SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the is-a-Trump-tweet-called-a-Treet? dept.
You were warned. Now it begins.
Since the implementation of Twitter's new algorithmic timeline back in February of this year, conservatives, libertarians and anti-establishment dissidents alike have been waiting for the social media platform to interfere in the current U.S. election cycle. Now it seems that there is clear evidence of Twitter censoring the current Republican front-runner, Donald Trump.
A tweet sent from Trump's account at 3:04 PM EDT yesterday is not visible from his timeline, even when showing "Tweets and replies." That message included a video wherein Trump declared that "the establishment and special interests are absolutely killing our country."At the time of this writing, the tweet is still publicly accessible via a direct link and thus has not been deleted either by Twitter or by someone operating on the Trump account.
This archive.is link has a copy of the timeline taken before this article was published which clearly shows the tweet not appearing where it should be — between a tweet sent at 12:10 PM EDT and one sent at 3:27 PM EDT; it is possible that the tweet may be reintroduced to the timeline in order to hide the manipulation.
Today it's one Trump tweet, tomorrow it will be you.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by mendax on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:05AM
Not me, brother! I don't use Twitter.
As for Donald Trump, part of me is glad to see that bombastic psychopathic fear monger and demagogue get muzzled. However, he really ought to be able to say what he wants. After all, the more he says the greater the chance his hair piece will be used by Hillary Clinton in November to wipe her ass during the general election. While I dislike Hillary Clinton, she seems to be the most "grown up" of the clowns who want that lousy job they're all trying to get.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:15AM
If you dislike her because of the Libya thing, listen to her rebuttal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fJwS_SWD8 [youtube.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:19AM
And then dislike becomes hate.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:38AM
She is so gross.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:42PM
I can't watch YouTube at work, can you please provide a brief summary?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JNCF on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:30AM
However, he really ought to be able to say what he wants.
And he (mostly) can, as long as he says it himself. Twitter can say what it wants too, and it can prevent people like Trump from saying things on Twitter. For this reason, it seems really dumb that people have let Twitter (and other corporate social networks) be the gatekeepers of expression, but here we are in clusterfuck of network effects. This isn't something Trump can change, Trump is going where people are; Twitter. This isn't the first wake up call about Twitter, Twitter has a history of censorship.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:55AM
I would argue that for common communication platforms, once they reach a certain level of penetration - this would apply to Facebook and Twitter for sure - it would be appropriate to require a certain limiting of their "personal freedoms" (that is, if you buy the load of bullshit that corps are persons or have any rights whatsoever) because allowing them to "express" themselves in this way will result in chilling effects and terrifying consequences for public discourse.
And I'm saying that as a Libertarian. This isn't a free market, and while people theoretically could go elsewhere they have tremendous inertia resulting in a de facto monopoly going on for the purposes of large-scale public discourse. This is the slipperiest of slopes.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by legont on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:16AM
Yes, twitter, google, facebook, even apple are in fact utilities and have to be regulated as such. That twitter censorship is no less offending than say electric company cutting power to Trump. I personally prefer an environment where companies with such influence could not rise to begin with, but if they do exist, they should be regulated. I'd say they should be regulated to the point where it is more profitable to voluntarily break up.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:50AM
Why Apple? I think I'm missing something. Your other two examples are social media sites, where number of views could be seen as a "utility" that the government is somehow gauranteeing. But this analogy would break down for Apple, right? Are you actually drawing a different comparison?
(Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday April 27 2016, @06:25AM
Well, apple has no business to prohibit porn apps, for example. Application nowadays is more important than any speech ever was. It's similar to if a loudspeaker manufacturer would limit it's use based on their "values" - probably possible to implement already.
If apple were a little shop with business oriented toward women with children, it would be fine for them to do such a censorship, but not once they are such a commonly used "utility". They have no right to brainwash customers.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:09PM
Ah, I see the comparison when you bring up the app store. That's what I was missing.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:57AM
Want those companies treated as part of government, under government oversight?
Vote for someone who will buy the, for the government.
Really, you're arguing here that if a company is too successful, its reigns should be handed to the government.
If you are a USA'ian, that is the weirdest thing I'll encounter the whole day.
Mind you, while I write this it's snowing in the morning here. It normally doesn't snow here in March anymore, let alone end of April.
So you've already cleared a pretty high bar.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by legont on Wednesday April 27 2016, @06:32AM
Like I said, I prefer they would be broken up. Anti-monopoly laws is a good start.
Besides, there is not much value in big corporations anyway. They don't innovate, but buy innovations. They don't create jobs, but destroy them after buying little companies. They influence politics under the table. If they die it is a disaster for many. And so on. You know the score.
It would make sense to make them easier to die; similar to too big to fail banks policy.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday April 27 2016, @06:43PM
They don't innovate, but buy innovations.
I'm super opposed to large centralised organizations in general, but would be hard pressed to argue they don't innovate. Big corporations definitely fund research and development. Did you know Bell Labs funded the creation of C, and made it free because they were legally barred from entering that market?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2016, @12:48AM
They rarely innovate.
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday April 28 2016, @03:33AM
Yes I do know about Bell Labs and C and Unix. In fact I have some rather close relationship to that corner, but look where Bell Labs ended up. It was pretty much broken and most folks went to work on Wall Street. Other big boys learned the lesson.
If you want some home grown theory, there is a fundamental reason why big companies rarely innovate. Big companies need inflationary environment for their businesses to prosper, while innovation is by nature deflationary.
What would be good for community is socialising big old tech while giving a free capitalist ride to the small and new. I would give new businesses an exemption from copyright, patents, trademark and all that crap. If somebody can make a better iphone in a garage, let her do it without any limitations. Apple, if it is still good, should leverage their expertise an size - that's and advantage enough.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday April 28 2016, @04:33AM
But while Bell existed, it did fund a diverse assortment of innovations. Big businesses do innovate, even if you could show that small businesses innovate more efficiently or something.
while innovation is by nature deflationary.
What do you mean by this? Do you mean, perhaps, that innovation reduces consumption in the long run by replacing old models with new, more efficient ones? I'm having trouble coming up with another meaning, but I suspect there is one.
I would give new businesses an exemption from copyright, patents, trademark and all that crap.
I'm surprised to hear that you support the existance of copyright, patents, trademark and all that crap. You seem mostly reasonable.
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday April 28 2016, @08:00PM
Any innovation by nature reduces costs of a good (lets leave alone totally new things - new markets - for a sec) causing deflation. Therefore a company runs a huge risk somebody else will use it to undercut their current production where large capital is invested. Hence any large entity fights any innovation and innovate only when it is absolutely obvious that somebody else will. They also press authorities for inflationary policies. Then inflation triggers unnecessary consumption producing even more profits and environment and health damage.
As per patents and so on, we need them to protect little shops that innovate from companies that have more power and production capacity. Basically what I am for is discriminatory laws. Currently laws favour big money; they should favour little money.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Capt. Obvious on Wednesday April 27 2016, @06:37AM
It's probably in Twitter's best interest to be forced not to censor by the government. It's a way to not have to do more work (censoring), not have blowback from censoring from subsets of the population, and deal with people who want to censor (the government won't let us, sad-face) easily.
(Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday April 27 2016, @06:52AM
Yes, I would agree with that. In the end, they are killing themselves when they - corporations - are free to do whatever. The fundamental issue is they are sociopathic "persons". Humans went through the same stage and were regulated through morals.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Touché) by JNCF on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:44AM
How would you feel if an individual person owned a communication platform that had a similar level of penetration? Not that such a thing is realistic, but would that change the situation for you?
If so, at what threshold of popularity does somebody lose the right to ban Donald Trump from commenting on their personal blog?
You're definitely correct about the horrible effects of corporate censorship. I don't support this crazy system at all, but I don't think that having the government make more speech-rules is the solution; this is the slipperiest of slopes. I'm more in favor of fire and pitchforks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:53AM
I don't want the government involved either, but I don't think your "fire and pitchforks" solution will work; most people care about convenience above all else and have few principles.
(Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday April 27 2016, @06:42AM
I agree with you that we need less laws - much less - but it is a separate issue. While we are where we are, corporations should be regulated to a big pain in their buts. Besides, The Collapse of Complex Societies [wikipedia.org] would make your pitchfork dream more plausible.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:30PM
...are you arguing that increasing bureaucracy is a way to bring society closer to collapse?
I've read books that reference Joseph Tainter before, but never read him directly. I hadn't previously considered this little nugget from the wikipedia article you linked:
And, in his final chapters, Tainter discusses why modern societies may not be able to choose to collapse: because surrounding them are other complex societies which will in some way absorb a collapsed region or prevent a general collapse; the Mayan and Chaocan regions had no powerful complex neighbors and so could collapse for centuries or millennia, as could the Western Roman Empire - but the Eastern Roman Empire, bordered as it was by the Parthian/Sassanid Empire, did not have the option of devolving into simpler smaller entities.
That's an interesting thought.
I don't really think this society is on the verge of collapse and/or revolution, but I'm obviously wrong about plenty of things.
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday April 28 2016, @04:01AM
The way it is currently going, I think it will collapse. The only way out there is an exponential growth, which is not sustainable unless one really believes in singularity.
Anyway, I believe that the sooner something rotten collapses the easier it is for everybody. Let's leave alone the whole society for now. In the case of a corporation, a reasonable policy would be to actively try to crash it just to see if it is already rotten enough. Regulations, especially permanently changing type, is a good way to achieve that.
At the same time new small business should be helped and left alone. Perhaps it will kill the corporation.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:19PM
(that is, if you buy the load of bullshit that corps are persons or have any rights whatsoever
IDK your jurisdiction, but in the ones I'm familiar with there's pretty a obvious reason why limited liability companies are legally considered persons (hint: it's in the name).
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday April 27 2016, @09:20AM
Have to agree that Twitter CAN censor anything they want. What we should not allow them to get away with is refusing to admit they are doing it and more important to state the rules they censor under. Then users can decide if they want to continue to participate in such a system or help a competitor arise. I suspect the almost instant change to Twitter's stock valuation would quickly cause them to decide being an open platform is in their best interest and tell Anita and the rest of the SJW freakshow to GTFO.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:34PM
Whilst over here, we still have to suffer the jmorris freakshow.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JNCF on Wednesday April 27 2016, @06:02PM
I'm not sure where this culture is headed, but I'm worried it might be a pretty pro-censorship direction. We're all caught in our own little echo chambers on the internet, and it can sometimes be hard to tell how much our perceptions of society line up with reality. These statistics [pewresearch.org] were really sobering for me. If you were a selfish social media company looking to target millenials, post-millenials, and post-post-millenials, you might look at those shifting trends and decide that you wanted to be on the right side of history: pro-censorship.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday April 27 2016, @08:42PM
I seriously doubt it. If they openly announced they were converting into a "safe space" where no right of center view would be permitted, millions of accounts close and their stock would tank when those millions suddenly found a new home. You see that is the trick, their success comes from being the only game in town and generating a network effect from that. If millions of users were forced off they wouldn't just disappear from the Internet.
