Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
He can bemoan whatever he wants. We can ridicule his bemoaning. That is free speech.

He can exclude whomever he wants from using his service, for whatever dumb reason he wants, or not provide one at all. We do not have to use his service, again, for any reason we choose, or none at all. That is free speech.

No one is denying any of that. He just can’t claim free speech then get ticked off and kick people out of his sandbox for doing the very thing he is trying to champion.

He’s being duplicitous and hypocritical; if he had simply said that “I only want what I thing should go on my platform”, we’d have no problem with it. He didn’t, and is rightfully being called out on his BS. It makes for bad press for him, causes an even bigger exodus from his playground, and will cause it to no longer be the place for everyone to go, leaving him with having his own personal MySpace.

BL.
 
Instead of typing thousands of word tweets we shall fill thousands of seats to watch billionaires fight Mortal Kombat style until none remain.

1671256028110.png
 
That's not the point. The point is you're choosing to use a word with a negative connotation in order to beg the question. Humans are by definition animals and things. But if someone goes around referring to people as animals or things, they're being an ass.

I don't feel censorship has a negative connotation. I think a lot of censorship can be for good. If you choose to take it as a negative, that's your choice. I am simply using it as I previously defined it which is not a necessarily a negative.
 
Continually framing it as if you’re a victim of censorship is ridiculous. What you’re seeing is moderation. Really bad, inconsistent and in some cases straight up offensive moderation, but moderation none the less. No matter how often Musk yammers about free speech and censorship, he’s still completely full of crap and looking to snow people who don’t fully comprehend these terms.

There are a few accepted definitions of "censorship" and I have clearly stated the one I have been using to apply to my comments. That is not at all framing it as a victim.



And again: it isn’t possible for Twitter to censor anyone. Take president Trump for example. He was banned. He went and starred his own version of Twitter. He hasn’t been silenced. He hasn’t been censored.

Censorship can occur without having to occur across all possible sources of content delivery. Just because someone may be able to post something fully on social media site A doesn't mean that when the same content is suppressed, deleted, blocked, etc. on social media site B that B isn't censoring that content. It's not uncommon for companies to talk about reserving the right to censor but that certainly doesn't mean their "rules" have to apply to every possible company, platform or whatever out there for it to be considered censorship.



Another example: if you browse multiple Apple/Mac related forums you’ll come across disgruntled people who were banned from one forum or another complaining about how they got censored or suppressed. Neither is true in that case either. They were simply denied service to a specific site at the discretion of the owners of that site.

If you want Twitter to be a public square that enjoys protections for freedom of speech then it would have to become a utility, be free for anyone to use and be regulated by the federal government. Just like ANY public space. As long as it’s a private company they can allow or deny anyone access to the service that they want, regardless of whether anyone feels it’s “fair” or not.

The larger issue I have is when a company, like Twitter, claims they aren't doing something if in fact they are e.g., claiming they don't shadow ban when they do. That would be misrepresenting the product/service to its users and advertisers.
 
You can't delete speech, and private companies can't censor. Correct for those and it's less interesting.

User content (or "speech" if you want to call it that) can be deleted and private companies including social media companies can censor.

Free Speech Online and on Social Media
The widespread use of the internet, and particularly social media platforms, has presented new challenges in defining what types speech are protected by the First Amendment. Social Media platforms are private companies, and we learned above that private companies are legally able to establish regulations and guidelines within their communities–including censorship of content or banning of members.

https://www.carnegielibrary.org/the-first-amendment-and-censorship/
 
If you read carefully and thoroughly enough, you will find a catch-all term to the effect "Twitter has final say on all content and service", which is the equivalent of the "right to refuse service" sign found in many physical businesses. It doesn't have to be "fair".

Under Federal law a business cannot systemically refuse service for certain protected classes--race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. I don't see anything about the content of speech in there, but if you think otherwise, take them to court.

My issue is not about what Twitter can or can't do, it’s about a potential lack of transparency and/or consistency in what they do or have done; and how they may have been or are misrepresenting the product/service to its users and advertisers.
 
  • Love
Reactions: bradl
A site operator can moderate as they wish, fully agree.
As soon as the Government tells a site operator to moderate we get into censorship.
The FBI was clearly involved in censoring certain accounts on various platforms.
Elvis M Chan is the name which came up. I think you guys are skilled enough to google his name to find the deposition.
And therefore, Yes, Twitter and the Government violated the 1st amendment.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Surf Monkey
A site operator can moderate as they wish, fully agree.
As soon as the Government tells a site operator to moderate we get into censorship.
The FBI was clearly involved in censoring certain accounts on various platforms.
Elvis M Chan is the name which came up. I think you guys are skilled enough to google his name to find the deposition.
And therefore, Yes, Twitter and the Government violated the 1st amendment.

