You would think that people aren't that stupid. I would think that too. But after witnessing the whole country (Russia) going down the rabbit hole of paranoid madness with just a couple of years of propaganda, I don't think that anymore.
Keep in mind, we're not just talking about accounts used by actual terrorists to coordinate actual attacks. We're talking about "pro-ISIS" Twitter accounts.
How will we decide who is pro-ISIS? I propose a system of hearings, with the most important ones conducted by a senate committee. The most important question at these hearings will be "are you now or have ever been a sympathizer with Islamic State." If they "fail" the hearing we could put them in some kind of database used by employers and government hiring agents and so forth. A sort of blacklist, if you will.
And anyone on the blacklist doesn't get to use corporate media platforms. It's not a First Amendment violation, you see, because it's VOLUNTARY. Just ask these guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_C...
I didn't say that I want all pro-terrorist accounts to be shut down. I only explained the reasons behind it.
The fact that some position has valid reasons behind it doesn't mean that there aren't reasons against it. It also doesn't mean that it's necessarily the right position.
Please, don't argue with a position you assume some commenter expresses and argue with a position someone actually expresses. Case in point: I don't know whether we should or shouldn't close all pro-terrorist accounts. And I know about first amendment, thank you.
And even if it were, Twitter can ban accounts for any reason.
Your second statement is true, 1st amendment applies only to the government ability to restrict speech.
I didn't think that was a massive thing, until a girl I went to primary school with in NZ (who, it turns out, is ethnic Russian) jumped on me for daring to suggest that Russia's paid internet trolls are a bit of a joke. There was no reasoning, she just kept quoting zerohedge and RT links at me, ignoring anything I said. I just blocked her, but it was so weird to actually be confronted with the effects of this propoganda.
Just curious, but what do you think the world's opinion of CNN is?
Answer: not unbiased news...
It doesn't mean that it's equally biased.
To sibling: only Fox News is owned by Murdoch. You can google for who owns what instead of guessing. MSNBC is biased to the (American) left and CNN is biased to insipidness. All are biased to the establishment and to distract, sensationalism.
generally, within boundaries of popular news sources, one should use a foreign source to get information for a given country. now finding which one is +-balanced for given country is a tricky thing, and probably not constant as time goes by
Come to think of it, maybe Trump is a Russian agent. It would explain a lot.