Jack Dorsey on Rogan Podcast

[ChrisKnight06]

CEO of Twitter was on, did anyone catch it? I missed it but I guess there has been a ton of criticism towards Joe for not going at him hard enough regarding censorship and deplatforming. YouTube ratio is horrendous for this one!

Twitter has been super sketch with banning certain voices. Interesting times we live in..

 

[ChrisKnight06]

YouTube comments are just brutal!

 

[Ace of Knights]

And yet because Alex Jones has been removed from these platforms studies show is his outreach is down. Why should a platform be forced to allow bad actors further their brands of provable disinformation?

It’s not censorship. Their first amendment rights are not being violated. People are still free to say and believe what they want, but when it’s in bad faith or purporting disinformation, the companies shouldn’t be forced to act as a megaphone.

 

[UCFWayne]

i think the gov will eventually get involved and force these companies to adopt standards.

 

[Ace of Knights]

i think the gov will eventually get involved and force these companies to adopt standards.

Why? They aren’t utility companies, they aren’t denying use based off race, religion, etc., and they aren’t violating anyone’s free speech.

They’re making a business decision about not letting bad actors hijack their services to act as a megaphone to things that are easily proven untrue.

You can’t cry for less government and claim “shutdowns are good” and then turn around and root for the government to intervene against social media companies.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Why? They aren’t utility companies, they aren’t denying use based off race, religion, etc., and they aren’t violating anyone’s free speech.

They’re making a business decision about not letting bad actors hijack their services to act as a megaphone to things that are easily proven untrue.

You can’t cry for less government and claim “shutdowns are good” and then turn around and root for the government to intervene against social media companies.

OK- so Twitter banned Alex Jones yet still allows Louis Farrakhan to push his hate on their platform. A guy who has pushed conspiracy theories about Jews, called them termites, called for outright murder of Jews, and is generally a horrible person. Am I to believe that raging anti-Semites who push hate are OK, but a raging dickhead conspiracy theorist is just a bridge too far?

This is my issue. I don't give a shit if Twitter wants to ban people, but it's not being done in a way that makes any sense. And there is an undeniable smell of partisan bias in a lot of these bannings.

And this is to say nothing of the fact that ALL of these companies love to boast domestically about their positive role for humanity, and how awesome they are for banning guys like Jones, and then fly straight to China to bend the knee for communist business while ignoring the fact that the Chinese government has over 1M religious minorities in concentration camps.

PS- there's a big debate ongoing right now if these companies really are a utility or not at this point. Mostly because there are calls for regulation of them after the RUSSIA!! debacle.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

Alex Jones is an easy one. When it comes to hate speech and the like I think there are certain rules we can get all to play by (or can we?). The more interesting discussion to me is the slippery slope and where precisely the line is drawn. Or the deplatforming of platforms. We've obviously been having free speech discussions for decades, I just find all this more interesting when dealing with new frontiers of the internet.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

Why? They aren’t utility companies, they aren’t denying use based off race, religion, etc., and they aren’t violating anyone’s free speech.

They’re making a business decision about not letting bad actors hijack their services to act as a megaphone to things that are easily proven untrue.

You can’t cry for less government and claim “shutdowns are good” and then turn around and root for the government to intervene against social media companies.

Once you start looking in to the stories out there I think you oversimplify it if you think it's just easily identifiable bad actors spreading things that are easily proven untrue.

 

[UCFKnight85]

A random guy on Twitter who tweeted out links to Drudge stories claimed that Twitter as purposely going into his setting and marking every post as "containing sensitive material" as a censorship feature on his tweet. A House report detailed how Twitter has actively been censoring most of Drudge content on their platform. This is nothing more than a competitor using their platform within terms of service.

A Twitter account that tweets out stories posted to the Drudge Report, a top right-leaning news aggregator, is accusing Twitter of sneaking into account settings and forcing a layer of censorship on tweets.


A tweet early Sunday, from a Twitter account that on a daily basis tweets out stories posted to the Drudge Report website, tagged Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and demanded that the "weird" situation come to an end.

"Dear @jack please stop your staff from changing my account settings without my knowledge. I am not a porn star or terrorist. Just some dude retweeting a news source for now 10 years, based in [San Francisco], your hometown. Love @Twitter but it's become weird," the tweet said.

 

[fried-chicken]

Invisible hand. Get over it red hats.

 

[UCFWayne]

Why? They aren’t utility companies, they aren’t denying use based off race, religion, etc., and they aren’t violating anyone’s free speech.

They’re making a business decision about not letting bad actors hijack their services to act as a megaphone to things that are easily proven untrue.

You can’t cry for less government and claim “shutdowns are good” and then turn around and root for the government to intervene against social media companies.

i dont want the gov involved. i would like them to have transparent standards and then follow them. they have their own rules they publish and another set that they follow internally and is applied in a completely 1 sided manner.

they are going to bring gov intervention upon themselves.

 

[Ace of Knights]

Once you start looking in to the stories out there I think you oversimplify it if you think it's just easily identifiable bad actors spreading things that are easily proven untrue.

I know it’s not as simple as just Alex Jones. And I agree that there is no consistency in enforcement of those who get punished.

In all honesty I do believe these companies need to be regulated. Simply for the data they collect on us all. But more importantly, we saw social media being used to spread disinformation that led to an attempt at genocide in Myanmar. But theargument of “censorship” needs real evidence compared to the argument that’s been made.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

Catching up on some episodes and I'm on Sam Harris episode now. They spent quite a bit of time talking about the Dorsey controversy and then moved on to what I thought was a very interesting conversation around the idea of redemption and is there a way back once the mob sets their eyes on you. Those who like to rail against the lunatic left would enjoy it.

 

[Sir Galahad]

And yet because Alex Jones has been removed from these platforms studies show is his outreach is down. Why should a platform be forced to allow bad actors further their brands of provable disinformation?

It’s not censorship. Their first amendment rights are not being violated. People are still free to say and believe what they want, but when it’s in bad faith or purporting disinformation, the companies shouldn’t be forced to act as a megaphone.

Let me know when Louis Farrakhan is removed from twitter.