Twitter loses its free speech

[jasonvp]

1 minute ago, Real_PhillBert said:

The title of the thread includes free speech, therefore it's fair game to make the case that this instance is not a free speech issue.

I'm all for being pedantic.  However, one of an author's many jobs is to communicate in a way that his or her readers understand what's trying to be said.  And in this case, our OP did just that.  We all "get it", even if the legal definition of the phrase doesn't apply here.

 

Signed, Mr. Pedantic.

[Real_PhillBert]

4 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

I'm all for being pedantic.  However, one of an author's many jobs is to communicate in a way that his or her readers understand what's trying to be said.  And in this case, our OP did just that.  We all "get it", even if the legal definition of the phrase doesn't apply here.

 

Signed, Mr. Pedantic.

I'll disagree that the author was trying to communicate in a way the readers understand, but instead they are trying to get page views. And in that context a more click bait title like the one in this thread is more effective. And when that is the case, it is fair game to argue that the title of the thread is not accurately reflecting the subject material. 

 

Again, we are going a bit tangent here.

[Misanthrope]

24 minutes ago, Real_PhillBert said:

The title of the thread includes free speech, therefore it's fair game to make the case that this instance is not a free speech issue.

And thus, your case has been made, successfully. Moving on then.

[Doobeedoo]

Everything is becoming censored or some form of political correctness cause of how companies are to wimp or afraid of some pressure or whatever cause of mentally ill people trying to rule out and demand such. And those being regular whatnot citizens.

There are so many things being censored yet violence on TV for example is there whenever you turn it op. Not only it's free and with infinite amount, but people pay to see it.

Some people should simply be censored lol

[minimoose]

9 hours ago, destroyer8769 said:

Yes, but once twitter does this, it'll bring on an onslaught of rule tightening on the internet.

 

the internet should be a free place

First of all, I don't understand your line of reasoning? What sites in particular follow Twitter's lead? 

 

Secondly, free in what way? Many people would say that being constantly exposed to hate speech about a group you belong to because some guy wants "a free internet" is not very free. And I would agree with them.

[SurvivorNVL]

Twitter is the new tumblr.  A quickly growing embodiment of safe-spaces and soc-jus nonsense.  The platform is useful for connecting with people and then is quickly ruined by the added fear of being kicked off the platform for speaking your mind(if you're part of the -actual- Left or anywhere near Right leaning), and possibly being reported to the idiot brigade in charge of ensuring it is a safe space.  This is why we have the benefit of just saying - screw this platform.  Which I will happily do.  Vote with my feet.  

 

[jasonvp]

9 minutes ago, minimoose said:

Many people would say that being constantly exposed to hate speech about a group you belong to because some guy wants "a free internet" is not very free.

Here's a slight counter to that, and I have my friend John to thank for this phrasing:

 

"Freedom of speech guarantees you a voice.  It doesn't guarantee you an audience."

 

If being exposed to speech you find offending somehow seems less free to you, then you can simply stop listening to (or reading) it.  In other words, remove that person's audience.  It actually is just that simple.  Really.  No one's pointing a gun to your head and forcing you to log into Twitter's services and read what's being put up.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

Ok, this is getting quite convoluted, so I am simply going to leave this:

 

Gerdauf's Law: Each and every human being, without exception, is the direct carbon copy of the types of people that he/she bitterly opposes.

Which means that those who are making such a big fuss about the so-called "social justice warriors", are therefore social justice warriors by principle.

 

TL:DR You are hypocrites.

[PlayStation 2]

I mean there's a difference between free speech and threatening to kill the president.

[ivan134]

3 hours ago, MageTank said:

YOU TRYING TO INSULT AN INTERNET MINORITY BY CALLING THEIR VIEWS NONSENSE? YOU WANNA THROW DOWN BRO? 

 

 

Sorry, I binge watched south park recently, and this thread is slowly turning into a PC Principal field day. Carry on.

PC season was pretty great.

3 hours ago, LukeTim said:

Anita Sarkeesian is part the council because she has been probably the most high profile victim of abuse and harassment on twitter. It makes perfect sense for her to be part of such a council, regardless of her status as a feminist.

Going to have to disagree here. It does not make perfect sense for her to be on the council. While there are legit instances of her getting harassed, her general definition of the word is much broader than what I remember reading in a dictionary. If you disagree with her or point out the Texas-sized flaws in her "arguments," that is harassment to her. If the criteria for being on this council is that you are a victim of obscene amounts of harassment, just about every form of celebrity would be on the council.

2 hours ago, MageTank said:

Aaaaand here lies the problem. "Victim of abuse". You have just opened a can of worms, because there are thousands of people that believe that 90% of this abuse is fabricated, or is self inflicted to get attention. Not to mention you called her a feminist, which will also anger the real feminists that spend their time fighting for equality, rather than complaining about sexist video games. 

 

I am probably a terrible person for saying the following sentence, but here goes nothing.

 

Online bullying is a sham. Someone being mean to you online is not bullying. There are some extreme cases where internet bullying is real (posting very private, intimate pictures of someone, or releasing their physical location alongside death threats) but telling someone they are stupid, or their cause is unjust, does not constitute internet bullying.

 

Now, I know that I myself have also just opened up Pandora's Box, but it's hard to disprove it. A lot of the doxxing done to some of these radical "feminists"(anti-male crusaders) have yet to be proven. Even when federal agents get involved, they find no such occurrence.

 

I genuinely do not care about what twitter does to censor people, because I don't have any social media accounts, nor would I care even if i did. Companies shoot themselves in the foot all the time, and this is no different. The problem with this very specific circumstance is the huge conflict of interest that has been introduced. We have a professional victim, now in a position to determine what is right or wrong on a social media platform. Not just that, but someone with their own agenda to push too, meaning a potential chance to abuse this position. 

 

That's just my unwanted two cents.

Only going to slightly disagree. There are instances where choosing not to use social media does not stop bullying. While you are right that someone call you stupid, or disagreeing with you is not bullying, someone making up things about you that can cause to lose your job and make people not want to associate with you is bullying. If someone were to say something like you molested a kid of something that nature, choosing not to be on social media would not help in a situation like that. Now, I'm not going to pretend like I have a solution for something like this, this is still an issue nonetheless.

 

Absolutely agree with everything else.

[ivan134]

23 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

Twitter is the new tumblr.  A quickly growing embodiment of safe-spaces and soc-jus nonsense.  The platform is useful for connecting with people and then is quickly ruined by the added fear of being kicked off the platform for speaking your mind(if you're part of the -actual- Left or anywhere near Right leaning), and possibly being reported to the idiot brigade in charge of ensuring it is a safe space.  This is why we have the benefit of just saying - screw this platform.  Which I will happily do.  Vote with my feet.  

 

To be fair, right leaning parts of the internet are just as bad, it's just that their platforms are not as big as the authoritari-, errr, left leaning parts of the internet.

[Shakaza]

2 hours ago, MageTank said:

Online bullying is a sham. Someone being mean to you online is not bullying. There are some extreme cases where internet bullying is real (posting very private, intimate pictures of someone, or releasing their physical location alongside death threats) but telling someone they are stupid, or their cause is unjust, does not constitute internet bullying.

I think my definition of online bullying lies somewhere between your extreme example and calling someone stupid. A light insult from a single person can be reasonably expected to be ignored. It shouldn't have much of an effect on people even of a more, shall we say, "delicate constitution." However, malice-filled insults from multiple people or a group can have a significant negative impact on people. I use depression as an example a lot, but as someone who experienced its effects both first and second-hand in myself, my sister, and one of her best friends, it's very familiar to me and I know it well. Someone suffering from depression can be affected by even a small thing; my parents, sister, and I were on a nature walk last summer, and my sister, out of nowhere, expressed that none of us loved her, and that she might as well jump off a cliff and no one would care. She started taking medication for it several years ago, but she still occasionally experiences lapses. She was fine shortly after, once we reaffirmed our love for her, but it's scary to me that even she doesn't know precisely what caused it, and I didn't know how serious she was. So, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that people saying cruel things just for the heck of it, like "I wish you were never born, you waste of space" or "Depression isn't even that bad. You're a retard if you can't just instantly snap yourself out of it like I did." If someone already turns to the internet to escape from their depression in real life, it can make them feel alone, like everyone is against them. How do you propose they deal with something like that? Sure, they can stop using the Internet, but it doesn't change the fact that the place they went to escape is just as bad as where they came from, and that can be very disheartening and emotionally devastating.

