Last week, Twitter’s Chief Executive Officer Parag Agrawal sounded more like Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in rallying his troops to defy the existential threat of Elon Musk while pledging that they will not be “held hostage.” The threat, however, was not a private buyout but the threat that Twitter might be forced to respect free speech on the site. The problem for the Board members is that they could find themselves in court if their anti-free speech stance continues to stand in the way of shareholder profits. Such a lawsuit could be a bellwether for shareholder opposition to boards pursuing Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) policies over profits.
The Board responded to the Musk offer with what sounded like a suicide pact to swallow a “poison pill” to sell new shares to drive down share values. While a standard tactic to fend off hostile takeovers, Twitter made it clear that it would not be forced into free speech after making the company synonymous with censorship.
They were joined by liberal commentators who declared that it was not just Twitter but democracy itself that could fall if free speech were allowed to breakout. The Washington Post’s Max Boot declared that “for democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less.”
Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich went full Orwellian in explaining why freedom is tyranny. Reich insisted that “every dictator, strongman, demagogue and modern-day robber baron” pushed free speech to oppress people and that, while good for Musk, “for the rest of us, it would be a brave new nightmare.”
Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal has maintained that he wants to steer the company beyond free speech and that the issue is not who can speak but “who can be heard.” The question, however, is whether shareholders will be heard by a Board that has decided to make censorship (or “content modification”) a critical goal of the company.
As I discussed earlier, boards are legally obligated to act in the best interest of shareholders. That fiduciary duty has long been ignored as Twitter undermined its own product by writing off conservatives through openly biased censorship. The managers and employees seem to view the company as a vehicle of their anti-free speech values despite artificially driving down users who have either been banned or deterred by its intolerance for dissenting views.
This fight is coming at a time when many academics are questioning the traditional view that boards and management should be committed to the overriding purpose of maximizing value for shareholders.” Rather they argue that corporate figures should focus on advancing Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles. The result can be aligning corporate identity with controversial political positions like Disney’s recent opposition to Florida’s parental rights bill on education, a move that has led to boycotts and possible retaliatory legislation. Such political agendas come at a cost and some shareholders may allege that they are being asked to effectively bankroll the social or political agenda of corporate officials.
The company has long been criticized under Agrawal for pursuing a woke agenda over corporate advancement. There is little cash flow or monetization from sales growth at Twitter with forecasts of sales rising to $1.23 billion while the company posts sharply declining earnings.
Now a whale comes along with an offer of $54.20 a share (54 percent premium over the share price before Musk invested in the company). The Board’s response is to pass out the poison pills. The question is whether this is a standard maneuver to force negotiations or whether the company would prefer taking losses for shareholders over allowing greater freedom for users.
ESG policies have already led to litigation, including shareholder demands for greater transparency or ESG commitment from companies. Conversely, shareholders could argue that the political views of corporate officers are being pursued over the profits of the company.
Such lawsuits on both sides can be difficult. Shareholders may allege a breach of the “duty of loyalty,” but must show that the officials acted in a self-interested manner or in bad faith. Alternatively, they could argue a breach of the “duty of care,” which requires a showing that the officials acted in a grossly negligent manner.
Twitter may be getting precariously close to such a breach if Musk improves his offer as the Board continues to pass around the poison pills.
For Twitter employees, there is a sense that they actually might prefer corporate suicide to free speech.
Employees panicked at the very thought of Musk bringing free speech back to Twitter. In Twitter’s headquarters in San Francisco, employees are reportedly so traumatized that leadership had to offer emotional support to just “get through the week.” One employee decried that such a takeover would be “horrifying for the company’s reputation.”
Another employee complained that “Hey this is a focus week at Twitter, this is not helping,” referring to weeks where employees are given time off to “focus” on projects. Apparently, the last thing that employees want to focus on is free speech.
The tweets make it sound like Twitter employees are the modern equivalent of the defenders of Masada, the Jewish fighters who chose mass suicide over capture by the Romans in 73 C.E. Of course, shareholders may not be as eager to embrace financial suicide. Moreover, when it comes to free speech, Twitter is the encircling hostile army. This is like the Roman army threatening suicide.
That is why this fight could prove so important. Twitter’s CEO and Board decided a long time ago to pursue woke policies over profits. They are selling censorship to a public that wants more free speech. They are not alone. Facebook is actually running commercials trying to convince people to embrace censorship as a new generation that wants their views modified by corporate guardians.
Yet, there has never been a bull market for selling censorship. Musk could now force a showdown on whether companies are captive to the management or whether the company can be forced into greater profits even if it comes at the “horrifying” cost of allowing free speech.
Jonathan: For you the skies will fall if Trump, right-wing conservatives and conspiracy theorists are not allowed back on Twitter. This column is essentially a repetition of your 3 previous posts on this issue. Why is your hair on fire? It wasn’t that long ago CEOs and Boards of large companies refused to address the concern of environmental groups, social issues or corporate governance. ESG principles were alien to corporate boards who frequently just sold to the highest bidder. And you support that “traditional view”. My have times changed–thanks, in part, to Ben & Jerrys that has led the fight for socially responsible corporate governance from supporting voting rights, racial justice and LGBTQ rights. B & J has shown a company can be financially successful while supporting socially responsible issues. Now it’s Disney. They have pledged to join the fight to repeal DeSantis’ “Don’t Say Gay” bill that censors teachers and students who want to discuss LGBTQ issues. In a statement Disney said: “We are dedicated to standing up for the rights and safety of LGBTQ members of the Disney family, as well as the LGBTQ community in Florida and across the country”. What a sea change from a time when Walt Disney featured racist stereotypes in his cartoons. If Disney shareholders choose to support corporate ESG principles that is their right.
Funny but you don’t say a word about censorship in Florida’s public schools. You are more concerned about “censorship” on Twitter. So you think Twitter’s board is obligated to bow to Elon Musk’s demands–despite opposition from the CEO, Twitter’s board, employees and it appears most shareholders. Many critics of Musk believe he will restore Trump to Twitter and promote the views of other right-wing conspiracy theorists like Meghan Kelly, Nigel Farage and Dinesh D’Souza. Trump knows that getting back on Twitter will help his electoral chances in 2024. “Truth Social” has been a bust so getting back on Twitter is a must so Trump can continue to spread the big lie that the 2020 election was “stolen” from him. One critic of Musk, Felix Salmon (of Slate money and CF correspondent at Axios), has said: “But if Elon owns Twitter, he can–if he gets pissed off at a journalist–just ban that journalist. If he wanted his own tweets be be in a bigger font, if he wanted everyone on twitter to automatically be following Elon, he could do that”. Like Trump’s “Truth Social”, Musk’s Twitter would reflect his views. That would also be censorship but apparently OK by you.
It is clear whose fascist hair is on fire, flaming Dennis.
You and your conspiracy theories! Will you ever wake up and face reality?
TL; DR.
No one’s stopping Twitter from flaunting their ESG “principles.” As I read this, any action taken against Twitter will be on the basis they failed to honor their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. I’d be willing to bet a fair few of them are more than happy to take Elon Musk’s premium offer. After all, one invests in stocks to make money. Virtue signaling costs nothing.
DM says – “Many critics of Musk believe he will restore Trump to Twitter and promote the views of other right-wing conspiracy theorists like Meghan Kelly, Nigel Farage and Dinesh D’Souza. Trump knows that getting back on Twitter will help his electoral chances in 2024.”
Wow! So you are admitting the left does not want people with views other than theirs to be heard, and that controlling what is allowed to be heard social media platforms is the way Democrats look to win elections.
You must really like that whole “Big Brother” and “The Ministry of Truth” thing? Why not just go directly to the Stalin and Mao models?
Dennis, just give me one good reason that a seven year should be made to know if he or she might have gender dysphoria. What seven old is capable of understanding what gender dysphoria is? We are even careful about teaching heterosexual material to children who are not ready to understand what it is. You are right to say that we should not not say gay. We also should not say straight to a seven year old. No one is saying that you as an adult can not say gay to another adult. What we are saying is that you will not be allowed to complicate my child’s life with information that she has no ability to understand. If you don’t like it you can start your own LGBTQ+++ school with your own drag queen teachers. This way you can mold the little minds with anything you want and no one will care that their new teachers say gay. However, you have no right to force the rest of us to say gay to our seven year olds and we are not going to let you do it.
Dennis, this is one of the books that conservatives don’t want in Junior High School library. It is interesting how you abhor the banning of books but you never get specific about what books are being banned due to the age of an immature reader. Why don’t you read the book that I present in the following link and get back with us on if you think it’s appropriate for the young.
https://theiowastandard.com/shocking-images-from-book-gender-queer-which-is-stocked-in-school-libraries-across-iowa/
Thinkitthrough: I looked at the pages of “Gender Queer” you provided a link to. Pretty graphic but kids can see the real thing on XXXPorn. I have a neighbor with 2 girls–13 and 15. Both have been “caught” watching porn on their laptops. The mother recently told me the older daughter has sent nude photos of herself to someone in Washington state. Kids today see more explicit sex, straight and queer, before they even take a sex education course in middle or high school. It’s everywhere. If you have Netflix “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” is now featured. It has some pretty realistic sex scenes–both straight and queer. There are other movies on Netflix with similar scenes. The question is what is too “young” to be exposed to “Gender Queer”? Age “appropriate” is a difficult line to draw. In my experience a 5 or 6 year old wouldn’t really be interested in this book. They prefer cartoon books or cartoons on TV. Kids have to reach puberty before sexual themes are of interest.
“Gender Queer” is not the only book being banned. In Texas, “1984”, “Maus” and “The Handmaid’s Tale” are banned from schools. There are 50 other books that are proposed to be banned. In Tennessee (where the Scopes trial took place) “Martin Luther King and the March on Washington”, “Separate is Never Equal”, “Maus” and 31 other books are banned. Read “Maus” and tell me whether you think this Pulitzer Prize winning cartoon Holocaust memoir is “pornographic” and kids shouldn’t be allowed to read it.
If a parent wants to prevent their child from reading “Gender Queer” that is their right. My problem is when conservative parent groups and state legislatures say my kid can’t read it. Unlike Turley I am a free speech purist. My kids should have the right to read anything they want. If you tell your kid they can’t read “Gender Queer what will happen? Kids are curious and will find the book somewhere. I don’t think a 5 yr old who reads “Gender Queer” is going to suddenly engage in unbridled gay sex. My quarrel with Turley is that he thinks Twitter and Facebook bans are “censorship” but he has nothing to say about the censorship going on in public schools every day. Censorship is a threat to an open democratic society where ever it occurs. If it’s bad on Twitter or Facebook it’s equally bad in school libraries.
There is a world of difference between teaching kids about sex in preschool and early elementary – and their finding it on TV or the internet.
I would also note that if you are not a hollywood producer – much of what appears as entertainment would get you convicted of distributing child pornography today.
Regardless, even the most libertarian of us grasp that children are different.
They are not permitted to vote, to drive, to drink, to do drugs.
Even those who would allow adults to freely inject heroin would bar adults from providing children with drugs,
Discussions of rights and censorship have no meaning in reference to children – especially younger ones.
Finally Disney made a huge mistake stepping into this mess. Children are not the intended audience for the girl with the dragon tattoo.
The mildest of adult porn sites have atleast cursory barriers to children AND go out of their way to avoid even the appearance of appealing to children.
The Florida law addresses efforts to impose discussions of adult issues on children long before such discussions are appropriate – especially for those in government.
And Disney in stepping in has been exposed as actually deliberately targetting young children with very adult messages.
Overall I support the actual freedom of adults to do what the please – so long as they do not actually harm others.
Dress as you wish, call yourself whatever you wish have consenting sex with adults in whatever way you wish, have plastic surgery,
I am libertarian and support much more individual liberty than we have – even with respect to gender and sex and drugs.
I support every adult’s freedom to do what I might think is STUPID – so long as the actual harm is only to themselves.
But children are not adults, They do not have the same rights, they may not do many adult things, and adults may not even consentially do many adult things with children.
A book available on Amazon and the local library is not banned.
When you go to the polls remember what political party is trying to take away your right to speak freely. Remember what political part thinks it has the right to determine what you can see and hear. Remember what political party wants to put in place a “Living Constitution” that will have the first amendment edited from it’s content. Remember.
Elon Musk may not be able to buy Twitter for one reason or another but his attempt to do so exposed the movement opposing free speech by the left on a national stage. He didn’t have to pay a dime for the advertisements. Now that right there is genius. Ya know what I mean Vern.
This video has been posted before but it’s worth the time to see it again. It is also an informative video for those who have not seen it. Enjoy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFNCsSBnYVg
OT
The hostile takeover of Twitter by Musk, Private Equity et al. to end the antithetical denial of the freedom of speech in the “town square” is precisely what America should have done to end slavery.
Advocacy, boycotts, buyouts, divestiture, legislation, etc. constituted the correct, legal and constitutional course.
Lincoln chose destruction, death and the nullification of the U.S. Constitution.
Lincoln was high-criminally wrong.
The analogy to Masada was hilarious and accurate.
What we do know for sure is that “advertising-based funded corporations” has never coexisted very well with free speech. Advertisers and corporate funding also answers to an audience and generally that penalizes any content that offends that audience.
“User-funded” platforms – like HBO, Showtime, etc – where users hate censorship is the only corporate model that works. Maybe if Musk made Twitter private maybe it would allow free speech but not going to happen with public shareholders offering free service.
In the 1950’s even Edward R. Murrow at CBS was under tremendous financial risk when it challenged the evils of McCarthyism. Advertisers punished the networks for have opposing view to the government. Maybe it only succeeded because Dwight D. Eisenhower thought McCarthyism was evil also. Eisenhower secretly supported Edward R. Murrow to expose Senator McCarthy’s fraud and disloyalty to his Oath of Office.
Good post and I’ve heard this reasoning before when people try to explain why Musk needs to take it as a private company. I may be missing something here, but doesn’t the door swing both ways. Aren’t there corporations that are now avoiding Tweeter because they are so anti-free speech that would support Twitter if it was a free speech platform. And wouldn’t the stronger attraction of advertiser dollars be total audience, which Elon Musk is saying he will substantially grow? Or is corporate America and/or the population at large now so completely woke that essentially free speech is already dead?
“Such political agendas come at a cost and some shareholders may allege that they are being asked to effectively bankroll the social or political agenda of corporate officials.”
Could we not use the same argument about the use of our tax dollars for such government programs (I’m thinking this started in a grand way with The Great Society. (But, as an Art Historian by training, I personally find the government sponsored activism in many of the WPA projects, perhaps in a more tacit nature, but with a silent agenda that has grossly affected the development of true American Art resulting in the heavily accentuated influence of modern European Art.)
Twitter and its Board are overdue for being defendants in a derivative lawsuit.
I wonder how many Turley readers know what the new Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Gary Gensler, is trying to foist upon publicly-traded corporations. Not only the ESG narrative, but a ploy to get corporations to force them to disclose the carbon footprint, the fossil-fuel environmental impact, of very company they do business with. Some environmental and climate change activists might view this as appropriate. It is not, and brings forth Turley’s argument that Musk’s latest move on Twitter, and Twitter’s poison pill response plus the words being uttered by its CEO, Agrawal, could open to door to massive shareholder lawsuits, not only at Twitter, but at dozens if not hundreds of other publicly-traded, NYSE and NASDAQ listed corporations.
Shareholder lawsuit Attorneys must be licking their chops!
I wonder how many Turley readers know…
My guess Richard, is that some know something, but they haven’t spent the time to put the pieces together. They need to zoom out from the daily news distractions and they will discover Klaus Schwab, WEF, Larry Fink at BlackRock are working the woke, ESG (CCP) scoring model worldwide. They were able to inflict a lot of corporate damage during the pandemic, but as that curtain is lifted, people will hopefully become aware of The Great Reset and the threat it is to our fundamental freedoms.
“Behaviors are going to have to change and this is one thing we are asking companies, you have to force behaviors and at BlackRock, we are forcing behaviors,” Fink said.
https://leohohmann.com/2022/03/24/blackrock-ceo-and-wef-globalist-larry-fink-says-corporations-must-work-harder-to-force-people-to-change-behaviors/
ESG investment aligned with unwarranted climate alarmism is a great danger. The idea that starving fossil fuel businesses in the US of the capital they need to expand production of crude oil and natural gas, and to transport it to where it is demanded, will only increase costs of transportation and power and reduce the safety and reliability of power generation and transmission through the grid. It will not in any material way change the trajectory of global carbon emissions, which is now driven mainly by China, India, other Asian countries and soon Africa. It will do little to alter the trajectory of temperature or sea level rise, which in any event are expected to be small and gradual. It will do nothing to reduce the impact of severe weather events, which so far have shown no changes outside historical natural variability. Moreover, it empowers other oil and natural gas producing countries, such as those in the Middle East, Iran, Russia and Venezuela, and it weakens us generally against China.
The argument against ESG from a shareholder value perspective is hurt by the promotion by the government of its climate alarmist agenda. ESG advocates can argue that so long as the government’s opposition to fossil fuels continues, it would be prudent to reduce exposure to businesses that are heavy carbon emitters, since increasing regulation will reduce their profitability over time.
The history of censorship is very interesting. In the 1960’s, it was considered desecration, unpatriotic and obscene to wear the American flag on clothing or hats. You could be arrested in some states. Today our most patriotic Americans do this.
In the 1930’s it was illegal in many areas for men to go topless at a public beach. It was considered obscene. Bikinis were once considered obscene. Interracial swimming pools were considered obscene in Washington DC – the nation’s Capital city.
Government officials have never had the authority to censor under the First Amendment and they should not violate their own Oath of Office infringing on legal First Amendment activity.
Whether Musk succeeds or not, there is now Blood in the Waters.
A MBO [Management Buyout – unlikely], or Investment Firms & Corps [i.e.: KKR, Blackstone, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY, You name it, Microsoft, Apple, Google, … etc.] will be looking closely at the prospect.
And I am sure Some wonder how this opportunity slipped under their Radar.
Musk has his silent but optimistic Cheerleading Squad in the wings (Admirers):
Carl Icahn, Warren Buffett, Steve Ballmer, … Hey the Kids got Moxie & Money!
A single Barbarian is knocking on the Gate. If he is turned away, there will be an Army of
“Barbarians at the Gate.”
The only free speech corporate model (that I’m aware of) are companies like HBO, Showtime, etc. that actually show uncensored content with shows like “Real Time with Bill Maher” featuring free speech champions like Ira Glasser.
The problem for Twitter, Facebook, etc is that real free speech for-profit corporations are not free to users, so poor people will likely never receive free speech online.
Jonathan Turley should write a piece on the Oath of Office (Article VI and Title 5 US Code 3331) restraints on authority of government censors. The American Oath of Office prevents any government official from infringing on the First Amendment. Under this oath a government agency also can’t coerce or deputize a private company to censor.
This is precisely why decades ago, Hollywood created the ratings system (PG, R, Mature Audience, violence, nudity, etc). Since government has no such authority to censor, Hollywood’s ratings system empowered “parents and adults” to censor NOT the government.
For example: Janet Jackson’s career was severely damaged at a Super Bowl (someone else grabbed her clothes) and was fined by the FCC. The FCC does many good things but it has never had the constitutional authority to censor legal First Amendment speech.
FCC officials swear a supreme and superseding loyalty oath not to violate the First Amendment rights of any American. Only parents and adults have that authority.
This is hilarious. For years I have heard ” Twitter is a private company” ( not really true, it is not the government, but is publicly held). Therefore they can make their own rules ( true). They are not bound by the 1st Amendment. ( true). And if you don’t like the rules, don’t use the platform. ( also true).
Now that a non Lefty want to buy it, that great social media giant must be ” protected” against that at all costs. Reich and Booth are both idiots. Reich being a virtual Communist.
” Content moderation” is a euphemism for censorship.
I am not going to list all of the moronic things that are not true but still should not be censored. But if someone wants to post on Twitter that the pyramids were built by aliens or that Elvis is still alive SO WHAT? Produce a counter argument! The purpose of Twitter at least partly is to stir up public debate.
And I am showing my age here, but in the dictionary next to the word hypocrite, is the logo ,WaPo.
A very influential , and dare I say historic newspaper runs an editorial criticizing the attempt by Musk to buy Twitter because a billionaire should not be able to influence public opinion by having a forum like Twitter under his control? WaPo IS OWNED BY A BILLIONAIRE!! But that billionaire is a Lefty. So that is just fine.
And you would think that those on the Left would be celebrating Musk. He is a huge part of the Climate Change agenda given that he is the main innovator of electric vehicles. But controlling thought and censorship is way more important than the ” existential threat” of climate change. HYPOCRITES!!
Excellent — please put your two cents in here at Turley’s blog more often.
Reputation? They and their ilk have made it ABUNDANTLY clear they only ever even consider the literal existence of those in lockstep with their personal, puerile, and myopic ideologies. Would be sad if it weren’t legitimately pathetic and off-putting. These are not grown-ups, and they are of questionable mental stability as well. In saner times, the lot of them would have been found incompetent.
Twitter, the corporate safe space. If Musk win’s out fire all those weenies and move the Company to red state with real Americans.
Turley’s Civility Rule:
“the Turley blog was created with a strong commitment to civility, a position that distinguishes us from many other sites. We do not tolerate personal attacks or bullying. It is strictly forbidden to use the site to publish research regarding private information on any poster or guest blogger. There are times when a poster reveals information about themselves as relevant to an issue or their experiences. That is fine and is sometimes offered to broaden or personalize an issue. For example, I am open about my background and any current cases to avoid questions of conflicts or hidden agendas. However, researching people or trying to strip people of anonymity is creepy and will not be allowed.
Frankly, while I have limited time to monitor the site, I will delete abusive comments when I see them or when they are raised to me. If the conduct continues, I will consider banning the person responsible. However, such transgressions should be raised with me by email and not used as an excuse to trash talk or retaliate. I am the only one who can ban someone from the blog and I go to great lengths not to do it or engage in acts that might be viewed as censorship. We do not delete comments as “misinformation” or “disinformation.” Yet, we have had a few people who simply want to foul the cyber footpath with personal name-calling, insults, and threatening or violent language. We will delete personal threats and openly racist comments. If such posters will not conform to our basic rules (which should not be difficult for any adult person in society), they will have to move on.”
——————
Why does Turley censor insulting and abusive views? Where does he get off cancelling posters who will not “conform?” Who gets to decide what is “insulting?”
What the hell does it mean to “foul the cyber footpath?” Does that sounds like a bright line to put everyone on notice so that one may avoid crossing it? It’s vague and arbitrary.
Turley’s rules sound a lot like Twitter’s rule:
“You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. We consider abusive behavior an attempt to harass, intimidate, or silence someone else’s voice.”
————-
The truth be told, Turley’s blog is just as “Woke” as Twitter. The only difference is that Twitter enforces the rules whereas Turley has an employee who doesn’t.
JS
Stop whining, it isn’t pretty.
Monument,
I’ll stop just as soon as you stop whining that the election was stolen. Deal?
Wont speak for others, but I don’t talk about the 2020 elections is when our host brings it up.
So you do the same, stay on topic
Turley correctly exposes the MSM’s hypocrisy, and, therefore, hypocrisy is apposite. Exposing his own hypocrisy requires my reporting news stories which he has deliberately ignored.
