Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 9:48 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:46 am
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 7:40 am
a fan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 10:17 pm
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 9:13 pm
Twitter didn’t run the NYPost Hunter story because ‘they didn’t want to get sued?!? Ayfkm!!
Facepalm. No, Pete. It has NOTHING to do with lawsuits.
You have to pick one, and we all know you don't want to. You have two choices.
1. Run ANY story that shows up at your doorstep....that's the Covington Catholic story
2. Hold off on stories that sound f'ing insane. The Laptop story was F'ing bananas.
Pick one, Pete. You don't get to avoid this choice. Of course, you're not going to do this, because you want to tell the libs theyre doing it wrong when they go to the presses without doing more work (Covington Catholic), and yell at them if they slow their roll (Hunter's stupid laptop story).
You don't get it both ways, my man. You have to praise one, and condemn the other.
But in the end? Twitter can do whatever it wants. I find it to be a national embarrassment that you and your toddler buddies seem to think that they should be getting their news from freaking twitter. And if twitter doesn't do what you want? OH, they're bad.
Uhhhh, I think you’re confusing a platform for a publisher. Twitter wasn’t the one sued for CNN/ABC/CBS etc reframing a video. Twitter let it rip with the Covington video (it’s still there!), as they should. They’re simply a platform for folks, partisan and non partisan.
However, Twitter proceeded to not only suppress the Hunter laptop story (“bananas”? You obviously haven’t kept up with Hunter…the laptop was tame relative to his exploits!), then they suspended the NYPost account and banned anyone who reposted the story.
That sounds like a blatant thumb on the information scale, no longer an agnostic platform but now a publisher.
Why do you constantly get such simple concepts so incorrect? Are you that desperate to excuse the Left? It’s cool if you are; it’s that you’re going to keep looking like you don’t grasp what’s plainly obvious to anyone else.
Ahhh, now you're getting close. The "platforms" are not mere pipes, they actually select stories to push through to specific users based on the platform's economic interests in getting many eyeballs...advertising. They profit off this activity, so are subject to potential US legislation to make them liable for this activity, when the information they select to push, and push hardest, is actually damaging. They are very concerned with losing Section 230 protection. Moreover, their participation in the EU is dependent upon this, else they'll face massive fines.
They also have gotten feedback from their users that they don't want information pushed to them filled with bigoted or harassing information, so they have (in their own private interest to maintain viewership) created rules of the road and processes to review violations.
Is any of this different than the pressures publishers feel? Only slightly, as the publishers already don't have Section 230 protections, so they have direct liability when they get something egregiously wrong. But the platforms already have this problem in the EU and they expect to have it in the US at some point, at least if they don't self-police effectively.
A fan is calling you out for expecting publishers to be more careful, but not the platforms. Both are private situations facing very real economic pressures, and are making private decisions.
It’s hard to be ‘called out’ by folks who don’t understand the basic differences between a platform and a publisher. That includes, sadly, you.
A platform ceases to be a platform when it engages in transparently biased disinformation, as Twitter diid by suppressing the NYPost article on Hunter (a WELL-RESEARCHED investigative piece), as well as further banning thousands of accounts (nearly 100% conservative) which reposted it. It became a publisher when it allowed the woke lunatics in their ‘safety’ team to begin purposely banning both literally and by shadow conservative accounts.
You guys try desperately to paint these efforts as business-agnostic decisions. That tells me you are woefully unaware of the nature of what has occurred.
Twitters board was so frightened by what these woke loons would do after the Musk acquisition announcement, they forced a software lockdown on the platform until deal closing. That means no one can maliciously create havoc. Which begs the question: they could do that before? Yes.
I'm quite sure that my comprehension of the digital technology world and its legal and business complications, is vastly superior to yours, Petey. I've been active as an investor, consultant and owner/manager in this arena for more than 20 years. And I've been explaining this area, and its algorithm technology, on LaxPower and now FanLax for over a decade.
Yes, the "platforms" initially were thought to be simply 'pipes' to users. And they had protections akin to such 'pipes, section 230, that 'publishers' don't have. They purported to have no journalistic requirements, simply an enabler of others to share their content.
But that understanding has vastly changed as the industry of such 'platforms' has evolved, and the public (and government's) knowledge of how the companies act to select, algorithmically, the very most offensive, and often untrue, content for ever increasing promotion to users. All for ad dollars.
Our understanding, and indeed, thanks to whistle blowers we know that the companies themselves understand and indeed understood for years, that they do serious damage through such dissemination. And as they understood, they grappled with the concern that absent self-regulation, they would face government response. They've taken stumbling steps toward self-regulation...as slowly as they thought they could get away with doing...meanwhile, yes, their employees were increasingly calling out their own companies for the damage they could see their companies' doing.
The EU is taking one approach, and it's going to get very expensive for these 'platform' companies to not adequately self-regulate. The US is likely to repeal Section 230 if our legislators come to the conclusion that the 'platforms' are not adequately self-regulating.
You want to make this into a conservative/liberal partisan issue, but the reality is that unless you are advocating that there should be NO liability for damage done, for pollution for instance, as your 'conservative' construct, there's only the question of why does Section 230 exist anymore. Yes, the content creator is responsible, but so too is the platform that spreads the content, knowing that it is damaging.
We would agree for instance that a chemical company that produces waste and puts it into barrels for disposal that end up in the river should be responsible for that pollution, but so too is the trucker who transports the barrels and then dumps them into the river. Should the truckers be immune from liability if they are spreading the waste?
But here we have an even worse situation where the 'trucker' is able to greatly increase the scale and damage of the damaging 'pollution'. Instead of a few thousand lives being impacted by false, pollutive content, it goes to millions.
And the platforms have become enormously rich through this pollution.
