[stokesjokes]

There’s just absolutely no getting around the fact that Twitter is a privately owned company. It could serve in the exact role of a public square and still not be “the public square” because it’s private.

Imagine if you owned a piece of land and that piece of land became a gathering place where everyone would come to talk to each other, exchange ideas, listen to speakers, etc. Your land might function as a public square, but at the end of the day you can still kick anyone off your property that you choose.

If Twitter was exactly the same but run by the government, then you have an argument that it’s the public square. Until then, the "public square" argument is nonsensical.

[Purple Haize]

There’s just absolutely no getting around the fact that Twitter is a privately owned company. It could serve in the exact role of a public square and still not be “the public square” because it’s private.

Imagine if you owned a piece of land and that piece of land became a gathering place where everyone would come to talk to each other, exchange ideas, listen to speakers, etc. Your land might function as a public square, but at the end of the day you can still kick anyone off your property that you choose.

If Twitter was exactly the same but run by the government, then you have an argument that it’s the public square. Until then, the "public square" argument is nonsensical.

But it’s granted protections other private entities are not. It goes back to the Platform or Publisher argument. It wanted to hide behind the Private protection while benefiting from Public perception. Comparing Twitter, a free service utilized by millions, to land ownership is a bit absurd. You may not be able to live on my land but you could have the opportunity to view it. Or benefit from it etc. But at Twitter it’s all or nothing. So not the same.

https://socialmediahq.com/if-social-med ... verything/

[stokesjokes]

You're just arguing scale, which shouldn't change the argument. If I was Ted Turner and owned all of Montana, I could get millions on my property exchanging ideas, but I can still kick them off of it. They can use my land for free, sure, but I can still kick them out if I feel like it. I could also put up a huge privacy fence if I didn't want people outside to see in, that's my prerogative as a landowner. It's Twitter's prerogative as a platform owner.

And I say platform owner because it just plain doesn't matter if it's a publisher or a platform in regards to whether or not it should be treated (legally) as the public square. Let it be a platform all day long and it's still not the public square. Because it's private. A private platform can still decide who it lets use its platform. Because it's private. Tell Elon to sell it to the government if you want it to be the public square.

[Purple Haize]

Well thankfully the Government is here to help! Obviously The People cannot be trusted to govern themselves so our Betters now must do so via Government Bureaucracy…
Ladies and Gentlemen (and all non binary identifying individuals) behold the Homeland Security Disinformation Governance Board. (Something oddly not needed until Twitter was bought by a Private Citizen)

https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking- ... nformation

[Purple Haize]

And who do they chose to head up this Department to keep us safe from ourselves? To take an unbiased look at the conversations Americans are having between themselves? Why this Paragon of Virtue, Fairness and Civic Good

[paradox]

Extremists are not letting this go. With ideology, you have to be all in. Otherwise, you're a threat. Otherwise, how do you explain the climate change god as the biggest threat. Go ahead, try to explain away the contradiction.

[stokesjokes]

No contradiction, the government shouldn’t have any say in how Twitter runs its site. That’s the consistent take. It shouldn’t intervene when conservatives get kicked off or when Twitter pulls shady claims about the election or COVID. It also shouldn’t intervene to force Twitter to do those things.

[paradox]

No contradiction, the government shouldn’t have any say in how Twitter runs its site. That’s the consistent take. It shouldn’t intervene when conservatives get kicked off or when Twitter pulls shady claims about the election or COVID. It also shouldn’t intervene to force Twitter to do those things.

Fair enough. But should the government be in the business of officially defining disinformation for the masses?

[stokesjokes]

Absolutely not. I get it if we’re talking about a foreign nation’s legitimate attempt to disrupt the democratic process through disinformation, but that’s not what most of this is.

[Yacht Rock]

Absolutely not. I get it if we’re talking about a foreign nation’s legitimate attempt to disrupt the democratic process through disinformation, but that’s not what most of this is.

Actually you'd be surprised. I was in an interesting briefing by the FBI last month as part of a work conference that addressed this.

Here's an example of what was going on with Facebook, for instance.

https://evangelicalfocus.com/life-tech/ ... book-pages

[TH Spangler]

And who do they chose to head up this Department to keep us safe from ourselves? To take an unbiased look at the conversations Americans are having between themselves? Why this Paragon of Virtue, Fairness and Civic Good

Just when you think it can't get more ridiculous

[SumItUp]

Somebody needs to move 1984 back to the fiction section.

[olldflame]

[thepostman]

Absolutely not. I get it if we’re talking about a foreign nation’s legitimate attempt to disrupt the democratic process through disinformation, but that’s not what most of this is.

A ton of the misinformation that finds it's way onto mainstream social media has the fingerprints of foreign countries all over it. Then real people continue to spread it and can't be convinced what they are buying into isn't real. It's crazy how many countries are investing in this stuff with the goal to make the United States less stable. It's working too.

[thepostman]

I agree that twitter has often gone overboard in what they decided to censor and oftentimes seemed one-sided but I also don't buy into this whole twitter is the public square nonsense. Regardless twitter is a cess pool. Always has been unless you are extremely intentional with it and most people aren't. Musk and his free speech crusade won't change that. Because people are the worst.

If it’s not the Public Square then what is it? It meets an awful lot of the criteria in the modern world.
People are the worst and Twitter can be a cesspool. BUT it’s also where people go for information and entertainment. It’s where people go to promote themselves and their views. People go there to find out what’s going on. People also go there to be awful.
It certainly isn’t a publisher like a newspaper or a broadcaster like TV or Radio.
So what is it?

The mall. The mall is private property open to the public. If management decides some kids are being too disruptive they can kick them off the property even if they technically aren't breaking the law. Just like Twitter. Not a perfect analogy but when it comes go social media, nothing really is.

