trwumptter.md 6.4 KB
so it Looks like Trump has taken action to try and reduce the ability of big tech companies to infuse their opinion in political discourse this is a strange and complicated subject, as it's likely that there are compelling truths to be found from all sides and from many levels of analysis Why would Twitter be doing something wrong? well Twitter currently is currently the platform through which a great deal of human interaction is taking place it has, in many regards, replaced or overshadowed other forms of discourse, especially on political matters, and though it does not behave as a conversation encompassing all the humans, it certainly is used for quick media coverage and to quickly report things up to the minute, leading it to be the source for much popular opinion and even news content it would seem that this has become the ultimate news platform, as things can be deliberated upon quickly, the opinion of some snapshot of the public, completely corrupted with bad actors, sock puppets and everything in between, is made available in the immediate. Also, it would seem that businesses are required to interact with social media platforms in order to promote themselves ina capacity to keep themselves viable or thriving in the current day's market so with all of those things, people are continuously using it, and in particular this is a type of interaction which allows for an idea to disseminated and dispelled quickly, without taking a lot of time to carefully scrutinize it and consider the cmponents from multiple angles because of this, things are summed up quite short, and the ideas can be quickly transported in what appears to be a fully flshed out and neatly encapsulated form but they're all so contrived and superficial.. cursory glances at truth, for truths that are void of meaning nevertheless, it appears that we've come to a place where conflict is arising, because they are starting to opine about and frame the things that people say, in order to make them more or less believable, or credible, and this has political implications, as well as implications for the normalization of controlled discourse now, that being said, there are good reasons to believe that Twitter are in the right, and that it's wrong to go after them with legislation, an executive order, or whatever is being done in particular, it's the case for their own Free Speech and the case for free enterprise and competitive behaviour of a free market that they are in an economic market, trying to make money for themselves and offer something which the public is given an option, without any coercion of force, to make use of it, shoudl they so please and, not only that, but to make use of it without having to pay for any service, other than, perhaps, a loss of privacy to some degree, which is a part of all interaction witht he world, of course.. any world that is comprised of more than just oneself, but that's another matter In any case, that they are able to make decisions about how to curate or ocntrol the presentation of the material which is ont heir platform, is akin with the value structure which supports the idea of having free enterprise when it comes to free speech, it becomes a bit more complicated, as this is a form of their free speech, but it's also affecting the free speech of others so you could say, that the participation by any one human is cmopletely optional, this takes the weight ofu the argument that they're entitled to not have their words editorialized by the platform itself but, that everyone feels compelled to participate, and that it leads to the formulation of the majority of political discourse today, that is, ti normalizes what views are being held broadly in conjunction with the fact that, in order to do well in today's economic climate, a business owner must in many cases participate in the primary social media platforms of the day, Twitter being one ofthe most important for certain businesses that this is a technocratic stiffling of free speech I don't buy that argument, myself.. I think that they should simply do whatever the fuck they want, and that it's up to people to decide if they're willing to participate, or if they want to hold onto an ideal, or even just avoid wasting their time (whatever their reasons may be) but the argument isn't about that it's about whether or not Twitter should be given protection against legal actions made on the basis that they are disseminating information which is unreliable, unsavoury, unsalient, fraudulent, deceptive, harmful or otherwise inviting strong enough criticism such that a legal argument can be made for a legal action to be made towards some sort of resolution That they are framing the context surrounding the things others say, is a form of editorializing.. and if this is to be done, then we need to accept that editorial perhaps other forms of media content can be void of criticism as well, as it does disseminate the opinion of the platform, rather than simply allowing for the dissemination of public opinion Thus, it needs ot be understood if they are to be protected, along with all media, against any risk making a harmful claim or if, perhaps, shoudl they continue to editorialize content, that all content shoudl be editorialized, and that perhaps each piece of content should be editorialized ina way which illustrates two or more conflicting viewpoints on the matter that is unrealistic, but it'd be a fun platform (thanks Scott Adams) Honestly, if a platform is for public discourse, you should leave people to do whatever the fuck they want, and only identify that which is an actual crime, just because it's in the best interest of the community which believes that the laws which it lives under but, even then, they are not police.. so I don't think they should be held responsible for the things people say and do, and that it's up to law enforcement to detect such things and go after it themselves for actual crimes which would be occurring irregardless of the virtual world But if you want to publish your opinion? Then you're being a dick since it's stamping on people. There's always an error margin, and there's no reason to believe that you won't, in correcting some viewpoints, also destroy other valid viewpoints at some other times so, choosing to do that, should probably make it such that you are not able to enjoy the application of legal clauses / portions of a legal act that are intended to protect those who we're assuming are not disseminating their own opinion exit