What Twitter learned from the 2020 election!!!!!!!

[Dan Druff]

Read this and try not to cringe: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topic...on-update.html

This was written by Vijaya Gadde, the one in charge of "Twitter Safety" -- and the person behind that awful censorship of the NY Post story about Hunter Biden.

She was on Rogan in early 2019, and exposed herself as a terrible SJW.



She's basically taken over Twitter, and is the one mostly responsible for the censorship and idiotic "warning labels" there. Basically, this chick believes that Twitter needs to take a parental role and tell you what to think and believe.

If you read the blog at the link I posted, you'll pretty quickly be greeted with this:

More than a year ago, the public told us they wanted Twitter to offer context on misleading information.

No, the public didn't tell you that. A few loud, pro-censorship, echo-chamber SJW types told you that. The "public" wants you to let people tweet the articles and viewpoints they want, and you guys back off and let the public call out any bullshit (which it always does).

Pretty fucking amazing that she really believes the public wants warning labels and Twitter "offering (biased) context" on people's tweets.

Anyway, read the whole statement if you want to see how out-of-touch Twitter really is regarding what its users want to see. Twitter is also bizarre because they bend over backward to provide speech censorship, yet they're notoriously bad at taking action when users post threats of violence or doxxing.

Look at this bullshit, too:

Approximately 300,000 Tweets have been labeled under our Civic Integrity Policy for content that was disputed and potentially misleading. These represent 0.2% of all US election-related Tweets sent during this time period.

456 of those Tweets were also covered by a warning message and had engagement features limited (Tweets could be Quote Tweeted but not Retweeted, replied to or liked).

So not only was Twitter applying warning labels to certain "disputed" tweets, but they were disabling the ability to retweet, reply, or like them.

Seriously, what kind of nanny bullshit is this?

Boy their management sucks.

[dwai]

SHE IS A WOMAN OF COLOR I WILL NOT HAVE YOU DISRESPECTING HER THOUGHTS

[v12cl]

If Trump hit this bitch, Jack, and twitter headquarters with a drone strike on his way out of the White House, I couldn't blame him.

[adamantium]

Read this and try not to cringe: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topic...on-update.html

This was written by Vijaya Gadde, the one in charge of "Twitter Safety" -- and the person behind that awful censorship of the NY Post story about Hunter Biden.

She was on Rogan in early 2019, and exposed herself as a terrible SJW.



She's basically taken over Twitter, and is the one mostly responsible for the censorship and idiotic "warning labels" there. Basically, this chick believes that Twitter needs to take a parental role and tell you what to think and believe.

If you read the blog at the link I posted, you'll pretty quickly be greeted with this:



No, the public didn't tell you that. A few loud, pro-censorship, echo-chamber SJW types told you that. The "public" wants you to let people tweet the articles and viewpoints they want, and you guys back off and let the public call out any bullshit (which it always does).

Pretty fucking amazing that she really believes the public wants warning labels and Twitter "offering (biased) context" on people's tweets.

Anyway, read the whole statement if you want to see how out-of-touch Twitter really is regarding what its users want to see. Twitter is also bizarre because they bend over backward to provide speech censorship, yet they're notoriously bad at taking action when users post threats of violence or doxxing.

Look at this bullshit, too:

Approximately 300,000 Tweets have been labeled under our Civic Integrity Policy for content that was disputed and potentially misleading. These represent 0.2% of all US election-related Tweets sent during this time period.

456 of those Tweets were also covered by a warning message and had engagement features limited (Tweets could be Quote Tweeted but not Retweeted, replied to or liked).

So not only was Twitter applying warning labels to certain "disputed" tweets, but they were disabling the ability to retweet, reply, or like them.

Seriously, what kind of nanny bullshit is this?

Boy their management sucks.

They can do what ever the fuck they want, they are probably running the site at a loss and will shut it down when its not fun anymore

[Dan Druff]

Actually they can't do whatever the fuck they want, because they are considered a platform, not a publisher. They are currently protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

This gives them all kinds of legal shields when users misbehave on their site.

If it turns out they're ruled a publisher (because they control and heavily censor content), that removes a lot of their legal protection.

I can actually make a much better argument that my site is a platform, because I censor very little, and never do so based upon ideology.

[adamantium]

Actually they can't do whatever the fuck they want, because they are considered a platform, not a publisher. They are currently protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

This gives them all kinds of legal shields when users misbehave on their site.

