I tried looking for it too. However, the text description says that there's over 10k entries. Needle in a haystack, unless you know what island it's on, if at all. If anyone can find it, definitely let us know.
But when they are direct disinformation, some of the intermediation of 3rd parties creates a bit of friction. That... certainly doesn't feel like censorship. It feels like a marketplace of ideas working kind of as it should?
The internet is designed to eliminate gatekeepers. The people doing the rebroadcasting are no doubt willing to repost the more benign messages, but are fearful of being excommunicated by the Internet Inqisition should they repost anything controversial. Such is the life of an early reformer. An actual free marketplace allows EVERYONE to decide, not just a few.
I really don't like the KKK, but if they just have a presence on twitter to say things like "Have a nice day!", or maybe post some photographs of Senators Robert Byrd and Joe Biden together, I wouldn't mind. But then you get into a thorny issue of "propaganda". If twitter can spell out banned words, that's certainly fine, because I'm not a big fan of obscenity.
Wait, what? It has to carry "information from all sources indiscriminately"?! But the entire point of a search engine is to discriminate. Otherwise it's no longer a "search engine" it's just a random web page generator.
The hope was that the search algorithm was returning results based on relevancy to the user. Instead, google appears to refuse to consider information from some sources that are important to the user, but google dislikes. The results are not random, they're supposed to be focused around the interests of users and creators.
Common carriage will inch the internet towards an online ecosystem devoid of family-friendly options and teeming with the worst humanity can offer— including the very content conservatives hate like pornography, indecency, and profanity.
This portion was already destroyed with the CDA, over 20 years ago with Reno v. ACLU. Not that I personally mind it. But if that's the main takeaway, then you lost conservatives a long long time ago. The internet is already a hive of scum and villainy, and noone cares anymore. Bring on the common carrier.
It doesn't matter if it's justified or not. Getting political, instead of being a neutral platform, is still falling for the trap that will lead to the SplinterNet. To me, it depends on what you want. If you desire a global and open internet, then it's a dumb idea. If you want a fractured system of localized government-approved communication monopolies, then keep cheering on twitter's actions.
Actually, I don't support it. And you're missing the point. We probably agree on the politics of Nigeria, even though I don't follow Nigeria at all, or know the issues. However, if you don't want a SplinterNet, then this was a dumb move by twitter. If you want an open internet, then the platform has to stay apolitical. Instead, my prediction remains on-track.
it instead says the ban is because of ""the persistent use of the platform for activities... capable of undermining Nigeria's corporate existence." I honestly don't understand what the hell that means.
It means that the platform took sides, and became a publisher.
I'm no censor. Quite the opposite, I've been accused of advocating for compelled service. My problem, according to others, is that I'm willing to allow too many people to speak, and I'm unwilling to block content, lest it ruin someone's online viewing experience if they were to see a differing viewpoint.
Come on, you can't be serious. You don't see a difference between a property owner enforcing rules on what can be done on their property by making people leave, and a military dictatorship enforcing its rules on a captive populace under threat of lethal force?
Most social media companies are petrified of legislation that would allow individuals to sue for selective enforcement if their own rules. Let's face it: big tech invents its rules on the fly, not out of fairness, but rather as a political weapon. In that sense, U.S. tech companies and foreign military dictatorships have a lot in common.
Myanmar's military has been manipulating election outcomes for decades, at least since the 1960s, and long before Trump was on the scene. If anything, big tech has legitimized Mynamar's censorship policies. They're just copying the system of outlawing any dissent.
This is important to remember, especially as many people pushing to regulate the internet think only in the context of the US
While certainly a convenient excuse, make no mistake that non-free countries would have attempted this anyhow. China, for example, began building its Great Firewall long before any such western suggestions at regulation were introduced. Rather, it is suprising that western nations would begin following in the footsteps of non-free nations towards blocking content with which they disagree.
