Slashdot Mirror
President Trump Accuses Twitter of Political Bias (bloomberg.com)
President Donald Trump has accused Twitter of targeting his followers for removal from the social media platform, amid complaints by conservatives that social media companies have been discriminating against right-wing voices. From a report: "Twitter has removed many people from my account and, more importantly, they have seemingly done something that makes it much harder to join -- they have stifled growth to a point where it is obvious to all," Trump said in a tweet Friday. "A few weeks ago it was a Rocket Ship, now it is a Blimp! Total Bias?" Trump and some other Republicans have complained that Facebook, Alphabet's Google and Twitter have censored or suppressed conservative voices. Democrats have called that a diversion from concern over Russia's use of social-media platforms to influence the 2016 presidential election and over the proliferation of offensive content. In his opening remarks during a meeting with state attorneys general in September, Attorney General Jeff Sessions raised concerns that social media companies have a political agenda and have the power to manipulate public opinion, according to Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh.
That's all I ask. His every tweet is something negative, an attack or an accusation that someone is mistreating/maligning/abusing him.
Has he nothing to contribute?
Darryl L. Pierce "What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"
Given the number of other threads that devolve into shit flinging in one direction or the other over Trump (or just politics in general), maybe it's not a bad idea to have one of these stories every now and again with some thinly veiled connection to technology so that everyone who wants to argue about has a place to do so and the other comment sections can be free of their off-topic discussion.
Maybe it could get it's own special little section with some other features. Moderation can be changed so that he only options are "+1 Validates My Beliefs" and "-1 Fuck You I Disagree" or something along those lines. Anyone who wants to, is free to join in, but if they don't even want to observe the trash fire, they can just skip over the story entirely. Maybe even feel a little bit smug about doing so.
Twitter is not a government entity. They can do what they damn well please. They don't have to obey the 1st Amendment. If he doesn't like it, he can quit using the service (don't we all wish)....
Yes, as a Trump supporter, I DO wish he'd lay off his tweeting, at least for the most part. Some of it has been helpful, but the bulk of it has been anything but helpful or appropriate in my view. But one must also acknowledge that the media's reaction to these tweets has been at least partly responsible for the whole three ring circus. Trump is obviously the ring master, but the media are running around as the clowns at his request.
However, It's fair to state that there IS sort of a social movement brewing that is pushing to force 1st amendment like rules onto popular social platforms, even those which are privately owned and operated. Personally, I'm a bit conflicted about this kind of regulation, because that's what this will need to be, a law. On one hand I clearly see the political bias imposed by these platforms as a bad thing, but on the other I clearly understand that the 1st amendment doesn't apply.
I guess that my preference would be for a "hands off" policy and leave things as they are. Let folks like Trump complain about how unfair the sites moderate based on political bias, just take the complaints with a grain of salt. As much as these platforms are PR shamed into trying to justify their bias, the net effect is the same as a regulation and a whole lot less complex and expensive to boot.
SO... Let Trump complain. I think he's correct, Twitter is biased. However, I'm not supportive of laws or regulations that try to enforce any political parity on social platforms. IF Trump's PR war on Twitter causes them to be less biased, great! I think it's a waste of his time, but I'm more concerned about his accomplishments and policies than his Twitter rants.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Here I thought the left was against large multinational companies abusing their positions of power over regular people.
As someone who's often left-leaning, that's almost completely wrong.
The left is very much in favor of large companies (and states) having power over regular people. The key is that it's a highly-regulated power, managed by someone with the regular people's best interests in mind, because history has shown that the regular people very rarely understand how to actually accomplish their goals. Those that do aggressively pursue their goals will usually end up doing so by preventing others from pursuing theirs.
Now, on the other hand, the left is strongly opposed to anyone (company, individual, state, or otherwise) having any power that can be used to oppress anyone. If technology can silence a particular idea, then there must be rules in place to prevent its use in that way. Without those rules, the technology is better left unbuilt.
This is, of course, very idealistic. Benevolent dictators usually don't keep either adjective for long. People don't realize the negative impact until well after the damage is done. That's why the left also tends to favor bureaucracies with strong checks and balances, to prevent any individual (or small groups) from undermining the protective regulations.
It's even more terrifying that there are so many quick to support that kind of power for any kind of entity especially one without accountability or transparency.
You sound like a leftist. /s
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Citation?
Let me try to help. Say your neighbor starts running down the street yelling "Your wife is a whore!". Do you think:
1. Everyone should believe him, because he said it. Until you prove otherwise, she is a whore.
2. People should disregard him, or at least ask him provide evidence.
The choice is of course self evident to sane people.
People can play these "all assertions need evidence" games all day long. It benefits no one, particularly in the information age and when most citations are simply links to other people that have also made the same assertion with no citation themselves.
i'm confused what you are saying. Are you arguing we should believe nothing we read, or everything we read? Or should we flip a coin? In lieu of evidence we can trust or at least put some weight on, a coin flip is the best we can do.
Or do you think we should believe whatever supports our internal narrative about the world? Like, Twitter is a bunch of libtards trying to bring down Trump?