If it turns out they're ruled a publisher (because they control and heavily censor content), that removes a lot of their legal protection.

I can actually make a much better argument that my site is a platform, because I censor very little, and never do so based upon ideology.

what laws did they break again?

[adamantium]

also there are apparantly 70 million nutjobs it the US who fuckin believe everything is a hoax , fake news or a conspiracy, can you imagine if lunatic45 could continue spreading nothing but pure fucking dogshit unchecked? Its not BLM /antifa that is burning your nation to the ground its the fucking actions of your (ex)president.
once the hoax hits your bubble boy immunesystem get back to me with a trip report.

[Dan Druff]

Actually they can't do whatever the fuck they want, because they are considered a platform, not a publisher. They are currently protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

This gives them all kinds of legal shields when users misbehave on their site.

If it turns out they're ruled a publisher (because they control and heavily censor content), that removes a lot of their legal protection.

I can actually make a much better argument that my site is a platform, because I censor very little, and never do so based upon ideology.

what laws did they break again?

If you're a platform, that basically means your users can do illegal shit on your site and you aren't responsible, as long as you make at least a very basic attempt to stop it after-the-fact.

This was an exception written into the 1996 Communications Decency Act (called "Section 230"), which was designed to protect site owners from getting sued or criminally charged if third parties used their site for illegal activity.

However, in order to qualify for that protection, you have to be a platform, not a publisher. Being a platform means that you're basically an open forum for all of the public to use to comment, and that you're not doing much to control the conversation. You're allowed to censor for purposes of removing illegal activity, stop harassment, and remove spam/junk, but if your censorship is occurring for ideological reasons, you are no longer considered a platform.

A publisher is like any magazine or newspaper. You are curating and controlling the content put out, and therefore are responsible for all of it.

Twitter is attempting to straddle this line by having most of their content user-provided with little interference, but ideologically censoring certain high-profile content they don't like.

They are defending this by claiming that they are simply preventing their platform from "spreading misinformation", but this claim becomes highly suspect if they are only censoring so-called "misinformation" from one political side.

If they are ultimately considered a publisher due to these actions, they will lose their Section 230 protection.

[Dan Druff]

also there are apparantly 70 million nutjobs it the US who fuckin believe everything is a hoax , fake news or a conspiracy, can you imagine if lunatic45 could continue spreading nothing but pure fucking dogshit unchecked? Its not BLM /antifa that is burning your nation to the ground its the fucking actions of your (ex)president.
once the hoax hits your bubble boy immunesystem get back to me with a trip report.

So you're stating that Twitter should decide what news is "safe" for you to read?

I didn't realize you feel you need a parental figure to shield your innocent eyes in your 40s.

People don't need Twitter to tell them what is real and fake. The other Twitter users -- many of whom are on the left -- will provide sufficient rebuttal to any right-wing fake news presented, just as the right-wing users will provide a rebuttal to any left-wing fake news presented. That's the beauty of a large platform.

Do you even understand what fascism is? It's not Trump or the American police. One hallmark of fascism is censorship of one political side, with the justification given that the information is "dangerous", "misleading", or "untrue".

The people should always have a right to see all stories and judge for themselves what is true or not true. For every fake news story posted, there are hundreds of thousands of tweets debunking them.

[adamantium]

what laws did they break again?

If you're a platform, that basically means your users can do illegal shit on your site and you aren't responsible, as long as you make at least a very basic attempt to stop it after-the-fact.

This was an exception written into the 1996 Communications Decency Act (called "Section 230"), which was designed to protect site owners from getting sued or criminally charged if third parties used their site for illegal activity.

However, in order to qualify for that protection, you have to be a platform, not a publisher. Being a platform means that you're basically an open forum for all of the public to use to comment, and that you're not doing much to control the conversation. You're allowed to censor for purposes of removing illegal activity, stop harassment, and remove spam/junk, but if your censorship is occurring for ideological reasons, you are no longer considered a platform.

A publisher is like any magazine or newspaper. You are curating and controlling the content put out, and therefore are responsible for all of it.

Twitter is attempting to straddle this line by having most of their content user-provided with little interference, but ideologically censoring certain high-profile content they don't like.

They are defending this by claiming that they are simply preventing their platform from "spreading misinformation", but this claim becomes highly suspect if they are only censoring so-called "misinformation" from one political side.