Jeff, not even close. Twitter has repeatedly kicked people off of the forum for ” misinformation” Turley will not. Because ” misinformation” is totally in the eye of the beholder. I told you that initially Twitter censored anyone who put forth the hypothesis that Covid 19 could have come from the Wuhan lab. That has now been reversed.
We all know how Dorsey later apologized for kicking the N.Y. Post off of the site because they reported on the contents on Hunter’s laptop. That has also now been reversed.
At a very convenient time I might add.
I am not aware of anyone who has been barred from this blog, are you? That would also be a distinct difference from Twitter’s actions.
Turley’s rules largely guard against abuse. Not ideas contrary to the ” owner’s” ideology. That is the main difference between this blog’s rules and Twitter’s.
And Turley will not bar me from stating that Rachel ( Richard) Levine is a MAN!. The Babylon Bee is still kicked off of Twitter for saying the same thing. Just my opinion.
See the difference?
Paul says:
“Because ” misinformation” is totally in the eye of the beholder.”
So are “abusive comments.” Go ahead, define it with a clear bright line just as Turley insists that ALL speech codes must be delineated for the sake of due process and fair notice.
Remember, an UNMISTAKABLY OBJECTIVE definition which we ALL can agree upon.
I think you will find that “misinformation” is easier to define than “abuse.” The latter is determined objectively by reference to evidence whereas the former is purely subjective.
I don’t defend Twitter’s decisions. My only point is that Turley’s are no less subjective. If Darren actually enforced Turley’s vague rules, the Trumpists here would scream bloody murder!
Turley is unwilling to engage with us so as to keep his hands clean. He can claim plausibly that he was not aware of the abusive nature of his Blog. He can push the blame on his fall guy Darren for this blog’s appalling state.
So in your view, Turley’s free speech blog errors too often in the direction of allowing free speech. – And why is that a problem or an an inconsistency?
Sounds to me like you are part of the snowflake, “speech is violence” crowd. I prefer the “sticks and stones” gang.
Carpslaw,
Turley made these woke “civility” rules, not I. His blog, his rules. Your house, your rules. It’s just that simple.
Jeff I agree that both ” abuse” and
” misinformation ” are largely subjective.
But do you are agree that the ultimate penalty for violating either is being banned?
The ” punishment ” for breaking the rules is vastly different.
You did not answer my question. Do you know of any individual who has been banned from this site? I know many who have been banned from Twitter. And I challenge anyone to put forth one that has been left leaning.
Not sure if Farrakhan fits the profile but that would be the only one.
Numerous conservatives have been banned pending removal of their Tweets. Some banned permanently.
And no, I am not campaigning for Trump restoration.
There’s no comparison for failure to COMPLY on the two sites None.
Paul asks:
“Do you know of any individual who has been banned from this site?”
Some posters complain about being kicked-off this blog, but who can know unless Darren so informs us which he does not.
I would suggest you read this scholarship:
“Is Twitter biased against conservatives? The challenge of inferring political bias in a hyper-partisan media ecosystem”
This article summarizes:
“Social media companies are often accused of anti-conservative bias, particularly in terms of which users they suspend. Here, we evaluate this possibility empirically. We begin with a survey of 4,900 Americans, which showed strong bi-partisan support for social media companies taking actions against online misinformation. We then investigated potential political bias in suspension patterns and identified a set of 9,000 politically engagedTwitter users, half Democratic and half Republican, in October 2020, and followed them through the six months after the U.S. 2020 election. During that period, while only 7.7% of the Democratic users were suspended, 35.6% of the Republican users were suspended. The Republican users, however,shared substantially more news from misinformation sites –as judged by either fact-checkers or politically balanced crowds –than the Democratic users. Critically, we found that users’ misinformation sharing was as predictive of suspension as was their political orientation. Thus, the observation that Republicans were more likely to be suspended than Democrats provides no support for the claim that Twitter showed political bias in its suspension practices. Instead, the observed asymmetry could be explained entirely by the tendency of Republicans to share more misinformation. While support for action against misinformation is bipartisan, the sharing of misinformation –at least at this historical moment –is heavily asymmetric across parties. As a result, our study shows that it is inappropriate to make inferences about political bias from asymmetries in suspension rates.”
https://psyarxiv.com/ay9q5
That’s a fact, jack!
jeffsilberman, that was useful. Thank you for the posting.
Jeff, one article. As stated before, I am not going to get into a ” link war”. But it is interesting that you edited out the part highlighted in red at the end of the article.
” This Working Paper has not yet undergone peer- review”. Kind of important don’t you think?
At least it wasn’t from Slate or Vox.
And we are back again to what is ” misinformation”?
Again, stating that Covid could have originated in the Wuhan lab was branded ” misinformation” by Twitter and got you banned. Just the possibility that it came from there. Pure supposition. Not stated as fact. Now, not so much.
Putting forth the proposition that what was contained on Hunter’s laptop COULD be legitimate, got a major newspaper, not an individual, banned. Because it was
” misinformation”. Now even cnn Wapo and NYT are making the same claims. Conveniently.
So, it appears that ” misinformation” is malleable.
I stated that Rachel ( Richard) Levine is a man. Is that ” misinformation”? It didn’t get me banned here. But saying that Rachel was the Man of the Year got the Babylon Bee banned from Twitter.
So much for ” Turley’s rules sound a lot like Twitter’s”.
That’s a fact Jeff!
As far as Darrin kicking anyone off this blog, if totally unhinged Natacha is still here, everyone is safe.
Paul says:
“But it is interesting that you edited out the part highlighted in red at the end of the article.
”This Working Paper has not yet undergone peer- review”. Kind of important don’t you think?”
I linked to the article. So I was not hiding anything. You let me know if the peer review changes the conclusion. I doubt it.
You say:
“Again, stating that Covid could have originated in the Wuhan lab was branded ” misinformation” by Twitter and got you banned.”
Assuming what you are saying is accurate, it has yet to be established conclusively that it did leak from a lab. The question is whether this claim was made in good faith or bad faith. Was it deliberate disinformation or innocent misinformation? Only the former should be removed. Twitter has to look at the credibility and track record of the source and the facts surrounding the claim to determine the bona fides of the information. It owes that duty of stewardship to its subscribers.
With regard to the laptop, was the MSM discounting it in good faith or bad faith? The fact that the MSM made a poor judgement at the time does not prove that they were deliberately doing so. I don’t rule out bad faith; I just need evidence, e.g., text messages or email, showing corrupt intent.
Twitter can ban anyone who violates its rules just like Turley can. Their house; their rules.
ONLY government is prohibited from discriminating against speech. Being heard is NOT a right; it is a privilege.
Jeff, you did link the article. But you also wrote it out verbatim. Excluding the highlighted in red part. So either you really like to type, you made an honest omission or you edited it on purpose. I will assume it was an honest omission. And no, I am not going to wait for the peer- review. Maybe you can update me.
On Wuhan, I was emphatic that stating that it was a POSSIBILITY that Covid came from the lab caused the suspension. I never said that saying it “established conclusively” that it came from a lab leak got you barred. That is my point. A mere supposition of a POSSIBLE explanation that went against the prevailing narrative got you banned. And we have gone over this many times. I don’t care if it was ” deliberate misinformation” By who? Do your own FU**ING research! ( Not you personally)
As far as bona fides, ” a person’s honesty or sincerity of INTENTIONS.” I guess when looking for record of honesty, that would depend on where one looks.
I would not look to Slate, Vox or MSNBC. You would not look to Fox or the N.Y.Post. I am not saying that facts cannot be determined. But in this day and age the bias is outrageous. You have said so yourself. Doesn’t the ultimate duty of education fall on the individual? Instead of censoring ” misinformation” how about a little due diligence?
And although this is a legal blog, and you are a lawyer, this is not a court of law nor is anyone been requested to supply a brief. And Twitter is similar. So, discounting an accusation of libel, I don’t see how the good faith/ bad faith argument applies.
As for the laptop, in my opinion you are being kind with ” poor judgement”. It was censorship of a narrative that would have been counter- productive to a certain ideology. Read between the lines.
