There were dissenters inside Twitter. “Maybe because I am from China,” said one employee on January 7, “I deeply understand how censorship can destroy the public conversation."
It's true. Being from an authoritarian government like China has made me and other immigrants very supportive of free speech. Because it's us who know what happens when there is none.
I objected to the Trump Twitter ban for one reason: I wanted to know what he was up to. He was the president, and he communicated to the public almost exclusively through Twitter and MAGA rallies. Twitter had the legal right to ban Trump, but it was a horrendous decision.
To me, the tenor of this article seems to be missing the point. Bari and her team seem to be alleging – with significant proof – that Twitter was not internally consistent in its ban of Trump. Essentially, he company wasn't following its own rules.
But we have to remember that outgoing President Trump wasn't following the rules of American democracy at this point in time. Instead of conceding that he lost the election (which he did lose), he insisted that he WON and malicious actors had stolen the victory from him. When the sitting President is breaking the rules, I don't see why Twitter should be forced to stringently adhere to its guidelines. Unexpected situations should allow for flexible solutions.
The point about Twitter not banning other Heads of State who were clearly inciting violence on the platform is well-taken. However, I'm not sure this inconsistency means Trump should have been allowed to stay; rather, it seems like these leaders should have been kicked off.
I would love for the FP for have someone smart and unbiased look in to the protections social media companies get from Section 230. I don't want the MSM spin, I want to hear the no shit implications. I'm not smart in it but it seems like social media companies use Section 230 as a one-way street...meaning they get immunity but have no standards to meet. Perhaps I am ignorant but I would argue that these companies shouldn't get immunity from content posted on their platforms if they're going to selectively censor certain accounts/opinions all while hiding how the algos work. If they want to be treated as essential, like a public utility, and worthy of protection, they should be forced to meet certain standards.
It’s stunning to me that a handful of anyone (in this case Trump haters) are allowed to censor/cancel anybody.
And yet they can and do. And the rest of the media that should be digging into this, simply re-tweet in ecstasy that someone took Trump down.
As a journalism graduate in the 70’s (think Watergate) it sickens me that journalists are more and more willing to do literally anything to stay in the conversation. Except do actual reporting.
You either support free speech under the first amendment or you don’t. There are many things I see on Twitter and in other publications that offend me but they have the right to say it. SCOTUS has ruled on free speech in the past and that hasn’t changed. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and the like, are very powerful platforms that can sway opinions and control the narrative. We are all being manipulated by media, some just either don’t believe it or don’t care.
Weak leadership, caving in to staff desires for warm fuzzy feelings, is a useful insight from these records.
The less interesting argument is that without skewing the 'conversation' on Twitter, real world outcomes on things like lockdowns may have been different. This seems to be wishful thinking because *everyone* who already took an interest in those things already knew about stuff like the Great Barrington Declaration.
Skewing or censoring the conversation is something we can take a view on, but complaining about the impact of it is speculative at best.
This thread between RT and Noah is a fascinating example of today’s polarized arguments where some feel the need to personally attack the other and “draw first blood” in order to aggravate the response from other side making it impossible to have a civil discussion. This is a strategy commonly deployed now and a trap we have to be careful not to step into. It’s one I experienced firsthand:
I organized a community meeting with the police to create a scheduling plan for parents to patrol the forest immediately adjacent to our high school where drug users (evidence: many needles in their tents) were living. It was apparently out of the police’s district, so we would patrol and inform them of what we found. A young woman (who did not rsvp) showed up recording us and asking questions that were clearly meant to aggravate the group and its mission. She seemed to be following a script and seemed ready to record whatever she could incite. I am now more aware of this technique and will now be prepared to also record the lead-up to these meetings so others can see the whole context. My goal is to expose this strategy and render it ineffective. It’s counter productive as you can see from the discussion in this post.
Go back through their thread and see if you can find the point of personal attack that diverted a healthy conversation. Let’s try not to play into that game and stay focused on discussion vs name-calling. The good guys eventually win.
You told that story but you didn’t give the full context absolving Trump of inciting violence. I wonder why that is. Are you doing the thing Elon Musk claims you’re doing again? A foot in each camp?
I deeply felt this part of the story:
There were dissenters inside Twitter. “Maybe because I am from China,” said one employee on January 7, “I deeply understand how censorship can destroy the public conversation."
It's true. Being from an authoritarian government like China has made me and other immigrants very supportive of free speech. Because it's us who know what happens when there is none.
“The riot at the Capitol two days prior had resulted in five deaths. “
I believe it was two deaths. The woman shot by the black cop with no repercussions and a woman beaten to death by the cops in the basement.