I only knew the James Brown Chan conspiracy. Now I know Jackie did Elvis also.

1671297350614.gif
 
My issue is not about what Twitter can or can't do, it’s about a potential lack of transparency and/or consistency in what they do or have done; and how they may have been or are misrepresenting the product/service to its users and advertisers.
They don't have to be transparent or consistent--they owe nothing to their users. You can say that makes them a "bad" company or something, but since the users haven't paid anything to use the service, there is no tort or damages to claim. This is like a hotel giving you a free room and you complaining that the shower was cold and the pillows lumpy. Ok, bye.

Whether or not they "misrepresented" anything to their users isn't really relevant, again because the tweets are free and explicitly understood to be both public and mined for selling ads to the customers--advertizers. We obviously don't have any idea if they misled the customers as the commercial agreements between Twitter and advertisers is not public.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Surf Monkey
User content (or "speech" if you want to call it that) can be deleted and private companies including social media companies can censor.

Free Speech Online and on Social Media
The widespread use of the internet, and particularly social media platforms, has presented new challenges in defining what types speech are protected by the First Amendment. Social Media platforms are private companies, and we learned above that private companies are legally able to establish regulations and guidelines within their communities–including censorship of content or banning of members.

https://www.carnegielibrary.org/the-first-amendment-and-censorship/
A recording of speech can be destroyed, of course, just as graffiti can be painted over, but the speech has occured and cannot be deleted, unless you've invented a time machine.

In any case, the private firm Twitter is under any obligation to perpetually display your past speech per the TOS, though of course you may take the initiative to do so yourself. Screenshot your tweet and print it and post it in public squares the world over if you like. Stand on your soapbox ad nauseam.

There is a reason that PUBLIC proceedings are explicitly recorded for posterity and all attendees are made aware of this fact in advance.
 
When Musk took over at Twitter and the talk of Twitter's demise began, I believed it was all hype and people were just being dramatic. But in recent weeks, it's gotten so much worse. I mean, whether you like what these reporters say or not, having reporters censored or banned is really, really bad.

Musk isn't paying Twitter's bills, trying to get away with not paying severance pay to the employees he fired, and seeking funding partners with a deadline only a few weeks out. It all points to imminent demise.

I really don't see Twitter surviving at this point. The only thing will save it is the fact that there is no viable alternative. Mastodon is not the answer – it's way too difficult to use, or even sign up for. I would see Facebook as more of a replacement than Mastodon at this point.
 
When Musk took over at Twitter and the talk of Twitter's demise began, I believed it was all hype and people were just being dramatic. But in recent weeks, it's gotten so much worse. I mean, whether you like what these reporters say or not, having reporters censored or banned is really, really bad.

Musk isn't paying Twitter's bills, trying to get away with not paying severance pay to the employees he fired, and seeking funding partners with a deadline only a few weeks out. It all points to imminent demise.

I really don't see Twitter surviving at this point. The only thing will save it is the fact that there is no viable alternative. Mastodon is not the answer – it's way too difficult to use, or even sign up for. I would see Facebook as more of a replacement than Mastodon at this point.

There is another platform similar to Twitter, called Post. It is almost completely ready for prime time; however, it is invite-only at this point. When it's ready, it will probably replace Twitter as the place to go, while Twitter will probably take in everything that remains from Truth going teets up as well.

BL.
 
When Musk took over at Twitter and the talk of Twitter's demise began, I believed it was all hype and people were just being dramatic. But in recent weeks, it's gotten so much worse. I mean, whether you like what these reporters say or not, having reporters censored or banned is really, really bad.

Musk isn't paying Twitter's bills, trying to get away with not paying severance pay to the employees he fired, and seeking funding partners with a deadline only a few weeks out. It all points to imminent demise.

I really don't see Twitter surviving at this point. The only thing will save it is the fact that there is no viable alternative. Mastodon is not the answer – it's way too difficult to use, or even sign up for. I would see Facebook as more of a replacement than Mastodon at this point.

Mastodon is easy. Pick user name, pick server, follow accounts. No harder than Reddit.

Forget FB. Don’t be a shill for FB.
 
They don't have to be transparent or consistent--they owe nothing to their users. You can say that makes them a "bad" company or something, but since the users haven't paid anything to use the service, there is no tort or damages to claim. This is like a hotel giving you a free room and you complaining that the shower was cold and the pillows lumpy. Ok, bye.

Whether or not they "misrepresented" anything to their users isn't really relevant, again because the tweets are free and explicitly understood to be both public and mined for selling ads to the customers--advertizers. We obviously don't have any idea if they misled the customers as the commercial agreements between Twitter and advertisers is not public.

