Social media censorship roundup

[Happy Monkey]

The last one is censorship by this thread's standards, and I've disagreed with several cases of its use, but do not disagree with the necessity of the rule or UT's (or designated mods) right to enforce it.

[Clodfobble]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/l...LI1bOd0aFd5jHw


Jeremy Corbyn's own party deceived him into thinking they were running the ads he wanted to run, by micro-targeting the Facebook campaign to be seen by, essentially, only him and those closest to him. The rest of the population was seeing different ads.

[Griff]

Wow.



I'm not cool with UT self-censoring on this and other issues. We need his unique voice here.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/l...LI1bOd0aFd5jHw


Jeremy Corbyn's own party deceived him into thinking they were running the ads he wanted to run, by micro-targeting the Facebook campaign to be seen by, essentially, only him and those closest to him. The rest of the population was seeing different ads.

.....I suggested a while back the white house staff should do this with T-Rump's Shitter account.....

[Griff]

It seems like he'd be easy to trick.

[glatt]

I think he's skilled at smelling disloyalty. He's got lots of practice there.

[Luce]

Originally Posted by glatt

I think he's skilled at smelling disloyalty. He's got lots of practice there.

He said he hires "the best people," and then those people invariably turn on him.

There's only two possible explanations for that.

[fargon]

It wouldn't be the cellar with out Undertoad.

[Griff]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/polit...nREzWXNiWWZCmM

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump is set to announce an executive order against social media companies on Thursday, days after Twitter called two of his tweets "potentially misleading."

The draft executive order being prepared by the Trump administration tests the boundaries of the White House's authority. In a long-shot legal bid, it seeks to curtail the power of large social media platforms by reinterpreting a critical 1996 law that shields websites and tech companies from lawsuits.

[BigV]

Ok, let's talk about this.

Trump just wants a fight. Fights attract attention, aka his oxygen. The reason for the fight is to gain attention. Winning this fight is irrelevant and unlikely. It's more ammunition for his Endless War of Aggrievement. Like any old blunderbuss, it doesn't matter what you stuff down the barrel, the hot air will shoot it out. And if there's one thing he has a superabundance of is hot air.

There's no First Amendment argument here, no sane person will say there is. He just wants to distract our attention from his abject failure as a good leader, or even as a good person. It will resonate with those who also feel aggrieved and entitled.

[Griff]

You are right about this. The current state of the Supreme Court gives me pause but Roberts isn't a loon.

[BigV]

Oooookaaaay..... let's /keep/ talking about this.

At 12 a.m. Thursday, President Trump retweeted a video in which a supporter says, “The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat.”

At 12:53 a.m. Friday, he followed this up by referring to riots in Minneapolis and saying, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.”

From The Washington Post

Twitter for its part, flagged the tweet in a way that hid the tweet from at:realdonaldtrump and required the reader to click a link to reveal it. The action by Twitter also prevented anyone from liking the tweet or retweeting it without comment. Stymied by this, the same tweets were posted by the at:POTUS account, and they received the same treatment by Twitter.

Twitter appeared unfazed by the threat. This morning it flagged a tweet by Mr. Trump suggesting that protesters in Minneapolis could be shot — a message that the company said violated policies against glorifying violence. (The tweet, which is still online, is accessible only after clicking through a warning message.) That came after the social network fact-checked a tweet this week by Mr. Trump about mail-in voting — “we knew from a comms perspective that all hell would break loose,” a Twitter executive explained — and has continued labeling tweets by others as potentially misleading.

From The New York Times


Twitter Places Warning on a Trump Tweet, Saying It Glorified Violence

The president’s tweet, which implied that protesters in Minneapolis could be shot, could not be viewed without reading a brief notice, and users were blocked from liking or replying to it.
....

These actions by Trump... Are they desperation? Ignorance? True belief? wtf? I think this fits perfectly with Trump's past behavior where he's said "Don't believe what you hear and see, only believe what I tell you." (I paraphrase). He and those he's gathered around him reflexively revert to their mother tongue under stress: doublespeak.

First Amendment scholars said Friday morning that Mr. Trump and his allies had it backward and that he was the one trying to stifle speech that clashes with his own views.

“Fundamentally this dispute is about whether Twitter has the right to disagree with, criticize, and respond to the president,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “Obviously, it does. It is remarkable and truly chilling that the president and his advisers seem to believe otherwise.”

This fight with Twitter is definitely stressful for Trump.

[Griff]

Remember that this is the guy who was pushing for the death penalty when the Central Park Five got set up by the NYPD and the prosecutors. There will be no balance where African Americans are concerned, this is his core value.

He is a totalitarian by nature so it will continue until removal. Twitter shows confidence in the judiciary.

[Flint]

First Amendment scholars said Friday morning that Mr. Trump and his allies had it backward and that he was the one trying to stifle speech that clashes with his own views.

THIS. Conservative examples of "free speech violations" often consist of *more speech* having been *added* to their speech. They want the freedom to say anything, and nobody being allowed to respond, in other words-- free speech for ME. It's an indefensible position. If the thought leaders of "right leaning" culture had any guts, this proposition could not survive, much less take hold as a movement-defining idea.

Conservatives are able to hold power despite diminishing support, only because they are more aggressive, and more successful in their gamesmanship-- as in, overshooting their response to media bias claims, therefore skewing media treatment incrementally to their own benefit. Aggressive and successful-- as in, power-grabbing the census, the redistricting, the voter rolls.

It's no surprise they are freaking out about the proposition of increased vote-by-mail. They EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE OUT LOUD that increased voter turnout equals guaranteed Republican losses. We never again need to question their "win by cheating" strategy-- they admit it. They own it.

Free speech for ME.. power for ME.. a system that works for ME. It's disgusting. It's not what we're told America stands for.

[BigV]