 

But, otherwise, I completely agree with you.

[dragosudeki]

Hopefully this still allows for some funny exchanges between people, example: Kanye and Wiz.

[Citadelen]

8 hours ago, zacRupnow said:

Muting a player you find annoying is not censorship.

Not taking your kids to R rated movies is not censorship.

Not watching movies in public is not censorship.

These are examples of you choosing what information you want to see, hear, or know.

 

Censorship is denying everyone from seeing, hearing, or knowing information whether they want it or not.

Examples:

North Korean citizens not allowed to leave the country.

People in Russia blocked from certain websites by the government.

People in Syria are beheaded for not believing in or being skeptical about Muhammad.

Here in the USA when the Patriot Act was passed all the public could know was that it let the government listen in unwarranted on phone calls between convicts and their lawyers (enter Edward Snowden, guess what? That act enables the government to collect almost all forms of communication unwarranted from all US citizens).

That is what censorship is. Ok so those are more extreme examples but something as small as removing words from a book and not allowing the original to be read is censorship too. But it's small stuff like that that paves the way for the extreme, first it's a book, then it's the news, etc.

Only extremist groups, the Syrian government is secular.

[Misanthrope]

6 hours ago, Colonel_Gerdauf said:

Ok, this is getting quite convoluted, so I am simply going to leave this:

 

Gerdauf's Law: Each and every human being, without exception, is the direct carbon copy of the types of people that he/she bitterly opposes.

Which means that those who are making such a big fuss about the so-called "social justice warriors", are therefore social justice warriors by principle.

 

TL:DR You are hypocrites.

And what does that makes you under the same logic? Yep.

[Ekpyrosis]

Relevant:

[minimoose]

8 hours ago, jasonvp said:

Here's a slight counter to that, and I have my friend John to thank for this phrasing:

 

"Freedom of speech guarantees you a voice.  It doesn't guarantee you an audience."

 

If being exposed to speech you find offending somehow seems less free to you, then you can simply stop listening to (or reading) it.  In other words, remove that person's audience.  It actually is just that simple.  Really.  No one's pointing a gun to your head and forcing you to log into Twitter's services and read what's being put up.

That is true. However since Twitter can choose what it wants the user experience to be like, it is in their best interest to reduce content that would cause people to leave.  

[MageTank]

7 hours ago, Shakaza said:

-Snip-

 

7 hours ago, ivan134 said:

-Snap-

You both have provided me with yet another insightful view on online bullying. I never thought about the assault on ones reputation/character. Easy for me to overlook, as again, I do not do social media, and the only people that know me in the real world, speak to me either on the phone or in person, so they do not spread information about me. However, with kids going to schools and being raised online, I can see how rumors being started about people can lead to some sort of emotional(and potentially physical) damage.

 

Still, i stand behind my view on being able to turn some of it off, simply by walking away. If someone is insulting you directly (by insult, i mean calling you stupid or silly names) you can walk away from that. if someone is attacking your reputation, that is grounds for a lawsuit, and that should deter any continuance. 

 

The problem I have with "Online Bullying" is that it's become such a blanket term. So many people use it in situations that are simple disagreements. It dilutes the serious situations where peoples livelihoods are put in jeopardy, just because they are overly sensitive and crying wolf. 

 

Twitter can try to stop this, and they can convince others to join them, but at the end of the day, they will not change human nature. 

 

"Good cannot exist without evil"- Every Kung Fu movie ever.

[Trik'Stari]

10 hours ago, Ekpyrosis said:

Relevant:

-snip

Doesn't make those people unbiased, or even intelligent.

 

Feminist Frequency is involved.....need I say more?

[Sauron]

On 2/12/2016 at 2:00 AM, destroyer8769 said:

Still, its a saddening thought to have.

 

you know, that the internet is becoming a more restrictive and PC(politically correct) place to be.

At the same time, having fewer assholes and criminals on the internet can't hurt. It all depends on how restrictive the boundaries are. If you are allowed to say what you think as long as it is done in a polite way, I think you can still consider it free speech.

 

I'm not sure how the system would work (and personally I don't really care since I don't plan to ever use twitter), but remember that freedom of speech doesn't mean others can't take offence at what you are saying and ignore you or argue the opposite - as long as they aren't forcibly preventing you from thinking or saying what you think they aren't infringing your rights. If it is their website, they can choose to not have you on it if they think your opinion or way of saying it is inappropriate - just like we have community guidelines and moderators on this forum.

 

13 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Doesn't make those people unbiased, or even intelligent.

 

Feminist Frequency is involved.....need I say more?

But then, who is to be the judge of who is biased or intelligent and who isn't based on their opinion? Of course a person will be biased towards his/her own opinion, if they choose not to have different opinions on their own shows or websites it's their own prerogative. This can be done by a conservative website banning liberals, and by a liberal website banning conservatives - the concept is the same, doesn't matter which of the two is right or wrong or smarter.

 

I could argue that you are being biased against "feminist frequency", why is that ok while them being biased against others isn't?

[Trik'Stari]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

But then, who is to be the judge of who is biased or intelligent and who isn't based on their opinion? Of course a person will be biased towards his/her own opinion, if they choose not to have different opinions on their own shows or websites it's their own prerogative. This can be done by a conservative website banning liberals, and by a liberal website banning conservatives - the concept is the same, doesn't matter which of the two is right or wrong or smarter.

 

I could argue that you are being biased against "feminist frequency", why is that ok while them being biased against others isn't?

My bias lies in calling them stupid, not in preventing them from opening their mouths an spilling their stupidity all over anyone who bothers to listen. Their bias lies in their ability to prevent anyone from sharing an opinion they don't agree with. Which is the problem here. We're supposed to be a democracy (republic, whatever), our culture is supposed to be about sitting down and talking things out, with people we don't agree with or understand, and finding a way to come to an agreement or compromise.

 

Instead, both parties focus solely on dividing us, and making us hate one another.

[Sauron]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

My bias lies in calling them stupid, not in preventing them from opening their mouths an spilling their stupidity all over anyone who bothers to listen. Their bias lies in their ability to prevent anyone from sharing an opinion they don't agree with.

Through media they control/have agreements with. You can share your opinion literally anywhere else. You can do so here (as long as you follow the forum's guidelines) or you can do it on your own website, they can't stop you. Twitter isn't a public service and it is their prerogative to remove whatever they don't like, or can't bother putting up with complaints about. Free speech is about the ability to use any means available to you to express your opinion, not to use someone else's platforms as if they were your own. Television networks are mostly privately owned, "social" media is privately owned, popular news outlets are mostly privately owned. That doesn't mean you can't start your own tv channel and broadcast whatever, but nobody guarantees anyone will listen.

[Trik'Stari]

7 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Through media they control/have agreements with. You can share your opinion literally anywhere else. You can do so here (as long as you follow the forum's guidelines) or you can do it on your own website, they can't stop you. Twitter isn't a public service and it is their prerogative to remove whatever they don't like, or can't bother putting up with complaints about. Free speech is about the ability to use any means available to you to express your opinion, not to use someone else's platforms as if they were your own. Television networks are mostly privately owned, "social" media is privately owned, popular news outlets are mostly privately owned. That doesn't mean you can't start your own tv channel and broadcast whatever, but nobody guarantees anyone will listen.

Indeed the first amendment does allow all of those things, but that doesn't change the fact that this is blatant, ignorant, bias. 

[spartaman64]

On 2/12/2016 at 1:31 AM, ivan134 said:

False. Twitter is not a public domain. It is a private entity. It is not govt run and it is not run by your tax money. They are obliged to exactly no one except making money for investors. No one's freedom of speech is being violated if Twitter decides to censor or ban someone because they don't like what they have to say. You also failed to explain how that would even constitute Twitter limiting or taking away your inherent right to voice your opinion. Can Twitter arrest or fine you? No? Then your freedom of speech is not being violated.

You've successfully completed the 1st step of looking up what it actually means. Now take your time to actually understand what it means, because nothing you are saying constitutes Twitter taking away your freedom of speech.

he isnt saying that it is illegal for twitter to take away free speech he is just saying that they are taking away free speech

[LoreBeast]

Just some more info thanks to Thunderf00t

 

 

 

How much the world changed. Its a cancer imo