Twitter is a Private Company

Carl Sagan, 1996. “If we are not able to ask skeptical questions [of scientists], to interrogate those who tell us something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious, who comes ambling  along”


the man is a visionary…along came trumpenstein 


Jaytee said:

Carl Sagan, 1996. “If we are not able to ask skeptical questions [of scientists], to interrogate those who tell us something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious, who comes ambling  along”


the man is a visionary…along came trumpenstein 

Trust the Science


Berenson was a spreader of mis/disinformation regarding covid.

The WH apparently asked twitter why this guy hadn't been banned, given twitter's stance on covid mis/disinformation.

A reasonable question, if you ask me. And, since neither you, nor I, nor Berenson was in the room, there's no way to tell if this was some kind of undue pressure placed on twitter. Berenson is trying to b.s. his way through this. Because he's a bad person.

Unfortunately, social media disinformation is a big fekking problem. Does a private company have a responsibility to try and police it, or do they simply allow every ridiculous piece of disinfo to go out to millions of people?

What's your solution?


It is not as big of an issue as you think.  There was much more disinformation coming from the authorities than there was from the dissenters.  They told us if we got vaccinated that was it.  The virus would stop with us.  Then they told us that all the problems were due to the unvaccinated.  They said that natural immunity didn't work.  Masks don't work.  Wear cloth masks.  Mask kids.  There was even a panic about kids that summer when the risk to children was and is quite remote.  

The reason that they want to silence people like Berenson is not because they are spreading disinformation. It is because they may have some points that start to chip away at their narrative. 

Where were people asking to shut down the NY Times after they spread lies that led to the death of hundreds of thousands?  I don't remember calls to shut it down.  But maybe I missed those. 

The truth is. You can be monumentally and dangerously wrong. Its all well and good as long as your are singing the regime's tune. 


terp said:

It is not as big of an issue as you think.  There was much more disinformation coming from the authorities than there was from the dissenters.  They told us if we got vaccinated that was it.  The virus would stop with us.  Then they told us that all the problems were due to the unvaccinated.  They said that natural immunity didn't work.  Masks don't work.  Wear cloth masks.  Mask kids.  There was even a panic about kids that summer when the risk to children was and is quite remote.  

The reason that they want to silence people like Berenson is not because they are spreading disinformation. It is because they may have some points that start to chip away at their narrative. 

Where were people asking to shut down the NY Times after they spread lies that led to the death of hundreds of thousands?  I don't remember calls to shut it down.  But maybe I missed those. 

The truth is. You can be monumentally and dangerously wrong. Its all well and good as long as your are singing the regime's tune. 

no, no, no

Determining proper actions on covid was a moving target, from the very beginning. Recommendations changed as we learned more. It's totally dishonest to look at some recommendation from two years ago with today's knowledge.

You try to manage a worldwide pandemic caused by a new virus and let's see how you do.

And Berenson is mostly full of sh!t.


The last great pandemic was 100 years ago, no one questioned the science then, you either do as you were told or die. Today we have this thing called the internet, where anyone with a smartphone can show the world how stupid they can be. I trust the science because it’s responsible for the creation of the smartphone…


drummerboy said:

terp said:

It is not as big of an issue as you think.  There was much more disinformation coming from the authorities than there was from the dissenters.  They told us if we got vaccinated that was it.  The virus would stop with us.  Then they told us that all the problems were due to the unvaccinated.  They said that natural immunity didn't work.  Masks don't work.  Wear cloth masks.  Mask kids.  There was even a panic about kids that summer when the risk to children was and is quite remote.  

The reason that they want to silence people like Berenson is not because they are spreading disinformation. It is because they may have some points that start to chip away at their narrative. 

Where were people asking to shut down the NY Times after they spread lies that led to the death of hundreds of thousands?  I don't remember calls to shut it down.  But maybe I missed those. 

The truth is. You can be monumentally and dangerously wrong. Its all well and good as long as your are singing the regime's tune. 

no, no, no

Determining proper actions on covid was a moving target, from the very beginning. Recommendations changed as we learned more. It's totally dishonest to look at some recommendation from two years ago with today's knowledge.

You try to manage a worldwide pandemic caused by a new virus and let's see how you do.

And Berenson is mostly full of sh!t.

A sucker is born every minute 


terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

It is not as big of an issue as you think.  There was much more disinformation coming from the authorities than there was from the dissenters.  They told us if we got vaccinated that was it.  The virus would stop with us.  Then they told us that all the problems were due to the unvaccinated.  They said that natural immunity didn't work.  Masks don't work.  Wear cloth masks.  Mask kids.  There was even a panic about kids that summer when the risk to children was and is quite remote.  

The reason that they want to silence people like Berenson is not because they are spreading disinformation. It is because they may have some points that start to chip away at their narrative. 

Where were people asking to shut down the NY Times after they spread lies that led to the death of hundreds of thousands?  I don't remember calls to shut it down.  But maybe I missed those. 

The truth is. You can be monumentally and dangerously wrong. Its all well and good as long as your are singing the regime's tune. 

no, no, no

Determining proper actions on covid was a moving target, from the very beginning. Recommendations changed as we learned more. It's totally dishonest to look at some recommendation from two years ago with today's knowledge.

You try to manage a worldwide pandemic caused by a new virus and let's see how you do.

And Berenson is mostly full of sh!t.

A sucker is born every minute 

self-analysis is a b!tch, ain't it ?


Dennis_Seelbach said:

terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

It is not as big of an issue as you think.  There was much more disinformation coming from the authorities than there was from the dissenters.  They told us if we got vaccinated that was it.  The virus would stop with us.  Then they told us that all the problems were due to the unvaccinated.  They said that natural immunity didn't work.  Masks don't work.  Wear cloth masks.  Mask kids.  There was even a panic about kids that summer when the risk to children was and is quite remote.  

The reason that they want to silence people like Berenson is not because they are spreading disinformation. It is because they may have some points that start to chip away at their narrative. 

Where were people asking to shut down the NY Times after they spread lies that led to the death of hundreds of thousands?  I don't remember calls to shut it down.  But maybe I missed those. 

The truth is. You can be monumentally and dangerously wrong. Its all well and good as long as your are singing the regime's tune. 

no, no, no

Determining proper actions on covid was a moving target, from the very beginning. Recommendations changed as we learned more. It's totally dishonest to look at some recommendation from two years ago with today's knowledge.

You try to manage a worldwide pandemic caused by a new virus and let's see how you do.

And Berenson is mostly full of sh!t.

A sucker is born every minute 

self-analysis is a b!tch, ain't it ?

perhaps it is, but you're a jackass


terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

It is not as big of an issue as you think.  There was much more disinformation coming from the authorities than there was from the dissenters.  They told us if we got vaccinated that was it.  The virus would stop with us.  Then they told us that all the problems were due to the unvaccinated.  They said that natural immunity didn't work.  Masks don't work.  Wear cloth masks.  Mask kids.  There was even a panic about kids that summer when the risk to children was and is quite remote.  

The reason that they want to silence people like Berenson is not because they are spreading disinformation. It is because they may have some points that start to chip away at their narrative. 

Where were people asking to shut down the NY Times after they spread lies that led to the death of hundreds of thousands?  I don't remember calls to shut it down.  But maybe I missed those. 

The truth is. You can be monumentally and dangerously wrong. Its all well and good as long as your are singing the regime's tune. 

no, no, no

Determining proper actions on covid was a moving target, from the very beginning. Recommendations changed as we learned more. It's totally dishonest to look at some recommendation from two years ago with today's knowledge.

You try to manage a worldwide pandemic caused by a new virus and let's see how you do.

And Berenson is mostly full of sh!t.

A sucker is born every minute 

yeah, but a$$holes are a dime a dozen.


drummerboy said:

terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

It is not as big of an issue as you think.  There was much more disinformation coming from the authorities than there was from the dissenters.  They told us if we got vaccinated that was it.  The virus would stop with us.  Then they told us that all the problems were due to the unvaccinated.  They said that natural immunity didn't work.  Masks don't work.  Wear cloth masks.  Mask kids.  There was even a panic about kids that summer when the risk to children was and is quite remote.  

The reason that they want to silence people like Berenson is not because they are spreading disinformation. It is because they may have some points that start to chip away at their narrative. 

Where were people asking to shut down the NY Times after they spread lies that led to the death of hundreds of thousands?  I don't remember calls to shut it down.  But maybe I missed those. 

The truth is. You can be monumentally and dangerously wrong. Its all well and good as long as your are singing the regime's tune. 

no, no, no

Determining proper actions on covid was a moving target, from the very beginning. Recommendations changed as we learned more. It's totally dishonest to look at some recommendation from two years ago with today's knowledge.

You try to manage a worldwide pandemic caused by a new virus and let's see how you do.

And Berenson is mostly full of sh!t.

A sucker is born every minute 

yeah, but a$$holes are a dime a dozen.

OK boot licker 


terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

It is not as big of an issue as you think.  There was much more disinformation coming from the authorities than there was from the dissenters.  They told us if we got vaccinated that was it.  The virus would stop with us.  Then they told us that all the problems were due to the unvaccinated.  They said that natural immunity didn't work.  Masks don't work.  Wear cloth masks.  Mask kids.  There was even a panic about kids that summer when the risk to children was and is quite remote.  

The reason that they want to silence people like Berenson is not because they are spreading disinformation. It is because they may have some points that start to chip away at their narrative. 

Where were people asking to shut down the NY Times after they spread lies that led to the death of hundreds of thousands?  I don't remember calls to shut it down.  But maybe I missed those. 

The truth is. You can be monumentally and dangerously wrong. Its all well and good as long as your are singing the regime's tune. 

no, no, no

Determining proper actions on covid was a moving target, from the very beginning. Recommendations changed as we learned more. It's totally dishonest to look at some recommendation from two years ago with today's knowledge.

You try to manage a worldwide pandemic caused by a new virus and let's see how you do.

And Berenson is mostly full of sh!t.

A sucker is born every minute 

yeah, but a$$holes are a dime a dozen.

OK boot licker 

LOL

You want DeSantis and you call me a bootlicker?


drummerboy said:

LOL

You want DeSantis and you call me a bootlicker?

he doesn’t like the taste of leather.. he’s more aunatural 


drummerboy said:

terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

It is not as big of an issue as you think.  There was much more disinformation coming from the authorities than there was from the dissenters.  They told us if we got vaccinated that was it.  The virus would stop with us.  Then they told us that all the problems were due to the unvaccinated.  They said that natural immunity didn't work.  Masks don't work.  Wear cloth masks.  Mask kids.  There was even a panic about kids that summer when the risk to children was and is quite remote.  

The reason that they want to silence people like Berenson is not because they are spreading disinformation. It is because they may have some points that start to chip away at their narrative. 

Where were people asking to shut down the NY Times after they spread lies that led to the death of hundreds of thousands?  I don't remember calls to shut it down.  But maybe I missed those. 

The truth is. You can be monumentally and dangerously wrong. Its all well and good as long as your are singing the regime's tune. 

no, no, no

Determining proper actions on covid was a moving target, from the very beginning. Recommendations changed as we learned more. It's totally dishonest to look at some recommendation from two years ago with today's knowledge.

You try to manage a worldwide pandemic caused by a new virus and let's see how you do.

And Berenson is mostly full of sh!t.

A sucker is born every minute 

yeah, but a$$holes are a dime a dozen.

OK boot licker 

LOL

You want DeSantis and you call me a bootlicker?

Here's the difference between you and me.  If DeSantis **** up, I'll admit it.  Fauci could drown kittens on live TV and you would find some reason that it was ok or you'd claim we don't really know those were actual kittens or what have  you. 


terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

It is not as big of an issue as you think.  There was much more disinformation coming from the authorities than there was from the dissenters.  They told us if we got vaccinated that was it.  The virus would stop with us.  Then they told us that all the problems were due to the unvaccinated.  They said that natural immunity didn't work.  Masks don't work.  Wear cloth masks.  Mask kids.  There was even a panic about kids that summer when the risk to children was and is quite remote.  

The reason that they want to silence people like Berenson is not because they are spreading disinformation. It is because they may have some points that start to chip away at their narrative. 

Where were people asking to shut down the NY Times after they spread lies that led to the death of hundreds of thousands?  I don't remember calls to shut it down.  But maybe I missed those. 

The truth is. You can be monumentally and dangerously wrong. Its all well and good as long as your are singing the regime's tune. 

no, no, no

Determining proper actions on covid was a moving target, from the very beginning. Recommendations changed as we learned more. It's totally dishonest to look at some recommendation from two years ago with today's knowledge.

You try to manage a worldwide pandemic caused by a new virus and let's see how you do.

And Berenson is mostly full of sh!t.

A sucker is born every minute 

yeah, but a$$holes are a dime a dozen.

OK boot licker 

LOL

You want DeSantis and you call me a bootlicker?

Here's the difference between you and me.  If DeSantis **** up, I'll admit it.  Fauci could drown kittens on live TV and you would find some reason that it was ok or you'd claim we don't really know those were actual kittens or what have  you. 

Total bullsh!t!


Total bullsh!t you say?  See below.  The thought that people are just questioning it now is just factually incorrect.  Look back. I got shut down.  Everyone here thought we'd have herd immunity from the vaccines.   The point of this very thread is that dissent was shut down. 

The below is nothing but thoughtless submission to authority.  Its authority that shares some of his sensibilities.  So, its ok no matter how much damage some of these mistakes we were not supposed to question resulted in. 

Its **** embarrassing to read.  People like this are allowed to vote!  And then people wonder why I think democracy doesn't work. 

drummerboy said:

no, no, no

Determining proper actions on covid was a moving target, from the very beginning. Recommendations changed as we learned more. It's totally dishonest to look at some recommendation from two years ago with today's knowledge.

You try to manage a worldwide pandemic caused by a new virus and let's see how you do.

And Berenson is mostly full of sh!t.


terp said:

Total bullsh!t you say?  See below.  The thought that people are just questioning it now is just factually incorrect.  Look back. I got shut down.  Everyone here thought we'd have herd immunity from the vaccines.   The point of this very thread is that dissent was shut down. 

The below is nothing but thoughtless submission to authority.  Its authority that shares some of his sensibilities.  So, its ok no matter how much damage some of these mistakes we were not supposed to question resulted in. 

Its **** embarrassing to read.  People like this are allowed to vote!  And then people wonder why I think democracy doesn't work. 

drummerboy said:

no, no, no

Determining proper actions on covid was a moving target, from the very beginning. Recommendations changed as we learned more. It's totally dishonest to look at some recommendation from two years ago with today's knowledge.

You try to manage a worldwide pandemic caused by a new virus and let's see how you do.

And Berenson is mostly full of sh!t.

wow.

off the deep end.


Thoughtless submission to authorities… vote for DeSantis! 


Is compelled speech worse than prohibited speech? Looking only at social media, it seems that DeSantis' bill that uses state power (fines of up to $250,000/day) to compel twitter to provide a platform for certain speech is far more intrusive than a Biden admin official asking why someone isn't banned.

For the record, I don't think that question was appropriate, on the grounds of general principle, but as a practical matter it's hardly the dire threat to free speech terp is making out to be. What consequences was Twitter being threatened with if they didn't act? This isn't Hungary, where the implied follow up could be suddenly having major tax investigations launched against it. OTOH, given DeSanti's attack on Disney's tax status as retaliation for disfavored speech, Hungary seems to be exactly the kind of model we could expect under a DeSantis presidency.

And if we look beyond social media, there's of course plenty of examples of DeSantis using the state to suppress speech he disagrees with, from the "don't say gay" bill to criminalizing of public protests.


PVW said:

Is compelled speech worse than prohibited speech? Looking only at social media, it seems that DeSantis' bill that uses state power (fines of up to $250,000/day) to compel twitter to provide a platform for certain speech is far more intrusive than a Biden admin official asking why someone isn't banned.

For the record, I don't think that question was appropriate, on the grounds of general principle, but as a practical matter it's hardly the dire threat to free speech terp is making out to be. What consequences was Twitter being threatened with if they didn't act? This isn't Hungary, where the implied follow up could be suddenly having major tax investigations launched against it. OTOH, given DeSanti's attack on Disney's tax status as retaliation for disfavored speech, Hungary seems to be exactly the kind of model we could expect under a DeSantis presidency.

And if we look beyond social media, there's of course plenty of examples of DeSantis using the state to suppress speech he disagrees with, from the "don't say gay" bill to criminalizing of public protests.

But he defied the CDC guidelines on COVID. So you know, freedom. And liberty. Let's not forget liberty. 


ml1 said:

But he defied the CDC guidelines on COVID. So you know, freedom. And liberty. Let's not forget liberty. 

Because he read the studies.


drummerboy said:

ml1 said:

But he defied the CDC guidelines on COVID. So you know, freedom. And liberty. Let's not forget liberty. 

Because he read the studies.

The odds that DeSantis read any studies related to COVID are probably close to zero.


Twitter is a private company.  This is technically true, but from time to time, a company becomes so ingrained in the fabric of our lives that is becomes subject to some degree of regulation like a utility (e.g., AT&T back in the day).

So, whether Twitter, Facebook or Google or some other technology platform meets this criteria is a worthy topic of discussion. But the precedent exists to subject companies of this sort to government regulation.


tjohn said:

Twitter is a private company.  This is technically true, but from time to time, a company becomes so ingrained in the fabric of our lives that is becomes subject to some degree of regulation like a utility (e.g., AT&T back in the day).

So, whether Twitter, Facebook or Google or some other technology platform meets this criteria is a worthy topic of discussion. But the precedent exists to subject companies of this sort to government regulation.

Not really equivalents.  The utilities were regulated monopolies.  There was only one power company; only one phone company and you basically had to have those services.  That is not the case with Twitter.


Steve said:

Not really equivalents.  The utilities were regulated monopolies.  There was only one power company; only one phone company and you basically had to have those services.  That is not the case with Twitter.

They were regulated because they were the wires, and the wires could only carry the one company's product - so the product was regulated.  Now the wires can carry anyone's product (such as the Twitter), so that rationale for regulating the product doesn't exist.


nohero said:

They were regulated because they were the wires, and the wires could only carry the one company's product - so the product was regulated.  Now the wires can carry anyone's product (such as the Twitter), so that rationale for regulating the product doesn't exist.

Remind me where political conservatives stand on net neutrality?


nohero said:

Steve said:

Not really equivalents.  The utilities were regulated monopolies.  There was only one power company; only one phone company and you basically had to have those services.  That is not the case with Twitter.

They were regulated because they were the wires, and the wires could only carry the one company's product - so the product was regulated.  Now the wires can carry anyone's product (such as the Twitter), so that rationale for regulating the product doesn't exist.

They were regulated because of the infrastructure cost which would have been prohibitive without the monopoly.  I wasn't suggesting that Twitter should be regulated at all - merely distinguishing the argument that utilities were regulated because they were "so ingrained in the fabric of our lives."


I wonder what terp thinks about this law that allows you to sue social media companies for regulating their content.

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/16/1123620521/fifth-circuit-texas-social-media-ruling


Interestingly, the 11th Circuit ruled largely to the contrary in connection with a similar law out of Florida.

Also, Terp won't be bothered because he thinks the world is out to get him and his ilk.


On the Ukraine War threads, Nan and Paul are expressing support for government banning entire websites, though in other cases they then complain about censorship. And that points out the irreconcilable contradictions here -- there is no objective, universally-agreed upon standard that separates bad censorship from good moderation.

Nearly everyone who rails against censorship, to a person, doesn't actually mean they want no moderation, they want different moderation, and there's some content they in fact want suppressed and other content currently suppressed they want to the government to force publication of.

The path of trying to legislate what is and is not acceptable content is a dead end -- it just collapses into government privileging some speech and disfavoring other speech. We should be looking at other tools instead -- anti-monopoly laws for instance, or making strong penalties against individuals who cause measurable harm (eg people who do swatting), strong privacy laws, etc.

A social media space is not analagous to a phone company -- social media companies don't own the cable and transmitters that carry the actual communication*, they are not like radio and television companies competing for a finite amount of bandwidth.

*Some large tech companies, eg Google, do own actual internet infrastructure. Net neutrality principles should apply and they should not be allowed to privilege which content goes through that infra.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Advertise here!

Sponsored Business

Find Business