If they are ultimately considered a publisher due to these actions, they will lose their Section 230 protection.

are you saying twitter should not be allowed to label Trumps fantasy tweets about winning the election?

[adamantium]

also there are apparantly 70 million nutjobs it the US who fuckin believe everything is a hoax , fake news or a conspiracy, can you imagine if lunatic45 could continue spreading nothing but pure fucking dogshit unchecked? Its not BLM /antifa that is burning your nation to the ground its the fucking actions of your (ex)president.
once the hoax hits your bubble boy immunesystem get back to me with a trip report.

So you're stating that Twitter should decide what news is "safe" for you to read?

I didn't realize you feel you need a parental figure to shield your innocent eyes in your 40s.

People don't need Twitter to tell them what is real and fake. The other Twitter users -- many of whom are on the left -- will provide sufficient rebuttal to any right-wing fake news presented, just as the right-wing users will provide a rebuttal to any left-wing fake news presented. That's the beauty of a large platform.

Do you even understand what fascism is? It's not Trump or the American police. One hallmark of fascism is censorship of one political side, with the justification given that the information is "dangerous", "misleading", or "untrue".

The people should always have a right to see all stories and judge for themselves what is true or not true. For every fake news story posted, there are hundreds of thousands of tweets debunking them.

Apparantly unlike the rest of the world it is pretty fucking clear that trumptards in no way shape or form are able to tell real from fake, MINDBLOWING

[Dan Druff]

So you're stating that Twitter should decide what news is "safe" for you to read?

I didn't realize you feel you need a parental figure to shield your innocent eyes in your 40s.

People don't need Twitter to tell them what is real and fake. The other Twitter users -- many of whom are on the left -- will provide sufficient rebuttal to any right-wing fake news presented, just as the right-wing users will provide a rebuttal to any left-wing fake news presented. That's the beauty of a large platform.

Do you even understand what fascism is? It's not Trump or the American police. One hallmark of fascism is censorship of one political side, with the justification given that the information is "dangerous", "misleading", or "untrue".

The people should always have a right to see all stories and judge for themselves what is true or not true. For every fake news story posted, there are hundreds of thousands of tweets debunking them.

Apparantly unlike the rest of the world it is pretty fucking clear that trumptards in no way shape or form are able to tell real from fake, MINDBLOWING

I see.

So if adamantium in Norway thinks that "Trumptards" believe something he doesn't, then that information should be censored.

Sounds like a great policy. I can't believe this country has thrived for 244 years with those terrible free speech laws in place. Time for change!! More censorship please!!!!!!111

[adamantium]

also there are apparantly 70 million nutjobs it the US who fuckin believe everything is a hoax , fake news or a conspiracy, can you imagine if lunatic45 could continue spreading nothing but pure fucking dogshit unchecked? Its not BLM /antifa that is burning your nation to the ground its the fucking actions of your (ex)president.
once the hoax hits your bubble boy immunesystem get back to me with a trip report.

So you're stating that Twitter should decide what news is "safe" for you to read?

I didn't realize you feel you need a parental figure to shield your innocent eyes in your 40s.

People don't need Twitter to tell them what is real and fake. The other Twitter users -- many of whom are on the left -- will provide sufficient rebuttal to any right-wing fake news presented, just as the right-wing users will provide a rebuttal to any left-wing fake news presented. That's the beauty of a large platform.

Do you even understand what fascism is? It's not Trump or the American police. One hallmark of fascism is censorship of one political side, with the justification given that the information is "dangerous", "misleading", or "untrue".

The people should always have a right to see all stories and judge for themselves what is true or not true. For every fake news story posted, there are hundreds of thousands of tweets debunking them.

gotcha those damn fascists over at twitter!

[Dan Druff]

If you're a platform, that basically means your users can do illegal shit on your site and you aren't responsible, as long as you make at least a very basic attempt to stop it after-the-fact.

This was an exception written into the 1996 Communications Decency Act (called "Section 230"), which was designed to protect site owners from getting sued or criminally charged if third parties used their site for illegal activity.

However, in order to qualify for that protection, you have to be a platform, not a publisher. Being a platform means that you're basically an open forum for all of the public to use to comment, and that you're not doing much to control the conversation. You're allowed to censor for purposes of removing illegal activity, stop harassment, and remove spam/junk, but if your censorship is occurring for ideological reasons, you are no longer considered a platform.