So the day SJW Converged Twitter is created from the remains of Twitter they would have the subset of SJW / SWPL kids. The competitor which would instantly appear would have the shitlords, the free speech absolutists and all of the cool people who had been driven out. Now lets run the simulation forward; none of the outcast tribe could return to SJW Twitter but any of the SWPLs could get accounts on the new system. Meaning it would quickly become THE place to be because everybody would be there while only some remained on SJW Twitter. It is the nature of the network effect and everybody in the leadership of Twitter understands that math. Twitter is all about ego, you post to the largest audience possible and controversy generates clicks, replies, reposts, etc. You can't have much controversy on SJW Twitter because a) you fear being banned and b) the other side, the folks you want to wind up to generate controversy, aren't there anymore. SJW Twitter is an echo chamber and utterly boring.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:07AM
Corruption spreads throughout society when you have very obvious unpunished corruption at the top. ("everybody does it; I deserve to get mine too") This is deadly to our future; it is a path into the 3rd world.
Maybe you hate everything that Donald Trump stands for. Maybe you dream of all the things Hillary Clinton believes in. Whatever, it's just politics...
Hillary Clinton has a level of corruption that US presidential politics hasn't seen in well over half a century. The other candidates are of course also corrupt, but not even remotely on the same scale. It's not the same thing at all. Comparing her corruption to normal corruption is like comparing Donald Trump's finances to normal finances, or like saying that the Amazon and the Atacama Desert both have non-zero moisture so it's all the same. No, it's not the same. It's not even remotely similar.
(Score: 2) by rondon on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:23PM
Hillary Clinton is worse than Dick Cheney...
While that may prove to be true, I don't think that has been proven to be true. Please, enlighten me.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:46AM
bombastic psychopathic fear monger
Trump: Hey, ISIS is coming in with migrants!
[Paris gets attacked. ISIS Terrorist turns out to have come in through immigration]
You: Trump is crazy! Fear Mongering!
You're literally retarded.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:06AM
Like it or not, they can decide whether or not to show a tweet.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by takyon on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:12AM
It can also face repercussions from users disappointed in such a decision, or undermine its own rhetoric about censorship.
This could easily have been a technical glitch, however.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:43AM
Well Twitter is all for censorship via their Trust & Safety Council.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:04AM
A Trust and Safety Council sounds like what a dictatorship would setup after a putsch. Anything with professional agitator Anita Sarkeesian and the linguistic authoritarians from dangerousspeech.org is not going to promote free discussion.
Newspeak does not allow for facts that would interfere with xenophiles' beliefs. "We're all the same" and "everyone is equal" but "we get to decide what is acceptable."
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:44PM
a·li·en
ˈālēən/
adjective
adjective: alien
1.
belonging to a foreign country or nation.
noun
noun: alien; plural noun: aliens
1.
a foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where they are living.
Those bastards with their dictionaries, using words correctly! String 'em all up, I say.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:04AM
I thought so in the beginning. I doubt it now [soylentnews.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:12AM
I already modded up your comment don't link it to me :(
lololololololololololololololol
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:24AM
Why, what's the danger?
(took me a while to get the post formatted so it landed quite low on the page. Oh, well, shameless plug then - you, Tork and another AC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:06AM
I agree with this practice completely. Even from a reader's perspective links to different parts of the same comments page seem vastly preferable to lengthy repetitions of the same information, if the same points keep getting made and you feel like taking the time to refute them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:00AM
Trump should repost his tweet and we can all see what happens.
(Score: 1) by an Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:31AM
Like it or not, others are free to talk about them doing it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:30AM
One sure way to attract unwanted governmental interest is to start meddling in the lives of politicians. For other examples just look at any country that has politicians.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:11AM
Like it or not, they can decide whether or not to show a tweet.
Editorializing user submitted content strips twitter of its DMCA safe harbor provision. If I were them I'd have setup a "never shadowban" on presidential candidates... But you realize we're talking about a company that put Zoe Quinn on their Trust & Safety Council [themarysue.com]... to stop harassment... you know, Quinn? Self admitted "Hell dump addict" from SomethingAwful? [twimg.com] Hell dump is a sub-forum where people harass and dox others and laugh about it. Quinn turned professional troll and used the narrative of "help wizardchan is harassing me" (even though she was harassing them) in order to get her game greenlit via sympathy votes after her first attempt failed. [imgur.com] Zoe quickly learned that her harassment of others could be very lucrative given the media's penchant for siding with SJWs even when they're the aggressor. And that's the kind of person who's in charge of censorship at twitter.
Like it or not, Twitter could find itself attached to an even bigger shitstorm than the #gamergate debacle if they keep this shit up.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @10:00AM
Like it or not, Twitter could find itself attached to an even bigger shitstorm than the #gamergate
looks like they might have shadowbanned and then unbanned it. that's the problem with shadowbanning. it's intentionally secretive like some Stasi style gaslighting / psychological attack.
Facebook coulda got DMCA protections stripped too if Mark ((Zuckerberg)) went through with that "should we stop Trump?" crap. DMC is least of their worries. I hope the Twits do fuck around and get the FBI up their ass for election tampering.
>implying those those amazing tripple dubs weren't checked.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:44PM
That's bullshit. Zoe Quinn was harassed. Her ex posted a tell-all about her sexcapades including a detailed account of how she gaslighted and emotionally terrorized him to try and discredit Zoe Quinn. [wordpress.com] He was trying to show that poor Zoe Quinn was a habitual liar, the kind of person who would cheated on her boyfriend 5 times while accusing him of misogyny for being suspicious. That those 5 guys Zoe Slept with included several game journalists and a judge who all rated her game very highly had NOTHING to do with Ethics in Journalism.
