-->
@thett3
What do you make of the fact that misinformation is only censored in one direction? . . . I have never seen anyone censored for saying misinformation such as Covid being highly dangerous to children.
I think that's a great point and huge cause for concern. I do wish there was more fact checking in the other direction.
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”?
Absolutely, but I'm not sure that proves Twitter is an extension of government. After all Twitter has banned the accounts of a sitting President and Congresswoman, and they continuously fact checked Trump and acknowledged misinformation contained in his tweets. I think people at Twitter are making their own decisions separate from government even if they tend to show bias and favoritism toward particular politicians or points of view. It's not only Republicans attacking Big Tech. It's a bipartisan effort to try and exert more control over social sites. Democrats are fully on board with repealing Section 230.
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.
I get that, but I still have to adamantly point out that social sites aren't even close to being monopolies. Your kids probably won't use Facebook - they'll have long moved on to something else.
And something isn't "unfair" just because it isn't equal. For instance yes Apple removed Parler from its app store, but that's because Parler violated Apple's TOS guidelines around violent content. They reinstated Parler once it obliged the TOS. But even if they didn't, the purpose of Parler was for people to congregate and talk about how much they hate Big Tech... yet they wanted Big Tech to host their app? Lol fuck that, I would delete it too! That's like saying as an employer I would have to sit around and let my employees talk shit about me. Um, no -- they are free to go elsewhere if they want to do that. It's not like there is anything (government) stopping them from finding a new host.
But let's pretend Facebook and Twitter are "monopolies" in practice -- what would that mean insofar as how government should respond? Should government be regulating content instead of Twitter? Do you think government should essentially just dissolve Twitter all together (constitutional issues aside) and implement their own state based social site like they would have in China?
