Spot the threat to free speech
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 12:29 last edited by
Not to say I don’t have issues with FB and Twitter’s ideas of ‘community standards’, I do.
But Trump threatens free speech at least monthly on Twitter. Even though (so far) he doesn’t have USG support for it.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 12:37 last edited by
It's not an unconstitutional argument. Social media at the level of Twitter does function as a town square. At a certain point, an argument can be made for the internet being somewhat akin to radio or tv, operating on the public spectrum.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 12:58 last edited by
It's OK if Mr. Trump defends himself.
And it is OK if Twitter defends itself.
Competition is good.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 13:02 last edited by
The head of "Site Integrity" at Twitter:
Posts this, on Twitter:
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 13:11 last edited by
Turley's take on this kerfuffle, including Roth's comments:
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 13:22 last edited by
@George-K said in Spot the threat to free speech:
The head of "Site Integrity" at Twitter:
Posts this, on Twitter:Shocking.
-
It's not an unconstitutional argument. Social media at the level of Twitter does function as a town square. At a certain point, an argument can be made for the internet being somewhat akin to radio or tv, operating on the public spectrum.
wrote on 27 May 2020, 13:25 last edited by@Jolly said in Spot the threat to free speech:
It's not an unconstitutional argument. Social media at the level of Twitter does function as a town square. At a certain point, an argument can be made for the internet being somewhat akin to radio or tv, operating on the public spectrum.
I'm pretty sure jon considers that a reasonable viewpoint in other contexts.
-
The "It's a private company and they can censor whomever they want" argument has been around since the origin of social media.
As Ax would probably say, "Let POTUS establish his own platform and let it survive or die according to the free market."
But, does there come a time when Twitter, FB or anyone else become the de-facto town square? I don't know, but it's a question that bothers me.
wrote on 27 May 2020, 14:01 last edited by@George-K said in Spot the threat to free speech:
As Ax would probably say, "Let POTUS establish his own platform and let it survive or die according to the free market."
He wouldn't have to. He could join ThinkSpot today, and many millions would follow him there by the end of the week.
Compare that to the lack of remedy when there is a true free speech threat - if the guys with guns are enforcing things.
-
@Jolly said in Spot the threat to free speech:
It's not an unconstitutional argument. Social media at the level of Twitter does function as a town square. At a certain point, an argument can be made for the internet being somewhat akin to radio or tv, operating on the public spectrum.
I'm pretty sure jon considers that a reasonable viewpoint in other contexts.
wrote on 27 May 2020, 14:07 last edited by@Horace said in Spot the threat to free speech:
@Jolly said in Spot the threat to free speech:
It's not an unconstitutional argument. Social media at the level of Twitter does function as a town square. At a certain point, an argument can be made for the internet being somewhat akin to radio or tv, operating on the public spectrum.
I'm pretty sure jon considers that a reasonable viewpoint in other contexts.
I can't make sense out of it. Is Twitter the town hall or the internet? I can see the Internet being considered akin to the public airwaves in many ways, but not in a 'fairness doctrine' sense, since quite literally everybody can and does publish. Broadcast was different because of scarcity.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 14:36 last edited by
-
@Horace said in Spot the threat to free speech:
@Jolly said in Spot the threat to free speech:
It's not an unconstitutional argument. Social media at the level of Twitter does function as a town square. At a certain point, an argument can be made for the internet being somewhat akin to radio or tv, operating on the public spectrum.
I'm pretty sure jon considers that a reasonable viewpoint in other contexts.
I can't make sense out of it. Is Twitter the town hall or the internet? I can see the Internet being considered akin to the public airwaves in many ways, but not in a 'fairness doctrine' sense, since quite literally everybody can and does publish. Broadcast was different because of scarcity.
wrote on 27 May 2020, 14:45 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:
Broadcast was different because of scarcity.
CBS/NBC/ABC vs ham radio
Twitter vs TNCR
-
@jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:
Broadcast was different because of scarcity.
CBS/NBC/ABC vs ham radio
Twitter vs TNCR
wrote on 27 May 2020, 14:48 last edited by@Copper said in Spot the threat to free speech:
@jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:
Broadcast was different because of scarcity.
CBS/NBC/ABC vs ham radio
Twitter vs TNCR
In the days when it was CBS/NBC/ABC vs ham radio we had the fairness doctrine.
The need for it was diminished with cable, and died with the internet.
-
@jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:
Broadcast was different because of scarcity.
CBS/NBC/ABC vs ham radio
Twitter vs TNCR
-
@Jolly said in Spot the threat to free speech:
It's not an unconstitutional argument. Social media at the level of Twitter does function as a town square. At a certain point, an argument can be made for the internet being somewhat akin to radio or tv, operating on the public spectrum.
I'm pretty sure jon considers that a reasonable viewpoint in other contexts.
wrote on 27 May 2020, 14:52 last edited by@Horace said in Spot the threat to free speech:
@Jolly said in Spot the threat to free speech:
It's not an unconstitutional argument. Social media at the level of Twitter does function as a town square. At a certain point, an argument can be made for the internet being somewhat akin to radio or tv, operating on the public spectrum.
I'm pretty sure jon considers that a reasonable viewpoint in other contexts.
I'm not sure how you could possibly get around it.
-
@Copper said in Spot the threat to free speech:
@jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:
Broadcast was different because of scarcity.
CBS/NBC/ABC vs ham radio
Twitter vs TNCR
In the days when it was CBS/NBC/ABC vs ham radio we had the fairness doctrine.
The need for it was diminished with cable, and died with the internet.
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:01 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:
The need for it was diminished with cable, and died with the internet.
I think that is the question, has Twitter gotten to the size that once again raises the need?
Ironically Mr. Trump has probably influenced it's size.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:23 last edited by
When someone does something to hinder free speech (Twitter) a person who speaks up about it and vows to stop them from doing it again (Trump) that person is not guilty of hindering free speech, but of taking action against the blocking of free speech. It's just like man A walks up to man B and hits him in the face with his fist, man B then hits him back, and you're trying to accuse man B of starting a fight.
-
@jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:
The need for it was diminished with cable, and died with the internet.
I think that is the question, has Twitter gotten to the size that once again raises the need?
Ironically Mr. Trump has probably influenced it's size.
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:35 last edited by@Copper said in Spot the threat to free speech:
@jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:
The need for it was diminished with cable, and died with the internet.
I think that is the question, has Twitter gotten to the size that once again raises the need?
Ironically Mr. Trump has probably influenced it's size.
Twitter is like 7th largest social media site, excluding the foreign ones that aren't in use here.
If twitter is too large and needs the government to control its content surely Fox News does too.
-
When someone does something to hinder free speech (Twitter) a person who speaks up about it and vows to stop them from doing it again (Trump) that person is not guilty of hindering free speech, but of taking action against the blocking of free speech. It's just like man A walks up to man B and hits him in the face with his fist, man B then hits him back, and you're trying to accuse man B of starting a fight.
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:39 last edited by jon-nyc@Larry said in Spot the threat to free speech:
When someone does something to hinder free speech (Twitter) a person who speaks up about it and vows to stop them from doing it again (Trump) that person is not guilty of hindering free speech, but of taking action against the blocking of free speech. It's just like man A walks up to man B and hits him in the face with his fist, man B then hits him back, and you're trying to accuse man B of starting a fight.
Man A vs Man B analogy fails. This is Government vs Man.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:42 last edited by
I didn't know Twitter was a government agency... because you see, it was Twitter that made the first punch.