If a company claims to do something they aren't or not do something they are, they at a minimum deserve to be called out on it and criticized accordingly.

If a company claims they don't shadow ban but in realty they do, it is misrepresenting the product/service to its paying and/or non-paying customers. Similarly, if a company claims they don't allow certain types of apps in their app store but in reality they do, it is misrepresenting the product/service to its paying and/or non-paying customers.

It is not about whether these companies CAN do it, it's about them making false claims about what they are (or aren't) doing.

Also, some customers do pay to use Twitter, whether it be through subscriptions, promoting a tweet, advertising, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bradl
A recording of speech can be destroyed, of course, just as graffiti can be painted over, but the speech has occured and cannot be deleted, unless you've invented a time machine.

In any case, the private firm Twitter is under any obligation to perpetually display your past speech per the TOS, though of course you may take the initiative to do so yourself. Screenshot your tweet and print it and post it in public squares the world over if you like. Stand on your soapbox ad nauseam.

There is a reason that PUBLIC proceedings are explicitly recorded for posterity and all attendees are made aware of this fact in advance.

Speech can be deleted from a platform. If something is posted and then removed, it has been deleted (aka censored) on that platform.

Again, if a company claims to do something they aren't or not do something they are, they at a minimum deserve to be called out on it and criticized accordingly. It is not about whether these companies CAN do it, it's about them making false claims about what they are (or aren't) doing which can be misrepresenting the product/services to its customers..
 
  • Like
Reactions: bradl
Speech can be deleted from a platform. If something is posted and then removed, it has been deleted (aka censored) on that platform.

Again, if a company claims to do something they aren't or not do something they are, they at a minimum deserve to be called out on it and criticized accordingly. It is not about whether these companies CAN do it, it's about them making false claims about what they are (or aren't) doing which can be misrepresenting the product/services to its customers..

A lot of young artists and musicians post IG links on Twitter. They now can’t share their profiles. They can only cross post but can’t link. That’s just lame. The other sites are better for art and music fans.

And this QElon man child complains about App Store?? Hypocrite.

1671387301275.jpeg

1671387916339.png
 
Last edited:
My issue is not about what Twitter can or can't do, it’s about a potential lack of transparency and/or consistency in what they do or have done; and how they may have been or are misrepresenting the product/service to its users and advertisers.

The only way to fix this is to regulate Twitter. Is that what you want? Nationalize it and make it a public utility?
 
Speech can be deleted from a platform. If something is posted and then removed, it has been deleted (aka censored) on that platform.

Again, if a company claims to do something they aren't or not do something they are, they at a minimum deserve to be called out on it and criticized accordingly. It is not about whether these companies CAN do it, it's about them making false claims about what they are (or aren't) doing which can be misrepresenting the product/services to its customers..

Let’s say someone had one of their posts deleted from a thread here because the mods feel that it violated the site’s terms. Was that person CENSORED? No. Of course not. It’s the prerogative of the site. Do the mods have to explain themselves to you? No. Do they have to demonstrate consistency? It’s ideal but they’re not obligated to do so.

Twitter is the SAME THING. It’s basically a private forum just like this one. So unless your contention is that Twitter should be either highly regulated or nationalized then you don’t really have an argument. Twitter will do whatever Musk wants it to do as long as it isn’t breaking any laws.
 
Let’s say someone had one of their posts deleted from a thread here because the mods feel that it violated the site’s terms. Was that person CENSORED? No. Of course not. It’s the prerogative of the site. Do the mods have to explain themselves to you? No. Do they have to demonstrate consistency? It’s ideal but they’re not obligated to do so.

Twitter is the SAME THING. It’s basically a private forum just like this one. So unless your contention is that Twitter should be either highly regulated or nationalized then you don’t really have an argument. Twitter will do whatever Musk wants it to do as long as it isn’t breaking any laws.

By same reason Elon can no longer complain about iOS walled garden. He did a self pwn.

1671401000221.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Surf Monkey
Freedom of speech absolutism or wannabe dictatorship. And while a real dictator might close the borders making it difficult to get out, Internet knows no borders. In the end there will be only bots and troll farms on Birdsite - no real users, no advertisers, lol.
 
Last edited:
Freedom of speech absolutism or wannabe dictatorship. And while a real dictator might close the the borders making it difficult to get out, Internet knows no borders. In the end there will be only bots and troll farms on Birdsite - no real users, no advertisers, lol.

Unfortunately the Internet is more and more “bordered” all the time. China being the most glaring example.

Ultimately I don’t think we can rely on a private company like Twitter to be responsible for providing a platform for free speech. If that’s the goal in the online context then some other approach is necessary.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.