Do you place the same criteria on POTUS and the White House press briefings?
Can we use your litmus test against POTUS then? If the White House doesn't sue for defamation, libel or slander, are the things said to be believed?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Twitter Rejects Claims It Snoops on Private User Data Including Direct Messages
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Do you place the same criteria on POTUS and the White House press briefings?
Can we use your litmus test against POTUS then? If the White House doesn't sue for defamation, libel or slander, are the things said to be believed?
Last I checked they are / he is
For the fake pee pee dossier AND fire and Fury which should be found in the fiction aisle next to Harry Potter.
Bad example
Of course we always draw it back to POTUS. the man who lives rent free in many unhinged liberals heads 24/7. It’s great
Not really. Remember, people can be inarticulate when they're drunk at a party, and maybe faced with two (or three) interested women asking them questions. A little braggadocio might have hung this guy.
And, keep in mind that O'Keefe's organization didn't prove that Twitter did this, rather that one guy said that Twitter would take down accounts based on "pressure for the government." What does this mean? That Twitter takes down celebrity accounts based on pressure from the Trump administration? Including Julian Assange, this doesn't seem like a system to take down conservatives, but a system that could take down anyone, including liberals and conservatives deemed a problem by the Executive Branch.
[doublepost=1516132413][/doublepost]
Oh, I just think it's usually a sign that I shouldn't take someone that seriously.
Last I checked they are / he is
For the fake pee pee dossier AND fire and Fury which should be found in the fiction aisle next to Harry Potter.
Bad example
Of course we always draw it back to POTUS. the man who lives rent free in many unhinged liberals heads 24/7. It’s great
So in other words - you're ignoring the hundreds of news stories Trump has deemed false - but hasn't sued about. So they must all be true by your standards. Which makes him a liar (which we all know, but wasn't sure if you did).
And if POTUS is such a liar, how is he credible?
Your doing some amazing mental gymnastics... I hope you don't sprain anything.
How did I know that was coming?
Only the more damaging ones. Like pee pee dossier used as justification to unlawfully spy.
...A lawsuit for 24/7 coverage of nonsense? How many million lawsuits would that be? Honestly?
I give up. I’m arguing with literalist kindergartners.
Enjoy your misery and fake news propagated narratives That control your brains.
The notion of Freedom over one’s thought is oppression/fascism. I understand I understand.
This has been the most striking thing about the Trump administration, his supporters will tie themselves in ethical and logic knots to assure themselves that Trump is the best thing since sliced bread.
There was a long period when Obama supporters were accused of believing so heartedly in Barack Obama's presidency that they were acolytes following a messiah.
But, I think we've found the real cultists, who would likely don Nikes and prepare themselves to join the ship hidden in Hale-Bopp if Trump said so.
I don't worry about fake news because I don't believe anything the WH says. See how that works?
No misery here. Living a happy and healthy life.
Perhaps projecting?
Someone would have to be dumber than a doorknob to think that twitter isn’t looking at everything that comes through it’s system.
They’re constantly screening for particular threats/terrorist talk, so it’s not that far off to think that’s there is come creep looking for DM’d nudes.
They’re constantly screening for particular threats/terrorist talk, so it’s not that far off to think that’s there is come creep looking for DM’d nudes.
this is kind of like the NSA style stuff with Google tracking "If you use tracking cookies for adverting, then why don't you let [us] listen in for anti-terrorist".
Thing is, anytime u have a possible link that says "Company A can hand over information to the government". we all cry wolf about privacy issues.
Funny how that happens, regardless what that is localized too.
Social networks in particular are always screening stuff. That's the market for offering that service, even with all the privacy controls.. Its still their service.. What we are basically saying is "You don't have a right to look at what i do when using the service i created"
Thing is, anytime u have a possible link that says "Company A can hand over information to the government". we all cry wolf about privacy issues.
Funny how that happens, regardless what that is localized too.
Social networks in particular are always screening stuff. That's the market for offering that service, even with all the privacy controls.. Its still their service.. What we are basically saying is "You don't have a right to look at what i do when using the service i created"
It is always funny, whomever is being investigated first says that they were "isolated people" then when 8 more undercover videos are released, they claim they were "selectively edited" and then when the entire unedited videos are released they are out of excuses.
It reminds me of back decades ago when 60 Minutes used to do similar things. Of course, those were then reported on, whereas now they get buried if possible.
It reminds me of back decades ago when 60 Minutes used to do similar things. Of course, those were then reported on, whereas now they get buried if possible.
It's even funnier when months after someone releases a bunch of highly-edited videos that proclaim a massive crime is occurring, professional investigators strike out in finding evidence of such a crime.
Clearly you have no clue who @hulugu's sources are so it would seem difficult to have determined that they are liars. Thanks for demo of how most "fake news" criers arrive at their conclusions: if it's said by a reporter, must be fake news said by a fake news reporter. Thanks for playing.
Yep, closed my twitter account. Twitter is one devious company and I don't support their moral values. Freedom of speech is important to me and most tech companies no longer support the concept. It does not matter to me what political views an individual has, they should be able to express them.
[doublepost=1516149811][/doublepost]
I don't know about you because I don't know you, but anyone that thinks the U.S. major news media is being truthful and not biased (and therefor lying) heavily in favor of liberalism, socialism, communism, and/or fascism needs to go unlearn a bunch of their college eduction.
Most grads think it is ok, because that is what they were taught, but its not ok and its not right just because some professor who likely has never worked outside of college says so. People that think this way were taught inside of a campaign of indoctrination and have no idea how much their free thinking has been compromised.
There is a saying that you should investigate. Something along the lines of "If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain. Not sure who said it, but it's right on. Once you have 20 or 30 years of experience with failed government and liberal promises you come to understand that liberalism, socialism, etc. is nothing but indoctrination with the purpose of control by the political elite.
I can’t stand trump but I understand how these videos can be viewed from the prism of a conservative like myself.
I have an American flag in my avi, Pro 2nd amendment and a free speech advocate but not maga or anything. I hit some of their ML checkboxes and could be a potential target for the engineers shadowbanning.
This is an alarming fact. Regardless if this guy was drunk. Being drunk removes inhibitions.
Call me what you want but I know for a fact the tech sector is filled with leftists who will do what they can and use the tools at their disposal to silence those they disagree with. James Damore’s lawsuit is just an example and it will be eye opening when that case gets going.
If the tech sector is trying to silence views of the American right, it's beyond obvious that they have not succeeded.
We remain a country with a broad spectrum of political opinion even within the conservative and libertarian ranges, and certainly on the left as well. I would say the last thing the tech sector wants is censorship. They are about making a buck the same as the rest of industry, so hearing current and potential customers is important.As far as expression of opinion on the net goes: as long as a site makes its guidelines clear then moderation along those guidelines should be expected. Anyone who posts provocatively enough and often enough at the margins should not be surprised to find some of his subsequent and similar material deleted.
Maybe to get somewhere with "censorship" arguments one has to ask whether far right ideas today are being drowned out of our national conversations. I certainly don't think that's the case. From the President on down to members of this very forum, there are vibrant examples of right-leaning speech informing us that not everyone leans left and that other views not only exist but are flourishing in some quarters, including parts of the White House, Congress, mainstream media, colleges and universities, right on down to town council and school board meetings.
All our sound and fury and still we stand equal in eyes of the law. I guess that can be exasperating or exhilarating depending in part on one’s politics, not just one’s skin color or other external attributes.
Just because one has not managed to sell in some idea doesn't mean that its advocates are not being heard. It can mean the ideas are not being found attractive. The Republican Party is what currently shelters the far right view even though it does not always endorse it explicitly. It is, however, the party of the political majority in the White House and Congress at the moment. Maybe people on the extreme right who are crying "censorship!" need to ask Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell why they don't offer more of a bully pulpit for the far right. After all, it seems rather unreasonable to ask the left to supply it. We are out of favor and relatively powerless, at least until the midterm ballots are counted in November.
In the meantime Twitter doesn't seem to censor left or right wing views either, as as long as they're couched in terms that meet their guidelines. Left and right could both be more moderate in our political discourse today. What some drunk engineer at Twitter said is on him. What we all need to do is ask what we expect of a social media site. After all, it should be a pleasant place to visit or why go there? So there must be some moderation, as we can see just by looking around that we're not big on self-restraint in the USA at least. It's probably very hard to write algorithms to help automate the moderation effort. If we don't like being moderated out of any discussion, then applying some moderation before we post would be the smartest thing to do. Maybe Twitter should pitch that idea when we log in!
So then since the "views of the American right" have not been silenced, then the "tech sector" is not trying to silence them? (I'd say more correctly: digital media) That sure isn't stopping them from trying, now is it? They are certainly growing more emboldened in their clear quest to reduce the impact of views they do not entirely agree with. All one needs to do is actually listen to O'Keefe's reports for some good examples - these people admit that is what they are doing. And the examples continue to pop up, in spite of the lack of coverage in the news. Based on the above attempt to spin this issue as a "nothingburger", it seems there is either ignorance or intentional avoidance of other similar stories developing in the "tech sector" now. In case you weren't aware here's another example: popular conservative talk show host Dennis Prager (very Jewish, so the popular/lazy "He's a Nazi!" dismissal won't work) is preparing to go to court with YouTube for demonitizing and restricting his videos despite their own guidelines. That's a whole other can of worms, so I'd suggest looking into that one as well.
Of course, if you subscribe to the popular "Superfan" philosophy of political discourse ("My team is the best! Any other team sucks... because it's not my team!"), which seems to be fairly prevalent around here, then don't bother since the truth isn't a priority.
Hoary old cliches are not arguments. The simple fact is that lots of people "suspect" the major news media is biased, but they never bother to prove it in any serious or reasonable fashion. Part of this is because what they're calling liberal is actually soft corporatism because most of the major media companies they shake their fists at are really big Disney-esque corporations that want fairly anodyne coverage and don't even get close to worrying about passing the Breakfast Test.
Additionally, most reporters (i.e. not political reporters) used to spend a lot of time talking to people at the edges of society, and so if that turns into a sort of "can't-we-help-these-people liberalism" that's an artifact of the work—you'll notice more complicated relationships with cops and politicos.
The reporter who runs around yammering about Ayn Rand won't do a good job of covering the concerns of parents at a school-board meeting and will probably hose a story about the homeless encampment that serves veterans. Mostly conservatives suck at being reporters. (They're awesome at being talking heads, columnists and occasional TED presenters.)
So, if the news seems liberal that's probably a sign that reporters are using their hearts and brains and not just strapping a copy of F.A. Hayek to their forehead and running across the street.
You've been primed by the video to think that "shadow-banning" means that Twitter will silence actual accounts, but the sense was that Twitter was trying to work out algorithms to discern real accounts from Russian psuedo-patriot bots. Which seems difficult actually, because so many real people tweet like they'd fail a Turing Test, liberals and conservatives alike.
Now, you want to show me a real investigation that shows Twitter is indeed "shadow banning accounts, or as the Twitter engineer said, taking down celebrity accounts because the government asks, I'll be interested in reading it.
It's not that I trust Twitter. I trust them as far as I can throw the Fail Whale, but that I do not trust O'Keefe or the fakers at Project Veritas either. They have no credibility.
I subscribe to the practice of trying to hear what people have to say. I certainly also understand the need to moderate commentary on social media sites since people often forget themselves and say things that would not be tolerated in most people's living rooms. When those "people" could be bots then double down on the idea of moderating them out of discussions. As I said before it's hard to write algorithms to try to automate moderation. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried. It's very stressful on human moderators to have to look at some of the stuff they are required to take down. Automation will eventually help reduce that sort of stress.
Whoever thinks to use twitter as a megaphone for his personal political views usually doesn't manage to reach me anyway, unless I've found a particular topic worth delving into for the sake of knowing what the far right and far left think about it. And I have to say I certainly find both far right and far left opinions out there every time I bother looking.
tbh I use Twitter as a shortcut past email briefings, I follow outlets to which i subscribe and use their tweets to bail into my morning reads usually. Sometimes I follow particular pundits or reporters for awhile, or particular hashtags.
The replies to retweets are thus pretty optional fare for me overall, and I'm certainly not going to close my account just because I might not like either how some people tweet or how Twitter decides to moderate its venue. I think their filters let me do a pretty good job toning some of the really vile stuff down that they still do let pass in the name of letting people have their say.
I fail to see what the problem is or what we're talking about at all. of course twitter has access to everyone's data because *flash news* your twiter posts and private messages are stored in their databases, where else?
Your Twitter posts and messages aren't really yours, but Twitter's. That's how it Works, and there's nothing bad about it. Twitter has data you voluntarily give them. It's not like they are hacking you phone, they just simply read they data they have on their properties.
And I bet twitter engineers frequently read Trump's and other celebrities' messages. That's why you shouldn't post or send sensitive data you don't want people to know about to third parties or places you don't control.
[doublepost=1516239970][/doublepost]
And they have their full right to do so. Twitter is a private company, with their own rules. They could ban everyone who dislikes bananas if they wanted. If you freely choose to use their services you have to abide by their rules, just like anyone who goes to your house has to follow yours.
Your Twitter posts and messages aren't really yours, but Twitter's. That's how it Works, and there's nothing bad about it. Twitter has data you voluntarily give them. It's not like they are hacking you phone, they just simply read they data they have on their properties.
And I bet twitter engineers frequently read Trump's and other celebrities' messages. That's why you shouldn't post or send sensitive data you don't want people to know about to third parties or places you don't control.
[doublepost=1516239970][/doublepost]
And they have their full right to do so. Twitter is a private company, with their own rules. They could ban everyone who dislikes bananas if they wanted. If you freely choose to use their services you have to abide by their rules, just like anyone who goes to your house has to follow yours.
Last edited: