Elon Musk and Twitter

[larsIU]

An argument can be made that the collective user data is a public resource that should trigger regulation similar to that of broadcasters

I 100% believe this will be the argument at some point in the future. Yeah sure I give "permission" for a website to use my information (cookies and whatnot) but it's getting a bit ridiculous.


Wanna hear something creepy.....

Wife and I went to a furniture store the other day and they had a king bed frame thingy that looked like it was straight out of a 70's porn shoot. I cannot even describe it. So I took a picture of it on my phone to show the wife to of course tell her we were buying it (we didn't buy it). Just a picture on my phone.

About a week later I was on you tube and an ad popped up for the exact same king bed frame. What the actual f*ck. Explain that one. I never looked it up on the internet or anything. Didn't access a pic through the store's website, etc. Coincidence? Doubtful.

 

[Crayfish57]

https://www.officialwokebrand.com/

Check out this store

Off topic MM but when can you bring up slander and extortion against someone?

 

[IUCrazy2]

Comcast is an ISP not an app/site.

They are also a private company that controls access to the internet. If they don't like what you post, why should they not be allowed to keep you from using their product to post what they don't like?

None of us are idiots. The first amendment thing gets pretty freaking complicated when you start taking that stuff into consideration, no?

 

[mcmurtry66]

Off topic MM but when can you bring up slander and extortion against someone?

If it's unclemark getting you he's judgment proof. Sorry Cray. No man is more dangerous than a judgment proof man

 

[mcmurtry66]

I 100% believe this will be the argument at some point in the future. Yeah sure I give "permission" for a website to use my information (cookies and whatnot) but it's getting a bit ridiculous.


Wanna hear something creepy.....

Wife and I went to a furniture store the other day and they had a king bed frame thingy that looked like it was straight out of a 70's porn shoot. I cannot even describe it. So I took a picture of it on my phone to show the wife to of course tell her we were buying it (we didn't buy it). Just a picture on my phone.

About a week later I was on you tube and an ad popped up for the exact same king bed frame. What the actual f*ck. Explain that one. I never looked it up on the internet or anything. Didn't access a pic through the store's website, etc. Coincidence? Doubtful.

I absolutely hate that shit. Happens to us all the time. Alexa. She's the debil. But yes I do believe that will be the pathway to regulation, though again I'm not too tech savvy - at all, prefering things I can hold, burl, truffles, etc.

 

[Noodle]

that is a great point, why isn't porn "free speech"? I suspect many would gladly accept unlimited spam as free speech, but porn?

It IS speech, and is protected as such.

You do know there is porn on the Internet, right?

 

[Crayfish57]

If it's unclemark getting you he's judgment proof. Sorry Cray. No man is more dangerous than a judgment proof man

No another matter lol Business thing Came in accusing of stealing and my dad being a little getting old at 78 and what a guy did I'd like to rip him a new one

 

[larsIU]

You do know there is porn on the Internet, right?

Link?

for a friend of course

 

[DANC]

Comcast is an ISP not an app/site.

Comcast also is an app. It's how you can access your e-mail.

 

[Crayfish57]

No another matter lol Business thing Came in accusing of stealing and my dad being a little getting old at 78 and what a guy did I'd like to rip him a new one

extorted money from him. If you were closer Id hire you! I like knowing people before hand its over less than 50 bucks before asking for more It is really crazy . Shouldnt have vented on here about it.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

oBut you can block or censor people yourself. If NPT turned into a conspiracy theorist lunatic and you didn't want to see it any longer, you not only have the right, but the ability to edit your feed. There is much more freedom afforded to the participants than we are giving social media companies credit for.

At least on Facebook (I gave up Twitter when I stopped doing it for work and quit being a SQL admin as Twitter is a great SQL resource), I can block good friend CO Hoosier. But I am interested in his basketball posts and how he and his family are doing, but I'm not interested in his belief that ACs can inject people with antivirals. It becomes a bit trickier to see one set and not the other. And for the record, this is why I LOVED thread view. Thread view here was vastly superior and easier to follow good parts of threads and not go down terrible rabbit holes.

I have progressive and conservative friends, both groups Facebook as a recruitment tool and both sides HATE big tech companies and the media and are positive both are out to censor them. Believe me, it isn't just the radical right sure that big money isn't on their side.

It is strange that I'm the one arguing property rights. Twitter and Facebook developed those specific platforms. So they can set rules. Just because their platform is on the web doesn't mean they don't have rights. Tonight is Food Truck Friday in town, food trucks will setup in a public park and sell their produce. Just because they are sitting on public property doesn't mean I have a right to enter their truck and help myself to anything.

