more censorship. Maybe as drastic as no instant posting. Anything you try to put on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, hell, Volnation would have to await moderation. How does that sound?

They aren't just moderating posts they disagree with while turning a blind eye to many others. They are banning an account of a person they don't like. They also justify it with rules that aren't clear or evenly applied. They are in fact acting as a publisher but don't want the liability of one.

 

[Ttucke11]

They aren't just moderating posts they disagree with while turning a blind eye to many others. They are banning an account of a person they don't like. They also justify it with rules that aren't clear or evenly applied. They are in fact acting as a publisher but don't want the liability of one.

Bingo. You stated that better than I did.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Lol. Less than a week and tens of thousands of jobs gone with more to come. Trannies back in the military to make it weaker. Eminent tax increases for everyone in an already struggling economy. After promising to eradicate Covid he now says tough s**t he can’t do anything. I’m sure I left plenty out.

Just the truth...

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I got bad news for you. He's gonna die rich

He's still gonna die.

 

[n_huffhines]

They aren't just moderating posts they disagree with while turning a blind eye to many others. They are banning an account of a person they don't like. They also justify it with rules that aren't clear or evenly applied. They are in fact acting as a publisher but don't want the liability of one.

That's not what publishers do. Publishers manufacture content.

If it's your bar, it shouldn't matter if your rules are clear, or if you can justify your rules or if you turn a blind eye to others....you should not be liable for what people say in your bar.

 

[BowlBrother85]

They aren't just moderating posts they disagree with while turning a blind eye to many others. They are banning an account of a person they don't like. They also justify it with rules that aren't clear or evenly applied. They are in fact acting as a publisher but don't want the liability of one.

If Twitter was simply banning the account of a person they didn't like, then why didn't they ban Trump nine years and 30,000 posts ago? He was banned because he used their platform to incite violence.

 

[n_huffhines]

You obviously don't Twitter if you think me calling a POS a POS in a comment was in the top 1 million offensive posts that happened that day that are still up. Just look up any conservative check marks twitter and read the comments. They are biased, and only "moderate" speech from one side. I'm not really arguing your point about 230. I actually agree for the most part. But they use "moderation" as a guise to delete whatever they want.

It's not what you said it's that you think you are entitled to say that. You are not. I hope you wouldn't sue Freak for censoring somebody saying that and then letting it fly in another instance (which definitely happens here).

 

[utvolpj]

They aren't just moderating posts they disagree with while turning a blind eye to many others. They are banning an account of a person they don't like. They also justify it with rules that aren't clear or evenly applied. They are in fact acting as a publisher but don't want the liability of one.

So is that really much different than this site? A bammer fan and a vol fan aren't treated the same when discussing our teams or university. Should every poster on VN be given the exact same treatment regardless of team affiliation?

 

[Kristy*]

That's not what publishers do. Publishers manufacture content.

If it's your bar, it shouldn't matter if your rules are clear, or if you can justify your rules or if you turn a blind eye to others....you should not be liable for what people say in your bar.

"Publishing is the activity of making information, literature, music, software and other content available to the public for sale or for free."

If it's my bar, I'm not responsible for what people say, because my bar allows free speech.

 

[Ttucke11]

It's not what you said it's that you think you are entitled to say that. You are not. I hope you wouldn't sue Freak for censoring somebody saying that and then letting it fly in another instance (which definitely happens here).

Irrelevant. I already agreed with you about 230. Calling someone a POS is not against their user agreement that I'm aware of. Theoretically, I'm entitled to say anything that does not go against their terms of service. If they want to say that I was harassing him then fine, but they clearly do not follow their own rules they have made equally.

 

[hog88]

So is that really much different than this site? A bammer fan and a vol fan aren't treated the same when discussing our teams or university. Should every poster on VN be given the exact same treatment regardless of team affiliation?

Why wouldn't they be?

 

[utvolpj]

Why wouldn't they be?

Because they're just not. A visiting fan whose sole purpose is to trash UT won't last long. Many posters in here seem to view that as unfair and a violation of their free speech

 

[Kristy*]

If Twitter was simply banning the account of a person they didn't like, then why didn't they ban Trump nine years and 30,000 posts ago? He was banned because he used their platform to incite violence.

I disagree. It was interpreted by a few crazies as a call for violence. What about all the other actual direct calls for violence? What about other world leaders who directly call for violence?

They waited until he was no longer president, so he wouldn't have that platform to challenge them.

 

[ajvol01]

Only someone who didn't vote for Biden in the first place would have a problem with any of his executive orders or cabinet choices so far. Why would there be any "buyer's remorse" ?

Tell that to all the union members working on the keystone xl pipeline who just lost their job

 

[utvolpj]

If Twitter was simply banning the account of a person they didn't like, then why didn't they ban Trump nine years and 30,000 posts ago? He was banned because he used their platform to incite violence.

If that were true they would be banning others who are actually violent and act on it. They simply banned him because he was had different politics. They enjoyed the clicks while he was potus though

 

[ajvol01]

You obviously don't Twitter if you think me calling a POS a POS in a comment was in the top 1 million offensive posts that happened that day that are still up. Just look up any conservative check marks twitter and read the comments. They are biased, and only "moderate" speech from one side. I'm not really arguing your point about 230. I actually agree for the most part. But they use "moderation" as a guise to delete whatever they want.

And whoever they want

 

[BowlBrother85]

If that were true they would be banning others who are actually violent and act on it. They simply banned him because he was had different politics. They enjoyed the clicks while he was potus though

They have! Many times over... you are choosing not to see those. If they were banning him for different politics, they would have done it 9 years ago when he was tweeting the birther nonsense without evidence.

 

[ajvol01]

They have! Many times over... you are choosing not to see those. If they were banning him for different politics, they would have done it 9 years ago when he was tweeting the birther nonsense without evidence.

Oh, like the Ayatollah?

 

[utvolpj]

They have! Many times over... you are choosing not to see those. If they were banning him for different politics, they would have done it 9 years ago when he was tweeting the birther nonsense without evidence.

I know they have yet still allow some to stay. Who is more dangerous - Trump or Khamenei?

It was political. They wanted to drive him crazy while pushing a Dem agenda and he simply couldn't stop.