• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Twitter strongly condemns shutdown of social media platforms

showernota

Member
Jun 6, 2020
2,817
8,569
590



#JustPeerThings
 
Last edited:

CGiRanger

Member
Jun 23, 2017
420
1,211
445
It's like some people are just incapable of critical thinking.

Just because they did it to Trump or the Reps and you were ok with it, do you honestly believe that they'd just stop there? And that your "side" will never be targeted because you're "on the right side of history" or whatever BS you use as justification?

Unchecked power will continually be abused and increased, and they won't give it up without a fight.

 
Last edited:

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
8,156
8,762
870
I think we are well past the words ironic or hypocritical. In my humble opinion, unless these are out of context or I am missing something big, it sure as shit looks like some people are outright saying that a small group of big tech players, and no one else, should be allowed to dictate the parameters of permissible speech on the internet.
 

wordslaughter

Member
Apr 17, 2019
1,178
3,268
425
Here's the problem. NOTHING ever happens.

How many times have we seen Congress drag Jack Dorsey or Mack Zuckerburg before them to give them a dressing down and then .... nothing.

Seems like it's nothing but theater. And that was during an administration that had every reason to DO SOMETHING about Big Tech. But they didn't.

Now we have a Biden administration and it's no stretch to believe that we only have a Biden administration because big tech interfered with the election. He has zero incentive to punish or reign in big tech in any way. The current administration, big tech and the MSM are one big authoritarian family.

AT MOST we'll get strongly worded theater from the Biden administration, which is ironically all we got during the Trump administration too.
 
Last edited:

BadBurger

Gold Member
Nov 6, 2019
2,246
3,613
535
This is the government ordering ISP's to block social media apps and websites. This is actual censorship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KingT731

CGiRanger

Member
Jun 23, 2017
420
1,211
445
This is the government ordering ISP's to block social media apps and websites. This is actual censorship.
So Censorship is only a problem is a "Governmental" organization does it?

Hell, I'll cite freakin Wikipedia of all places:
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient."[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies.
 
Last edited:

dcll

Member
Apr 28, 2017
934
1,969
510
How much do you want to bet that Twitter will no longer allow #NOTMYPRESIDENT to trend?

Or any other derogatory trend of the President that was used during the past 4 years?
I didn't even think about that but I would say pretty high chances
 
Dec 15, 2011
10,444
28,297
1,265
Governments serve the people and are answerable to them.
Twitter (and others) by both word and action exhibit a belief that governments are answerable to Twitter.

Twitter is also arguing that Twitter is "The Public Square" - assuming this is a position they can leverage for their own benefit.
 

BadBurger

Gold Member
Nov 6, 2019
2,246
3,613
535
So Censorship is only a problem is a "Governmental" organization does it?

Yes. I think private platforms should be able to censor anything they find objectionable or harmful. We still have the First Amendment to protect us; people are free to go elsewhere, to create their own platforms, and to say whatever they want there so long as it doesn't break the law (yelling fire in a crowded theater and all that). One isn't forced to use specific platforms. The government should not dictate which platforms people should have access to.

What Uganda is doing here, and China and other government elsewhere, is controlling the entire medium of the internet. Of course that's bad.
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: Brazen and Ornlu

CGiRanger

Member
Jun 23, 2017
420
1,211
445
Yes. I think private platforms should be able to censor anything they find objectionable or harmful. We still have the First Amendment to protect us; people are free to go elsewhere, to create their own platforms, and to say whatever they want there so long as it doesn't break the law (yelling fire in a crowded theater and all that). One isn't forced to use specific platforms. The government should not dictate which platforms people should have access to.

What Uganda is doing here, and China and other government elsewhere, is controlling the entire medium of the internet. Of course that's bad.
I want to know if you agree that what these companies are practicing is Censorship, and if so, then from what you've said here you're ok with that level of censorship.

And then, you're ok with unaccountable organizations that claim to be "Bastions of Free Speech" and "Public Squares" having that level of leverage and control over speech and thought?
 
  • Like
Reactions: famfrit and Ornlu

Raven117

Member
Oct 5, 2015
6,030
2,477
565
I cannot even freakin handle the irony.

While in practice, its obvious what they are doing (and will probably help Uganda), but this is just too much power in the hands of too few.
 

