Cernovich on Twitter: "Twitters admin panel has a button to “blacklist trends.” So yeah twitter lied, they manually edit trends. The ones advocating violence are kept up. By their choice. They aren’t a platform. They are a publisher. Abolish Section 230."

submitted by christnmusicreleases from twitter.com

all 48 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]King_Brutus 46 insightful - 3 fun46 insightful - 2 fun47 insightful - 3 fun -  (17 children)

This is the most damning part of the leaks that nobody seems to be talking about. The implications are huge. Every single grassroots movement is now in question because of the ability for Twitter to gatekeep what is being talked about. Literally controlling a narrative on the single most influential and visible social media platform today.

[–][deleted] 23 insightful - 2 fun23 insightful - 1 fun24 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

On reddit too. In never once hit the frontpage. There are discussions on /r/tech and other smaller subs, but the voting on them seems suppressed.

[–]RamenNoodlz 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

Every platform censors stuff tho...so I'm not sure what the beef is. If you don't publish your own content, I'm not sure how you could be labeled as a publisher. You seem to be mad that a platform has the power to choose what to allow, which is like being mad at WalMart for not carrying Hustler Mags and Porn vids. It's not a solid argument.

[–]Fitter_Happier 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you don't publish your own content, I'm not sure how you could be labeled as a publisher.

If you only let through one opinion, then you're pushing that opinion. How is that not obvious? If I throw out the votes for one candidate and not the other was there an election or an appointment?

[–]King_Brutus 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

What if I'm specifically enforcing policies against a certain group but not against others? That would seem to have me pick a side. Platforms can technically do whatever they want in terms of censorship but at some point people are going to get pissed off about it.

[–]RamenNoodlz 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

That's the platforms agenda, like I said, are you mad Wal-Mart doesn't have porn and sex toys? And I agree, people are allowed to be mad about censorship and complain, like you are doing, it's good to have those conversations.

[–]yetanotherone_sigh 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The gotcha here is that Twitter is claiming that it's not a publisher, and thus it's immune if one of the Twitter users posts something bad like child porn. But it is adjusting what people see, which throws that argument out the window.

[–]jamesK_3rd 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think this is the point everyone is missing.

I agree companies should be able to censor what they like, however they aren't a platform they're a publisher. If reddit or Twitter want to blacklist every conservative or libertarian voice that's fine, even if it's "really hard" to make another platform. Umm No.

The corollary to that is platforms are generally not liable under section 230, and publishers are. Platforms generally can't be sued for damages, and don't have much civil or criminal liability. But they've given companies that are likely publishers the same benefits as platforms, likely because they toed the line in a grey area.

This restricts the ability of users who could sue a platform like Twitter for such things defamation, libel, loss of ad revenues, swatting, child porn etc. Ironically enough, the courts and money was designed to keep many companies in check, but turns out the courts and our politicians generally gave them immunity anyway, especially if they're part of an in-group.

Up until now, They've straddled the line. So everyone treated them as a platform. People even had their ad revenues coming through these sites, which is essentially their work compensation. After they began to label certain opinions as racist/misogynist/homophobic, which defamed them and likely causes them to lose advertisers, that's a problem.

If Twitter started off as a publisher for specifically leftist ideals or opinions as they are now, I've got less of a problem with that. But they didn't, they made their money and their name on being a place where everyone comes to spout off and a lot of folks got ads and revenues from that. But after Twitter made it, they can't just defame half of their users claiming the opinions they had up until now are banned, and these users shouldn't be granted any ad revenues and blacklisted. Twitter should be liable for that.

Here's a analogous example: Wal-Mart hires an ex con, and after years of work that makes them a bigger company one day Wal-Mart says, 'yeh we don't hire ex cons, sorry, so we're essentially letting you go (maybe you can still come in to work, we just aren't gonna let you get paid for it). And by the way, since we have a large bulletin board, we're putting it out there for everyone's future reference that no one should hire you either because you're an ex con. '

That's bullshit. Twitter should be liable for all of it, since they been shown from the hack to actively censure certain groups, users, ideas and material. Which means any child porn that "just got thru", didn't just get thru...

They're liable.. And after everyone gets a piece of that cake, then Twitter can become the leftist paradise of simpleton ideas that's it's so desired.

But most of the recent legislation SOPA/PIPA/COPA etc that's been pushed and either failed or was passed has Done a lot to erode section 230 and freedom on the internet. My guess is after the cabinet is installed in November, there Will be a lot more restrictions coming, such as net neutrality, encryption laws, and likely rewards for the companies who've been loyal to the cause; the pandemic/climate/social justice cause.

[–]King_Brutus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The analogy falls apart when Wal-Mart is the only store in existence. Then you can't just "make a new store" because it's impossible to compete. That's the point that we are at now. The major platforms are succeeding at stifling voices that they dislike and there are few or no alternatives. Saidit is still growing and has a high chance of dying out once the people banned from Reddit realize they don't need any social media.

[–]RamenNoodlz 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

The irony of typing this statement on saidit is lost on you?

[–]King_Brutus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If Saidit is the only alternative to Reddit (Ruqqus, Voat, Gab all on the same level) then the internet is truly fucked.

[–]Saiditfan 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Ok

[–]Saiditfan 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Gg

[–]RamenNoodlz 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You could also go post at 4chan or any number of BB's

[–]africant 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

worse than that. if you try to make your own whatever, then all the kikes in MSM and Big Tech band together to call you a nazi haven and destroy you

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Every platform removes individual posts, sure. But entire trends which are whatever the collective population wants to highlight?

[–]africant 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

here you are again pushing a garbage opinion that's justifying evil. you seem like a reddit admin (noob faggot) getting off on another site cuz yours is such echochamber garbage

[–]RamenNoodlz 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Justifying evil? lol..apparently noob faggots come here cause normal places aren't faggoty enough.

[–]VRMWatercooling 25 insightful - 1 fun25 insightful - 0 fun26 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They absolutely should be treated as a publisher after this revelation. Any denial effectively doesn't matter at this point, they're clearly policing the platform and doing what they'd like.

[–][deleted]  (10 children)

[deleted]

    [–]King_Brutus 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

    Right, it doesn't need to be abolished. Twitter just needs to define themselves as a publisher since they very clearly are not a platform anymore.

    [–]Dragonerne 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    Section 230 protects internet sites from the publisher/platform distinction. This is why they can do anything they want.

    [–][deleted]  (6 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]King_Brutus 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      At a certain point you can't build your own twitter. Regulation has to take a role when companies become too large to compete against.

      [–]Dragonerne 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      But only if they meet certain criteria, which they are currently not meeting.

      Please quote which parts of section 230 they are not meeting.

      A better choice though is to build your own twitter instead of relying on government to wipe out companies you don't like.

      That's not an option. The free market is a lie.

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]Dragonerne 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Someone else answered the question. On top of that, I have a family and I don't want them dead.

        [–]Extract 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        We already got our own twitter - www.gab.com, which managed to thrive despite being deplatformed everywhere and blacklisted by the duopoly of the credit card companies.

        On the other hand, twitter, who wasn't facing those hardles, can thrive much more despite clearly violating government regulations (by being a publisher yet not registering as one, for starts).
        Taking it down would be akin to the judge at the marathon banning the clearly doping front runner, giving the 2nd place its well deserved win.

        [–]africant 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        no, twitter already has defined themselves as a publisher. they need to be prosecuted for all content on their site

        [–]suckitreddit 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

        We all knew that. Trending is a bullshit word.

        [–]christnmusicreleases[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        They program trending.

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

        [deleted]

          [–]christnmusicreleases[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          I've seen this problem on multiple platforms.

          [–]shadow_wolf7 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

          Of course they manually edit trends I didnt think that was a conspiracy

          [–][deleted]  (4 children)

          [deleted]

            [–][deleted] 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

            yeah in the past if you said it some reddit type would say "Sauce? Big yikes." Even though it was obvious.

            [–]Dragonerne 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

            They will still deny it. When you give them a link, they will cry about your source not being trustworthy.

            [–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

            true it gets a little bit of credence tho in that everyone saw biden and obama etc gettting hacked. I'm sure they are denying this tho

            [–]africant 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

            sounds like debating with a jew. nailing jello to a wall

            [–]Overdrive 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

            Abolish section 230, totally up for it.

            But I also feel like we should convert these "platforms" into public utilities where our rights are protected and free from seedy interventions like this.

            Because damn, try getting banned from a platform. Try finding work after if it was in any way a public affair. Try doing business, networking, meeting and servicing customers without these HUGE "platforms". I hate social media, I am glad that I do not need it. But people depend on them to make a living. So I'm more for making them an essential utility and through that, we all have a right to it and our rights on it.

            Anyone know if these companies are even private businesses? Aren't they publicly traded? For anyone willing to do leg work, finding that out can really shut down the whole "they're a private company they can do what they want" argument. They fucking can't. Period. Stop gesticulating for blatant censorship.

            [–]Trajan 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

            Abolishing 230 would probably end Saidit and just about every small site. Only people with deep pockets will be able to risk hosting user-generated content for which hosts, in the absence of 230, would be liable.

            Abolishing 230 would be a disaster.

            [–]GConly 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

            If they are actively editing content for thier own ends on not just deleting illegal crap, they are indeed publishing.

            [–]bagano1 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

            A lot of the dot-coms are off-the-chain and need to be reined in. Amazon, Twitter, Facebook and Reddit are the worst. I'm not even talking about the gig companies either. Those ones are just egregious.

            [–]christnmusicreleases[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

            They should be made public utilities and taken from their owners. Maybe even bought out. But they could just seize them for all the criminality that has been done on free speech.

            [–]BigFatRetard 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

            fucksakes, get off of twitter.

            Even advocating you hurt twitter while on twitter, you're helping them.

            [–]Jesus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

            Cernovich is a ZioCon who covered for pedophiles and Dershowitz. Absolute disgrace.

            [–]zabaru 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

            Not even surprising!!

            [–]Fitter_Happier 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

            relevant tangent: A few years ago there was an experiment where the same speech sound was heard completely differently by young and old people. e.g. Young people heard "I like cake" and old people heard "pickles are tangy". The reason was old people have lost their high frequency hearing and the scientists tweaked the sounds so as old people would hear one phrase and young would hear the other. This is like what social media are doing, they're filtering the speech of the public so it sounds like something different than what the public is saying. (perhaps not the best analogy but still interesting...)

            [–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

            Abolishing section 230 is such a terrible idea I suspect that the people that want to don't actually understand it.

            What section 230 does is indemnifies websites from liability for content posted by their users. This is exactly how things should be, because

            1) It's unrealistic to expect a website owner to individually examine every piece of content posted. Basically every site you use would have to shut down user contributed content if they would now be subject to legal issues in the event someone posted something defamatory, or violating someone's copyright, or illegal material, etc.

            2) Being liable for content like that would empower the 1% to bury unflattering information about them through legal bullying. Average people who can't afford legal representation like that would not have that same luxury.

            You could try to make an argument for reform of 230, but even that is tenuous. You can't force Twitter to host content or users it disagrees with, for instance. That's an obvious 1st Amendment Violation. I have yet to see a proposal for section 230 reforms that would both stand up to the inevitable legal challenges, and solve the issue that you think exists.

            I know it sucks getting banned from a popular service that turns out to be run by a bunch of cucks, but the solution there is to join a new service that is less susceptible to cancellation, rather than trying to get the government to force companies to host you. For instance, I have an account on the fediverse, a distributed network of clients with a feel similar to Twitter. There are a bunch of communities all with their own rules, but by default these communities can all still talk to each other. If you want a service where anything goes, there is http://freespeechextremist.com. If you're a lefty who only wants to socialize with other lefties, there's http://mastodon.social. You like cut emojis? There's http://blob.cat. Are you a feminist? There's http://spinster.xyz. Mathemetician? There are instances for that. Artist? There are communities for that. FOSS enthusiast? Same story.

            And of course we're all using a reddit alternative. Look, alternatives to the big tech companies already exist. Just use those, or even build your own community if you want.

            [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

            You can certainly require these publishers to keep their published content legal. If they can’t manage that then they are free to allow all content.

            Abolishing section 230 is a glowjogger’s take.

            [–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

            I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that you think the government can make platforms like twitter keep their content up?

            [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

            The Law can define a platform as allowing all views.

            Then, a company is free to be a platform protected under 230 or it can choose to forfeit its protection by censoring and discriminating against people.

            I for one look forward to seeing Jack Dorsey in a jail cell next to El Chapo’s next time the feds find him publishing drug trading deals, murders, scams or other crimes on his web site.

            Of course that would require dealing with the dozens of prevaricating judges that are conspiring with these companies to break the Law as it is today first.

            [–][deleted]  (1 child)

            [deleted]

              [–]christnmusicreleases[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

              Twitter claims to be an open forum, so they are not subject to the same rules. You can't both be an open forum and a publisher at the same time.