Slashdot Mirror
Inside Twitter's Long, Slow Struggle To Police Bad Actors (wsj.com)
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has personally weighed in on high-profile decisions, frustrating some employees. An anonymous reader shares a report: When Twitter Chief Executive Jack Dorsey testifies before Congress this week, he'll likely be asked about an issue that has been hovering over the company: Just who decides whether a user gets kicked off the site? To some Twitter users -- and even some employees -- it is a mystery. In policing content on the site and punishing bad actors, Twitter relies primarily on its users to report abuses and has a consistent set of policies so that decisions aren't made by just one person, its executives say. Yet, in some cases, Mr. Dorsey has weighed in on content decisions at the last minute or after they were made, sometimes resulting in changes and frustrating other executives and employees [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source], according to people familiar with the matter. Understanding Mr. Dorsey's role in making content decisions is crucial, as Twitter tries to become more transparent to its 335 million users, as well as lawmakers about how it polices toxic content on its site.
Last month, after Twitter's controversial decision to allow far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to remain on its platform, Mr. Dorsey told one person that he had overruled a decision by his staff to kick Mr. Jones off, according to a person familiar with the discussion. Twitter disputes that account and says Mr. Dorsey wasn't involved in those discussions. Twitter's initial inaction on Mr. Jones, after several other major tech companies banned or limited his content, drew fierce backlash from the public and Twitter's own employees, some of whom tweeted in protest. [...] "Any suggestion that Jack made or overruled any of these decisions is completely and totally false," Twitter's chief legal officer, Vijaya Gadde, said in a statement. "Our service can only operate fairly if it's run through consistent application of our rules, rather than the personal views of any executive, including our CEO."
Last month, after Twitter's controversial decision to allow far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to remain on its platform, Mr. Dorsey told one person that he had overruled a decision by his staff to kick Mr. Jones off, according to a person familiar with the discussion. Twitter disputes that account and says Mr. Dorsey wasn't involved in those discussions. Twitter's initial inaction on Mr. Jones, after several other major tech companies banned or limited his content, drew fierce backlash from the public and Twitter's own employees, some of whom tweeted in protest. [...] "Any suggestion that Jack made or overruled any of these decisions is completely and totally false," Twitter's chief legal officer, Vijaya Gadde, said in a statement. "Our service can only operate fairly if it's run through consistent application of our rules, rather than the personal views of any executive, including our CEO."
you mean "everybody who hurt my feelings and whom i don't like"
Then when questioned on the application twitter spokespersons seem to offer this as a explanation, "its the algorithm that decides". If this banning / not banning continues then sooner or later, twitter (and others) may soon learn the hard way what "Common Carrier" means.
Passionately Indifferent
Considering the fact that @Jack is a bad actor, I doubt they'll ever do anything about it.
Socialists and Nazi fascists were and are today mortal enemies, read more retard nazi apologist lol. No wonder they're kicking you off social media, you faggots are too dumb to continue to exist lol.
Most reasonable people are sick and tired of wading through filth whenever they read a news forum, entertainment forum, twitter feed, sports article, you name it. Many sites simply resort to shutting off comments altogether, which eliminates the angry hate filled trash, but also eliminates the relevant insightful commentary.
The solution is to get rid of the the angry hateful speech...regardless of political leanings. If eliminating the hate and trash happens to impact a certain shade of ideology, well maybe those ideologues should assess their own speech and consider why and how many consider it hateful, angry, and vitriolic. That's not our fault...and we're not going to apologize. Clean it up, or go away.
Dorsey didn't deliver on the Alex Jones ban. He chickened out and went for probation. That's breaking ranks.
He pays the price now. Pressure is going to get ramped up until Dorsey is ousted from Twitter. Media hitpieces week in week out until he crumbles or the stock implodes or both.
Because this isn't tech anymore. It's not even business. It's politics.
How does editorial control jibe with the DMCA safe harbor provisions?
Freedom is a high price to pay to get rid of "jerks".
If you aren't anonymous, then you are far less likely to be a jerk.
But Facebook has already demonstrated that this is not true.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
To some Twitter users -- and even some employees -- it is a mystery
LOL. No it's fucking not. It's really fucking obvious who gets kicked off the platform.