BadBurger

Gold Member
Nov 6, 2019
2,246
3,613
535
I want to know if you agree that what these companies are practicing is Censorship, and if so, then from what you've said here you're ok with that level of censorship.

And then, you're ok with unaccountable organizations that claim to be "Bastions of Free Speech" and "Public Squares" having that level of leverage and control over speech and thought?

Your first question was already answered in my comment you quoted.

What organizations are unaccountable and claimed to be the things you're saying they are? Because if you mean Twitter, they're not "unaccountable". You need to qualify "control over free speech and thought" - because no social media controls free speech, neither do they control thought unless one developed some kind of mind ray I haven't been made aware of.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: famfrit and Ornlu

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
8,156
8,762
870
Yes. I think private platforms should be able to censor anything they find objectionable or harmful. We still have the First Amendment to protect us; people are free to go elsewhere, to create their own platforms, and to say whatever they want there so long as it doesn't break the law (yelling fire in a crowded theater and all that). One isn't forced to use specific platforms. The government should not dictate which platforms people should have access to.

What Uganda is doing here, and China and other government elsewhere, is controlling the entire medium of the internet. Of course that's bad.
I'm really struggling to understand how someone makes this argument in good faith in 2021. It is literally only a couple days since we were shown, full stop, what happens if you try making your own platform if you do not subscribe to the preferred politics of a small handful of people. The first amendment is dead on the internet right now. There is no building your own platform in reality any longer. To do that a man would need to first build his own banking system, his own server farms, his own cell phone company, and his own digital marketplace. And at every step of the way he would be crushed by the monopolies that are killing free speech on the internet anyway, and harassed by preferred users for the right reasons I'm sure.
 

BadBurger

Gold Member
Nov 6, 2019
2,246
3,613
535
I'm really struggling to understand how someone makes this argument in good faith in 2021. It is literally only a couple days since we were shown, full stop, what happens if you try making your own platform if you do not subscribe to the preferred politics of a small handful of people. The first amendment is dead on the internet right now. There is no building your own platform in reality any longer. To do that a man would need to first build his own banking system, his own server farms, his own cell phone company, and his own digital marketplace. And at every step of the way he would be crushed by the monopolies that are killing free speech on the internet anyway, and harassed by preferred users for the right reasons I'm sure.

Don't break the rules of the platform. Parler and Trump habitually violated the rules. The First Amendment wasn't abolished by Facebook, Twitter, etc.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
8,156
8,762
870
Don't break the rules of the platform. Parler and Trump habitually violated the rules. The First Amendment wasn't abolished by Facebook, Twitter, etc.
So it safe to assume you do not have a good faith explanation of how someone can supposedly make their own platform after what we have seen this past few days?
 
  • Like
Reactions: famfrit

CGiRanger

Member
Jun 23, 2017
420
1,211
445
Don't break the rules of the platform. Parler and Trump habitually violated the rules. The First Amendment wasn't abolished by Facebook, Twitter, etc.
Facebook has violated these rules since its inception. You're ok again with no accountability to these corporations.
Your first question was already answered in my comment you quoted.

What organizations are unaccountable and claimed to be the things you're saying they are? Because if you mean Twitter, they're not "unaccountable". You need to qualify "control over free speech and thought" - because no social media controls free speech, neither do they control thought unless one developed some kind of mind ray I haven't been made aware of.
I can't fathom how you can come to this. What even constitutes "Free Speech" to you then? Do you have any principles? Are you an authoritarian?
 

DrAspirino

Member
Nov 19, 2018
438
536
470
Chile
Don't break the rules of the platform. Parler and Trump habitually violated the rules. The First Amendment wasn't abolished by Facebook, Twitter, etc.


It’s not about the content. It’s about the fucking “platform”!!!!

The tweets could be extremely left wing for all I care and the issue would be exactly the same: extremely powerful platforms that behave like a cartel being shielded by a law that no longer applies to them (203).
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
8,156
8,762
870
Facebook has violated these rules since its inception. You're ok again with no accountability to these corporations.

I can't fathom how you can come to this. What even constitutes "Free Speech" to you then? Do you have any principles? Are you an authoritarian?
The subject matter of this thread, the big tech news of this past week that even has European leaders saying WTF, the focus on cancel culture in the news for months, all lead to the inescapable conclusion, in my opinion, that we all know the answer to your final two questions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrAspirino