It's the first one dude.
-
-
Replying to @Crocodile_Lyle @BriefAside and
Not sure they'd agree, since they probably do not want legal liability (in terms of defamation) for everything that gets posted. The day they claim "publisher" status is the day they face thousands of lawsuits. Guessing there are plenty who would love to see it happen, though.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @spine1692 @Crocodile_Lyle and
And if they're going to be a public utility, they need to allow government regulation. Like you said, they need to decide. Either editorialized a LITTLE or accept government oversight. They're not entitled to the best of both.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ghandigun @Crocodile_Lyle and
I think the problem is that this is a new thing. The platforms have been around for a while, but we are only recently seeing the censorship. It certainly is a problem, but I hate government involvement. Some can sue to force platforms to hold to terms of service - and some are.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @spine1692 @Crocodile_Lyle and
My view: It's YouTube's house, they can say who's allowed to stand there and talk. Just don't post "NO running by the pool" but then let the popular kids do whatever they want.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ghandigun @Crocodile_Lyle and
Agree. Mostly. Problem is that there’s a huge flow of information on these platforms: information not typically made known in other ways. (Plenty of garbage, too.) When that info flow is filtered on an ideological basis, we lose a lot as a society. There’s no quick fix though.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @spine1692 @Crocodile_Lyle and
When it's not filtered we have an additional problem. False equivalence runs rampant. Extremism on the rise. People like to demonize mainstream media, but a little editorializing to stop propping up climate deniers, anti vaxers, etc, would be a net benefit.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ghandigun @Crocodile_Lyle and
News should be news, w/out editorializing. It’s fine to have editorializing, but shouldn’t call it ‘news’. And who decides what’s ‘extreme’? Different people will always have different opinions, and that’s a good thing. Good to censor criminal stuff. But speech should be free.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @spine1692 @Crocodile_Lyle and
Vaccines are an example. One side is backed by well researched independent science and medical groups. The other side is someone read a blog. Editorializing is seeing these are not two equal positions deserving of equal air time. Facts aren't opinions. News should share facts.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ghandigun @spine1692 and
One side is backed by profit motive and studies comparing one vaccine to another as their control.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
It IS complicated and there are selfish motives in a lot of cases.
We just have to trust that people are smart enough to figure out what’s right.
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.