The best solution is a common database and Twitter can decide what it pulls and 8ChanTalk can decide what it pulls.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

It IS speech, and is protected as such.

You do know there is porn on the Internet, right?

Correct, but we do not require Facebook to allow porn ads and force those ads to go out to everyone.

 

[larsIU]

Comcast also is an app. It's how you can access your e-mail.

Good to know. I burned their bridge looooong ago.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

https://www.officialwokebrand.com/

Check out this store

Other than the name it’s pretty innocuous. Some decent looking stuff there.

 

[larsIU]

Other than the name it’s pretty innocuous. Some decent looking stuff there.

Did you watch the poetry reading? I did.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Other than the name it’s pretty innocuous. Some decent looking stuff there.

They were doing good business when I walked by. More power to them

 

[zeke4ahs]

We have a vegetable in the White House so why not?

You’d embarrass yourself if you had any shame whatsoever.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Two totally different things. Net neutrality has to do with access to the road, not your rights at the destination.

Except you need to interact frequently with the "road", so arriving at a destination is not really the right analogy.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

They are also a private company that controls access to the internet. If they don't like what you post, why should they not be allowed to keep you from using their product to post what they don't like?

Because you don't have a choice as a consumer. Comcast is a quasi-monopoly in many markets.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You’d embarrass yourself if you had any shame whatsoever.

Oh please. Biden lied about every major life event he has had including implying the trucker who collided with his alcoholic wife was drunk. He lied about Trump, lies about Hunter and lies to this day about the causes of the economic chaos he caused. Calling him vegetable is a comparative compliment.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

At least on Facebook (I gave up Twitter when I stopped doing it for work and quit being a SQL admin as Twitter is a great SQL resource), I can block good friend CO Hoosier. But I am interested in his basketball posts and how he and his family are doing, but I'm not interested in his belief that ACs can inject people with antivirals. It becomes a bit trickier to see one set and not the other. And for the record, this is why I LOVED thread view. Thread view here was vastly superior and easier to follow good parts of threads and not go down terrible rabbit holes.

Tech firms need to improve parsing out details, but at least some are working on it. I know LinkedIn has a way to hide or mute posts (I believe Facebook and Twitter might, but I don't use them as often) and identify them as political. My guess is Facebook and Twitter need the political posting to drive clicks, views, comments, etc., so they are unlikely to move as quickly.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Because you don't have a choice as a consumer. Comcast is a quasi-monopoly in many markets.

Build your own, right? There are more ISP's out there so it isn't like there are no options and if you don't like Comcast's rules, there is the door. All you have to do is abide by their TOS and you have access too.

I agree with you FWIW but is that not the **** you righties position that we are seeing w.r.t. Twitter?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Comcast is an ISP not an app/site.

So what?

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Build your own, right? There are more ISP's out there so it isn't like their are no options and if you don't like Comcast's rules, there is the door. All you have to do is abide by their TOS and you have access too.

I agree with you FWIW but is that not the **** you righties position that we are seeing w.r.t. Twitter?

Build my own utility company and secure all of the necessary approvals, permits, etc.? You cannot be serious with this post.

 

[UncleMark]

You realize you can use adblockers, right? It doesn't work as well as you think because I am always seeing junk that I have no interest in.

At least for computers, use the uBlock Origin add-on in your browser. You won't see any of them at all. I don't know if they have a phone version or not.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

At least on Facebook (I gave up Twitter when I stopped doing it for work and quit being a SQL admin as Twitter is a great SQL resource), I can block good friend CO Hoosier. But I am interested in his basketball posts and how he and his family are doing, but I'm not interested in his belief that ACs can inject people with antivirals. It becomes a bit trickier to see one set and not the other. And for the record, this is why I LOVED thread view. Thread view here was vastly superior and easier to follow good parts of threads and not go down terrible rabbit holes.

I have progressive and conservative friends, both groups Facebook as a recruitment tool and both sides HATE big tech companies and the media and are positive both are out to censor them. Believe me, it isn't just the radical right sure that big money isn't on their side.

It is strange that I'm the one arguing property rights. Twitter and Facebook developed those specific platforms. So they can set rules. Just because their platform is on the web doesn't mean they don't have rights. Tonight is Food Truck Friday in town, food trucks will setup in a public park and sell their produce. Just because they are sitting on public property doesn't mean I have a right to enter their truck and help myself to anything.

The best solution is a common database and Twitter can decide what it pulls and 8ChanTalk can decide what it pulls.

The issue is way beyond what censorship authority social media platforms have. The issue is about what they censor and why they do it. We should all support a culture of free and unfettered expression. We are drifting away from that. For me that is a real danger regardless of whether or not law requires it.

Oh, and for those of you who think this is about porn are way off the track.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Build my own utility company and secure all of the necessary approvals, permits, etc.? You cannot be serious with this post.

I am not serious, that is the entire point.

At a certain point some things become so big and potentially important that telling someone to go build their own is pretty ****ing hard. Like internet access. We cannot throttle access to that commodity because Comcast has a "quasi-monopoly" because they were the main ones who paid for all the things you listed in order to be available as a provider. The cost for a start up is prohibitive. However, is not Comcast a private company? Is internet access a right spelled out in the constitution? Does Comcast owe you the ability to peruse their competitors online media? To post things using their service that is detrimental to the company? You are free to speak whatever you want in this country but Comcast doesn't owe you the ability to do that with their products do they? So they can give you access to what they approve and if you don't like you have the option to go to one of their (most likely) inferior competitors or you just have to live with their TOS and adjust your online behavior accordingly.

That is the Twitter argument. You can use Twitter, but they are a private company that has the right to tell you how you can use their service. You don't like it, go to one of their inferior competitors with less market share or learn to adjust how you interact with the site. It isn't like the President of the U.S. and other world leaders use the site to issue government proclamations. It isn't like journalists these days don't pepper their reportage with Tweets because it is a defacto public square. Twitter owns the political and elite townhall. They hold regular meetings at that location but since they are the private owners, they pick and choose what issues can be addressed. They do that without being clear of the rules. You still have equal access though because you can email your Congress person or go to their office in Washington D.C. to try and get attention. You can call a reporter and try and get noticed. You could go to YouTube (except you can't because they have the same rules).

Yeah, I was intentionally obtuse because the "private corporations can do what they want" argument has already been proven to be invalid given certain a certain set of circumstances. Parler tried to "build their own" and found themselves in a similar spot to where you would be at if you had to get someone other than Comcast in a certain area.

 

[larsIU]

So what?

To answer your question more succinctly - no Comcast should not be allowed to cut off your access b/c of your post here.

My point was they are not the site/app on which the post resides. They are merely the pipe that connected you to the site. As they are provided easements by governments to run their utility I would be up in arms should they decide to do something like that.

Which is why they won't.

 

[Crayfish57]

You’d embarrass yourself if you had any shame whatsoever.

So you have no shame as you do that quite often?

 

[vesuvius13]

I would agree but then Mark has beaten me to the punch, is a corporation an animate object?

And back to the bots, couldn't Russia just claim they are tools to amplify the voices of animate objects?

I believe in free speech. But people, on all sides, test that as I am not positive that free speech means one has the ability to lie to advance one's beliefs. That has become too much a part of the modern discourse and current evidence suggests we are crap at telling lies. In Talking to Strangers, Gladwell discussed a study testing people on lies and found that yes, even CIA agents, police, judges, and lawyers, could not distinguish lies any better than other Americans. If people can so successfully lie and shape policy, shouldn't a Twitter or a Facebook have the ability and the right to point them out?

And Russian bots do play both sides. I am sure many on the left bought into this narrative at the time of Ferguson. https://money.cnn.com/2017/09/28/media/blacktivist-russia-facebook-twitter/index.html

It's the far left AND the far right that fall victim to this crap. idealogues want to believe something so they do. I wonder if Russia devotes ANY troll farms to go after the American middle? I doubt they spend much time at it. So those that believe in DINO and RINO, you are the ones Russia believes to be stupid enough to fall for their tricks.

It is misleading to say the SC ruled corporations are people as they really said that under law, corporations operated as a person, could be sued like a person, charged for crimes like a person, etc. The SC didn't say corporations were literally a person just that under law gov't and people could sue them as a person.

 

[UncleMark]

It is misleading to say the SC ruled corporations are people as they really said that under law, corporations operated as a person, could be sued like a person, charged for crimes like a person, etc. The SC didn't say corporations were literally a person just that under law gov't and people could sue them as a person.

They were given civil rights, like free speech and freedom of religion.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

At least for computers, use the uBlock Origin add-on in your browser. You won't see any of them at all. I don't know if they have a phone version or not.

That's what I have been using for a long time based on your recommendation. My understanding is that if you want to use it on your phone, it's an app-based web browser (i think there is one named Brave and another that I don't recall that has inherent ad blocking). My problem is that my Chrome's are synced between phone, computer and tablet.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I have no answer. We acknowledge that some speech is limited, porn being one. Incitement to immediate violence typically is found problematic. Libel and slander are found to be problematic. State secrets are not allowed by free speech, and releasing corporate secrets will probably be punished.

So there are things we do not allow, almost no one is a purist on free speech (all speech no matter what). Now in my mind, the government should REALLY limit itself in stopping speech because, well, the 1st. But it has never been held to my knowledge that I have a right to enter a corporate building and begin a protest against them. For good or bad, Twitter owns the Twitterverse. So they get to make the rules. Now I would like them to have clear and concise rules and follow them, and they should have an ombudsman with power to overrule. And their algorithms should, well, actually work. Same for Facebook.

But if I enter a physical store and violate their rules time after time there is no doubt I will eventually be banned. People are banned from sports arenas for various actions all the time. I'm not sure I accept that virtual space is any different. People have a right to go to 8chan if they don't like Twitter. Or some other site. I don't favor shutting down the 4chan or 8chan sites, those cesspools have a right to exist. But if I post on Rivals, Rivals has a right to have rules on what is posted. Same for Twitter, same for Facebook. Are we really going to tell Rivals they must allow any post, including porn, by anyone?

I was kinda just hoping you’d post some good links . . .😀

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Crazy idea, what if we nationalize Twitter? The US government IS forced to allow free speech by the 1st Amendment.

Worth talking about.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Worth talking about.

It'd always be down.

 

[iuwclurker]

It'd always be down.

+1
Best reason to nationalize it.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Oh, and for those of you think this is about porn are way off the track

It is only about porn in the large view. If you are a free speech zealot, than Twitter must allow porn. People can use porn as a political tool. So few of us are absolutists as I do not think many of us want to force Twitter into allowing porn. So even you do not accept all free speech is allowable.

You did not find Westboro Baptist had total free speech immunity. So should they be allowed to use a hashtag for fallen military to post their hate? If not, what should Twitter be allowed to do to stop it? Could they ban a Westboro?

Twitter has also purged progressives.

Twitter has purged left-wing accounts with no explanation

Dozens of activists linked to the Occupy movement are up in arms after their accounts were suspended by Twitter

www.wired.co.uk

There should be clearcut rules. Twitter and Facebook have made many unforced errors. But simply put, Twitter owns the platform. At no point have you addressed the property rights part of this.

The system can work if people who tell blatant lies online are shunned. But sadly that leads us to "cancel culture".

 

[IUCrazy2]

Crazy idea, what if we nationalize Twitter? The US government IS forced to allow free speech by the 1st Amendment.

I think it is worth at least having some discussions about. I am not 100% sure what the answer is because, although I hate Twitter, there is still that "private corporation" aspect of the company. However, we have crossed the Rubicon on some of this technological stuff and with the government we currently have, technology is far outpacing our ability to come to an agreed upon set of rules for these new things. Facebook is less than 20 years old. Twitter is even younger. You can barely read a news story these days that doesn't have a Twitter link embedded in it and often those links are to political operatives and people who move the cultural discussion in the country. If Twitter were available back in the day, Thomas Paine wouldn't be distributing "Common Sense" as a pamphlet, he would be tweeting it out piece by piece. The Declaration of Independence would not have been read aloud in the public square, a link to it would have been made available to Twitter and the message would be amplified by subscribers.

We should be having these very important discussions about how we handle this stuff. Should high speed internet be something the government really funds to expand so that everyone has access and them internet providers pay for usage like happened with public airwaves? We won't agree on everything I am sure, but we have barely tried to have the conversation.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I think it is worth at least having some discussions about. I am not 100% sure what the answer is because, although I hate Twitter, there is still that "private corporation" aspect of the company

That is exactly where I am. I do not want to defend Twitter, I have no need for it. Like the Ukraine war thread, a lot of those tweets are fake. We should not depend on Twitter like we do.

You can barely read a news story these days that doesn't have a Twitter link embedded in it and often those links are to political operatives and people who move the cultural discussion in the country.

Sadly, this is just lazy journalism.

We should be having these very important discussions about how we handle this stuff. Should high speed internet be something the government really funds to expand so that everyone has access and them internet providers pay for usage like happened with public airwaves? We won't agree on everything I am sure, but we have barely tried to have the conversation.

I agree we need the discussion. Frankly the central db standardized and people join with whatever service they want is my favorite idea. But yes, there should be a serious discussion.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It is only about porn in the large view. If you are a free speech zealot, than Twitter must allow porn. People can use porn as a political tool. So few of us are absolutists as I do not think many of us want to force Twitter into allowing porn. So even you do not accept all free speech is allowable.

You did not find Westboro Baptist had total free speech immunity. So should they be allowed to use a hashtag for fallen military to post their hate? If not, what should Twitter be allowed to do to stop it? Could they ban a Westboro?

Twitter has also purged progressives.

Free speech is a vital part of the feedback loop used to hold public officials accountable. Keeping that feedback loop robust is necessary for a vibrant democracy. i don’t think porn is part of that, but if you want to make that case, I’ll consider porn. Does that include child porn?