Besides IT'S JUST GAMES, who gives a fuck about games. Everyone knows Game Journalism is fucked, big deal. It's not like every mainstream news outlet would pick up the story and only focus on Harassment and personal life intrusion of TheZoePost while completely ignoring that her ex was standing up for Wizardchan and trying to expose Zoe Quinn as a fraud... oh, wait, they did. Well, it's not like the media is 100% corrupt -- I mean, they wouldn't make a movie out of #gamergate to manipulate historical perception of media corruption via casting Quinn as a damsel in distress. Oh, wait, they are. [breitbart.com]
Well, it's not like Quinn run an anti-harassment website [wired.com], and if she did she wouldn't be put in charge of policing harassment on ... Twitter? Oh, wait, she was. Well, it's not like Quinn's corruption would have any REAL effect, it's just illustrating corruption in mainstream news, social media, and games journalism. It's not like Quinn would affect POLITICS. For example, Zoe Quinn and her other victimfarming cohort Briana Wu would NEVER be invited to speak at the United Nations. [breitbart.com] Oh, wait, they were. But, there's no way this crap would ever find its way into the ears of, say, Hillary Clinton. I mean, no one important takes these "SJWs in gaming" seriously, though, right? [twitter.com] Oh wait...
WELL! DESPITE ALL OF THAT! It's not like these SJWs would EVER be able to influence a presidential race via wielding their new censorship powers? Oh wait... TFA.
NA NA I can't here you, "Literally Who?!" Don't say her name! If you ignore the SJW it will surely go away!
^- This kills the ethical media revolt.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:42AM
Twitter is acting in the public sphere using public resources. It isn't the same thing some random Joe Blow sticking his fingers in his ears. This public sphere thing is why a restaurant, despite being a private enterprise, can't refuse to serve $randomMinorityGroup.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 27 2016, @06:20AM
'scuse me, can you please name/list what public resources Twitter is using?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday April 27 2016, @06:36AM
Telecommunications lines strung up through numerous publicly funded rights of way, electricity to power it all, much of which is public utility, public airwaves used for wireless communications -- those three off the top of my head are huge.
Then of course it is a virtual quasi-public space and like real quasi-public spaces, it doesn't get to be a total dick just because it wants to.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday April 27 2016, @07:07AM
Sorry, but no.
The telecommunication lines and public airwaves are not used by Twitter, they are used by the Twitter's users to get to Twitter.
Electricity lines are not in the ownership of Twitter, it is the owner of the power grid segment that is using the public space to deliver energy to however occupies that space (if Twitter moves out of the premisses and xhamster moves in, nothing changes with the power network: its as quiet and publicly safe and legal as before). Don't even try suggesting we should cut the power to any company that does shoddy things, you may be surprised how many small business operators you'd close down.
Oh, come on, are you serious? You equate the "virtual world" of the Internet with real public space?
I mean... what?... you'll next tell me porn should be banned on the Internet on the grounds that pornography in public places is illegal?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:00PM
The American government controlled DNS system. The American copyright and trademark system. Also the limited regulated resource of ipv4 addresses.
Does that sound nickel and dime foolish? Yeah, thats what al capone said when they sent him to prison for income tax anomalies. Did he still get put in the slammer? Uh, yeah! So how trivial and foolish is it then, really?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:52PM
IPv4 - OK, maybe in the same way the airwaves are "public property" (even if the airwaves are based on a constraint imposed by physical laws while IPv4 is rather an "artificial scarcity" caused by "32-bits should be enough for everybody")
DNS - mmmaybe. There aren't no limits to it (like in the case of physical public property) and the costs of maintaining the infrastructure are paid anyway by the domain name "owners". But let's say is "public property"
But... isn't calling copyright and trademark "resources" a little bit of a stretch? Would you care to elaborate on this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:48PM
'scuse me, can you please name/list what public resources Twitter is using?
Copyrighted works, posted by users, and granted governmental immunity to host said copyrighted works under the DMCA, but only so long as Twitter acts as a common carrier for the user generated content and does not introduce political or ideological bias, or otherwise editorialize the content. That's the very real contract that Twitter has with the public right now. If they want to renege on their end of the deal, then they can. However, without the DMCA safe harbor provisions Twitter can be held directly liable for copyright infringing content that their users post. I'm sure there are tons of litigious companies who would love to take a bite out of Twitter's overvalued ass, but the public has agreed to protect them from this as long as they are not biasing or ideologically censoring the comments, which they appear to be doing.
Additionally, the Internet was build by US Government Subsidy, and the rollout of this network was tax payer funded via $200 billion dollars (whether any of that money actually improved the network is a different story), point being just like roads maintained by the state, the network has also been developed and maintained by tax payers. The C programming language is an ISO standard which costs tax payer monies to maintain and test and research and continue development of. Twitter also performed tax avoidance to keep from paying their fair share of taxes. I mean, even their employees benefit from being educated and having their kids educated by public schools, and are able to drive to their offices and live in a low crime neighborhood policed by cops all of which are funded by taxes, which Twitter tries its hardest not to pay.
Can you name a single thing Twitter uses that ISN'T in some way benefiting from tax payer monies?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:21PM
Oh, come on. I admit that Twitter has a contract with the public guaranteed by the DCMA, but do tell me what tax money are spent today on the account of DCMA in its relation with Twitter?
But inside the same story is the fact the Internet is used by the public to reach Twitter resources and pull their tweets, and is not Twitter that is using it to push tweets to the public (the way natural gas or drinking water do).
So, good job govt! You enabled your public to use Twitter services, watch movies on NetFlix (or download them P2P), use private email if so they want, buy drugs on SilkRoad or watch ISIS propaganda. Why would you use different sticks to measure the behaviour of a private company and the behaviour of a private owner of any Web site (which can censor what goes or not on their site all she like)?
(other countries have done their side of Internet much cheaper or let the private initiative do it - but that's another story).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:34PM
While true, once you are a monopoly the rules change.
One can argue where that line is, and what the rules are, but its clear the game is different once you control x% of your primary market and interact with citizens in this sort of context. ( Tho not a monopoly its much like if you sell houses. sure, its a private enterprise, but you are limited in refusal of business. Housing is fundamental ( as is political discourse ), its not like buying fast food or a cake.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:57PM
Like it or not, they can decide whether or not to show a tweet.
