Big Tech Boycotts

Author: Danielle

Posts

Total: 54
Topic's author
#1
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
Republicans are upset that Twitter banned the belligerent psychopath Marjorie Taylor Greene from their platform. Wah. 

This is your friendly reminder that it is NOT a first amendment violation for a private website to remove or refuse to publish content that they don't want to host. It IS a first amendment violation to force private companies to host content they do not want to. The first amendment protects you from the government, not from Twitter. And it protects Twitter from being forced to platform the speech of politicians. 

Side bar: I saw an article written by Rand Paul earlier with with the headline Today I take my first step toward denying my content to Big Tech. He says he's boycotting YouTube in favor of Rumble. Now the irony here is him choosing to post this on the website of the Washington Examiner - a platform which regularly refuses to publish things that people submit, and does not allow comments on its articles. Lol.  But this announcement also proves that Big Tech social sites are not actually  monopolies and you really can just go somewhere else. Beep beep, Randall. 

There are so many copycat social sites where conservatives can circle jerk each other if they really wanted to. Gab, Parler, Gettr and others are basically just twitter where right wingers can congregate to commiserate over conspiracies. But those sites  fail because 1) they're very unoriginal ideas and 2) half the fun of social media is triggering strangers. It doesn't work when the user base already agrees with you, but I digress.

A social media site that can't police content  would be something like 8chan. That is not a world that most people, least of all conservatives, want to live in. There's  a reason that certain types of people frequent those sectors of the internet, and there's a reason the rest of us do not. If you want to spend your days jerking off to Japanese furry porn or rotting your brain with the likes of whatever the fuck nonsense Marjorie Taylor Greene spouts off, there's a place for you out there for sure. It's just not twitter. 
#2
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I'm not a major fan of Twitter but all platforms have a right to police their content. However, I don't see an issue with boycotting a platform that you see as wrong in its censorship. That should be your right as well.
Topic's author
#3
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4


Right, that's the point. If you don't like twitter then just leave twitter. Nobody has a "right" to be on twitter, not even the POTUS. 
#4
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,747
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Danielle
Welcome back Dani

#5
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
<3 Dani
Topic's author
#6
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
I <3 you guys.  There's not much going on here though. 
#7
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,579
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Danielle
If you want to spend your days jerking off to Japanese furry porn 

there's a place for you out there for sure. It's just not twitter. 
Weird because twitter is basically 80% porn at this point
#8
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,702
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Danielle
True
#9
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
If you want to spend your days jerking off to Japanese furry porn
Pretty sure all these people migrated from Tumblr to Twitter awhile ago and are certainly prevalent there today. Just saying that if you're looking to avoid furry porn, going to Twitter won't help you. Hell, there's a whole movement on Twitter right now that's advocating for the right to fuck their pets, and there's a bunch of drama over them grooming kids on sites like discord, etc. Just one recent example (warning, some pretty crazy shit): https://kiwifarms.net/threads/valerie-hypnotist-sappho-succubus-sappho-vin-r-wolf-f1r3fr0st-v3xarray-r00tlulz.108414/
#10
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Danielle
I think your view on this is probably colored by Donald Trump being the major ban that conservatives rally around as proof that big tech censorship is a problem. While I wouldn’t have made the decision to ban Trump while he was the sitting President if I were in charge I understand why they did. His post election behavior was completely unacceptable and at the time had just led to a riot that could’ve spiraled into something extremely dangerous. Making him out to be a victim is a very weak argument so I can understand why people dismiss it. 

 I’ll propose to you what I think is a stronger case. I can’t vouch for other tech websites because I don’t really use them, but as a regular Twitter lurker I have seen people repeatedly banned over the past eighteen months for speaking about things that are either facts or are highly debatable.

For example, people were banned for discussing the possibility that COVID-19 leaked from a lab, something that the US intelligence community believes is a highly plausible possibility although they don’t believe we will ever know for sure. 

I’ve seen people banned for suggesting that clothe masks are ineffective and represent nothing but security theater, something the CDC is now reluctantly admitting 

I’ve seen people banned for reporting on the fact that lots of women were reporting disruption to their menstrual cycle after receiving the Covid vaccine, something that a new study reported on by the NYT this week has confirmed. 

^ I want to emphasize I’m not anti vax at all I’m actually super pro vaccine especially for anyone 40+. But the fact that there were all these side effects that I knew were happening that people were being banned for talking about scared the shit out of me and made me resist getting vaccinated until I did a lot of research that I don’t expect many people to do. 

I didn’t personally witness is but I’m sure if someone suggested that doctors and nurses who literally have a Covid positive test but no symptoms should be expected to go to work they would’ve been banned, but this is the new policy. 

Covid is the biggest issue right now, and I don’t think that not being allowed to discuss every aspect of it on the vast majority of the internet without approval from the government is how a free people discuss issues. 

It’s true that the government isn’t forcing these companies to ban anything that disagrees with the CDC, but if they do it by choice is there really that much of a difference? At the end of the day people aren’t allowed to have important discussions. And to add insult to injury the official sources have consistently been slower on the draw than random autodidacts. A lot of the people who warned me about Covid in January 2020 when the CDC was saying it was no big deal have been banned. 
#11
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@thett3
#12
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
How DARE you question the CDC!
#13
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@thett3
Excellent post. What really got to me ironically is something many will think is dumb.

Nicki Minaj is permanently banned on Twitter for saying her cousin's brother in law in Trinidad had issues with fertility and erections after getting vaccinated. She got gaslit on TV to be against black people getting vaccinated and pro-Trump when she hates Trump and never aimed her post at black people. So, she spoke her mind further and got banned.
#14
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Nikki Knows how to rage against the machine properly. Not rage on behalf of it.
#15
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Nvm she has been unbanned since but her suspension from Twitter was indefinie originally.
#16
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@thett3
It’s true that the government isn’t forcing these companies to ban anything that disagrees with the CDC
I think this is actually debatable. I think that hauling the heads of social media companies before congress and berating them while constantly talking about the need for them to censor content more constitutes a threat of legal action by the government. A lot of the tech companies didn't even start to censor until Congress blamed them for 2016 and 'Russian interference' and applied immense indirect pressure to get them to do so. Dorsey for example had little to no interest in policing content at any strict level originally.
#17
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I was trying to make my post as palliative as possible but yeah I take a more dismal view of it personally. But I would have a harder time proving that with someone like Danielle who doesn’t share a lot of the assumptions you and I do. But I don’t know if there is even any coercion. There really doesn’t need to be. The goals and ideologies of the people who run big tech and the people who run the administrative state are perfectly aligned 
#18
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@RationalMadman
I didn’t realize she was still banned. I have seen some evidence that the vaccines have somewhat more side effects than typical especially for young people. The thing is that even if the rumors are true (like myocarditis) the vaccine cost benefit analysis is very positive for anyone over the age of 40 or who is overweight or who has a pre existing condition. Which is probably like 90% of the us population. So I can understand why they don’t want people to doubt

I don’t know why they couldn’t have just said that. Like if they had come out and said “we in the public health field believe that these vaccines are safe and effective and will be taking them ourselves. Because of the urgency of the situation there is a slight risk that they will have a higher than usual number of side effects. We encourage everyone to get vaccinated” I think there’s a very poor understanding of the psychology of a certain person. Like for me, when the vaccine first came out I was excited, finally a vaccine! But then there was immediately a coordinated campaign to shut down any discussion of side effects, and the beginnings of coercion to get people vaccinated. Which threw up so many red flags for me. Eventually the weight of the evidence added up and the anti vaccine argument just didn’t make sense to me. But it took a lot longer, for me at least, than if they had just left well enough alone 
#19
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,310
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Danielle
A Zedku for Danielle.


Strikes me, 

If things didn't go on,

Then things wouldn't,

Yet you just did.

Odd.

So jerking off is the immediate option,

To the necessary itch,

And brain held imagery has always sufficed.

No Nip's required.

No offence intended

And Margorie Taylor Greene,

For sure,

On the platform,

Twittering

Bout some spiracy tosh.

And POTUS

Probably in bed.

Not jerking.

Testing testing,

1 

2

1

2

Yep,

Seems to be working.


Topic's author
#20
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@thett3
It’s true that the government isn’t forcing these companies to ban anything that disagrees with the CDC, but if they do it by choice is there really that much of a difference?

Yes, there is a huge difference.  The anti regulation crowd (which I have historically sided with on most things) have always said that "the market will regulate itself" when it comes to virtually all issues. For instance the government doesn't need to force a baker to bake a gay wedding cake or force companies to be more eco friendly. Rather, society at large will get pissed and boycott or protest an exclusive bakery, or rally around companies with green initiatives to indicate support. Well here Twitter is choosing to take a stand on something, and to the surprise of no one the "anti regulation" crowd is really upset about it and calling for government to intervene. But it's important for the government not to intervene for all the reasons laid out above and in Section 230. 


At the end of the day people aren’t allowed to have important discussions.
Sure they can. We're having a discussion right now, and even if we weren't, doesn't mean Twitter has or even should allow all content to be shared on its site. It's not their responsibility to give everyone a platform to say whatever they want. It's not like they're funded by taxpayers. They have zero responsibility to society at large to ensure equal access. Their responsibility is to their shareholders, and if you want to make a moral case which I think is perfectly fine, then we also have to consider what kind of moral responsibility if any Twitter has to limit the spread of disinformation and its potentially harmful effects. For instance we know the capitol rioters were radicalized online, and we know some people have needlessly died of Covid over vaccine skepticism.  

Do you know how many women I know that are pregnant or trying to get pregnant, and were scared to take the vaccine for exactly that reason Nikki brought up (fertility issues) which have so far been completely unproven? Note that 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage. I know women who have miscarried after getting the vaccine and suffered emotional distress because of bullshit posts like the ones made by Nikki that made them think they were at fault when there is no observed harm from the Covid vaccine. I think if Twitter wants to play a role in minimizing that kind of undue stress, it's their prerogative. And while I certainly do understand the importance of open discussion and dialog in society (even though almost no one is open to changing their mind) it's important to acknowledge that not all opinions are equally legitimate and deserve equal consideration or visibility.  
#21
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
But it's important for the government not to intervene for all the reasons laid out above and in Section 230. 

Can you please explain how 230 keeps government out of the business of protecting private industry? It clearly does the opposite.

Topic's author
#22
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't think I understood your question. Maybe I wasn't clear about what I was saying since it's 1 am and I'm multi tasking. In essence Section 230 is the only reason anyone can post anything on social media. Online platforms are within their 1A rights to moderate their online platforms however they like, and they’re additionally shielded by Section 230 for many types of liability for their users’ speech. It’s not one or the other. It’s both. People like Rand Paul are trying to legislate a “neutrality” requirement for social sites, but that would be unconstitutional under the first amendment. Ted Cruz proposes repealing the immunity of liability that social media companies enjoy via 230 if they’re going to continue to be politically biased. He thinks this is defending free speech when in reality it would do the exact opposite. 
#23
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
And why does a venue such as Facebook need government shielding and say a private college does not? 
#24
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,310
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Danielle
Miscarriage.

Distress

Emotional overthink.

It's only human, I know.


Miscarriage.

Natural abortion

Old women having babies

It's the new natural, I know.


Miscarriage.

Vaccines

Gotta blame something 

It's modern blame culture, I know.


Big Tech.

Is

And what it will become

Distressless babies in a bubble, perhaps.


And so on.

Until

All energy is spent.

Baby it's cold outside, nothing more to know.


Thank GOD.

Maybe

Two chances

KABOOM, who knows.


#25
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Danielle
Their responsibility is to their shareholders, and if you want to make a moral case which I think is perfectly fine, then we also have to consider what kind of moral responsibility if any Twitter has to limit the spread of disinformation and its potentially harmful effects. 
What do you make of the fact that misinformation is only censored in one direction? For example, all of the things I brought up were either facts or highly debatable but they were censored, whereas I have never seen anyone censored for saying misinformation such as Covid being highly dangerous to children. This before getting into the culture war issues. How much misinformation about white people or Christians do you think is corrected or censored? You mentioned that the J6 rioters were radicalized online, but so were black lives matters rioters, and probably all rioters these days. So much of real life and online have intertwined. But I only see the concern about one side. That doesn’t come from a responsibility to their shareholders, that’s a moral stand so the company is open to moral criticism, like being hypocritical, censoring perfectly legitimate opinions, etc etc 

Do you find it at all concerning that, when it comes to Covid at least, the definition of “misinformation” was quite literally “things the government says are false”?

I guess my problem is that these services are essentially monopolistic. Even the alternatives you brought up, which as you point out suck because they are just circle jerks, were immediately hamstrung by big tech (for example being immediately removed from app stores, or having their web services pulled.) 

At the end of the day I don’t really see that much of a distinction between being forced to shut up by he government or by a metacult that does the job of a censorious government for it. I certainly don’t feel like a free man, I can tell you that, and it isn’t just because of big tech. 

Do you know how many women I know that are pregnant or trying to get pregnant, and were scared to take the vaccine for exactly that reason Nikki brought up (fertility issues) which have so far been completely unproven? Note that 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage. I know women who have miscarried after getting the vaccine and suffered emotional distress because of bullshit posts like the ones made by Nikki that made them think they were at fault when there is no observed harm from the Covid vaccine.
There were concerns about the vaccine and fertility from the very beginning. I’m not really sure why. Maybe people are just naturally concerned about that kind of thing or it came from the menstrual cycle issue. It’s not a surprise that people going through a tragic event are looking for something to blame. But is the right path really to punish them for that instead of explaining how it’s wrong? Frankly if I saw a bunch of posts from women saying they took the vaccine and then had a miscarriage and then all of those posts that I kept seeing kept getting deleted and the people banned that makes me more suspicious than the posts left alone. But that’s just me. And by banning them you certainly aren’t changing THEIR minds. 
#26
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@thett3
She isn't still banned, I got it wrong but originally she said they suspended her account and told her it was indefinite.
Topic's author
#27
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
And why does a venue such as Facebook need government shielding and say a private college does not? 

I wish I could see who 'liked' your comment just because this question is so incredibly dumb lol. 

A college doesn't need shielding because they're  not propagating or publishing anything.

If a professor was spreading misinformation or libel in a book, then the professor could be sued, the publisher could be sued -- and if the college had a committee reviewing the book, then they could be sued as well. Otherwise someone saying something stupid in class (student or teacher) is not remotely analogous. There is no cause for a lawsuit in that scenario so a 230 protection would be futile. 

#28
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
So why shouldn't facebook as a publisher be sued? Why does it need special protections unique to them in a free market? Why can't they instead choose to be like any other venue and be a platform for publishers so that they don't need special government protections?

Didn't you make a thread about qualified immunity recently?  Am I wrong for thinking you were against the idea?
#29
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
I really don't understand exactly why this is the particular cross you wish to die on when defending a policy that clearly picks specific winners and losers in a free market.

There are thousands of venues for speech, yet only these tech giants require government assistance? It makes no logical sense. Of all the speech venues in America, they by far and away have the most resources at their disposal to take care of themselves without crony government schemes.

It's obvious to any critical person that they simply used their massive resources to purchase the ultimate protection. The government.
#30
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
Honestly, the fact that you continue to bring up Cruz and Trump in this discussion makes me think this isn't actually about 230 at all and mostly about how much you hate right wing politicians. I wish you would make your intentions more clear when discussing these issues instead of weaving them into the fabric as if they are the only reasons to justify this crony policy. Justifying why Facebook exclusively should have a form of government protected qualified immunity as a publisher with "rightwingbad" arguments was something I thought you outgrew Danielle.