Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Suppose on CD someone decided that they don't like you. So they and all their friends report you every day, every post you make. You have not violated any TOS. But because of the number of people who have reported you, CD permanently bans you. Because people have reported you, not because of anything you did.
A TOS should be based on content, not whether someone *likes* you. Or reports you.
A TOS should hold everyone that uses the service to the same standards.
You didn't answer my question, but you said you were going to ask me one (im not sure you really did)
In the situation above, i wouldnt support CD banning someone for those reasons as outlined above, but then again, i don't own the platform, so i'm not sure what i really could do about it.
In your comparison, the example was someone didn't violate the TOS, it sure sounds like AJ did violate the TOS.
I'll ask again, do you support an open Twitter without a TOS?
Suppose on CD someone decided that they don't like you. So they and all their friends report you every day, every post you make. You have not violated any TOS. But because of the number of people who have reported you, CD permanently bans you. Because people have reported you, not because of anything you did.
A TOS should be based on content, not whether someone *likes* you. Or reports you.
A TOS should hold everyone that uses the service to the same standards.
Those standards rely on people (e.g., moderators), and people are subject to bias no matter how valiant their efforts to be consistent. I, for one, am not in favor of the free-for-all that goes hand-in-hand with totally unmoderated social media.
Those standards rely on people (e.g., moderators), and people are subject to bias no matter how valiant their efforts to be consistent. I, for one, am not in favor of the free-for-all that goes hand-in-hand with totally unmoderated social media.
4Chan is what happens. And guess who would complain most loudly.
Those standards rely on people (e.g., moderators), and people are subject to bias no matter how valiant their efforts to be consistent. I, for one, am not in favor of the free-for-all that goes hand-in-hand with totally unmoderated social media.
If anyone is interested to see how an unmoderated platform goes, I'm a member of another Political forum that went unmoderated about 5 years ago. There are no rules, and I've seen other members make comments about other people's family members.
It's down right disgusting. I've found that unmoderated, there are a lot of disturbed people that hide behind a phone or computer screen.
It doesn't matter whether what Jones writes is factual. What matters is that, in the public arena, he should have the right to say it.
This is a slippery slope, which will, if not checked, one day engulf most speech. If these monopolistic social media companies are now in a position to pose a great threat to liberty and the freedom to access information of all sorts.
In the past, real liberals would have defended someone like Jones.
He does. Just not on somebody else's social media platform who doesn't want him there for business reasons. He can start a blog and self publish whatsoever he desires within the limits of the law.
Your expectation is nonsensical. Twitter is not a public utility. It's a for-profit company. It has terms of service, and it has the right to enforce those terms of service in whatever manner it sees fit. Life's not fair. Get over it.
Those standards rely on people (e.g., moderators), and people are subject to bias no matter how valiant their efforts to be consistent. I, for one, am not in favor of the free-for-all that goes hand-in-hand with totally unmoderated social media.
Not if the measurement is objective. And in this case it doesn't seem to be.
Number of complaints does not mean that inappropriate behavior has taken place. Otherwise, anyone group could bully off a person or organization that they don't like.
This isn't about moderated vs unmoderated. It's about assessing content for inappropriateness and holding that standard across the board for everyone using the service, regardless of whether you agree with them or like them.
Suppose on CD someone decided that they don't like you. So they and all their friends report you every day, every post you make. You have not violated any TOS. But because of the number of people who have reported you, CD permanently bans you. Because people have reported you, not because of anything you did.
A TOS should be based on content, not whether someone *likes* you. Or reports you.
A TOS should hold everyone that uses the service to the same standards.
Suppose you and your cohorts took to reporting every post I make every day. And the moderators then looked at the content of my posts and determined that I had not violated any TOS. Why would they ban me? Your argument is weak because Jones' posts were reported, the moderators looked at his posts, and DID determine that he violated the terms of service. Twitter didn't ban him because of the number of people who reported him. Twitter received reports, it followed up on the reports by looking at the posts in question, it determined that the posts DID violate the terms of service, it suspended him for violating the terms of service, and when his suspension was up, he knowingly, KNOWINGLY, violated those terms of service again and was banned.
Other people do get suspended. If, when the suspension is up, they proceed to DELIBERATELY violate the terms of service again, they KNOW that they are risking being banned.
The fact that the people at Twitter don't necessarily agree with you about everyone who should be banned is sad for you, but them's the breaks. People in management don't always agree with customers. Sorry.
Twitter and others have now become de facto public utilities serving in a monopolistic manner. The government will be forced to regulate these companies as it does other public communication utilities such as telephone and broadcasting companies.
They have brought it on themselves.
Free speech of course applies, under the context of the law to being able to speak out against the government. What you lefties here are missing is not whether his free speech is being violated, but whether, in the spirit of open dialogue, should these companies and should we in general in this nation be trying to quiet each other and such each other up?
Liberals of the past would say no, we should not be trying to shut people up, whether it is a free speech issue whereby people are speaking out against the government or whether it is in the public arena, even with private companies. Bill Maher is correct on this matter.
It is you, who are missing the point.
There is no law of which I am aware concerning the "spirit of open dialogue". You have the right to speak without fear of government reprisal I have the right to shout you down without fear of government reprisal.
Open dialogue. Both can speak, neither must listen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
