Another part of twitters dignity rots away

[Prysin]

3 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Yeah that's what got politics added to the rules...

Just because Intel visited the White house doesnt mean they are part of politics...

[vanished]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

Just because Intel visited the White house doesnt mean they are part of politics...

No, I mean that thinking; "oh, ___ isn't in the rules so go wild!"

[Guest Kloaked]

32 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

The market will decide how far they go. 

I was hoping someone would buy them out and get rid of the nonsense being set by the current owners/employees but I guess it never happened.

 

Hopefully a good competitor will spring up soon.

[ChineseChef]

23 minutes ago, Shakaza said:

I would argue that freedom of speech needs to extend to big organizations that have the power to disseminate information to large amounts of people, because restricting what can be said on those platforms gives them undue power to control what people know and what opinions they can have. Social consequence refers to individuals and small groups of people, not those in power. One might consider it trite to complain about this happening on Twitter of all places, but it is still a very important social media platform.

It is difficult to make the argument that people should be allowed to say what they want on someone else's platform.  It is easy to say the government should not be allowed to punish you for speaking out.  And it is easy to support punishing those who make claims/statements that are verifiably/indisputably false (such as libel/slander).

 

But to claim that someone else (individual or company) should have to pay to host your opinions is difficult to support.  Should Twitter (or anyone) have to deal with the PR storm that comes with hosting harassment/hate speech/ISIS recruiting/insert whatever current topics are heated?  Especially if they disagree with it?

 

Also, this would border on a weird position where content providers/hosters would be unable to moderate their own platforms.  It would become insanely complicated quite rapidly with what needs to be removed vs what is not allowed to be removed.  When can a website/service remove content?  What is considered censorship?  If a moderator moves a post to a different section of a forum, is that censorship?

 

While the general idea that "censorship bad"  "free speech good" is rather agreed upon, the implementation of complicated rules stating who is allowed to say what becomes problematic fast.  This is kind of why we settled on the legal bounds of "government can't punish you for speaking out", but "companies can censor their products/platforms at their own discretion". 

[ivan134]

4 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

In other news: water is wet.

Oh, so you know this? I wonder why your wasted your time with that quote then.

[Prysin]

4 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

No, I mean that thinking; "oh, ___ isn't in the rules so go wild!"

I declare i shall go on a rampant VIA fanboy rage. Just watch me. 

[ivan134]

6 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

social media today has to much power over what people think to allow one group to silence another!

YOUR TAX DOLLARS DON'T FUND TWITTER!!!!

[Prysin]

5 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

I was hoping someone would buy them out and get rid of the nonsense being set by the current owners/employees but I guess it never happened.

 

Hopefully a good competitor will spring up soon.

if someone offered to sell you cancer and ebola at the same time, would you buy it?

[ChineseChef]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

YOUR TAX DOLLARS DON'T FUND TWITTER!!!!

THEY DON"T UNDERSTAND OR CARE!!!

 

(I agree with you)

[Prysin]

3 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

YOUR TAX DOLLARS DON'T FUND TWITTER!!!!

THAT IS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WANTS YOU TO THINK!

 

[ivan134]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

if someone offered to sell you cancer and ebola at the same time, would you buy it?

You seem to care a lot about something you feel this way about.

[Guest Kloaked]

Just now, Prysin said:

if someone offered to sell you cancer and ebola at the same time, would you buy it?

I understand the point you're making, but it's not like you can't fix Twitter.

[ivan134]

2 minutes ago, Prysin said:

THAT IS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WANTS YOU TO THINK!

 

I've been living a lie all this time.

Edited February 17, 2017 by ivan134

[matrix07012]

4 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Oh, so you know this? I wonder why your wasted your time with that quote then.

The quote was there for a reason.

 

The stock of Twitter is at all time low. This is why:

1 hour ago, Prysin said:

 

Again, the SJWs make another move on Twitter. I think we all know how this is going to end, seeing as Ms. Anita Sarkeesian is hired as some sort of "ethics and morals" consultant... We saw how great her ethics and morals were during Gamer Gate, so i think we can all see where this new "feature" is heading.

 

So, if you got any stocks in twitter (still) i SERIOUSLY suggest you sell em now.

 

Source: http://www.nextpowerup.com/news/33935/twitter-begins-temporarily-restricting-abusive-accounts/

If they continue, Twitter will die.

[Prysin]

4 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

You seem to care a lot about something you feel this way about.

Of course i care. I want my ezmode glorified 1990s SMS platform to be great again!

[ivan134]

4 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

The quote was there for a reason.

 

The stock of Twitter is at all time low. This is why:

If they continue, Twitter will die.

This doesn't bother me. Unless you own Twitter stocks or know someone who works there, it shouldn't bother you either.

[matrix07012]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

This doesn't bother me. Unless you own Twitter stocks or know someone who works there, it shouldn't bother you either.

I like Twitter's format and I don't know about any competitor. That's why it bothers me slightly.

[Prysin]

6 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

This doesn't bother me. Unless you own Twitter stocks or know someone who works there, it shouldn't bother you either.

If you know someone who works there, you should prepare an obituary

[Prysin]

4 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

I like Twitter's format and I don't know about any competitor. That's why it bothers me slightly.

you have a alternative called GAB. It is a locked twitter, with more vetting to get in. But it has seen yuuge growth given twitters steady demise...

[matrix07012]

12 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

The stock of Twitter is at all time low.

I am just waiting for someone to call out this statement.

[Prysin]

4 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

I am just waiting for someone to call out this statement.

 

*calls out this statement*

 

[Orangeator]

I am just waiting for Trumps account to get limited. Boy would that be interesting. Lol.

[matrix07012]

3 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

I am just waiting for Trumps account to get limited. Boy would that be interesting. Lol.

That would be a suicide.

[PlayStation 2]

Now I wanna make my Twitter account into the biggest bait in existence.

[Memories4K]

24 minutes ago, Prysin said:

you have a alternative called GAB. It is a locked twitter, with more vetting to get in. But it has seen yuuge growth given twitters steady demise...

I've heard of GAB on some Manchurian carpentry forums supporting a cheeto man with a fetish for bricks stacked ontop of each other.

Personally, i don't see GAB getting that popular.
It's appeal is mostly toward those who are anti-SJW, the money has to come from a wider market and appeal to a wider audience.
It's why Twitter is becoming less and less profitable, to make good money and have a strong hold in business you need to either be bi-partisan (completely) or capitalize on most, if not all, partisan issues (Trump hats/Pussy hats); the way GAB has been advertised, i don't see it taking the average social media user by storm.

Remember VOAT?
The Reddit alternative?
Has some users but is nowhere near as popular.

GAB, like VOAT, will stay a niche alternative until it dies.