Those of you who think locking the account was a good idea should remember you won’t always be in the majority.
Increasing noise (disinformation) is just as damaging to free speech as decreasing the signal (censorship).
Unless it's directly inciting violence, yes.
> How is that workable? Many people cannot distinguish fake news from legitimate sources of information.
The track record of restricting information from people because you feel like you're smarter than they are is not great. It's also impractically subjective.
> Increasing noise (disinformation) is just as damaging to free speech as decreasing the signal (censorship).
I consider your suggestion of encouraging clamping down on free speech too dangerous to discuss. By your logic should I be able to prevent you from expressing it?
By this standard, Facebook must allow everything that you can find on Pornhub and Liveleak. Plus much of the material published in Al Qaeda's magazine Inspire. Telling people "crusaders should die" and "here's how to make a bomb from over the counter materials" aren't direct incitements to violence. Reddit could never have banned r/WatchPeopleDie or r/jailbait. (Although it could be hard to spot any actual jailbait in r/jailbait once torrents of MLM schemes and cryptocurrency scams flood every subreddit.)
The First Amendment protects a lot. That's why back in 2014/2015 American legislators who were unhappy with Islamist terrorist propaganda circulating on social media called on social media companies to do something instead of passing a law. A law that says "it's illegal to publish photos of dead Americans or their allies with gloating commentary" wouldn't survive the First Amendment. But social platforms could and did deplatform groups cheering for ISIS, to bipartisan approval.
You may sincerely believe that only direct incitements to violence should be suppressed on social media. I don't think that there is legislative support for that state of affairs, though. Not even among the conservative legislators who are currently the most critical of social media moderation decisions. If legislators managed to pass a law that said "social media platforms cannot suppress anything that is legal to publish under the First Amendment," I think that they would regret that choice a month after seeing the consequences.
One of the things required in debate classes is to argue for the other sides position.
I have found that most people I meet these days have never learned this ability to see things with the shoes on the other feet.
On your own website or forum, absolutely. It's your property. GP has no right to use it that you do not expressly grant.
> Many people cannot distinguish fake news from legitimate sources of information.
Well it's hard for the New York Times cough Judith Miller cough, so I'm not sure what your point is here.
The truth matters more than how the truth was obtained.
If you don't your dirty laundry aired, don't have dirty laundry.
I dont personally care if Hunter Biden used his dad's name to make money (that is par for the course these days), but Twitter and Facebook suppressed the story basically saying because they were not able to verify it, even though they have clearly allowed a lot of fake news to float around their platforms in the past.
Gay rights Women rights Liberty
Always one side saying let's wait a bit longer, let's listen to our lies for a bit longer.
"On May 21, 1919, the amendment passed the House 304 to 89, with 42 votes more than was necessary. On June 4, 1919, it was brought before the Senate and, after Southern Democrats abandoned a filibuster, 36 Republican Senators were joined by 20 Democrats to pass the amendment with 56 yeas, 25 nays, and 14 not voting."
You want them exempted from the rules on political grounds, which is a problem.
Also, if the policy on hacked material was enforced; wouldn't the NYT story on the tax returns hacked/leaked from Trump also apply? Most of the controversy here is that Twitter has selectively taken action, and now that they changed their policy, they still wont reactivate the account even though its no longer in violation until the NYP deletes the original violating tweet.
This article has been suppressed for one reason and one reason alone: because it's potentially damaging to Joe Biden's election campaign. I know it, you know it, Twitter knows, everybody else knows, so stop pretending that this is about anything else because no-one is fooled.
If you lean right, you don't want to see this level of censorship.
If you don't, you're fine with it because it's pretty much exclusively in the direction of Trump.
Also I don't know why you think people on the left think big companies are on their side
We know they're not. And that they unfairly censor liberal stories.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/sensitive-claims-bias...
But for once they seem to be trying to do the right thing, and avoid spreading propoganda