How does such a bald faced mistake make it into the story?
Who needs Russian "election meddling" when you have Twitter?
The executives of Twitter were bullied by the employees of Twitter.
That’s what happened.
Any executive that makes decisions under duress like this, without exploring options and other points of views, should be fired.
ASAP.
I objected to the Trump Twitter ban for one reason: I wanted to know what he was up to. He was the president, and he communicated to the public almost exclusively through Twitter and MAGA rallies. Twitter had the legal right to ban Trump, but it was a horrendous decision.
Sad that Americans would do this. Thankfully, we have a South African that understands freedom of speech.
Wow! Musk was right. Someone had to do something about the fascists at Twitter.
To me, the tenor of this article seems to be missing the point. Bari and her team seem to be alleging – with significant proof – that Twitter was not internally consistent in its ban of Trump. Essentially, he company wasn't following its own rules.
But we have to remember that outgoing President Trump wasn't following the rules of American democracy at this point in time. Instead of conceding that he lost the election (which he did lose), he insisted that he WON and malicious actors had stolen the victory from him. When the sitting President is breaking the rules, I don't see why Twitter should be forced to stringently adhere to its guidelines. Unexpected situations should allow for flexible solutions.
The point about Twitter not banning other Heads of State who were clearly inciting violence on the platform is well-taken. However, I'm not sure this inconsistency means Trump should have been allowed to stay; rather, it seems like these leaders should have been kicked off.
I too think Bari is wed to the narrative of five people dying. It’s a gross exaggeration.
I would love for the FP for have someone smart and unbiased look in to the protections social media companies get from Section 230. I don't want the MSM spin, I want to hear the no shit implications. I'm not smart in it but it seems like social media companies use Section 230 as a one-way street...meaning they get immunity but have no standards to meet. Perhaps I am ignorant but I would argue that these companies shouldn't get immunity from content posted on their platforms if they're going to selectively censor certain accounts/opinions all while hiding how the algos work. If they want to be treated as essential, like a public utility, and worthy of protection, they should be forced to meet certain standards.
It’s stunning to me that a handful of anyone (in this case Trump haters) are allowed to censor/cancel anybody.
And yet they can and do. And the rest of the media that should be digging into this, simply re-tweet in ecstasy that someone took Trump down.
As a journalism graduate in the 70’s (think Watergate) it sickens me that journalists are more and more willing to do literally anything to stay in the conversation. Except do actual reporting.
You either support free speech under the first amendment or you don’t. There are many things I see on Twitter and in other publications that offend me but they have the right to say it. SCOTUS has ruled on free speech in the past and that hasn’t changed. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and the like, are very powerful platforms that can sway opinions and control the narrative. We are all being manipulated by media, some just either don’t believe it or don’t care.
Weak leadership, caving in to staff desires for warm fuzzy feelings, is a useful insight from these records.
The less interesting argument is that without skewing the 'conversation' on Twitter, real world outcomes on things like lockdowns may have been different. This seems to be wishful thinking because *everyone* who already took an interest in those things already knew about stuff like the Great Barrington Declaration.
Skewing or censoring the conversation is something we can take a view on, but complaining about the impact of it is speculative at best.
Twitter was a public corporation at the time and not one major shareholder kicked up a storm.
This thread between RT and Noah is a fascinating example of today’s polarized arguments where some feel the need to personally attack the other and “draw first blood” in order to aggravate the response from other side making it impossible to have a civil discussion. This is a strategy commonly deployed now and a trap we have to be careful not to step into. It’s one I experienced firsthand:
I organized a community meeting with the police to create a scheduling plan for parents to patrol the forest immediately adjacent to our high school where drug users (evidence: many needles in their tents) were living. It was apparently out of the police’s district, so we would patrol and inform them of what we found. A young woman (who did not rsvp) showed up recording us and asking questions that were clearly meant to aggravate the group and its mission. She seemed to be following a script and seemed ready to record whatever she could incite. I am now more aware of this technique and will now be prepared to also record the lead-up to these meetings so others can see the whole context. My goal is to expose this strategy and render it ineffective. It’s counter productive as you can see from the discussion in this post.
Go back through their thread and see if you can find the point of personal attack that diverted a healthy conversation. Let’s try not to play into that game and stay focused on discussion vs name-calling. The good guys eventually win.
Fight like hell?
You told that story but you didn’t give the full context absolving Trump of inciting violence. I wonder why that is. Are you doing the thing Elon Musk claims you’re doing again? A foot in each camp?