A publisher is like any magazine or newspaper. You are curating and controlling the content put out, and therefore are responsible for all of it.

Twitter is attempting to straddle this line by having most of their content user-provided with little interference, but ideologically censoring certain high-profile content they don't like.

They are defending this by claiming that they are simply preventing their platform from "spreading misinformation", but this claim becomes highly suspect if they are only censoring so-called "misinformation" from one political side.

If they are ultimately considered a publisher due to these actions, they will lose their Section 230 protection.

are you saying twitter should not be allowed to label Trumps fantasy tweets about winning the election?

I'm saying adults don't need Twitter to "label" anything like the readers are kindergartners.

We can read tweets for ourselves and decide what is real or fantasy.

And if we aren't very good at critical thinking, then there will be tons of responses to the "fantasy" tweets which point out the erroneous information.

I'm sorry that you feel you need other adults to label things "real" or "fake" for you.

[adamantium]

are you saying twitter should not be allowed to label Trumps fantasy tweets about winning the election?

I'm saying adults don't need Twitter to "label" anything like the readers are kindergartners.

We can read tweets for ourselves and decide what is real or fantasy.

And if we aren't very good at critical thinking, then there will be tons of responses to the "fantasy" tweets which point out the erroneous information.

I'm sorry that you feel you need other adults to label things "real" or "fake" for you.

real or fake is not a judgement call , are you fucking serious????

[Dan Druff]

I'm saying adults don't need Twitter to "label" anything like the readers are kindergartners.

We can read tweets for ourselves and decide what is real or fantasy.

And if we aren't very good at critical thinking, then there will be tons of responses to the "fantasy" tweets which point out the erroneous information.

I'm sorry that you feel you need other adults to label things "real" or "fake" for you.

real or fake is not a judgement call , are you fucking serious????

Everything is a judgment call.

Everything can be manipulated to where something technically "true" can be highly misleading.

This is why we don't need Twitter doing their bullshit biased "fact-checking" and censoring news stories. We need them to provide the platform and get out of the fucking way.

[BCR]

real or fake is not a judgement call , are you fucking serious????

Everything is a judgment call.

Everything can be manipulated to where something technically "true" can be highly misleading.

This is why we don't need Twitter doing their bullshit biased "fact-checking" and censoring news stories. We need them to provide the platform and get out of the fucking way.

The internet in general has been bad for already first world counties. Social media has been a destabilizing force to families, marriage, it’s damaged young people, and allows predators to feast on other humans. It’s made vapid reality stars like the kardashians billionaires. It’s damaged critical thought. People don’t read any more. Idiots are emboldened by other idiots left and right. It’s cited in near half of divorces. I’d be for nuking it all.

[gimmick]

Should we have allowed ISIS to openly recruit and radicalize whoever they wanted?

Also meet Kyle...



...can't see what could possibly go wrong when you don't take any action to moderate content.

[Dan Druff]

Should we have allowed ISIS to openly recruit and radicalize whoever they wanted?

Also meet Kyle...



...can't see what could possibly go wrong when you don't take any action to moderate content.

I see. So a lone 17-year-old bringing a gun to an already-violent protest justifies ideological censorship of social media -- on only one side, of course.

Makes loads of sense.

So you can't see the harm in letting gigantic pseudo-monopoly social media outlets be the arbiter of what is "real", "fake", "true", and "false"?

Lefties like you always point to some one-off violent incident and use it as justification for information suppression. In reality, this suppression rarely has much to do with preventing violence, but becomes a tool of political propaganda. The Hunter Biden thing was a good example. Even Twitter admitted that the Hunter Biden story wasn't suppressed for any violence prevention.

Funny how Twitter only seems to censor right-wing "fake" news, huh? Amazing how honest and pure the left is, to where Twitter just never has to censor any of it. Must be great to be aligned with such honest, well-meaning folks.

I realize that I'm debating with two northern Europeans here, but the value of free speech (and the incredible harm coming from the suppression of it) has been long established in modern human history. I can't believe I have to make this case at all.

It's very simple.

LET PEOPLE POST WHATEVER FUCKING STORIES THEY WANT ON TWITTER AND LET THE GIGANTIC USERBASE COMMENT ON WHAT IS REAL AND WHAT IS FAKE.

[dwai]

Druff i agree with you but you're losing it buddy

just don't use twitter