and suddenly, the bullying bluebird thinks access to the the open internet is an essential human right?
hello, pot? kettle on line 2. wants to discuss coloration.
twitter is a private company and i have and do support their right to do as they like with their site and content. (and after the great de-catforming of 2021 with no appeals or even explanation, i feel like i have as good a right as any to opine here)
but you don’t get to whine about “essential human rights” and morally grandstand about “getting canceled” when cancelling others is such a big part of your business model and political philosophy.
you sound like mao whining about how it’s no fair to drag HIM into a struggle session.
jack has zero moral high ground here. it’s just tactical hypocrisy and the classic crybully move.
“when we do it, it’s justice. when they do it, it’s oppression.”
if this is an essential human right, then how do you justify banning so much speech and so many people from your platform?
if this is a moral issue, then the fact that it’s legal for twitter to censor is irrelevant. slavery was once legal too. did that make it ethical or just?
so pick a side of the street and live on it, jackie boy. this phony moralistic outrage is not a good look.
i’d ask naomi what she thinks about this, but, well…
As long as social media benefit from Sec. 230 protection, they _don't_ have the right to "do whatever they want."
If you’re granted special legal immunities/favors, those should come with special obligations, as well. No more having their cake and eating it, too.
Accepting _special favors_ from the government ALWAYS comes with restrictions. Social media want special exemptions? Then they accept government restrictions, i.e., act as common carriers a la phone companies that don't monitor and censor what users do. They just provide a service.
They want to act as publishers with the full right to edit any and all content as they see fit? Fine. Then they should be treated _as any other publisher_ and NOT be exempt from liability. I've zero legal problem with them censoring their sites to their hearts' content in that situation.
But there is NO violation of their First Amendment rights in demanding they be content-neutral if they want special legal favors.
Congress needs to repeal Section 230c2A, a proviso that is nothing more than a gutting of the intent of the CDA, a weasel-worded betrayal that gives a wink-and-a-nod to social media companies to do whatever the hell THEY want—without penalty or restriction—in regard to the user generated content that makes the very existence of those companies possible IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I fully expect that heading into the midterms, Republicans use Parler, MeYou and Gab as their social base. Rumble for their vids. And I expect that everything they do will be under the radar from the MSM on Twitter. They won't know what hit them.
those who conquer kingdoms by “speaking the truth to power” are, once enthroned, often those least likely to allow truth to be spoken to (or even nearby to) them.
put a crown on his head and watch @jack transform into @jackboots. every time.
I have decided that only libertarians actually believe in “I may disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it”. Everyone else, left and right, just parrots the words when it’s their speech being restricted (leftists in the ‘50s and ‘60s, conservatives today) but as soon as they get the power to do so they try to silence the other side (of course it’s always for the benefit of the children and the oppressed, doncha know). And of course who knows what libertarians would do if they actually had the power to censor opposition, it’s easy to trumpet your principles when you don’t have the actual power to implement them, but power corrupts etc.
I'm off Twitter. I am surprised how much I miss it. But, I do not want to be a "member" of an organization that systematically censors free speech and opposing political viewpoints. If enough people say "enough," our Twitter overlords will get the point.
same here, although 'missing it' is relative. I also feel lucky sometimes when I see the level of discourse on it, when I have the occasion to go check some tweet out.
Why do I feel like I am living in a real life version of revenge of the nerds? Just one man’s opinion but it strikes me as a tad bit ironic that everyone of these social justice warriors and self proclaimed smartest people in the room are pushing for a one party society that promotes equal outcomes as well as Marxist dogma such as CRT while cancelling anyone who disagrees with them. I wonder how successful they would have been starting their companies outside the United States. Of course when we achieve their “Great Reset”, nothing will change for them. Remember all their wealth resides in their foundations. Keep in mind these are the same posers who fly to Davos in their private jets while they lecture us poor plebes about climate change.
the conceit of the clever is always that the world could be made better and the lives of the grubby commoners improved if they were just made to "do the right things" for "their own good."
it's as easy as it is seductive to presume that because i am smart and they are dumb that they would be better off if i just made their choices for them.
the intellectuals have always been fascists and theocrats. they have just moved from deistic religion to a secular one that mistakes its cherished dogmas for reason and science. (note that this was the belief of 1930's fascism and soviet communism as well).
there is no more energetic and obnoxious tyrant than one whose central tenet is "me smart, you dumb, so do what i say and thank me for it."
that cycle of self-congratulatory oppression runs out of control faster than just about any other form of human interaction.
