We are going to have the government deal with shitty Mods?<p>Back when I was a kid, if the Mods sucked, you'd stop going to that website.<p>Serious question, why do unhappy customers keep buying what bad companies sell?<p>I stopped using Facebook and many subreddits. I have this self control.<p>Is there anyone here that cannot stop visiting bad websites?
I find it kind of amusing that the same political party that believes internet service providers do not have obligation to neutrality believe internet content providers do.<p>Edit: spelling mistake fixed
>A later question asks the user what year the Declaration of Independence was signed “just to confirm you aren’t a robot.” This is an unorthodox anti-scripting technique, and a generally ineffective one, given the relative simplicity of automatically entering a number.<p>A twitter user reported that any 4 digit number will be verified.
<i>In separate discussions verified by Motherboard, that employee said Twitter hasn’t taken the same aggressive approach to white supremacist content because the collateral accounts that are impacted can, in some instances, be Republican politicians.</i><p><a href="https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/04/25/twitter-cant-ban-racism-because-theyd-have-to-ban-republicans-too/" rel="nofollow">https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/04/25/twitter-cant-ban-ra...</a>
It's an extremely dangerous conflation of terms to suggest that private speech and private moderation are the same as censorship.<p>But forcing a "fairness" doctrine onto the tech world is exactly what the current political parties, who feel like reporting for them has had insufficient deference and whatabout-ism, want to do. Uniformly across the center of the political spectrum most of the US government represents.<p>Speech Rules enacted democratically by small communities are fine. Speech Rules imposed top down by the owners of infrastructure for communication are not great, but at least customers can make choices about them and it's not so unimaginable to find alternatives. Speech Rules enacted top-down by the executive are impossible to argue with and ultimately one of the most dangerous kinds of authoritarianism. The infosec community can tell you they've been fighting a slow, losing battle against going to jail for saying something that is not illegal to say out loud for some time now.
What's worse?<p>Private companies making decisions about what appears on their privately funded platforms?<p>Or bureaucrats, ideologues and partisans using government power to influence what appears on private sites?
It's only for social media censorship against USians. The form kicks you out once you tell it you're not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. <a href="https://twitter.com/typeform/status/1128993614250553344" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/typeform/status/1128993614250553344</a>
I can’t help but feel the GOP wouldn’t be running into this if they didn’t keep posting attacks on minorities.<p>If you are saying some set of people don’t deserve the same basic rights as other people, simply because they exist, and are different, it’s hate speech. And if your platform is deliberately based on intolerance then there is not requirement for others to tolerate you. This isn’t a paradox - bigots love trying to say it is, but it’s not.
I suspect that the primary purpose here is not to uncover bias or censorship on social media platforms - it's to get people to identify more strongly as Trump supporters.<p>This is the classic psychological 'consistency' principle at work. When someone takes the small step of "sharing their story with President Trump" it strengthens their self-image as a Trump supporter. This is then reinforced by receiving frequent emails "from President Trump" thanking them for their support to eliminate censorship. This makes the person more likely to get off the couch and vote for Trump in November 2020.
I am totally confident that they will handle reports of censorship by media that supports them completely and totally the same way as reports against media that doesn't.........
I wonder if you can use this to report censorship that the Trump administration is actively doing to scientific reports and scientists themselves who's results disagree with their business and extremist religious agenda?
So Net Neutrality constitutes unwelcome government interference in the internet, but it's okay to force private companies to tolerate extreme right-wing views? This is ridiculous.
> A Twitter spokesperson responded to the new tool saying, “We enforce the Twitter Rules impartially for all users, regardless of their background or political affiliation. We are constantly working to improve our systems and will continue to be transparent in our efforts.”<p>In the discussion with Jack Dorsey on the Joe Rogan podcast, Tim Pool had a good point: some of the rules are intrinsically biased on one side of the political spectrum.<p>An good example is the rule against misgendering. Twitter forbids referring to a person using a different gender than the one that person choses. E.g., you have to refer to a male-to-female transgender as a "she".<p>But to conservatives, referring to someone using a gender other than their biological one is the definition of misgendering.<p>This is a purely ideological take, and Twitter chose the definition of one side over the other. Then they can apply it "impartially to all users", but its the rule itself that is not impartial.
I'm interested in the dichotomy of comments here between when Trump Admin releases a tool to report censorship and when Elizabeth Warren talks about how we need to break up Big Tech.<p>Also, it's fascinating how many of the negative reaction comments want to pretend like there are actual alternatives to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Amazon Marketplace. If the argument comes down to "it's a private business, do whatever you want"... Well, let's be at least partially honest this is a new problem and these are effective-monopolies.
I wonder if this is running afoul of campaign finance laws.<p>The Trump administration has been doing that a lot recently, and while this can easily be misconstrued as a “report to the government” tool, it is not hosted on a .gov site.<p>Will the executive branch be acting on the information posted here? That also seems legally dubious. [edit: because there are security issues involving using non-government computers for government business. I think Hillary had some problems with that; maybe Trump didn’t hear about it?]