Are you a prominent conservative political figure that is currently in the focus of a lot of angry liberal people who like to mash the "report" button (for frivolous or false reasons) and aren't too big/connected that there will be business/corporate/financial retaliation if you get kicked off the site?
Congratulations, have a boot to the head! You're banned!
I'm still waiting for publicly known harassers and perpetrators of violent hate speach to get banned from Twitter like: Randi Harper, Zoe Quinn, Manveer Heir, Sarah Jeong, Robbi Rodriguez and all those antifa goons. They are guilty of actions that are at the least worse than conservative entities on twitter are accused of doing and yet they get to spew things like "murder all white people" or send pictures of their hairy assholes to other people, or use twitter to orchestrate a network of followers to harass both online and in real life people whom merely disagree with their ideology.
Nazis weren't tolerant of homosexuality, it was something they were trying to wipe out, it's just that they were often willing to accept castration as sufficient means of dealing with the problem rather than execution.
Unlike Jews, Roma and other undesirables, homosexuals were often allowed that means of escaping the holocaust.
And yet Twitter's executive suite doesn't really care if the service truly operates fairly, it only cares if it has the APPEARANCE of operating fairly... and that can be accomplished without that niggling "consistent application of rules".
Facebook, twitter, etc should all (voluntarily) require all users to complete an identity verification process, and then real names should be used as handles.
If you aren't anonymous, then you are far less likely to be a jerk.
Perhaps, but not always ...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I wouldn't call Alex Jones a 'far right wing' player. I'd call him a nutcase cultist. Back when I used to read the Drudge Report page (I quit frequenting it awhile back) if a link from Drudge took me to infowars.com I had a habit of instantly closing the page, because that site is a loony nest. This was particularly the case during the 2016 election, because you're not doing yourself a favor by hanging out in a loony echo chamber if you have sincere beliefs in a thought out political philosophy. There are similar fever swamps on the left, of course.
-------------------
This is an aside, but I was trawling around on the left political sites this weekend and noticed that the main Trotskyite newspaper in the US is now apparently defending Trump of all things.
Do you also believe tiger sharks are actual tigers? Do you think corn snakes are made of corn? It's in their name, after all.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The problem is that anyone to the political right of Bernie Sanders is often labeled as a Nazi. We have sitting Congresspeople wanting to impeach a President that they readily admit has not broken any laws, let alone high crimes and misdemeanors, because they believe he is a Nazi. So I guess you kick at least half the US population into the retard bin...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Nazis sent homosexuals to the concentration camps and made them wear pink triangles.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Candace Owens was banned from Twitter for simply retweeting what racist NY Times editor/writer Sarah Jeong posted, but changing all racial references from white to black. And Candace Owens is black. Why was she banned? She's a conservative. And that's not allowed.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Ha! Immediately above your stupid, trollish idiocy a sensible logged in user has directly refuted you.
You're a fool.
Challenging someone to a boxing match or saying you want a political duel is hardly inciting others to violence. If those are the best examples you can find, your argument is pretty weak.
Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
Iâ(TM)m sure Chinese dissidents would 100% agree with you.
I guess we are not longer innocent until proven guilty?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The Nazis murdered *communists*. Because (among other things) they were conflicting forms of socialism.
because that's what got Alex Jones banned. The final straw was when he mimed a gun shot talking about Mueller. The platforms are worked one of his listeners is going to go off and shoot somebody. This isn't idle speculation either.
I looked up a few of the ones you listed. Manveer Heir is walking the same fine line Jones did with what can only be described as a left wing dog whistle. You're right, he's hot garbage (just trying to make a name for himself stirring up controversy). But I couldn't find an implicit let alone explicit call to violence against white people. The rest are either opportunists or, in Sarah Jeong's case, a dumb kid saying angry things. Again though, couldn't find any calls to violence.
Banning Jones and the like isn't something these platforms want to do. Remember, they're corporations who sell advertising. All they care about is eyeballs. They could care less how they get them. Hell, the reason Trump's president is the media gave him $6 billion in free advertising so they could get eyeballs to do their own ads to. They're worried about getting sued if they don't act and one of Jone's listeners acts on his (pretty blatant and at times outright overt) suggestions of violence.
"Antifa" is blown out of proportion by media. They're the American equivalent of soccer hooligans. And the most the left does is "Punch Nazis". I've yet to see one of them mime a shooting or show up with guns.
TL;DR: The Left isn't getting banned because they don't lean on violence.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
DMCA is for copyright. This isn't about copyright, this is about negligence. Jones' listeners already have a history of going off half cocked. My guess is google, Twitter, etc are worried about a negligence lawsuit the next time one of them fires a gun if it hits something.
They could hide behind common carrier, but that's a very high bar to meet. It means being a dumb pipe, like the telephone company. It wouldn't be worth it. They couldn't even ban trolls from flood posting and the like. No social network could survive that.
Instead they're policing their network as best the can. Make no mistake, they didn't want to kick Jones & his ilk off. His viewer's money spends the same as everyone else's and they'd be happy with the advertising dollars. The final straw was when he mimed shooting Bob Mueller.
If you want a sci-fi take on what they're afraid of go read this. I'm not saying Jones is trying to get somebody killed, but I'm saying words have power (as that Pizzagate business proved) and Jones is using them recklessly.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I was around back in the old days, when the university required my real name be on all of my usenet posts.
I made the mistake of correcting a popular figure who was repeating some debunked bullshit. A few months later, I gave in. I moved house, changed my phone number, and have been very careful of my identity ever since. Neither of us was anonymous. Several of the people who called me to threaten me called from their home phones, and since it wasn't a repeated pattern of behaviour by them, the police said it wasn't legally harassment. My phone still rang off the hook with dozens of them every day.
What you're advocating leads to mob rule, where the popular people get to say whatever they like and the little people have to suck it up. I mean, do you really think nobody ever knew what Harvey Weinstein was up to? Was he anonymous? He was just careful to choose victims well down the social ladder from himself. Anonymity is freedom for those of us living at the bottom of the social ladder, that's why it's so popular on sites full of bullying victims, like slashdot. Those of you living privileged lives higher up wouldn't understand.
Yes, there's nazi's and whatever other bogeymen live under your bed down here, but there's a hell of a lot of decent people who just aren't quite as good at playing the social climber game as you. And though you don't want to acknowledge it, there's a lot of socially adept jerks strutting about under their real names because they know their victims will never be able to call them out on it.
So first I searched for "reputation". Nothing. Maybe 60+ comments is too soon? Then I searched for "funny", but that's just the normal disappointment. Then I actually looked at the posts modded "insightful". That's just sad. Final searches for "solution" as in "constructive". Sadder.
Anyway, I'm still fixated on seeking constructive solutions. The approach that most probably applies to Twitter is MEPR (Multidimensional Earned Public Reputation), though it would need some tweaking for that application.
In brief, trolls with earned bad reputations should be helped in rendering themselves less visible, and the more they like to act badly, the less visible they should become. I'm not saying it should be difficult to earn a good reputation, but there's no hurry, and if it's a slower process then the penalty of losing your reputation becomes more serious and worth avoiding.
ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
conspiracy
Do you even know what conspiracy is? Like, the legal definition?
emoluments
The new vocabulary word that everyone learned this year......even though they still don't know what it means.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Fascism and socialism or social-democratic-ism are not the same thing in any respect nor did the Nazis practice socialism.
Fascism, Socialism, and Communism are all top-down, command-and-control, redistributionist, collectivist, authoritarian ideologies that place little value on individual freedom over the interests of the collective. "Everything within the State, nothing outside the State." applies equally to all three. In none of them does the individual have "rights", only privileges allowed by the State that can be revoked anytime for any reason.
It's like Catholics, Protestants, and Methodists each accusing the others of not being Christian. They are all Christians that differ only on relatively minor points of doctrine. It's the same with Fascism, Socialism (and it's sub-variants like "Democratic Socialism" which is an oxymoron) and Communism.
Rather than "Left" and "Right" we should be discussing an "Up" and "Down", "Up" being larger government with the commensurate loss of individual liberty, and "Down" which is smaller, less powerful government with a commensurately larger amount of individual liberty.
With a less powerful government "Left" and "Right" would not matter as much nor affect individual liberty as drastically.
Get "Down" baby, and get free!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Twitter said that I have to verify my telephone number so I can continue using the Twitter service. Did not give any plausible argument why they kicked me off.
I simply stopped using twitter and will not come back. F*ck it.
Signature deleted by lameness filter.
You understand that modding an AC to -1 for an on topic, detailed explanation with supporting links, just ends up as a penalty in meta-moderation later. I don't mind expanding on the comments, if it'll waste -1 mod points!
It's not a complicated thing. 2012 and Russian spies visit New York offering property deals in exchange for political help in getting sanctions lifted, they operate out of VTB Bank in New York and are prosecuted. Him and Felix Slater (born Felix Mikhailovich Sheferovsky, a Russian mobster) broker a deal
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5616219/Ex-Russian-spy-worked-Trump-Tower-Moscow-deal-Donald-ran-president.html
Trump did his run on the Presidency and was supposed to push a pro-Russian agenda, and he did that. His campaign staff were all approved by Moscow, many met the Russian Ambassador ahead as a sort of job interview, or had previous Russian business links. Even his lawyers for the emoluments clause were one of two companies approved to work in Moscow.
But stuff starts to go wrong, details of meetings leak out, money flows are not concealed properly, one of the launderers, Cohen flips, his campaign managers were sloppy in their communications, coordination with the Russians was sloppy, they say a meeting was about a property deal, he says it was about orphans, Trump himself is sloppy, in front of Whitehouse staff sworn to obey the laws first and their boss second.
And here we are today. *Republican* budget says Trump cannot recognize Crimea as part of Russia, and Trump adds a signing statement to cancel that. You can pretend he's being persecuted by political enemies, but he's not, he's being prosecuted by patriotic Americans.
I love it when you people let the mask slip. Thanks for politicizing Twitter and helping send it to the bottom.
The vast majority of my friends have been banned from Twitter, and they're nowhere near conservative. You're wrong. Twitter just bans thousands of account each day at random.
That is correct. Nazis were not socialists.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Socialism is an economic distribution model, not a government.
So there are no Socialist governments? Venezuela would like a word with you.
You're engaging in Post-Modernism. Why do you want to regress to something the West abandoned long ago for logic and reason during the Enlightenment which propelled humanity thousands of years forward in the space of a little more than a century?
Read about this stuff, Strat.
Back at you AC, and at least I have the confidence in my knowledge, principles, opinions, and facts to not post AC.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I heard Mastadon is actually worse: http://wilwheaton.net/2018/08/...
Just switch off all of those social apps. They are making the world a horrible place.
Signature deleted by lameness filter.
WRONG.
There are plenty of real-life examples which prove your idea of no anonymity is not going to be the solution.
Elon Musk has himself provided us with multiple examples of being a jerk in a very public manner. So have many other people.
There are jerks in the world and you are powerless to prevent them from being jerks. That's how it is and how it will always be.
DEAL WITH IT, and quit acting like a spoiled child who expects the world to conform to his wishes.
Says the anonymous coward.
Elon Musk is not a normal human. He's probably an alien, so as an example, he doesn't count. Also, he may very well lose his job at Tesla for being a jerk. CEOs of public companies with boards of directors and share holds are not immune from being fired, not even Elon.
There are currently few ramifications for being a jerk online. Unless you threaten the life of the President (a crime), or are sued for libel, most everyday people face no repercussions for being jerks online, probably because tracking down 'annoying' is just, well, annoying.
However, if any public forum required a real name tag, then negative forum participation with a searchable history might start to lead to repercussions, like increased use of libel laws, hiring, job scrutiny, credit rating, etc. It might also help identify mental illness much more quickly.
Loss of anonymity might lead to the stifling of free speech, but I doubt it. When the constitution was written (which does not specifically guarantee privacy), people gathered in town halls and pubs and talked to one another. Sometimes there was fighting. But, everyone could see your face and look each other in the eye. In more recent history, newspapers would publish op-ed pieces using a pseudonym, which isn't much different than anonymity. Smear campaigns were often used, and sometimes true identities were discovered, resulting in consequences.
Democracy was founded in a far distant era where the written word was rare and expensive, and the thought of addressing an assembly of peers anonymously would be met with laughter, derision, and the tossing of rotten fruit. Maybe it's time we get back to the basics. I'd love a chance to toss a few juicy tomatoes at politicians.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
Don't you mean "Nazis were not true socialists"?
True, false or otherwise, they were not socialists. Nazis killed socialists.
Here's something else you can ruminate on: the Democratic People's Republic of Korea really isn't democratic. It's just a name.
Nazis were indisputably fascist. They arose out of a far right movement in Europe that was a reaction against leftists. The original name of Hitler's party was Deutcher Arbeiter Partei (D.A.P). It didn't become the N.S.D.A.P. until they were trying to steal socialist support (which they never got). There is not a single historian that will say the Nazis were socialists or leftists. It's the same today. You will notice that when the Nazis marched in Charlottesville, they didn't call their rally, "Unite the Left". They called it "Unite the Right".
Also, did you know that the Nazis hated being called Nazis? They have that in common with the Nazis of today.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Pink triangles and nothing else?
I bet they left Lieutenant Gruber in charge...
I've said it before, the way you do away with free speech is to privatize. Media platforms to a large extent have been treated as public space. This is now being rolled back. So to some extent this is not regulation but deregulation. Social media now get to decide with their advisory boards what is allowed to be said. Guess who gets to be on the advisory boards.
I wouldn't disagree with the idea that people have to be kept accountable for what they say - to some extent. But what you get now is that big interests work together with social media platforms to control things to go their way. And those who don't like that are entirely free to find another planet.
"Mr. Dorsey told one person that he had overruled a decision by his staff to kick Mr. Jones off, according to a person familiar with the discussion."
Ah, here we see another common tactic of the outrage industry: if we can't get X organisation to do what we want, then we'll just make up a rumour implicating one of the senior members, in order to personally pressure them into giving in.
Yep, privatize the public common and make sure you control the private owner and your information/propaganda control is complete.
Well, to be fair, around 50% of the polulation has a below average intelligence.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Just because some websites are private, does not mean they can do what they want.
Theree are plenty of laws and rules you need to folow, especially if it is available to the public.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Socialist. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Twitter is just a a platform for crazy old Trump to spew hatred, deceit, paranoia, racism, and generally working on destroying America.
Do what I did, close your account.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Are you a prominent conservative political figure that is currently in the focus of a lot of angry liberal people who like to mash the "report" button (for frivolous or false reasons) and aren't too big/connected that there will be business/corporate/financial retaliation if you get kicked off the site?
Congratulations, have a boot to the head! You're banned!
All the evidence I have see suggests that is actually happens to progressive/left leaning users much more often. Especially on YouTube, but Twitter has issues too. A lot of this mobbing gets organized on 4chan, right out in the open, but it's very hard to get a human being at those companies to even notice, let along check the 4chan thread and realize what has happened.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If content is not illegal, Twitter should not be restricting it in any way.
Name one business that uses "not illegal" as its required standard of behaviour for patrons.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
They called it "Unite the Right".
From what I can see about similar movements in my country is that these people have a right-wing view on issues as identity and immigration, but mostly a left-wing view on economic policies.
A better system would be some kind of karma, attached to a pseudonymous user name, like here on Slashdot. As you build up karma, it becomes something that's worthy of accountability. Providing a verified real name could be used to provide initial karma, but it wouldn't be required.
If twitter banned Alex Jones for his nut job conspiracy theories and lies, they'd also have to ban @realDonaldTrump for his abuse, lies, and conspiracy theories. So my conspiracy theory is that Alex still has access because otherwise Trump wouldn't.
Once you censor, than you are legally liable for not censoring. Choose and perish ;P.
Allow the courts to censor and you have no problem, all entirely the law makers and the courts problem.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
The point of policing is to identify people who harass and abuse, and/or post false or misleading information (lies and propaganda). Some people are too dumb to know when they are being manipulated ... and some people are so good at manipulating, that even smart people get conned.
I remember the bad old days, when police did the actual policing, and there was due process and stuff.
Oh well. Forward!
If content is not illegal, Twitter should not be restricting it in any way.
Name one business that uses "not illegal" as its required standard of behaviour for patrons.
Um, most of them?
Seriously, you have to pretty much be doing something illegal (shoplifting, disturbing the peace) to be kicked out of, say, a grocery store.
For the 100th time, nazional-sozialists were socialists !! (bignannystate-mother-knows-best-social-engineers-stateruneconomy-true-socialists kind).
If you say "socialism" and "Venezuela" in the mirror three times a socialist account will appear behind you to tell you Venezuela isn't actually socialist and anyway it was done wrong. (just like all of the others)
LOL! Noice! Agreed, the socialists always trot-out that old, tired, "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy every time. People have gotten tired of hearing that BS to the point that even folks who aren't very politically-minded roll their eyes at those types anymore.
Strat is exactly right. Fascism was an attempt to avoid the economic collapse of Leninism while retaining the authoritarian control.
Thank you. Yes, Lenin even congratulated Mussolini when he took Italy Fascist, as Socialism and Fascism are both based on Marxist ideology.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
True, false or otherwise, they were not socialists. Nazis killed socialists.
So if I will you, i'm not a slashdotter ? Or a homo sapiens ? Typical neomarxist thinking....
He knows what it means, but just like his NSDAP cousins, he doesn't like being called what he is.
Tiger sharks and corn snakes didn't pick their own names.
But ok, you don't trust names, OK fair !, then you also think nazis weren't nazis or fascist (because hey FAKE NAMES....).. no ? no ? Or is it only fake name when it suits you ?
To paraphrase Carlin: Look at the average man, and realize half of them are dumber than him!
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
No, he means that Nazis were trying to co-opt the name for their own means. They aren't "true socialists" in the same sense that North Korea is not a true "Democratic Republic."
Everyone in this thread should just fucking kill themselves, stop bitching about the left vs right aspect of brutal authoritarian regimes, and come to the realization that if you are a brutal authoritarian regime, you probably aren't anywhere close to any mainstream economic model.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
My god you have no idea how reality works, do you.
Try yelling racial slurs as you wander around the store and see how long it takes for you to get kicked out.
Or wander around yelling how your want to legalize paedophilia. I bet that will get you booted even faster.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Try going into McDonalds, getting on your soapbox and lecturing the patrons about almost anything. See how long their "not illegal" standard of required behaviour holds for.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Well, I was half-joking, but "economic model" is ... vastly underestimating the scope of these ideologies.
Sure, they are "economic model", in the sense that everything you do involves money (even the communist USSR used money, just as the Federation uses gold-pressed latinum, despite the usual propaganda).
These "economic models" aren't just about how to handle your finances; they are about how you live your entire life (your "livelihood", if you will). The fact that totalitarian versions also include genocidal agendas (see: annihilation of the Maquis) doesn't quite set them apart enough to make them incomparable to their "gentler" counterparts.
only it was never "public common". its always been, and will continue to be, private enterprise.
Name one.
I don't recall Rachel Maddow miming shooting Trump, and I'm pretty sure if she had Fox News would make damn sure I knew. I don't recall her accusing Republicans of Blood Libel. I don't recall her suggesting armed rebellion against Trump. Jones has done all these things. He did all this while courting an audience that believes Sandy Hook didn't happen. He did all this while he knew (based on testimony given under oath at his divorce trial) that none of the crazy conspiracy theories he spouts are real (which is funny, it's biting him in the ass during his defamation hearing).
If you're gonna do Whataboutism can you at least try harder than that?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
who are both well armed and prone to believe absurd conspiracy theories? Did you do it _after_ one of those people from your audience showed up at a pizza joint with a rifle and fired rounds into it? If so then yes, I would ban you from my platform if I was google or twitter. If only out of fear of a negligence lawsuit.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
with the actual left. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer aren't part of the American Left. They're right wingers running in districts that won't vote for Republicans. There's been attempts to kick them out via primary but they've got so much money they beat them back. Go look up the "Justice Democrats" on google if you want to see the actual American Left.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The only real viable outcome of these hearings and all the brouhaha of banning and censorship, etc is likely legislation mandating that the terms and conditions for socials sites clearly outline specific behaviors that are prohibited, the penalties for violating the terms and conditions and requiring some form of due process for those who believe they have been wrongly accused and found in violation.
Can't really see the harm in that.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Left wing on economic policies? Can you elaborate a bit?
They are not allowed to discriminate who they conduct commerce with based on race.