Again, is it misinformation if that information is malleable?
Yes, Twitter can make their own rules. But the reason that Twitter is in the headlines is because of the Musk offer. And the response of idiots like Boot and Reich.
They fear that if Musk owns Twitter he will change the rules. A little hypocritical, don’t you think?
Paul says:
“So either you really like to type, you made an honest omission or you edited it on purpose.”
I copied and pasted. There was no intent to deceive I assure you. I sincerely doubt that the conclusion will be different once reviewed. I do understand your reluctance to accept the finding….
If those who floated the Wuhan lab leak theory had qualified their statements as mere conjectures or simply raised the question, I doubt they would have been banned. I’m guessing it was the fact that these claims were made absolutely or conspiratorially which caused them to be taken down. You must have a foundation to make such claims in order to act in good faith.
Consumers cannot be expected to do their own due diligence. They expect the press to do it fit them. That’s their job. They are JOURNALISTS who are trained for this task. You are not the typical consumer. As a degenerate gambler, you do your own research to determine the best bet. You embrace doing your own due diligence because you don’t want to be a sucker.
I don’t believe that the MSM deliberately downplayed the laptop story to aid Biden. I don’t believe in such Deep State conspiracies. Any news organization will jump at the chance to break a story no matter who it may damage. Being first to report a story is what these news operations thrive upon. A Pulitzer Prize is in the offing. But journalists have an obligation to act responsibility; they cannot engage in gossip. They cannot do as Trump does and merely report that “people are saying.” They need reliable and authentic sources of information.
We don’t know Musk’s intentions. If he does take over Twitter, he might be surprised to learn that running it is far more complicated than merely complaining about it. When it becomes his responsibility to deal with obvious lies and known falsehoods. As I have said, being on Twitter is a privilege, not a Constitutional right. You don’t behave according to the rules, then you are banned just like on this blog.
“We don’t know Musk’s intentions. If he does take over Twitter, he might be surprised to learn that running it is far more complicated than merely complaining about it.”
Jeff, you ought to know that Musk has a lot of experience and even sends spacecraft into outer space. Yes, all people face hurdles in any business. Yet we hear you continuously criticizing Turley for how he runs a FREE blog providing immense amounts of content.
You should take your own advice, but you can’t because you are a complainer at heart, tearing other people down, hoping that makes your position in life rise.
I am only one on this forum who has credited Turley as a NeverTrumper. I would think Turley would be dismayed that the vast majority of his followers have any doubt about his attitude on Trumpism given the fact that he dismissed Trump as a “carnival snake charmer.” I praise Turley for his recognizing Trump for the conman that he is.
“I am only one on this forum who has credited Turley as a NeverTrumper.”
That is good to know. That is an indication that you might be the only one not to know what a Never Trumper is.
Turley – like man on the left is only partly red-pilled – but give him time – those like you keep pushing him further to the right all the time.
You claim that Trump is a conman. And you claim republicans lie more than democrats – but here you are pushing obvious falsehoods.
WaPo used to keep track of Trump’s lies – you know like that his campaign was spied on.
How did that list turn out ?
What did Trump “con” people into ?
Trump’s voters do not have “buyers remorse” they have not only learned the actual truth about him – but have had almost 6 years of relentless lies about him.
Who was conned ?
Trump voters got most of what they wanted from Trump.
Can Biden voters say the same ?
Even if you actually agree with Biden’s policies – did you actually want him to bring back inflation, and war, and …. ?
We were also told that anyone presiding over 200K covid deaths was an incompetent leader.
after 18 months of Biden there are 900K+ according to JHU.
That was an actual CON.
You seem to think that something is true – just because you say so.
If you are going to call someone a “con man” and you expect others to treat you as credible – you had better be able to explain convincingly – particular to those who purportedly got connect – how your claim is true.
That is tru of all defamation – it is one of few things that are actually binary – black and white
If you can not prove a claim of moral failure in another – the moral failure is YOURS
When you shout “Liar, Liar” – either you are right or YOU are the liar.
So far – the evidence points to YOU.
I would note that Trump has succeeded in numerous fields.
He has failed on occasion – but nearly everyone successful fails occasionally.
There are exceptionally few people – a tiny fraction of a percent who succeed in multiple different fields.
Elon Musk has been more successful than Trump – but in fewer fields.
Bezos, and Gates really only one.
Trump has succeeded in residential real estate and commercial realestate – in NYC the toughest market in the world.
He has succeeded in Casinos, and international hotels, and international real estate, and in beauty pagents, and in entertainment, and in politics. And that is just the short list.
No Conman is ever successful in ONE field for long. No Conman has ever been successful in multiple fields.
The very fact that we are all talking about him all the time is an incredibly indication that he is very real and unbeleivably capable.
He owns a significant portion of your brain.
With respect specifically to politics – he recognized a winning political coalition that no one else did, and he took ownership of it.
Even more importantly – despite reservations over time he earned their trust. Contra your claims – he both delivered on promises and succeeded. Biden has actually delivered on many promises – and doing so has lead to failure.
That – not Trump is more the indications of an actual conman.
Turley said Trump was essentially a conman long before I did. Turley has never reversed his opinion that Trump is a “carnival snake charmer” and his participation as a moderator in a presidential debate would be “obscene.” OBSCENE was his exact word, that is, disgusting by accepted standards of morality and decency. You cannot demean someone worse than that.
What did Trump “con” people into ?
Believing the ludicrous conspiracy theories that the election was stolen.
Case closed.
I thought you oppsed claims of inerrenacy for the Bible ?
Yet, here you are making the same claim for Turley about a remark no one else recalls him making, that is a statement of opinion not fact.
And so far has no evidence to back it up. I have no evidence Turley said what you claim. It is possible – but your credibility is really poor.
At the same time, I really do not care – because though I greatly respect Turley – I still disagree with him on occasion and I do not consider his pronouncements of biblical significance – just because he said them.
Do you have evidence Turley said these thing ?
And more critically – do you have evidence that Trump is a con man ?
You seem to think things are true – just because you say them.
I may only rarely cite sources for my assertions – but I fully excpet that those who do not allready know they are correct will google them, check them out and take me to task if an assertion I made is incorrect.
When I say something is true – it is true – because there is real world evidence proving that.
And if I am wrong – I expect my credibility here to be diminished.
You do not grasp that you have gone past no credibility and are well into negative credibility
If you have evidence of some moral or criminal failure on the part of Trump or anyone else – present the evidence.
Someone Says – is not evidence.
Say says:
“Someone Says – is not evidence.”
Trump says “people are saying” ALL the time to “prove” his lies.
Turley said what I said he said. I don’t misquote him. I have backed-up his calling Trump a “carnival snake charmer” in the past. Read it:
https://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/09/newsmax-flames-out-trump-debate-down-to-gingrich-and-santorum/
When I say something is true – it is true – because there is real world evidence proving it.
Jeff,
Trump did not con people.
Most of us came to our conclusions on or own – aware of the actual evidence.
The FIRST major point of evidence is that the left, the media, the democratic party, big tech have violated so many norms,
have lied to us so much have engaged in so much nefarious conduct – that it is no reach to accept that these same people would be capable of stealing an election.
All the same people telling us the election was properly conducted, are the same ones that told us that Trump and Russian colluded in 2016. That was not only false – but the evidence was actually manufactured and fed to the FBI/DOJ.
Why should anyone trust you ?
For 4 years you told us that some long list of things trump did or said was a lie – and you were WRONG again and again.
Why should anyone trust you ?
These same people told us the Hunter Biden laptop was russian disinformation and then censored it nearly out of existance.
Why should anyone trust you ?
Biden told us he got nothing from his son and did not talk with his son about business.
That is inarguably a LIE.
Why should we beleive that someone who sold the office of Vice president for money would not steal an election ?
Biden told us that Trump killed 200,000 people because of his incompetent handling of Covid – I beleive the current number of Covid deaths under Biden is approaching 700,000
I do not hold Biden accountable for not thwarting Covid – that was beyond his power.