At least not currently. That is why a growing number of people want to repeal and reform the law. More and more people want that distinction. More and more people want equal treatment. I understand that a lot of court cases have gone in favor of the big corporations so far. But now you're freaking out whenever someone proposes a change. Making changes to the law is the next step in the fight for equality.
and I can't imagine Olsen would argue that the government should regulate that Fox News
That's because Fox News is a publisher, and not a platform.
he'll have to explain how the government can apply them to non-public spectrum, non-licensed networks
When tech monopolies create the internet version of a public square, then the First Amendment applies. Corporations must live up to their contracts, and must provide equal service to their customers without bias. Individuals can challenge a contract dispute in court, where they can conduct discovery, and present evidence of bias, fraud, or inequity.
Lots of people are (understandably) asking why Twitter is so bad at this, and it's a fair enough question. But the simple fact is that the companies are all put in an impossible spot.
It may be impossible to moderate at scale, but there will not be any improvement or accountability until the system stops being so opaque. Publish the algorithm, and explain why this one got censored.
No, they're not another story altogether. Fact checking is expressive and it is a function of the press as well. You cannot regulate it.
None of this would have been a problem if the legacy media hadn't torched its own credibility in recent years by inserting its political opinion as unbiased reporting. Meanwhile, other right-wing news outlets, although equally biased, have been gaining credibility with audiences. The legacy media has hired fact-checking operations as a fig leaf to outsource its credibility.
The term "expressive" simply means that you are putting thoughts into words. But "fact checking" goes beyond this. It is a declaration of who is objectively correct, and who is objectively incorrect. Unfortunately, for the fact checkers, facts never change. Yet during this week's news cycle, we have learned that the fact checkers are backing off of their previous decisions, which is something that can't actually happen. In other words, the fact checkers were fraudulently holding out their opinion as immutable fact.
If you want to express your opinion, I see no problem with that. If you use your opinion to falsely censor others, then the so-called fact checkers should pay a price for the shoddy work.
Departments like the CIA and FBI probably have a low likeability rating right now. Tracing the money back them would be too easy, and could generate a popular opinion to cut those agencies. Going through the USPS may make the funding trace a little less obvious, and then folks would need to call for budget reductions to the post office.
Bitcoin seems to be pure speculation, as it has no fundamental value beyond whatever people will exchange for it.
The fundamental value of crypto is the underlying mining network. It is a distributed system for processing payments in a trustless environment. Some people may not like such a system, and that's fine. I'm just saying that there's value, at least for its participants. Credit cards and banks essentially charge money for what they do, because they provide value. Bitcoin provides similar value for transferring money.
Re:
I tried looking for it too. However, the text description says that there's over 10k entries. Needle in a haystack, unless you know what island it's on, if at all. If anyone can find it, definitely let us know.
(untitled comment)
The internet is designed to eliminate gatekeepers. The people doing the rebroadcasting are no doubt willing to repost the more benign messages, but are fearful of being excommunicated by the Internet Inqisition should they repost anything controversial. Such is the life of an early reformer. An actual free marketplace allows EVERYONE to decide, not just a few.
Can't Do Without
Either that, or a realization that there's a near monopoly.
Re:
I really don't like the KKK, but if they just have a presence on twitter to say things like "Have a nice day!", or maybe post some photographs of Senators Robert Byrd and Joe Biden together, I wouldn't mind. But then you get into a thorny issue of "propaganda". If twitter can spell out banned words, that's certainly fine, because I'm not a big fan of obscenity.
(untitled comment)
The hope was that the search algorithm was returning results based on relevancy to the user. Instead, google appears to refuse to consider information from some sources that are important to the user, but google dislikes. The results are not random, they're supposed to be focused around the interests of users and creators.
Re: Re:
This portion was already destroyed with the CDA, over 20 years ago with Reno v. ACLU. Not that I personally mind it. But if that's the main takeaway, then you lost conservatives a long long time ago. The internet is already a hive of scum and villainy, and noone cares anymore. Bring on the common carrier.
Re:
It doesn't matter if it's justified or not. Getting political, instead of being a neutral platform, is still falling for the trap that will lead to the SplinterNet. To me, it depends on what you want. If you desire a global and open internet, then it's a dumb idea. If you want a fractured system of localized government-approved communication monopolies, then keep cheering on twitter's actions.
Re: Re:
Actually, I don't support it. And you're missing the point. We probably agree on the politics of Nigeria, even though I don't follow Nigeria at all, or know the issues. However, if you don't want a SplinterNet, then this was a dumb move by twitter. If you want an open internet, then the platform has to stay apolitical. Instead, my prediction remains on-track.
(untitled comment)
It means that the platform took sides, and became a publisher.
Re: Re: Other Way Around
I'm no censor. Quite the opposite, I've been accused of advocating for compelled service. My problem, according to others, is that I'm willing to allow too many people to speak, and I'm unwilling to block content, lest it ruin someone's online viewing experience if they were to see a differing viewpoint.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Other Way Around
Most social media companies are petrified of legislation that would allow individuals to sue for selective enforcement if their own rules. Let's face it: big tech invents its rules on the fly, not out of fairness, but rather as a political weapon. In that sense, U.S. tech companies and foreign military dictatorships have a lot in common.
Re: Re: Other Way Around
Myanmar's military has been manipulating election outcomes for decades, at least since the 1960s, and long before Trump was on the scene. If anything, big tech has legitimized Mynamar's censorship policies. They're just copying the system of outlawing any dissent.
Other Way Around
While certainly a convenient excuse, make no mistake that non-free countries would have attempted this anyhow. China, for example, began building its Great Firewall long before any such western suggestions at regulation were introduced. Rather, it is suprising that western nations would begin following in the footsteps of non-free nations towards blocking content with which they disagree.
Re: Re: We Know Why
At least not currently. That is why a growing number of people want to repeal and reform the law. More and more people want that distinction. More and more people want equal treatment. I understand that a lot of court cases have gone in favor of the big corporations so far. But now you're freaking out whenever someone proposes a change. Making changes to the law is the next step in the fight for equality.
We Know Why
That's because Fox News is a publisher, and not a platform.
When tech monopolies create the internet version of a public square, then the First Amendment applies. Corporations must live up to their contracts, and must provide equal service to their customers without bias. Individuals can challenge a contract dispute in court, where they can conduct discovery, and present evidence of bias, fraud, or inequity.
They Hope You Will Forget
It may be impossible to moderate at scale, but there will not be any improvement or accountability until the system stops being so opaque. Publish the algorithm, and explain why this one got censored.
(untitled comment)
None of this would have been a problem if the legacy media hadn't torched its own credibility in recent years by inserting its political opinion as unbiased reporting. Meanwhile, other right-wing news outlets, although equally biased, have been gaining credibility with audiences. The legacy media has hired fact-checking operations as a fig leaf to outsource its credibility.
The term "expressive" simply means that you are putting thoughts into words. But "fact checking" goes beyond this. It is a declaration of who is objectively correct, and who is objectively incorrect. Unfortunately, for the fact checkers, facts never change. Yet during this week's news cycle, we have learned that the fact checkers are backing off of their previous decisions, which is something that can't actually happen. In other words, the fact checkers were fraudulently holding out their opinion as immutable fact.
If you want to express your opinion, I see no problem with that. If you use your opinion to falsely censor others, then the so-called fact checkers should pay a price for the shoddy work.
Ferguson Effect
The people hiring these companies feel otherwise.
Please Don't Try To Follow The Money
Departments like the CIA and FBI probably have a low likeability rating right now. Tracing the money back them would be too easy, and could generate a popular opinion to cut those agencies. Going through the USPS may make the funding trace a little less obvious, and then folks would need to call for budget reductions to the post office.
Re: More socially useful cryptocurrencies?
The fundamental value of crypto is the underlying mining network. It is a distributed system for processing payments in a trustless environment. Some people may not like such a system, and that's fine. I'm just saying that there's value, at least for its participants. Credit cards and banks essentially charge money for what they do, because they provide value. Bitcoin provides similar value for transferring money.
More comments from Koby >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Koby.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt