Should high-profile social media posts be deleted?

[Tanakalian]

My opinion on the matter actually alines with Trump believe it or not. Trump despite all his flaws, I applaud for expressing the rights his decenter's have to voice their opinions and spread their articles. He just asks for that fair trade where Republicans also get to share their opinions and articles without having their voices silenced. Not the violent or hateful ones, which he actually has condemned totally, as he would put it lol. I am a liberal person, and I stand by the notion that social media conglomerates are indeed lobbying with the democrats and are allowing a more or less one sided spread of news and information. They are not by any means impartial, which as a third party they should be. Both morally and legally. These companies include Facebook, Twitter, and to a lesser extent Google/YouTube. They are not acting impartially, whilst pretending/telling the public they are and act impartial. It is a gross assumption of the public's lack of intelligence that they continue this sham. Big tech can not, to quote Ayn Rand I believe, eat their cake and have it to. Their self proclaimed impartial stance conflicts with the reality, that they are not acting impartially.

If you are a liberal, as you state yourself, you should applaud individual companies doing exactly what they are doing. With no governmental interference. Liberalism, in its core meaning, is really just that. To give freedom to each and everyone. Limiting companies to voice their own opinions and to gave civilians a place to voice their own views, whether or not you agree with them, goes against everything liberalism stands for.

From a European perspective though, the democrats are far right and the republicans are extreme right. There is nothing left or center about anything in US politics. It's all a matter of perspective and mine is totally different than yours is. And if you're so bothered by those social media outlets? Why go there? Instead of trying to control them, which as I said isn't liberal at all, just ignore them?

 

[Nihilistic_Impact]

Terminology has really been warped in the states. But then that's what happens when you let neoliberals take control, you end up with public mouth pieces that do the whims of business while ignoring everything else.

Here's an article to back up the comment about conservatives not being censored in social media.
Despite cries of censorship, conservatives dominate social media

Also, no one should watch Tim Pool, guy's an idiot, grifter and friend of neo-nazis.

 

[Distendedaura]

@Shiver I mean this in the nicest way possible, but the opposite is also true. To believe a company should or does have the right to silence opinions they do not agree with purely on the basis of fact checking infringes on free speach. Free speech is not correct speech, it is free. Which means you have the right to in person or a matter of public forum such as Twitter, say whatever you want so long as it does not directly threaten harm to person or property. Which means, you also have the right to be wrong. Lol. So Back the Blue as insufferable as it is to read, is not "violance" and therefore should not be taken down as hate speach. These companies are practicing dubias policies that are liable for anti trust laws. I personally believe that Free speech and Free press within a public forum such as Twitter should not be infringed upon for any reason and that the Senate is right to challenge them to change their policies as voter suppression is a real concern to be had as well as the suppression of a free marketplace for ideas. I don't like Ted Cruise but he is right to say, who are you as a private company and not a member of the free press, to tell the people what is true or false within a public forum. (I'm paraphrasing of course.) In this link here, a democratic senator no less, (perhaps he to is no real liberal ay @Tanakalien? More on that soon enough, but back to you Shiver. Sorry to derail.) accurately presses Mr Dorsey, (the CEO of Twitter in case you did not know) on the matter of how trustworthy the companies anti disinformation policies flag posts with their fact checking. Further I personally have red flags when a company clearly infringes on the presses right to free press by blocking their post. As did happen whith one outlet that linked their article on the Hunter Biden laptop. It is alarming.

Allow me to put this as simply as I possibly can. You'r liberties have burdens that you and only you can carry for it to belong to you. I repeat, you're liberties are yours to bare. To allow a private company to safeguard you from disinformation within a public forum is nebulous at best. And at worst outright suppression. When you read a post on twitter, it is your responsibility to do research and decide for you. Not Twitter's responsibility to decide for you.

And yes, I would be curious to know if Facebook is leaning biased towards the right but in what way? Is Facebook suppressing the public and press from their right to free speech and free press in a public forum? If not, then they may be subject to anti trust lawsuits for favoring conservative ads maybe but ads are not supression. Which is why Dorsey at the hearing was perhaps in the least comfortable position in comparison to the other CEO's. Because the people serving under him are practicing the policies he placed in a biased manner. The constitution states, free speech in a public forum. And Twitter I'm sorry to say counts as a form of public forum.

@Tanakalien ok, above I was friendly with Shiver. As a debate should be. With you, I'm dowr. A no true scotsman fallacy ruffles my feathers, especially so when it is used to challenge my personal character. You said, and I quote: "If you are a liberal, as you state yourself, you should applaud individual companies doing exactly what they are doing." I repeat, IF and YOU SHOULD. How forward. Well, it is one thing to assert I am not liberal, an entirely new demon to assert this on the basis that I should. Never mind the fact that a key part of being liberal is supporting free speech and a free market place for ideas. Oh, here for prosperities sake I will paste a definition.

1.
willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
"they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people"
2.
relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

But, no, I'm not what I say I am because as the above definition clearly describes, all true liberals should think one thing is great because no true liberal goes against what we all should universally agree on like something out of Invasion of the body snatchers, a free marketplace of ideas be damned.... No, wait a minute! Sorry that has nothing to do with that above definition, my bad.

Oh, also apearantly all US liberals are more towards the right then true liberals to ay? What a comfortable assertion to make on a country you have clearly stated you are not from. And of which, I presume you have never been to? How many americans do you know? Is there a metric we can use in which it becomes propper to assert most liberal americans are more conservative then other liberals? You could have just as easily said, no true gay or black person would or should vote trump.

Yes I believe in free Enterprise. But a companies policies should end, where the suppression of my basic human rights begins lol. I don't want to control them my friend, if any one is trying to control anyone it is these companies and the politicians on both sides whom lobby them as tools. Such as to suppress voter information on the Hunter Laptop. Im sorry to say this, but I have a hard time voting for biden because I, as my job requires of me, do the due diligence of my own research. Regardless, I don't want them to have laws controlling them, I want there to be checks and balances in place in which a Public Forum is not subject to a companies personal policies. As it is a public forum. Yes Twitter is a company. But Twitter the brand and website of the same name owned by the company it'self, is again not to beat a dead horse, a public forum for the spreading of free speech, free press and free ideas. Benjamin Franklin would have coarse words for Mr Dorsey, leave it to the press to tell the people what is or is not disinformation.

Point being. You thought yourself so clever? Didn't you? Just slide that in, invalidate both me and my character before any points were made. I don't mean to be rude but that is not debating, it is shallow and quite frankly small to go straight to character attacks instead of or before arguing a point in any real or meaningful way. I am certain you are a good person, but what you did was not only insulting. But bad practice in a debate. And I hope you can acknowledge that, no apologies necessary.

However, it would be unfair of me to put you under the same scrutiny and expectations I give my peers at work. As I do polling and servays for a living I end up doing the occasional friendly debate on a daily basis. To those willing to listen. It is my job to get people to go out and vote after all lol.


One more time, as a TLDR:

A companies right to private policies should not in my opinion infringe on the people's individual right to free speech, expression and press in a public forum. I believe Twitter, the brand as owned by the company of the same name, to be a Public Forum. And in lue of that is subject to anti trust allegations.

 

[Jericho Z. Barrons]

@Distendedaura How does one become a public forum? What makes Twitter different from, say, Blue Moon, in their ability to curate information on their platform?

How is it voter suppression if Hunter Biden isn't running for office?

I also would like to caution you against bad faith interpretations or going right to the defensive. Tanak was not attacking you. He lives in a different country and was merely stating a very real difference that exists between US definitions of political orientations and those of the rest of the world. I don't want to speak for him, but my reading of his statements, there was no reason for the sudden snarky and antagonistic tone you adopted. It came out of nowhere.

If you can have a civil discourse, please remain civil. You do your points a disservice to jump to conclusions when nobody was even being rude to you.