So that's why Nigeria and why Naomi Wolf. I don't quite agree with you about Twitter being able to do whatever they want. Regulation of businesses is a well established practice in America for the good of the public. (Yes, I understand the downside of that, but sometimes e accept the downside when the abuse is great enough). As Twitter (along with Facebook, Google, and Amazon) is so big, it could be considered something of utility. So either regulation or breaking them up. However, until that happens, I'll just have to enjoy this little bit of irony.
i find the idea of "too big to be free" or "too successful for self determination" to be problematic and the idea of appeals to past practice on regulation as a justification for more in the future to be a form of logical fallacy. it's just appeal to tradition. you could have made the same argument about not allowing women to vote.
you cannot regulate your way to freedom and these policies just make the state we need to rein in more powerful and capable of future interference.
the way forward is more freedom, not less. this is the pressure that drives that evolution.
I guess I would be fine with the idea of “businesses should be free to do whatever they want” if it were applied consistently, but it’s not. Businesses are already forbidden from discriminating based on race, religion, disability, etc. so if we are going to place those restrictions on businesses I don’t see why a prohibition on discrimination based on political views or other lawful conduct shouldn’t be included in the list, particularly given that FB, TWTR have monopoly power protected by network effects (as seen by the orchestrated defenestration of Parler) and I think can rightfully be compared to common carriers in terms of an obligation not to discriminate. Or, alternatively, we could eliminate all restrictions on who businesses can do business with which I would be OK with as well — but if we have a world with some restrictions, there’s no reason to object on principle to adding more where it’s fair to do so.
I had not seen that essay before (sorry I'm too old to know the right terminology). Thanks for pointing me to it. I hope you are right and there is a way to build a decentralized internet where no one controls the keys to the kingdom and we are all free to express and ignore at our own pleasure. I guess I'm just not as optimistic as you are, but I understand. But maybe places like Substack are the beginning and I will be proven blissfully wrong.
Yea, it was. But it is a bore now. You have to be careful to not say things like retarded and jump off a cliff (my latest two suspensions). I enjoy it here a lot more. As well as Bitchute, Rokfin, and Rumble for videos.
As long as social media benefit from Sec. 230 protection, they _don't_ have the right to "do whatever they want."
If you’re granted special legal immunities/favors, those should come with special obligations, as well. No more having their cake and eating it, too.
Accepting _special favors_ from the government ALWAYS comes with restrictions. Social media want special exemptions? Then they accept government restrictions, i.e., act as common carriers a la phone companies that don't monitor and censor what users do. They just provide a service.
They want to act as publishers with the full right to edit any and all content as they see fit? Fine. Then they should be treated _as any other publisher_ and NOT be exempt from liability. I've zero legal problem with them censoring their sites to their hearts' content in that situation.
But there is NO violation of their First Amendment rights in demanding they be content-neutral if they want special legal favors.
Congress needs to repeal Section 230c2A, a proviso that is nothing more than a gutting of the intent of the CDA, a weasel-worded betrayal that gives a wink-and-a-nod to social media companies to do whatever the hell THEY want—without penalty or restriction—in regard to the user generated content that makes the very existence of those companies possible IN THE FIRST PLACE.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B083S1BBVV
I fully expect that heading into the midterms, Republicans use Parler, MeYou and Gab as their social base. Rumble for their vids. And I expect that everything they do will be under the radar from the MSM on Twitter. They won't know what hit them.
Nigeria: “OMG OMG Whatever will become of us now that our action have been condemned by Jack? We’re doomed! Doomed! Oh, right. Who cares? Never mind.”
How did they go from this:
“Twitter is the free speech wing of the free speech party”
to
‘Twitter readily censors anyone whom government and public health officials disapprove of’
those who conquer kingdoms by “speaking the truth to power” are, once enthroned, often those least likely to allow truth to be spoken to (or even nearby to) them.
put a crown on his head and watch @jack transform into @jackboots. every time.
I have decided that only libertarians actually believe in “I may disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it”. Everyone else, left and right, just parrots the words when it’s their speech being restricted (leftists in the ‘50s and ‘60s, conservatives today) but as soon as they get the power to do so they try to silence the other side (of course it’s always for the benefit of the children and the oppressed, doncha know). And of course who knows what libertarians would do if they actually had the power to censor opposition, it’s easy to trumpet your principles when you don’t have the actual power to implement them, but power corrupts etc.
It's a great question. But, people change all the time. Anyway, they are digging their own graves. The tide will turn.
I'm off Twitter. I am surprised how much I miss it. But, I do not want to be a "member" of an organization that systematically censors free speech and opposing political viewpoints. If enough people say "enough," our Twitter overlords will get the point.
I think Substack is the way to go. Just hoping that Eric Weinstein and his brother plus gymmyBear 767 joins here as well..
same here, although 'missing it' is relative. I also feel lucky sometimes when I see the level of discourse on it, when I have the occasion to go check some tweet out.
Why do I feel like I am living in a real life version of revenge of the nerds? Just one man’s opinion but it strikes me as a tad bit ironic that everyone of these social justice warriors and self proclaimed smartest people in the room are pushing for a one party society that promotes equal outcomes as well as Marxist dogma such as CRT while cancelling anyone who disagrees with them. I wonder how successful they would have been starting their companies outside the United States. Of course when we achieve their “Great Reset”, nothing will change for them. Remember all their wealth resides in their foundations. Keep in mind these are the same posers who fly to Davos in their private jets while they lecture us poor plebes about climate change.
the conceit of the clever is always that the world could be made better and the lives of the grubby commoners improved if they were just made to "do the right things" for "their own good."
it's as easy as it is seductive to presume that because i am smart and they are dumb that they would be better off if i just made their choices for them.
the intellectuals have always been fascists and theocrats. they have just moved from deistic religion to a secular one that mistakes its cherished dogmas for reason and science. (note that this was the belief of 1930's fascism and soviet communism as well).
there is no more energetic and obnoxious tyrant than one whose central tenet is "me smart, you dumb, so do what i say and thank me for it."
that cycle of self-congratulatory oppression runs out of control faster than just about any other form of human interaction.
That's the plan. Serfdom and Monarchy.
Dorsey is Goebbels, only Goebbels was more transparent.
Hypocrisy among this set is a feature, not a bug.
These instances of “Do as I say, not as I do” seem to be more frequent.
internet that is only congenial to jack dorsey is a crime..... twitter is cover for tyrants
So that's why Nigeria and why Naomi Wolf. I don't quite agree with you about Twitter being able to do whatever they want. Regulation of businesses is a well established practice in America for the good of the public. (Yes, I understand the downside of that, but sometimes e accept the downside when the abuse is great enough). As Twitter (along with Facebook, Google, and Amazon) is so big, it could be considered something of utility. So either regulation or breaking them up. However, until that happens, I'll just have to enjoy this little bit of irony.
i find the idea of "too big to be free" or "too successful for self determination" to be problematic and the idea of appeals to past practice on regulation as a justification for more in the future to be a form of logical fallacy. it's just appeal to tradition. you could have made the same argument about not allowing women to vote.
you cannot regulate your way to freedom and these policies just make the state we need to rein in more powerful and capable of future interference.
the way forward is more freedom, not less. this is the pressure that drives that evolution.
don't fight it. embrace it.
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/a-cats-tale-how-getting-canceled
I guess I would be fine with the idea of “businesses should be free to do whatever they want” if it were applied consistently, but it’s not. Businesses are already forbidden from discriminating based on race, religion, disability, etc. so if we are going to place those restrictions on businesses I don’t see why a prohibition on discrimination based on political views or other lawful conduct shouldn’t be included in the list, particularly given that FB, TWTR have monopoly power protected by network effects (as seen by the orchestrated defenestration of Parler) and I think can rightfully be compared to common carriers in terms of an obligation not to discriminate. Or, alternatively, we could eliminate all restrictions on who businesses can do business with which I would be OK with as well — but if we have a world with some restrictions, there’s no reason to object on principle to adding more where it’s fair to do so.
I had not seen that essay before (sorry I'm too old to know the right terminology). Thanks for pointing me to it. I hope you are right and there is a way to build a decentralized internet where no one controls the keys to the kingdom and we are all free to express and ignore at our own pleasure. I guess I'm just not as optimistic as you are, but I understand. But maybe places like Substack are the beginning and I will be proven blissfully wrong.
Nailed it.
Twitter was so much fun when it started…. #TCOT and #FF
Yea, it was. But it is a bore now. You have to be careful to not say things like retarded and jump off a cliff (my latest two suspensions). I enjoy it here a lot more. As well as Bitchute, Rokfin, and Rumble for videos.
Brilliant post thanks