Quote:
Originally Posted by kingkilburn
Actually, I think bothering Parler is a massive mistake. Those people are self incriminating in plain view. I understand why Apple and Google are doing what they're doing but I'd hope that the DOJ had time and forethought to get deep in there first.
Do you remember back when Twitter said they already had the rules/enforcement and tech to stamp out abuse and extremism BUT it kept catching Republicans and conservative Christians in the dragnet? There's a warning there people didn't want to hear. Twitter put time and money into making their platform a better safer place and political pressure halted it. Sometimes well crafted impartial bots do get it right.
|
I hear you. My issue is 'free speech'. If Twitter was void of all political discussions I don't think we'd be talking about this.
If the powers at be over at Twitter can decide what gets to be seen and what gets cut, aren't you worried about that? I understand you aren't right now, but what happens when/if that pendulum swings back the other way? Right now a lot of people want to stick it to the Trump supporters but if you're like me and you're leery of big government it kind of worries me. They can use this (a large group of people that are easy to dislike) to their advantage because they know we'll accept it if it's packaged the right way.
I'm looking at my tinfoil hat, but it isn't on yet.
Unfortunately, hate speech is protected under FoS. This means the GOVERNMENT cannot censor you. Twitter, however, can...but their definition of that can continuously evolve. (We're saying Twitter here, but insert any platform).
You also said it caught 'abuse' and 'extremists' but these also have definitions set by Twitter. These definitions can also change at the whim of whatever platform we're discussing.