 

[Distendedaura]

A public forum, also called an open forum, is a place where the public is open to all expression that is protected under the First Amendment. Streets, parks, and sidewalks are considered open to public discourse by tradition and are designated as traditional public forums. (Edit: in essence, anywhere in which the public has access to open discourse with one another, is a public forum, even if it is over the internet in a third person perspective.) Twitter is, and should be considered a public forum. As should Bluemoon. To control what people can or can not say in a public forum, especially if it is the press, is suppression. And if you are suggesting it not to be voter suppression to block a press outlets tweet covering the Hunter Biden laptop (The son of the man running for office.) In the midst of an election time, then you are just plainly wrong I am sorry. Even Dorsey believes it is suppression, that is why even before the hearing he changed the policy slightly and on many occasions during the hearing said, if they delete the original tweet they can now retweet it. Why would Dorsey do it before the hearing? Because, it was voter suppression, suppression of the free press and subject to anti trust laws. Meaning, he had to before the hearing or else he had no where to stand. The person in the most uncomfortable position in that hearing, was Jack Dorsey, because his policies did in fact lead to a member of his team practicing the suppression of the press. Again, if Franklin were alive today he would more then likely, in my opinion say: Leave it to the press, to challenge the press as disinformation. No third party has the right to silence the media, the burden of truth is only the burden of the press to cover it and you to decide if it is true or false. Again, the burdens of your liberties, are yours to bare and no one else's.

Further more, Tanakaliens choice of words is insulting, it challenged my character directly wether he likes it or not, intended so or not. Allow me to dissect it further. "If you are a liberal, as you say you are." This choice of wording is quite clever, but puts into question my status as a liberal. "You should be" Followed by the assertion I should think- nay, applaud these companies for doing what they are doing. When you compound that with the opening line it follows at best to say: "If you are a real Liberal then you should not argue on the side of free speech in this instance." At worst "You are not a real liberal, because you are on the conservative side of the argument." Need I remind everyone, that this is not a Battlefield? Not saying Tanak was suggesting it is a Battlefield but what I am saying is there is no sides, in the way that we can not meet in the middle and find common ground. Which, is the point in the first place to a multiple party system guys. We are not enemies, we are allies. And to agree with the conservative argument, does not suddenly disenfranchise my status as a liberal.

Lastly: In no way, was I uncivil towards Tanak. My mood became dowr, as I said in the begining to him. As In sad, forlorned, disappointed. Not angry, or vitriolic. Which is the place in my heart everything further came out to say. The reality is this, it is easy to assualt someone's character even if you never intended to. In this case just pick a subject personal to the person and make an assertion based on that. I made it clear that tanak is probably a good person, that they perhaps did not mean to insult me, but they did. Because the choice of words were poor.

Not that I believe in these poor words but' for example, to qoaute joe biden. "If you have a problem figuring out if you are for me or Trump, then you are not black." If you are. Followed by some form of you should.

A no true scotsman fallacy is one thing. An entirely different demon when you apply it to a specific individual person's personal culture, ethnicity, or political alignment. If you are, followed by some form of you should. So no I was not uncivilized, to call someone out for what is either a poor choice of words or a clever challenge of character. (Nor is it a bad faith interpretation, given the words conveyed leave little for interpretation.) It may seem that way perhaps, depends entirely on how you chose to view it on the written form. After all, as I am not speaking to you, it is difficult to convey my actual tone and therefore easy for you to imagine one. As I perhaps did the same reading Tanaks comment. But in the end; his choice of words were demeaning. And I simply had to share how it made me feel, to be told more or less I am not a real liberal, for meeting a side down the middle.

 

[Shiver]

To believe a company should or does have the right to silence opinions they do not agree with purely on the basis of fact checking infringes on free speach. Free speech is not correct speech, it is free. Which means you have the right to in person or a matter of public forum such as Twitter, say whatever you want so long as it does not directly threaten harm to person or property. Which means, you also have the right to be wrong.


Twitter is, and should be considered a public forum. As should Bluemoon. To control what people can or can not say in a public forum, especially if it is the press, is suppression.

This is where we're not seeing eye-to-eye. I believe your understanding of free speech is fundamentally incorrect.

Free speech means that the government can't make laws to punish you for expressing certain opinions; that's the "free" in free speech. It does not mean that anyone else is obligated to help you be heard.

If I start a website to discuss the joys of capitalism, I can ban comments from communists. If I host a call-in radio show to talk about the grace of god, I can hang up on atheists. None of this infringes on free speech; those people are still free, and can go express themselves elsewhere. The government can't punish you for expressing yourself, but that doesn't mean I have to help you do it.

Twitter isn't publicly funded. It's not a public forum, it's a private forum. Just like how a retail store is private property even though it's "open to the public." Twitter would have every right to ban Trump merely for violating its existing Terms of Service.

 

[Jericho Z. Barrons]

Wonderfully put, @Shiver . Truly, that put it all in an easy, straightforward nutshell.

I originally started this thread accepting the premise that private companies can do what they like. My question was more asking if they should delete damaging posts by high-profile figures(celebrities and politicians) because I saw value in allowing these public figures to hang themselves with their own words. It seems less and less like a viable option though and as someone who has experience with battling cognitive dissonance...I realize it's a "leading horses to water" type of thing.

 

[Shiver]

I originally started this thread accepting the premise that private companies can do what they like. My question was more asking if they should delete damaging posts by high-profile figures(celebrities and politicians) because I saw value in allowing these public figures to hang themselves with their own words. It seems less and less like a viable option though and as someone who has experience with battling cognitive dissonance...I realize it's a "leading horses to water" type of thing.

On that specific issue, yes, I think they should.

Five years ago I would have said no. I used to believe that sunlight was the best disinfectant, and that terrible ideas should be aired out in the open in order for them to be defeated. And who's to say what's right or wrong anyway, etc?

Turns out, this doesn't work, thanks to a public relations strategy known as "flooding the zone with shit," a propaganda technique introduced to Trump by Steve Bannon, Basically, you pump out endless amounts of nonsense. Make up scandals. Accuse the other guy of doing what you've been caught doing. Say up is down. Literally anything to overwhelm the information ecosystem to the point where people just give up on trying sort out fact from fiction. If people don't think it's possible to vet the quality or truthfulness of information, they'll just believe what they're inclined to believe. Then you can lie with impunity.

The solution is for civil society and the media to not give up on testing the veracity of claims, and to not feel pressured to give "fair" or "balanced" representation of objective falsehood. That's why Trump has spent his entire administration trying to discredit the very concept of news media. His "fake news" is just Hitler's "lugenpresse (lying press)" translated to English. It's Authoritarianism 101.

 

[Jericho Z. Barrons]

On that specific issue, yes, I think they should.

Five years ago I would have said no. I used to believe that sunlight was the best disinfectant, and that terrible ideas should be aired out in the open in order for them to be defeated. And who's to say what's right or wrong anyway, etc?

Turns out, this doesn't work, thanks to a public relations strategy known as "flooding the zone with shit," a propaganda technique introduced to Trump by Steve Bannon, Basically, you pump out endless amounts of nonsense. Make up scandals. Accuse the other guy of doing what you've been caught doing. Say up is down. Literally anything to overwhelm the information ecosystem to the point where people just give up on trying sort out fact from fiction. If people don't think it's possible to vet the quality or truthfulness of information, they'll just believe what they're inclined to believe. Then you can lie with impunity.

The solution is for civil society and the media to not give up on testing the veracity of claims, and to not feel pressured to give "fair" or "balanced" representation of objective falsehood. That's why Trump has spent his entire administration trying to discredit the very concept of news media. His "fake news" is just Hitler's "lugenpresse (lying press)" translated to English. It's Authoritarianism 101.

That puts an interesting slant on it that I hadn't even considered. But I do see that very often, particularly this year with the election games he's played.

I was originally looking at it from the perspective of being unable to convince people who look at evidence and call you a liar for showing it. In that sense, leaving up things like "Covid is a hoax" is damaging because once they've heard it from the guy they like and look up to, it's hard to shake them of the idea, even when you present evidence to the contrary. And there are hundreds and thousands who'll act on these statements and falsehoods as if they're true, and in turn end up hurting others based on propaganda.

 

[Shiver]

Exactly. Once people are convinced that news media is their ideological enemy, that scientists are lying to them, that experts can't be trusted... then there's really no point in trying to hash things out rationally. When people believe that wearing masks during a plague is actually a sign of weakness/somehow damaging to your health/allows Bill Gates to microchip you, people die. The responsible thing to do is for private companies to purge deadly lies.

 

[Distendedaura]

On that specific issue, yes, I think they should.

Five years ago I would have said no. I used to believe that sunlight was the best disinfectant, and that terrible ideas should be aired out in the open in order for them to be defeated. And who's to say what's right or wrong anyway, etc?

Turns out, this doesn't work, thanks to a public relations strategy known as "flooding the zone with shit," a propaganda technique introduced to Trump by Steve Bannon, Basically, you pump out endless amounts of nonsense. Make up scandals. Accuse the other guy of doing what you've been caught doing. Say up is down. Literally anything to overwhelm the information ecosystem to the point where people just give up on trying sort out fact from fiction. If people don't think it's possible to vet the quality or truthfulness of information, they'll just believe what they're inclined to believe. Then you can lie with impunity.

The solution is for civil society and the media to not give up on testing the veracity of claims, and to not feel pressured to give "fair" or "balanced" representation of objective falsehood. That's why Trump has spent his entire administration trying to discredit the very concept of news media. His "fake news" is just Hitler's "lugenpresse (lying press)" translated to English. It's Authoritarianism 101.

Was excellent actually. But Twitter is not a Christian message board. It is not a Capitalist message board. It is a place for men and women all over the world to communicate in what Jack Dorsey himself says to be, a part of the free marketplace for ideas. Twitter (Edit: the brand not the private company.) is not a private message board it is social media, In essence, it is a place of public assembly in the form of a public forum, to be treated no differently then one would treat a public sidewalk. This is what I mean by, you can not eat you're cake and have it to. When you eat the cake you no longer have it. When you call your brand a place for the free markeplace of ideas you can not turn around and decide what ideas have a place in it. Or else it is not a free marketplace for ideas, it is conditional. Conditional speech is not free.. Morally speaking Twitter is absolutely in the wrong to present their brand so dishonestly. Legally, twitter lobbied the establishment democrats and Republicans enough times alongside the rest of social media, that they are exempt from lawsuits. I believe it to be called the 302.

The sad reality is, Twitter, Facebook, Google only participated in the hearing without mandation, because they did not want to risk their previous federal protections which makes them legally, above any and all forms of lawsuits both individual or foreign. They only answer to the federal government. Which has hardly ever challenged them up until now because like it or hate it, trump's office is anti establishment. It is the platform Trump ran on and runs on still.

And no, that is actually chaos shiver. I hope you realize how dangerous it is to think; We can not hash things out rationally so, nothing is wrong with stopping their voices from spreading stupid things. Well, actually that's where you give the government as well as third parties that pose serious threat in influencing said government the freedom for thought control like some orwellian nightmare. You need to allow dangerous ideas to be in the fore front, public, open to scrutiny. That's how you stop dangerous ideas.

Allow me to give a slight thought experiment; How often, has advice, even from the people you love. Even if wise. Made you do the opposite of what you were told. Just simply because, let's say dad told you that boy or girl was bad news? He didn't give you a chance to speak! What the fuck dad! So instead of listening to you're dad's good advice, because he silenced you're voice and was loud and was rude, and gave off all these negative feelings... You double down on what ever bad choice, or idea, or etc. Ya, sorry but I like my racists, fascists, communists and so on right where they are. In the open. Where they can not become the next demestic terrorist organization.

If you honestly believe, a true honest debate. Where you try to reason to someone. Give them a new, thought provoking and challenging perspective does not get through to them. If you believe it is beyond hope. Then Daryl Davis wasted a lifetime, despite turning around more then 200 men from the grasp of the kkk. There is no such thing as bad people, just bad choices. And bad influence.

Edit: As far as Covid goes, that does endanger people. And I am disheartened when I see it. No masks, etc. But yet again the burdens of your own liberties are yours to bare. One of those burdens is being misinformed and not doing you're own research. It is sad, but reality is harsh.

Edit note: Misspelled a few words. Spell check made mandated mandarin for whatever reason and fixed it.

 

[Shiver]

Twitter (Edit: the brand not the private company.) is not a private message board it is social media, In essence, it is a place of public assembly in the form of a public forum, to be treated no differently then one would treat a public sidewalk. This is what I mean by, you can not eat you're cake and have it to. When you eat the cake you no longer have it. When you call your brand a place for the free markeplace of ideas you can not turn around and decide what ideas have a place in it. Or else it is not a free marketplace for ideas, it is conditional.

They can, should, and do impose conditions on the content they'll host. Harassment is explicitly against the Terms of Service, for instance. Twitter isn't a public forum, it's not analogous to a public sidewalk. It may seem that way, it way brand itself as an open marketplace of ideas, but it isn't from a constitutional perspective. It is exactly the same as private message board, or radio call-in show, or a retail store. For public use, under certain conditions, privately owned and funded.

As I keep saying, free speech = the government may not punish you for expressing yourself. Free speech DOES NOT mean that others must allow you to say what you want where you want.

I used to agree with you that the best way to combat misinformation and nonsense was open debate and a fully free marketplace of ideas. I understand the argument. But we can now see as a matter of empirical fact that social media contributes more to misinformation spread and the legitimization of deadly nonsense than it does to the rational scrutiny of ideas. The "marketplace of ideas" is easily drowned out by deliberate, "flood the zone" propaganda. So I think it behooves private companies to enact stricter terms on what information they'll facilitate. Open debate can still occur where it occurred before social media existed.

 

[Distendedaura]

Hey, it is not that I think you are entirely wrong, you make some good good points. And the media in general I can agree is manipulation minipulation and disinformation right down the board. It is why I do my own research these days and only trust certain content creators on both sides of the aisle for my exposure to info, to then research it myself. However there does need to be some checks and balances as it is clear, Twitter can be used to for disinformation. Or, if you disbelieve the plausible deniability around the article link, that was blocked, has out right already facilitated disinformation. Irregardless, I do think I can agree to disagree so to speak. And meet you down the middle. Unnecessary on you're part, I don't expect you to do the same nor should I expect you to. But I can say emphatically I am no expert, will not pretend to be one and will not expect my moral standing on the matter to be reflected legally

 

[Lady Irony]

Even when it is an "Expert" I sometimes think they are just providing their personal opinion or theory rather than anything concrete. For example I have read a number of times now "Experts" saying that lock downs don't work. The problem is there is actual proof that they do work in terms of keeping the virus numbers down and the body count. Some countries were either too late to lock down or didn't lock down at all and their body count is staggering. Then I compare those numbers to Australia where usually we lock down fairly quickly and although many of our politicians have also dropped the ball we are still lower and that is because usually our States and especially the State I live in locks down once the virus numbers climb to over a dozen or so.

I get that at the start of all of this everyone was dealing with this new virus but since than it seems plenty of people are still in denial and want to carry on as if it is nothing. I am not an alarmist either, I would say I sit somewhere in the middle. I am considered an essential worker and so I still have to sit in an office as the boss would prefer putting us at risk than allowing us to work from home. Anyway, point is that if the virus was as contagious as some make out it is than I think I and my colleagues would already have it.

So yes I take it seriously and am not in denial at all but I also feel perhaps it isn't quite as contagious as we are led to believe either.

So I am cautious as to what I read and I have long since realized that some of these "Experts" are no more informed or intelligent than the average Joe.