As long as they're willing to pay the staggering legal consequences.
Kids like to think they invented sex and drugs and electronically mediated communication and censorship, however this was all figured out about a century ago with telegrams and early telephones.
If you perform no editorial control you're a common carrier and have no liability for anyones message. Think Ma Bell or the US postal service.
The minute you perform editorial control, you're 100% legally liable for anything anyone ever says on your service. Every craigslist scammer who you should have edited, every crime, every conspiracy, every insider trade, every spam, every illegal pr0n image (like of kids or celebrities). Think of your local TV station or newspaper.
Twitter is playing with fire, assuming its not just an accident. Go ahead twitter, play with those matches, what could possibly go wrong?
This BTW is the "right" way to shut down censorship. All this esoteric talk about freedom and ethics means nothing to a corporation. Being named in zillions of lawsuits and criminal cases as a willing conspirator who's editors permitted illegal or at least legally actionable traffic, that'll get their attention.
(Score: 2) by danmars on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:58PM
Sorry, but CDA section 230 says you're completely wrong.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160208/00235033544/20-years-ago-today-most-important-law-internet-was-signed-almost-accident.shtml [techdirt.com]
"A key, and often overlooked, part of Section 230, is that it actually does encourage sites to take proactive measures to filter content, by noting that any kind of moderation or guidelines absolutely does not remove the protections of Section 230. As such, sites get to decide for themselves whether or not to moderate their content in any way, without facing the legal risk of suddenly being declared the publisher."
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:33PM
It'll get fixed soon enough. Like I wrote, this was all figured out a century ago and is nothing new. Its the same arguments just different tech.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Wednesday April 27 2016, @10:55PM
Dear God will this idiotic wingnut "common carrier" bullshit zombie myth please DIE DIE DIE!!!
Twitter is NOT a common carrier, and common carrier status has zero to do with liability for users' actions -- and it never has. Internet message boards and the like are protected by the CDA as stated by sibling poster and by the DMCA's safe harbor provision. Neither of those laws say that you lose protection if you censor or filter. YouTube for instance does a lot of stuff not required by the DMCA to police copyright infringements. It doesn't lose safe harbor for doing that, not would it make any policy sense to pass a law saying it would.
This asinine nonsense is the result of a bunch of Slashdotters repeating each other's misinformation ad infinitum. Look up the actual laws or at least use real sources of information before repeating other people's stupid, pleasekthx.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:02PM
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:10AM
Here's the only other source [valuewalk.com] I can find reporting this, mostly a reprint of the Breitbart article.
I can confirm that when scrolling down the April 23 [twitter.com], you do not see the tweet in question, which should be sandwiched between the tweets thanking Waterbury and Bridgeport.
It could have easily been some anti-spam filter kicking in or a bug rather than the sinister explanation preferred by the source. But it happened.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:01AM
Or maybe his own handlers held it up till he sobered up to see if he really wanted say what he did. Or perhaps his social media person screwed up the link to the video. Why attribute to malice that which could more likely be attributed to stupidity. God knows there is plenty of stupidity surrounding the Trump campaign.
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:39AM
The tweet still exists. It hasn't been deleted, and is linked in the summary.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Bill Dimm on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:06PM
Trump doesn't [forbes.com] drink [cbsnews.com].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @09:58PM
Frankly, if the primary source for this accusation is Breitbart, then I really want another (more reputable) source before I even begin to take this seriously. Just sayin'.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday April 27 2016, @10:34PM
As I stated in multiple comments, the actual problem (a tweet not appearing in the timeline) was real. I confirmed it yesterday. No need to take Breitbart's word for it.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:14AM
If Americans cared about Honor like the Japanese [wikipedia.org], the Republican Party would have taken care of itself by now.
Maybe the Powers That Be gave Mr. Trump all that free advertising because they wanted the Republican opposition to Ms. Clinton to make her look good in comparison. Clinton is a very poor candidate because her husband began the dismantling of the American Prosperity Machine, by putting Mexican subsistence corn farmers [wikipedia.org] in direct competition with monsanto-ized industrial corn farming, and American Workers in direct competition with displaced Mexican subsistence farmers.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:48AM
Maybe the Powers That Be gave Mr. Trump all that free advertising because they wanted the Republican opposition to Ms. Clinton to make her look good in comparison
Yeah, that's gotta be it. The piles of cash they made selling commercial airtime [theintercept.com] during their coverage had nothing to do with it. Nope, it's all a conspiracy.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:51AM
More like the American tax payers in direct competition with Mexican subsistence corn farmers (https://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by EQ on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:05AM
I think the GOP is falling apart. Right now the GOP has very little to differentiate it from the Democrats, other than different bakers and Wall Street cronies who write them checks. The problem is, since they abandoned "conservatism of individualism and smaller government" they have been on the skids. Dumping smaller government & less regulation for big government regulating power, and abandoned individualism for "us vs THEM" populism (varying values of "THEM depending on the rabble to be roused). No real identity at its core. Just fear mongering and a lust for power; Most of the GOP doesn't stand FOR anything much anymore - only "against". A good chunk of the GOP base has been screwed by the promise-but-never-deliver Establishment and their cronies (thus the self destructive irrational backers of essentially a modern-day Dixiecrat - Trump), and the Beltway Repubs have dug themselves into big government to where they cannot allow anyone that might dismantle their power and influence for their cronies (Thus the self destructive hatred of the establishment has for Cruz).
GOP is going the way of the Whig party.
(Score: 2) by EQ on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:07AM
PIMF. s/bakers/bankers/gc
I got nothing against good bread and pastries, regardless of political affiliation/affliction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:50PM
Fingerlickens vs. Tastycrats
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:17AM
It's all karma for the absolutely disgraceful way both the media and the party itself did a screwjob on Ron Paul. Trump is a much more known-name and the media couldn't ignore him as the most interesting man on the stage, though now the party seems to prefer the existing party duopoly to the blowback effects of a Trump nomination.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:21AM
> GOP is going the way of the Whig party.
