Twitter is by far the largest influencer network with 100 times more activity than than competing services like Parler.com. In today's hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz discussed Twitter's banning of the New York Post's account and all links to their website over their reporting of Hunter Biden's email... but they allowed for the dissemination of Trump's hacked tax returns. Video at: [video.foxnews.com]
Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act expanded the definition of terrorism to cover ""domestic,"" as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: 1. intimidate or coerce a civilian population; 2. influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or 3. to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.
Of course this is hyperbole but at what point is the threat of being banned from a large platform over political positions a form of intimidation or coercion of a civilian population? Is being banned a modern form of assassination? At what point is a private company so large a platform to be considered a common carrier and subject to government oversight?
I don't think it is an act of domestic terrorism. But, I do think it falls under violations of campaign laws. If anything their censorship was an in-kind campaign contribution, that they did not disclose. To censor an article this damning of a politician, during the election, was a use of power to hide the truth from the American people, (with intentions to sway an election).
I dropped off of Twitter 2-3 years ago when I realized it was a cesspool of useless blather. I'm pretty sure the handful of minutes I spent there cost me several thousand brain cells. I don't see it as domestic terrorism...just a colossal waste of time.
There are Rules Governing the behavior of these platforms.
They were acting as a Public Forum and were basically exempt from prosecution for opinions posted there.
They Stopped being a Public Forum when they began to Censor based on Their Own Ideology.
They then became a Publisher.
Publishers Do Not Have the Protections of a Public Forum.
They should be sued by Everyone and Every Thing that has a grievance.
They should, in reality, be disbanded altogether or forced to convert to a Commercial Publisher.
They had One Simple Rule to Exist Under ...
They Broke that Simple Rule.
No. Social media censorship is not terrorism.
I detest the woke-progressive game of conflating words with violence. They use that tactic to great effect to chip away at freedom of speech. Words are not violence; and neither is censorship. Propaganda and suppression of information are deplorable in and of themselves. We don't have to engage in the leftist game of using misleading and extreme language to get the point across.
Don’t denigrate the victims of San Bernardino, Fort Hood or 9-11 by suggesting Twitter engages in terrorism. It doesn’t.
Social media, like every major corporation in America, is being held hostage by the anti-rationalists who are imposing their will on the culture they are deconstructing. No government intervention will change that, especially since woke postmodernists have wormed their way into the highest levels of the state. I don't see this changing until people set aside the outrage and begin to educate themselves. And, no, I don't see a critical mass choosing reason over emotion.
Informed centrists and conservatives still believe in reason, rationality and truth; but more and more of us are falling victim to the progressive game of exaggeration, dramatics and hysteria.
Too many people are using the term “Terrorist” much too freely.
Its losing its impact ... being perverted into something else.
Pretty soon the DemLeft will start telling people Terrorists are people who give out the wrong color flowers for Mother’s Day ...
At no point is being banned or restricted from a service that...
...to be considered intimidation or coercion nor make a company a common carrier like cable.
The difference is that if an established common carrier, like cable or electricity, were doing this type of restriction you would not be able to get this content at all.
But being banned or restricted from FB or Twitter, people can always go directly to the NYP website to access their articles; they don't need twitter or FB to do it.
Conversely, twitter or FB banning are in no way actively preventing people from going to the NYP website to read it themselves.
Whether this censorship rises to the level of terrorism is an interesting question that I hadn't considered before reading this post. I believe that Twitter has reached the point of being a "common carrier" and should be subject to antitrust laws. Just as public right-of-ways are used to set the utility poles and lines that carry telephone lines, the federal government built the internet. The phone company would never be allowed to write a contract saying that we can't talk about certain topics in our private phone calls. Deed restrictions that prevented people of different races from buying homes in certain neighborhoods were invalidated years ago. For Twitter and other companies to ban political speech that goes against their leftist views is wrong under our laws. If they really want to change the law, then they can make that effort. For now, they need to live by the law.
Ideally, Twitter, Facebook, and Google should be broken up the way that the phone company was broken up in the seventies. The result of that breakup was not that we couldn't call people who were served by the regional phone companies that grew out of "Ma Bell." However, no one company had as much power as the phone company had at that time. I'd like to see different Twitter and Facebook hosts established. Each could have their own rules and standards. Maybe one or two of them would continue to have the leftist "fact-checkers" that Facebook uses now. Others might have more right-leaning "fact checkers." I'd like to join one that doesn't attempt to "fact check" anything I post. Individuals could decide whether they would see posts from friends in different companies under this umbrella. Each subsidiary would be able to control what is posted within that company, but none would be able to stop people in other companies from saying what they believe.
At the end of the day, these companies know how much influence they wield. They are also aware that they are responsible for how many of their consumers perceive the world. If social media and the like are now going to not just decide what news gets seen, but actively suppress people from spreading stories they don't like, it certainly seems like a good time to revisit their protections.
IMO, they have been granted a tremendous amount of leeway and they have chosen to abuse it. I have read that 230 affords them more protections than even the news outlets have. It seems to take an act of god to hold the regular news accountable for some of the stuff they pull and nobody IMO should have even more protections than that.
These companies are spying on you, selling your data, tracking your movements and your habits, and they are now also forming your opinions for you. It seems at the very least they could put you on the health care plan.
Twitter is evil. The fact that people use it as a source when posting what they're presenting as "news" or fact irritates me to no end. I close any story that uses tweets as its source, or as the very basis for creating/introducing yet more noise into information ecosystem.
Social Media and the decaying old guard media are a joke. They lie, defame, dox, put people in harms way and destabilize the republic. For anyone of average intelligence, this is not debatable.
Google, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Almost every magazine and newspaper in the country. CNN, ABC, NBC, BBC, NPR...etc and ad nauseum. I hope Trump wins and crushes them.
Donald Trump lost a case in court when he tried to block selected users from commenting on his Twitter account. The ruling found that, given their scope and audience, social media in general and Twitter in particular are essentially a 21st century town square. Nothing is as American as the guarantee of freedom of speech in the town square.
Call it what you want, they are abusing the position that they’ve found themselves in. I doubt they planned at the outset to control information worldwide. Just like I doubt Bezos thought he was going take over the entire retail market across the economy; Zuckerberg never expected to control the worldview of billions world wide, and Google just wanted to make it easy to find stuff on the web. And every one of them followed classic capitalist techniques to grow their companies—and their influence.
But at some point, they all became more than private companies. And at that point, their political philosophies of the founders and the employees have to be balanced with their impact on the country. Their corporate sphere has overlapped with the Constitution.
Isn't this about the same as the last question about Twitter / Facebook / Google? And isn't this also just free market capitalism at work? These are private-sector companies that do not provide a necessary utility. They are not obligated to be impartial. Providing a free platform and then choosing not to allow certain content cannot be considered terrorism. Full stop. If you don't like it, create a competing platform.
From somebody who has personally experienced being locked out of FB and deleted by YT for posting my conservative views, I feel these tech giants need to be cut down to size. If they're doing it to me, they could be doing it to others as well. And I'm hearing that they are.
I actually think these groups while pandering to the left, who must provide the bulk of advertising, support, funds, IS sensitive.
Writing must become COVERT, metamessages which you KNOW but can't prove.
You never put..gut feelings, your own wishes, FACTS. Forget FACTS.
So, DIFFERENT writing style. And they'll still do it, ban, bcuz they'll research YOU not the story. So, lots of YOU, many able to do this who don't have much known on them.
Then there's boycotting. Eg. We would use TWITTER if they didn't
ban all differing viewpoints. We like Twitter, will be sorry to have to tell our company employees our position.
Would THIS be banned too?
While the principles of 'their choice' is true, there's such a thing as 'going too far. To ban an entire POSITION is 'going too far.
I think 'going too far laws could allow suing.
Definitely not terrorism. It’s game-rigging..some serious establishment boot-licking game-rigging..but nonetheless it’s apparent in any system. The truly gross thing that they and their MSM brethren are doing, actively colluding with each other and a political party to stifle the viewpoints of people with whom they disagree, is abhorrent behavior to those who value freedom of speech.
Glen Greenwald was on Rogan today talking about this very thing. Like Taibbi, a brutal critic of Trump, but an even bigger critic of the MSM and their transparent cowardice.
Banning users from a public platform is not terrorism, however it should be forbidden by law. The provider of the platform should be liable for claims of large sums of money by victimized users, the government should be able to seize the platform and auction it to the highest bidder if banning occurs.