[Purple Haize]

It’s a better analogy but still not pertinent. Property owners have to follow the law. They have to apply their rules equally. One mall doesn’t get special exceptions that another mall does not.
Twitter YouTube etc have become the place where the Public comes to discuss issues. It IS the Public Square. It was a Publicly Traded company and not a Government entity so the classic 1st Amendment definition does not apply. But if you are a place wher folks are exercising the essence of their 1st Amendment right and you are afforded special protections by the Government you need to tread really softly with your Censor stick.

[Purple Haize]

Absolutely not. I get it if we’re talking about a foreign nation’s legitimate attempt to disrupt the democratic process through disinformation, but that’s not what most of this is.

A ton of the misinformation that finds it's way onto mainstream social media has the fingerprints of foreign countries all over it. Then real people continue to spread it and can't be convinced what they are buying into isn't real. It's crazy how many countries are investing in this stuff with the goal to make the United States less stable. It's working too.

So? Then combat it with more speech that rebutts it. That’s not that difficult a concept. But it takes more work then saying “Fake News BAN THEM!”

[thepostman]

It’s a better analogy but still not pertinent. Property owners have to follow the law. They have to apply their rules equally. One mall doesn’t get special exceptions that another mall does not.
Twitter YouTube etc have become the place where the Public comes to discuss issues. It IS the Public Square. It was a Publicly Traded company and not a Government entity so the classic 1st Amendment definition does not apply. But if you are a place wher folks are exercising the essence of their 1st Amendment right and you are afforded special protections by the Government you need to tread really softly with your Censor stick.

This actually makes my point even better. A mall can remove groups for protesting on their property even though they have a 1st Amendment right to do so. Just not on private property.

Absolutely not. I get it if we’re talking about a foreign nation’s legitimate attempt to disrupt the democratic process through disinformation, but that’s not what most of this is.

A ton of the misinformation that finds it's way onto mainstream social media has the fingerprints of foreign countries all over it. Then real people continue to spread it and can't be convinced what they are buying into isn't real. It's crazy how many countries are investing in this stuff with the goal to make the United States less stable. It's working too.

So? Then combat it with more speech that rebutts it. That’s not that difficult a concept. But it takes more work then saying “Fake News BAN THEM!”

Not what I was trying to say. Misinformation is such a hot topic word that a lot of folks don't seem interested in admitting that it is very real and it doesn't take much for a lie to spread like wildfire on social media and just like real life, lies spread much faster than truth. How do we get a better handle on it? We probably can't. Clearly twitter has over reacted in some ways and it did more harm than good in my opinion. But I also don't trust an out of touch billionaire to make it much better.

[Purple Haize]

I don’t think he’s gonna ‘do’ much of anything. I think he’s going to let individuals do it themselves. You believe Rona came from a lab in China? Fine. You don’t believe Rona came from a lab in China? Fine. Both of you have at it. Musk isn’t doing a thing. He’s letting them do it. 100% fine with that

As an added bonus I’m enjoying his trolling of those the most hyperventilating over the purchase

[Purple Haize]

Back to your Mall Analogy. A mall can remove you for wearing Jorts. But if they allow other to patronize while wearing Jorts after banning YOU for wearing Jorts they’re gonna have issues. You could probably bring legal action. You can’t do that with Twitter.

[olldflame]

[JK37]

Back to your Mall Analogy. A mall can remove you for wearing Jorts. But if they allow other to patronize while wearing Jorts after banning YOU for wearing Jorts they’re gonna have issues. You could probably bring legal action. You can’t do that with Twitter.

Banning YOU for wearing jorts is just good business!

[Purple Haize]

Back to your Mall Analogy. A mall can remove you for wearing Jorts. But if they allow other to patronize while wearing Jorts after banning YOU for wearing Jorts they’re gonna have issues. You could probably bring legal action. You can’t do that with Twitter.

Banning YOU for wearing jorts is just good business!

I mean that’s an Absolute Truth

[RubberMallet]

Absolutely not. I get it if we’re talking about a foreign nation’s legitimate attempt to disrupt the democratic process through disinformation, but that’s not what most of this is.

A ton of the misinformation that finds it's way onto mainstream social media has the fingerprints of foreign countries all over it. Then real people continue to spread it and can't be convinced what they are buying into isn't real. It's crazy how many countries are investing in this stuff with the goal to make the United States less stable. It's working too.

The idea that because there is a foreign footprint on things means its foreign born is a mistake. It does little to no good for most of the world to see the US fail. Even China and Russia rely on the US quite a bit.

I believe twitter tech is pretty stagnant and incapable of ensuring that good info is funneled to the top. Information is pretty fluid. There is little settled "science" behind most information. And the degrees of which its dangerous to society is subjective.

Covid was a great example of people saying 1 thing, the consensus being its wrong and dangerous and then literally a few days later or months later, it turn out to be true. obviously tons of places where it actually was in fact dangerous. I believe there has got to be a better way to remedy this and if there was one person who probably can its Elon.

The other problem is clearly picking and choosing which falsehoods to allow and which to not. I mean allowing terrorist organizations to obviously dole out truly dangerous misinformation but blocking erik weinstein because he's like "I don't know do we really need masks?" (Sic) is a bit ridiculous.

[sstaedtler]

Now Twitter is banning "2000 Mules", the story about how the 2020 election was probably stolen through drop ballot boxes and mules going from box to box. The problem is this:

Jen Psaki admitted in a prior press conference that big tech companies were working with the White House on what to see as disinformation. That makes them no longer true private companies.

Freedom of speech means freedom to criticize the government, including about election integrity. To ban people who question an election process is something you'd see in China. It should not happen here, regardless of if you agree or disagree with 2000 Mules.