Are you suggesting that Walpole, Newcastle, Pelham and the rest were in it for anything other than money and power?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:46PM
I agree the GOP is falling apart, but the exact same thing is happening to the Democratic Party too. Both parties are self-destructing, because they don't represent and work for their constituents and these voters have finally realized it (moreso on the GOP side though).
(Score: 5, Funny) by jdavidb on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:17AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:45AM
Another example in favor of the "insightfunny" mod.
(Score: 3, Informative) by schad on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:14PM
I think the traditional term for it is "ha ha, only serious" [hacker-dictionary.com].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:22AM
Twitter is a private outfit - they can censor whatever they'd like. Libertarian, eh?!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:27AM
Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you're morally right in doing it. People can criticize Twitter's decisions without saying they shouldn't be allowed to make those decisions.
Jesus. I see this same type of reply whenever someone criticizes some decision a company makes. Are that many people really so stupid that they can't tell the difference between a criticism and someone saying the company should be legally forbidden from taking a certain course of action, or are they intentionally dishonest, or perhaps a combination of both?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:44AM
Except it cuts both ways.
Sure people can criticize private corps, but you frequently hear self-styled libertarians defending a private corp's right to do whatever it wants because exercising that freedom is central to libertarian morality.
Seems to me that buzz was just playing buzz-word bingo, throwing in a list of all the tribes he identifies with in order to puff up the gravitas of this case.
This was just algorithms at work and when a human got around to double-checking it, the human applied judgment and undid the algorithm. No conspiracy to "hide the manipulation." Happens all the fucking time, in fact that's pretty much the way it is supposed to work - computer-assisted human decision-making. But now it's buzz's pet issue and suddenly it is a unique snowflake.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 27 2016, @10:01AM
What, you think I somehow gave up my right to say "they're fascist, SJW assholes" because I believe they have the right to be fascist, SWJ assholes? Your logic, it does not resemble our Earth logic.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @11:16AM
If you expect anyone to do anything about it you give up your right to call yourself a libertarian.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:32PM
Wow, you've got some quality stupid going on today. You only give up your right to the libertarian label if you want the government to do something about it. Social pressure in the form of speech, boycotts, etc... has nothing to do with being a libertarian.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:49AM
Why you so butthurt?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:09AM
What if it wasn't a private company that made this decision [soylentnews.org]?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:26AM
OT, but a few weeks ago in church I was rather startled to hear our preacher talking about a world full of fear, and listing several headlines as examples, and then say "And then there's the fear that we might end up living in a world where Donald Trump is President!" Loved it, gasped in shock (talk like that is just not done at our church). It was all the more humorous because our preacher is Hispanic.
Of course, I'm scared of all the others who might, win, too.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:20AM
Your pastor ought to remember that the New Testament says to obey the secular powers, since they are given their right to rule by God. And if he doesn't want to pay taxes, he should shut up about politics.
You ever wonder what "fornicating with the kings of the earth" means? It means religion getting involved with the temporal powers. Your pastor is being taken nuts-deep.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:36AM
Render unto Caesar?
I always read that as "Caesar? Who the fuck is Caesar and why should God care what arrangements you have with him?"
Maybe you're referring to something from Paul. I'm not much of a fan of him.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 27 2016, @10:04AM
He ought to also remember that religious institutions are explicitly prohibited from endorsing a candidate if they want to keep their tax exempt status. Yeah, that's not what he did. It's dangerously close though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday April 27 2016, @11:02AM
For the record, he told me he got complaints. :) Though I'm betting that the people complaining were white church members, not Hispanic church members.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:28PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:27PM
The 20th century fascists modeled themselves on your churches. You DO know Stalin had religious instruction and Hitler could have been a priest, don't you? And ol' no-elbows-no-knees-only-one-ball was never excommunicated from the Catholic Church?
Your religion (its entire religious family really) is a fascist dictatorship. Yahweh is basically Kim Jong Un except he CAN hear your thoughts, and he runs an eternal, inescapable concentration camp full of fire and fear and pain and torture for what amount to his political prisoners.
No, the Abrahamic religions have nothing inside them to stand up to fascism, aside from "yeah, well, it's not the RIGHT dictator!"
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:33PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 27 2016, @07:37PM
As people you should, but it's an incredibly blatant case of Dunning-Krugeritis (and projection, and hypocrisy, and the pot calling the kettle black). Cruel, stupid, insane Gods make cruel, stupid, insane men. The only way most Abrahamic cultists can survive is deliberate ignorance of the implications of their beliefs.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @10:13PM
For my part, I think I would rather my Church lose it's tax exempt status for speaking out against tyranny rather than sitting on our hands while demagogues run amok. Just sayin'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2016, @02:50AM
I'm not sure the NT is saying what you think it is saying. Jesus and John The Baptist were both executed by "secular powers" because they "spoke truth to power". Even in our modern times, Christian leaders have often been the ones to speak out against tyranny. Don't forget that Martin Luther King was a Christian preacher who was a member of the SCLC. Further back, the abolitionist movement was started by Christians. Do you really think they should have stayed silently "obedient" in the face of injustice? Really? How do you decide when they should speak up and when they should stay obediently silent? As a Christian, I think I have an answer for that. Do you have an answer that doesn't essentially boil down to "they should speak up, but only when I approve of the message"?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday April 28 2016, @04:29AM
I can see all the assumptions you're making already: statist, fascist, atheist, none of which are true.
Let me spell this out for you in simple terms: YOU DO THE RIGHT THING BECAUSE YOU ARE HUMAN. If you need to be told to do the right thing because if you don't the Flying Canaanite Genocide Fairy is going to torture you in eternal flame, then brother, you are a shit human being, and I hope you die of something embarrassing and painful.
Hasn't it occurred to you that within a few centuries of Yeshua's death, institutional Christianity became the very powers, the scribes and Pharisees, that he himself railed against? Sorry, but today, you and your buddies are the people he was warning us all about.
What I wonder is, if you *weren't* a Christian, would you still do the right thing? What motivates you to do the right thing?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:23AM
Also? NO ONE whose career is based on "Kiss my God's ineffable ass or he'll barbecue yours for all eternity" has any right to be bitching about fearmongering, and that goes double for all of you death cultists. You people are quite literally motivated by infinite fear, infinite pain, infinite suffering. Your insane blood cult and its cousins (Islam especially) are responsible for most of the utter lunacy that goes on in this world. Worst part is, most of you are too damn stupid and un-self-aware to have even a glimmer of this surface in your minds.
Which sucks because you actually seem like a halfway decent person :/ When you realize you excel your putative God in morals, maybe you'll wake up...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:52AM
I grew up going to Southern Baptist churches. I never heard any fire and brimstone sermons (although my mom said she heard some growing up that scared her). It was all peace, forgiveness, faith, celebrate life, etc. I know some churches are still bad, and I know from my brother in law who was a youth minister for some time that behind the scenes all of the church volunteers instigated petty bullshit and pursued a much more conservative agenda. Growing up, I did hear some kids at school say some fire and brimstone stuff, but that's about all my exposure to it.
The whole thing is kind of a struggle between people doing their best to find the best meaning they can in the beliefs they've inherited and people who can't get themselves untied from the bullshit they've inherited. Most of the New Testament is about righteously being unattainable, so the only path I can understand is trying to find the best meaning I can in what I've got.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Wednesday April 27 2016, @10:55AM
Which sucks because you actually seem like a halfway decent person :/
Given that, it might be nice if you realized that most of the things you are saying about my church aren't even close to true. For the most part we're a lot more like Fred Rogers than whatever you seem to have in mind about Christianity. Maybe I'm not the one who needs to wake up. And after all, you're much more intelligent than me, and you know that I can't be reasoned with... ;)
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:29PM
I'm intelligent, yes, but also naively hopeful. I don't think you're completely irrational now I've seen some more of your posts, though I *do* think you're deliberately suppressing most of that out of fear of your murderous demon of a God.
A veneer of civility does not mask, nor atone for, a soul full of corruption. Yeshua himself has a term for people and institutions like that: "whited sepulchre." I doubt very much that your seemingly-snuggly church is composed of Universalists.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jdavidb on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:27PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:31PM
Well, that's what you get for Fornicating With The Kings Of The Earth (TM).
Even the root of the word "holy" in Hebrew (q'd'sh) means "set aside" or "sanctified." No church worth its crappy wine and stale wafers should have anything to do with the secular powers aside from trying to undo some of the damage they've done via charity.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:42PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 27 2016, @07:35PM
Don't Get Involved With Temporal Powers Period.
This is not difficult. In the world but not of it, remember?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday April 27 2016, @07:44PM
Don't Get Involved With Temporal Powers Period.
Which would be exactly what we're saying, right?
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @10:27PM
If I understand Azuma correctly, they would just rather you shut up and not say anything. Free speech is for (almost) everyone. Except people Azuma does not personally approve of. I do hope this clarifies.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday April 28 2016, @05:06AM
Oh fuck you and die, dipshit. You do NOT understand me correctly. I'm actually anti-censorship; indeed, I prefer idiots (like you, fuckstick) to have their idiocy plastered all over so it can receive the well-deserved rubbishing it demands. After all, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Now have you got anything useful, constructive, or even not-window-licking-pants-on-head retarded to say, or did you just come here to troll?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:09AM
Your preacher needs to watch what he says, or his tax-exemption will be in jeopardy.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday April 27 2016, @10:55AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:46PM
Former was a fact, ladder was an opinion expressed by you.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:28PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @10:44PM
Look, to hell with the tax exempt status! As a Christian, I find it bizarre that anyone claiming to be a Christian would be so cavalierly OK with fascism just so long as their Church gets to keep all the money from the collection plates. Shouldn't we rather be far more concerned that something much more important is at stake? Shouldn't we? Really?!? Has the Christian Church sunk so low that we have become all about "I've got mine, to hell with the rest of you"? Yeah, I know that you, jdavidb, are not likely to be of this mindset, but I just have to wonder about all those people who self-identify as "evangelical Christians" voting for Trump in the primaries. Do these people really understand what it is they are voting for? Do they really? How in the hell do they reconcile what they claim to believe as Christians with what Trump says on the campaign trail?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday April 28 2016, @05:09AM
You're almost 1700 years late. The Council of Nicaea was the end of the Christian ideals you have in mind. It's been almost two literally-Goddamned millennia of this shit. Yes, the Churches, plural, have sunk that low, and they WERE that low when there was a Caesar unto whom what belongs to Caesar was to be rendered.
The sad irony here is that even the worst Christian still excels his or her God in morals, character, and temperament :/
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:28AM
Today it's one Trump tweet, tomorrow it will be you.
If that happens then I'll switch from that private entity to a different private entity.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:59AM
It happened already [soylentnews.org].
Your move now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:28AM
n/t
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:35AM
I don't care about Twitter. I'm voting for the guy who looks like he was carved out of mashed potatoes.
https://patrickreads.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/tedcruz.jpg?w=750&h=500&crop=1 [wordpress.com]
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:49AM
He's a dead ringer for Beaker -- except for the hair color: https://imgur.com/UEQUebV [imgur.com]
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:38AM
I've heard many times that $site is a private site, and they can run things however they want. Or, "It's not censorship unless the government is doing it!"
Bottom line, the internet is public space in many ways. If the cops can watch what you are doing on the internet, then it's public space. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO CENSOR YOU ON THE INTERNET!! It's as simple as that.
Further, publicly owned companies can't really claim to be "private". If Old Lame Joe starts his own site, pays for it out of his own pocket, then THAT is "private". He can invite whoever he likes, he can ban whoever he likes, and he can dictate whatever terms he likes for membership. Publicly owned and traded companies? Not so much.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:54AM
> Further, publicly owned companies can't really claim to be "private".
In runaway land "publicly owned" does not mean state owned and "neoliberal" is the liberal mirror of neoconservative. [soylentnews.org]
It's like you have your own bimbo version of the dictionary.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:52AM
It's worse than that: he's insinuated his peculiar definition into an Atlantic article [theatlantic.com], the San Francisco Chronicle [chron.com] and at least two online dictionaries.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Publicly-owned [thefreedictionary.com]
http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Publicly%20owned%20company [thefreedictionary.com]
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/publicly-owned-company [cambridge.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:57AM
None of your link reflects runaway's claim. Why you lying?
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:23AM
Try opening them. ;-)
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:57PM
In runaway land "publicly owned" does not mean state owned
Publicly-traded vs. publicly-owned?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:54AM
You are simply wrong. Life doesn't work that way simply because some joe schmoe on internet decrees.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:07AM
"Publically owned" is a bit of a misnomer - it doesn't actually make the company *public property*.
"Censorship" happens all the time. Comments on media sites, twitter feeds, and anywhere a "terms of service" exists a pesron can have their words deleted.
"Free speech" cannot be applied the was most people in the USA mean the term, as it doesn't really apply to companies, and it doesn't apply in many countries. Americans don't (yet? completely?) control the interwebs.
There are even (shock, horror!) limits on what you can do in your own house and on your own land (yes, it varies by country)
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:57AM
Free speech as a concept is not limited to its legal implementation.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday April 27 2016, @09:49AM
But the application requires either legal, or extra-legal enforcement..
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2016, @06:30AM
No, not really. You could say that SoylentNews respects freedom of speech to a great extent, while sites like Twitter do not. It's just being able to speak freely without being censored or punished for your speech. Different websites allow users to speak freely to varying extents.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:55PM
"Free speech" cannot be applied the was most people in the USA mean the term, as it doesn't really apply to companies
But companies are people, right?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday April 27 2016, @06:06PM
> Publicly owned and traded companies
You keep using that group of words. I don't thing that this group of words means what you think it means.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:55AM
A search for "Twitter shadowban" revealed Adventures in Twitter Censorship [cryptome.org] (lightweight 4 pages PDF, dated Oct 18 2015).
On the plus side, the Trump's twitter incident added to the linked may show this story is not about Trump.
On the negative side, I have a hunch that is actually not Twitter that drives the censorship but some letter agencies - in which case this story might as well read "Spooks now actively interfere with the democratic process"
The linked story describes a similar incident [vice.com] happening to Paul Dietrich (and investigative journo involved in researching the drone papers [theintercept.com]).
Some excepts below, but do read the 4 pages I linked to get your own opinion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @10:39AM
and on this website: New Twitter Features Re-ignite Censorship Concerns [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by forkazoo on Wednesday April 27 2016, @09:07PM
I have a hunch that is actually not Twitter that drives the censorship but some letter agencies
Certainly possible, but hardly the only possibility. Anybody dealing with large distributed systems has had problems where data propagation is incorrect or delayed. For example, at a previous job if I gave my account some permissions in Active Directory, I could immediately do stuff on a server in London, but if I tried the same thing on a server in LA it would take a few hours for the change to propagate to the local AD server. It was hardly that the NSA was preventing my account from doing what I wanted, and all a consequence of the fact that perfect replication of distributed data in perfect sync is pretty much impossible, especially with a rate of change as high as all the tweets in the world, and a userbase that is globally very widely distributed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:21AM
I think he retweeted a video that one of his supporters came up with, that turned out to be a copyright violation. It repurposed some feelgood movie clip (that I didn't recognize) with a pro-Trump voiceover or something.
Maybe this is similar. Or not.
(Score: 4, Disagree) by Gravis on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:57AM
Drumpf violated Twitter's ToS a LONG time ago and his account should be shut down completely. Anyone else oozing the bile in his Twitter feed would have already been kicked off Twitter. Twitter is a private service, not a public service and not intended to be a podium for spewing vitriol. Saying otherwise just proves you are in denial.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:22AM
Anyone else oozing the bile in his Twitter feed would have already been kicked off Twitter.
No, that's a bullshit double standard. History proves that Twitter tolerates and even trends genocidal rants from thousands of SJWs. [youtube.com]
Twitter thus does appear to be a podium for spewing vitriol. Why don't you link me to some examples where Trump says something you don't like. Is it worse than the video I linked showing the vitriol of thousands of SJWs calling for genocide and murder?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:48PM
Genocidal? Do you have a citation that isn't a video?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:15AM
Their very architecture is the antithesis of the internet.
WHY OH WHY did you ever give them any business to begin with?
If you want microblogging then let us implement a decentralized microblogging architecture and use that. Usenet in the UUCP days is a more than adequate model to start from. Want a social network? I am told several different suitable architectures already exist. Pick the best, polish it, use it.
Simply making an account at facebook or twitter is helping the enemy, if only in a very tiny way. Do not promote these things. Do not rely on them. Do not recruit for them. If you find them useful, then work towards making alternatives that provide the same utility without such an unconscionably high cost. Please.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday April 27 2016, @07:52AM
One tweet doesn't show up where someone expected, so ohmigod shadowban!!!11!
That's not clear evidence of censorship at all. There could be any number of reasons why it didn't appear.
It's certainly not the most contentious of Trump's tweets.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk