Agreed re politicians. Disagreed re journos. Having worked in financial&medical journo (TV/print), ur story pitches & final edits R almost always constrained by company brand/politics. It's certainly a form of censorship whereas every1 else free 2 host website 2 publish thoughts.
-
-
-
Thanks, it wld be more accurate for me to say "free speech for media corporations, censored social networks for everybody else", since a corporation has editorial over what its journalists write as you well observe. n.b. web sites have been censored by Azure, Cloudflare, etc.
-
Sure, I believe it re Azure, CF, etc. Any examples come to mind immediately? I'm curious to know what was so provocative that they had to take it down.
-
Just retweeted Azure demanding http://gab.ai to censor their own users: https://twitter.com/getongab/status/1031751839383990272 …
This Tweet is unavailable. -
Right, seems like something Microsoft would do. There are no cloud services options that support free speech? A brief google search didn't lead me to anything viable.
-
They all have power to censor. I don't know much about their relative propensity to do so. AFAIK it is so far not common, but I may be mistaken about that & it is only a matter of time before leftist activists discover it as an even more powerful way to shut up their opponents.
-
Cool, thx. Have been wanting to start a blog. I think you've inspired one of my first posts. Going to start reaching out to these companies to discuss their rates of censorship, policies, etc. Also curious to see if I can find any data on this type of censorship over time.
-
Sounds great good luck and tweet me some of your links!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
We have been denied the truth since birth!
-
The journalists have certainly given us a very self-serving account of it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Free speech doesn't include libelling the grieving parents of murdered kids and sending waves of unhinged paranoiacs to stalk them, though. Never did, never will
-
Is that the sole or primary reason these platforms gave for removing Jones?
-
Jones is a drop in the vast wave of censorship the social networks have been engaged in.
-
That plus the reasons they give matter. If they had been very specific that the Sandy Hook incident crossed a speech line (it arguably did) and that’s why he had to go.. that would be one thing. But they’re pushing out vague ‘hate speech’ talk. Totally different ball o wax
-
I agree. No idea why they haven't been specific - and acted quicker too. His worst offences are not new (eg. incitement to violence, Sandy Hook)
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Now consider
@Microsoft's newest pitch as political security vanguard & offering "free" political security services...while it aids & abets the Communist Party in digitally oppressing & prosecuting the Chinese people in China just to make more $billions$.http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-microsoft-russian-hacking-20180821-story.html …Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It has been interesting to see the press reactions when the ban on http://codeisfreespeech.com limits the sharing of their articles about it on FB....
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Now admit you ARE Satoshi and do a one million bitcoin airdrop to all holders reverse proportionally. The richest get the least and the poorest get the most.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Limited free speech. Noice
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.