But he LIED about it, and he knew he was lying.
Why should we beleive that someone who lied to win the election not steal an election ?
38 US states have constitutional provisions that bar mailin voting – because it is historically incredibly prone to fraud.
One party used everything in its power to get mailin voting nationwide in 2020 – that is lawless.
Why should we beleive that people who forced lawless and fraud prone elections in order to win the election not steal an election ?
Most of our courts fell over themselves to allow this lawless alteration of the elections.
Why should we trust courts that allowed lawless and fraud prone elections when they later tell us there was no fraud without allowing inquiry ?
I can go on and on.
The left, Democrats, the media, you, our courts, have done everything possible to destroy our trust.
You have all lied about so many things. You have actively suppressed the true.
Your not trusted.
No one needs Trump to con them.
Say says:
“The FIRST major point of evidence is that the left, the media, the democratic party, big tech have violated so many norms,
have lied to us so much have engaged in so much nefarious conduct – that it is no reach to accept that these same people would be capable of stealing an election.”
Lies.
“All the same people telling us the election was properly conducted, are the same ones that told us that Trump and Russian colluded in 2016. That was not only false – but the evidence was actually manufactured and fed to the FBI/DOJ.”
More lies.
“For 4 years you told us that some long list of things trump did or said was a lie – and you were WRONG again and again.”
List them.
“These same people told us the Hunter Biden laptop was russian disinformation and then censored it nearly out of existance.
Why should anyone trust you ?”
*I* NEVER said it.
“Biden told us he got nothing from his son and did not talk with his son about business.
That is inarguably a LIE.”
Prove it. Saying so proves nothing.
“Biden told us that Trump killed 200,000 people because of his incompetent handling of Covid – I beleive the current number of Covid deaths under Biden is approaching 700,000”
Figures lie, liars figure.
“I do not hold Biden accountable for not thwarting Covid – that was beyond his power. But he LIED about it, and he knew he was lying. Why should we beleive that someone who lied to win the election not steal an election?”
Prove it. Saying so proves nothing.
“38 US states have constitutional provisions that bar mailin voting – because it is historically incredibly prone to fraud.
One party used everything in its power to get mailin voting nationwide in 2020 – that is lawless.”
COVID, you idiot.
“Most of our courts fell over themselves to allow this lawless alteration of the elections.
Why should we trust courts that allowed lawless and fraud prone elections when they later tell us there was no fraud without allowing inquiry ?”
A pandemic, you moron.
“I can go on and on.”
Please.
You say, “Your not trusted.”
Try “You’re not to be trusted.”
You say, “No one needs Trump to con them.”
Sadly, true. Birthers were conned long before Trump came down the escalator.
Nothing said by jeffie. He is the most rabid person on the blog and knows nothing.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/arizona-senate-will-vote-bill-eliminate-use-unmonitored-ballot-boxes
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/greater-victory-margin-19000-votes-unverifiable-fulton-county-2020
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/dominion-procedure-included-possible-removal-memory-cards-voting-machines
I don’t recognize John Solomon as a credible journalist. He was canned by Fox News even.
Solomon is a top-flight journalist. I don’t know what you are saying about Fox News canning him. You don’t know what you are talking about. One of the greatest things about Solomon is he provides the raw data along with his reports. That is why you don’t like him. He provides proof and data, two things you never have. That is why you are unable to formulate any intelligent responses.
Anonymous says:
“Solomon is a top-flight journalist. I don’t know what you are saying about Fox News canning him.”
Solomon used to appear often with Hannity. I have not seen Solomon for many months.
“A journalist who conducted Trump’s latest interview was disowned by The Hill and Fox News after pushing disinformation about the Bidens and Ukraine”
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-interviewed-by-solomon-disowned-hill-fox-news-2022-3
“In the early years of Trump’s presidency, Solomon produced a series of columns for The Hill alleging dubious business dealing by Hunter Biden in Ukraine and corruption by his father, which were never proven.”
“The columns were widely cited in conservative media, with his background at mainstream outlets like The Associated Press apparently lending them credibility. Solomon was a frequent guest on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show.”
“They formed part of the web of conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated claims that led to Trump’s first impeachment in 2019, after he threatened to withhold military aid from Ukraine’s newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, unless Zelenskyy helped in the bid to smear the Bidens.”
“Then in February 2020, Solomon’s credibility took a major hit when The Hill in an internal review of his 14 articles about Ukraine and the Bidens found that he had omitted important details.”
—————
Game, set, match.
Solomon wasn’t canned and has his plate full with a streaming service and Just the News. The Hill story was proven bogus, but your site chose to post it in the headline. Furthermore, everything the article said bad about Solomon was proven wrong by Hunter’s laptop and other revelations.
Though having a recent date, your article is nothing more than an attempt to slime another one more time using old slime that was proven wrong. You have to be pretty stupid not to know what you are reading.
These are the people you trust ?
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/stacey-abrams-challenging-voter-citizenship-checks-her-expert-witness
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/florida-men-admit-voting-twice-2020-election
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/media-says-no-mass-voter-fraud-arizona-ag-report-brnovich-noted-serious
I’m not interested in reading “JusttheNews. Solomon has been discredited. You don’t even see him on Fox anymore.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/arizona-ag-issues-report-says-maricopa-election-practice-raises-questions
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/wisconsin-election-over-30000-voters-not-required-show-id-absentee
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/holnew-york-congressional-challenger-stefanik-caught-video-forging-names
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/over-60k-voters-nc-are-either-dead-registered-twice-under-similar-name-or
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/04/mi-sos-benson-gave-ballot-harvesters-ability-steal-2020-election/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/04/reminder-independent-investigations-pennsylvania-wisconsin-show-7-ballots-dropped-drop-boxes-2020-election-illegally-harvested/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/04/detroit-gateway-pundit-100-percent-fed-release-stunning-footage-woman-signing-multiple-ballots-dropping-absentee-ballot-dropbox/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/04/tgp-and-100percentfedup-release-new-drop-box-video-from-michigan-from-2020-election-from-interview-with-catherine-engelbrecht-and-gregg-phillips-from-true-the-vote-video/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/04/exclusive-man-discovered-ballot-trafficking-operation-yuma-county-handed-evidence-attorney-general-2020-general-election-stopped-audio/
“The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right fake news website. The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit
End of discussion.
To this dimwit, any publication that disagrees with his conclusions is wrong. However, this publication was right on the Russia hoax, the Steele Dossier, and many other things where your media was incorrect.
Deal with facts, not your rabid hate of anything on the right.
https://rumble.com/v10n3an-ballot-harvesting-under-kemps-watch.html
“Other channels on Rumble include America’s Funniest Home Videos, Alex Jones of InfoWars, American broadcasting company E. W. Scripps Company, Hodgetwins, cable news channels Newsmax and One America News Network (OAN), Russian state-controlled international television network RT and international news organization Reuters. In August 2021, Rumble announced deals with former Democratic Representative Tulsi Gabbard and The Intercept founder Glenn Greenwald to start posting their videos to the site. Rumble has also announced a partnership with OAN.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumble_(website)
All the usual suspects. Not interested in any outlet which hosts Alex Jones or OAN.
Period.
You insist on your narative of what occured a J6. Here are TWO different perspectives.
One is from a marine that was not at the Trump rally, was not at the capital, and did not participate in any way with anything related to J6.
But he is hounded by the J6 committee, the press and those like you who have a burning hatred for people who disagree with you policitally.
What is his crime ? He has on occasion spoken to Trump.
The other is from another Iraq war veteran who was At J6 – right in the middle of the most horrific events there.
He tells a radically different story than the narrative the press constantly present. Maybe he is telling the Truth, maybe he is engaged in self serving lying. Regardless, there is actually enough video to establish what the ACTUAL Truth is.
Why has that not been brought forward ?
I would further note we have already had myriads of instances of J6 prosecutors completely botching cases – and sometimes getting away with it. Evidence that is Inculpatory for one defendant is exculpatory towards another. Yet, that video is never provided to either defendant.
A prosecutor failing to provide exculpatory evidence to a defendant is a constitutional violation – and a violation of the Sumpreme courts holding in Brady. Unfortunately Brady violations are incredibly common – we saw many in the Flynn case – but they occur all the time in criminal prosecutions accross the country.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/04/heard-many-stories-horrors-atrocities-tiananmen-square-americas-tiananmen-square-jan-6-victim-police-brutality-prosecutorial-misconduct-marine-james-m/
“The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right fake news website. The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit
You are wasting your time citing TGP. Not interested.
Jeff,
How many different ways do I need to say this? Those who put forth the possibility of a lab leak ( conjecture) without remotely claiming it to be fact, were banned. I am on Twitter. I know. They were not made conspiratorially or in the absolute.
And you are conflating two different entities here. We are talking about Twitter. Not a newspaper or network. The majority of Twitter users are not journalists.
Therefore, consumers are not there for guidance under normal journalistic standards. Employees of Twitter do not write columns. Or make editorial comment.
And I resent that fact that you label me a degenerate. I admit to calling you a liberal. Which has not yet taken on the accepted definition of a pejorative. But is well on it’s way.
As far as the laptop, we will have to agree to disagree. And I have no faith in ” prizes” anymore. Moron Krugman has a Nobel. And they gave one to Obama less than 8 months into his Presidency for doing absolutely nothing to further peace.
So the ultimate duty of education falls on the press, not the individual? Are you kidding me?
Paul,
If those pushing the lab leak theory were only speculating, then I would agree that Twitter was wrong. I’m not on Twitter.
I was joking about your being a degenerate gambler! I thought you would know that the odds were that I was pulling your leg!
I’m not against the individual doing his due diligence. For example, I force myself to watch 3 hours of prime time Fox News so I can hear both sides. I have resigned myself that Fox will highlight stories unflattering to Liberals and the MSM will focus mainly on stories derogatory to Trumpists. I accept that State of affairs as inescapable as both sides pander to their audience in a bid for ratings gold. But as that MIT study demonstrates, Republicans lie more. What would you expect from the leader of a party who is a “carnival snake charmer”?
It is irrelevant whether the lab leak theory was speculation or not.
One of the problems with your idea of censorship – is that it presumes that all ordinary people are stupid and easily pushed into bad ideas.
That was at the core of Hillaries 2016 – It was Russia nonsense.
There are a few people who are gullible and can be sold anything.
And everyone gets fooled sometimes.
But “you can’t fool all the people all the time”
In fact you really can not fool most people – atleast not with bat$hit crazy claims.
Posit some crazy theory and push it on twitter, politicize it and some people will beleive or disbelive it based on politics.
But ultimately claims that are not plausible fail and only a few at the far extremes accept them.
Claims that are credible – attract attention scrutiny and if they survive broad support.
The response to things like the lab leak theory was to look at the evidence we have, and to look for further evidence to support or reject it.
What is evident NOW is that the lab leak theory was MORE plausible than the Zoonotic theory – from the start.
And that over time it has only become stronger.
It is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But it is much more likely today than the zoonotic theory.
I would note that it is also proposed that Omicron came from a lab too – that basically the Wuhan strain was brough into a lab, and went through several generations of mice before accidentally or deliberately escaping to the wild.
The Omicron lab leak theory is MORE credible than the Wuhan lab leak theory – Omicrons only direct ancestor in the wild is the original Wuhan strain. Since early 2020 it has mutated at 3 times the rate of all other wild strains. Yet it does not share any mutations with those strains.
There are very few explanations that fit those facts – evolution in humanized mice in a lab is the strongest one.
Say says:
“In fact you really can not fool most people – atleast not with bat$hit crazy claims.”
All Trumpists believe the bat$hit crazy claim the election was rigged/stolen. Turley never did; ergo, NeverTrumper.
Jeff I gave you a long long list of articles providing Evidence of serious problems with the 2020 election.
I only used two sources – there are many many many more.
I only used allegations made int he past few months – there are allegations and evidence going back to BEFORE the election.
The claim the 2020 election was stolen is FAR LESS bat$hit crazy than the 2016 one was – and many like you still sell that nonsense that actually HAS been thoroughly debunked.
Very few of the claims regarding the 2020 election have been subject to meaningful scrutiny.
The courts completely dodged the issue and with a few rare exceptions NEVER looked at the evidence.
They dismissed on (poor) legal rather evidentiary grounds.
There is one fundimental problem with the claim that the 2020 election was stolen.
That is that our elections are all purportedly secret ballot elections. That means several things – ONE of those is that it is deliberately not possible to prove how any specific voter voted.
Mostly that is a good thing – it prevents many forms of election fraud, but it also means that elections laws and processes must be followed scrupulously – because once a ballot is accepted ONCE as valid – there is almost no means in the future to remove it should it prove fraudulent.
In AZ there were almost 50K ballots that were multiple votes from the same people. This has been ABSOLUTELY proven.
The margin of victory was 11K votes.
Knowing that there are 50K fraudulent ballots – does not mean we know whether Fraud changed the election.
Worse though we KNOW those ballots are LIKELY fraudlent. We do not actually know the specific form of Fraud they reflect.
Are they individual actual voters that submitted ballots more than once – that clearly happened in 2020 – but thus far the evidence is that it was pretty rare.
If that was NOT the case in AZ – then why are there so many instances where one person appears to have voted multiple times ?
An alternate possibility is that some fraudulent actor culled the voting rolls for people unlikely to vote and sent in Ballots for them.
If that is the case then we do not have 50K fraudulent ballots in AZ we have much more than 50K – 100-250K or more depending on how accurately the Fraudsters predicted whether their selected people would vote.
Whether you like it or not – there is quite alot of evidence of Fraud during the 2020 election.
That unfortunately does not prove the election was stolen – absent a confession from someone inside a large scale fraud operation – it is nearly impossible to predict the effect of election fraud on the results after the fact. Even if we could identify fraudulent voters or fake voters, we can not identify the fraudulent ballots.
There are only a limited number of types of fraud whose impact is provable – After the fact – and we do have evidence of some of those.
Recently it has been uncovered that in GA the memory cards in voting machines were removed – and often inserted into other machines.
There are over 300K votes in GA that are suspect as a result of this.
The problem is very real and very serious. But it is not – YET known whether it is Fraud or merely complete idiocy.
Moving the cards arround is a violation of election laws. It makes several forms of fraud possible. But it does not automatically mean they happened.
To verify that there was or was not fraud all ballots in the precincts with this issue must be recounted – preferably by hand.
Do those 300K ballots actually exist ? Does the count of paper ballots match the count of votes ?
I would note that GA is not the only place the counts do not match.
PA – and specifically Philadelphia where Election fraud has been a way of life for a century is STILL 270K voters short for 2020.
i.e there are more votes than voters. This COULD just be a reporting failure. Or it could be that there are no actual ballots for 270K votes.
You are proving my point that Turley is a NeverTrumper because he is ignoring all this “evidence.”
Ballot harvesting is illegal in nearly all states in the country.
Though prior to 2020 Ballot harvesting was quite rare.
Ballot harvesting is unique to MailIn voting.
It is important to distinguish absentee voting – which conforms to secret ballot requirements and mailin voting.
If ballots never leave the oversight of election officials – the requirements for a secret ballot are met, and many forms of fraud are impossible – or unlikely and other forms are easier to detect and easier to identify who committed the fraud.
Secret Balloting means that large scale fraud MUST be conducted by election officials – because ballots never leave their oversight.
If you vote usually early by going to the courthouse, the JP, a notary, or by having an election official come to you – that is absentee voting and conforms to secret ballot requirement. It is person to person voting and ballots never leave the oversight of election officials.
ID can be verified, and there is no means for a voter to prove how they voted so they can not get paid for their vote.
Ballot harvesting typically occurs only with mailin voting.
That is where ballots are handled by third parties – someone other than the voter, the mailman, and election officials.
Many states absolutely bar that. A few allow ballots to be handled by the immediate family of the voter,
A smaller number allow close friends to handle the ballot.
There are many many problems with ballot harvesting. Were it is present myriads of forms of fraud are possible.
In typical ballot harvesting operations. harvestors are PAID for the number of ballots they deliver.
Ilhan Omar was paying $300/ballot to harvestors in 2020.
Regardless, several organizations have actively sought to catch ballot harvestors – and it has taken time but they have been very successful.
Some states with mailin elections requires security cameras at unattended dropboxes,
In other instances – voter integrity groups set out security cameras – often these Game cameras that you can get at hunting stores.
In others they were able to find private secuity cameras from stores that covered the drop boxes.
Regardless there is readily available LOTS of video of actual ballot harvestors at work.
There is video of them dropping dozens often hundreds of ballots into a drop box.
There is video of them doing so with hoodies on and masks and surgical gloves to prevent identification and fingerprints. And disposing of the gloves after depositing ballots.
There is video of them taking pictures of the ballots before putting them into the drop boxes.
Separately the same groups have used Googles Geofencing services to identify the cell phones of ballot harvestors – and they have followed them from one ballot box to the next – often hitting ten different unattended ballot boxes with a dozen or more ballots each.
Sometimes they have security video of the same person at multiple unattended ballot boxes.
There is not an innocent explanation of any person dropping off hundreds of ballots at an unattended ballot box.
The estimates – based on geofencing information and security cameras is that there were almost 300K ballots “harvested” – just in approximately 6 cities in the key states that flipped this election.
This BTW correlates strongly with Statistician John Lotts analysis of voting patterns accross the country.
Lott used data from 2016 and 2020 elections to establish voting paterrns accross the country and accross states and regions.
He was able to establish exactly how much better/worse Trump did precint by precinct accross the country and the same for Biden vs.
Clinton. And AGAIN the 6 cities int he country that flipped the election, the 6 cities in the country were fraud was alleged, the 6 cities in the country where masser amounts of zuckerbucks were spent. 6 cities in the country where Biden did NOT campaign, All showed dramatic deviations from nationwide, statewide and regional trends. The analysis is complex but the conclusions are understandable.
Trump’s performance throughout the country was predictable there were no significant deviations.
Biden’s performance arround the country was ALSO predictable – Except in these 6 cities were he dramatically outperformed expectations without any explanation. Biden always did well in cities. But these 6 specific cities he did much better than in any other cities in the country including similar sized ones that Biden actually campaigned it.
The anamolly was about 274K votes.
Boy, Say, you have swallowed this conspiracy hook, line and sinker. You are the most fanatical Trumpist on this blog.
JS, are you classified as a lamebrain because you believe ballot harvesting doesn’t exist or are you a numskull because you don’t know that ballot harvesting is easily corrupted?
Which is it? Lamebrain or numskull?
Jeff,
I am not a “trumpist”.
I oppose several Trump policies,
and I did not vote for him in either 2016 or 2020.
I have also been an active election integrity advocate since the disasterous 2000 election.
I opposed Bush’s HAV act – and it took us almost 2 decades to get rid of most of the stupid voting terminals that were untrustworthy black boxes.
I am NOT new to the fight for election intergrity – nor am I inherently pro republican.
In 2020 we were fighting over whether Dominion systems threw the election to Biden – in 2004 there were claims that Diebold (a predecessor of Dominion) threw the election to Bush. There have ALWAYS been legitimate questions about election integrity.
One of the major questions is given years of problems and challenges – why are nearly all the same flaws and problems still present?
Getting elections secure is hard – in the sense that it requires rigid conformance to lots of requirements. Failure to follow those requirements undermines trust and permits fraud.
One of many checks – that obviously failed in 2020 was verifying that the total number of voters who voted matches the total number of ballots counted.
That should not be hard. It might not be possible to do PERFECTLY given 150 Million votes, that said every single precinct should be able to get within a very small error, and if it can not – the votes from that precinct should not be counted.
One of the major problems with the rules for elections – is there is no consequences for failure. People are not fired, They are not jailed.
This is a problem we have throughout government – there is no consequence for failure.
One of the very interesting things about 2020 is that Zuckerburg spent 1/2 Billion purportedly improving elections – providing equipment and people and …. 94% of that money was spent in the 6 cities that flipped the election. And each of those cities was DAYS late in reporting their results. The very problem that Z spent 1/2 Billion to fix was as bad as ever after his spending – so WHAT exactly did those ZBucks buy ?
Say says:
“I have also been an active election integrity advocate since the disasterous 2000 election.”
If things are as you say, why is Turley silent? I’m not the “expert” you claim you are. Email Turley your alternative facts and see what he thinks (unless you suspect he is a NeverTrumper who hates Trump so much that his eyes are blind to your truth).
Jeff we have had to listen to you and others rant that the 2016 election was stolen right through to today.
It was obvious from the start that claim was bogus.
And yet you STILL got the recounts you wanted.
You STILL got the investigations into Russian Collusion that you wanted – even though those were obvious idiocy from the start.
The actuall results get worse and worse for this russian collusion nonsense the longer this goes on.
Further we now know the entire thing was a HFA perpitrated HOAX.
And these are the people you think we should trust ?
There is nothing even slightly crazy about questioning this or any election.
And frankly we need substantially improved election integrity measures.
It should not be the job of 3rd parties to prevent ballot harvesting or to surviel unattended drop boxes.
In the 19th century we grasped that if ballots were in the hands of voters outside of the oversight of election officials we would have massive fraud – because we did.
So long as we have mailin voting we will with near certainty have election fraud. And we will not be able to trust elections.
It was one thing when it was only in a few states that were already a foregone conclusion.
One of the things you do not seem to grasp is that election fraud is actually extremely rare – when elections are not close.
It is near certain there was election fraud in the newsome recall – that is because it was initially anticipated to be close.
There was plenty of evidence – people showing up at the polls being told they had already voted is a classic sign of a large scale voter fraud operation.
But the results were not close and there was no possibility that even large scale fraud had tipped that election so there was little inquiry.
No one cares about 200K fraudulent votes in an election that is won by a couple of million.
Election fraud is always more likely and always more of a problem with close elections.
Part of this is because the larger the scale of the fraud the more likely you are to get caught.
Say says:
“Jeff we have had to listen to you and others rant that the 2016 election was stolen right through to today.”
Say what? You have a screw loose my friend. I NEVER said that. I don’t believe ANY election was stolen. Many DID claim that Russia interfered with the 2016 election on account of disinformation thanks in no small part to Trump’s encouragement. But very few claimed Russia’s attempts changed the outcome. Those that did were wrong and lying.
Jeff, thanks for calling Hillary and top Democrats liars.
No problem. I never said that Trumpists were the only filthy liars.
MIT actually concluded that republicans lie more than democrats ?
Just goes to prove how corrupt our higher education system is.
I am not a republican. a pox on both your houses.
But in my lifetime there has never been a time in which democrats did not lie more and bigger than republicans.
I’m going with the MIT published study by academic scholars with data to back-up their claims over your say-so.
Or maybe you could trying going with REALITY ?
I would be happy to review the MIT study – but you did not provide it.
As is typical of you – you expect all of us to beleive what you say – even when it strains credibility and runs in opposition to reality.
I am not a republican so I have no skin in the Republican vs. Democrat game.
i have no doubt that Republicans politicians lie. I have no doubt democratic politicians lie.
But in my real world experience when a Republican accuses a democrat – they are probably right – when a democrat accuses a republican they are probably talking about themselves.
Regardless – BEFORE this study was done – the problems with studies in the “soft sciences” and humanities surfaced.
Even ignoring political biases – in ongoing reviews of published academic papers – specifically seeking to replicate the results 1/3 are so bad the actually results directly conflict with the study. 1/3 do not replicate – the results are neither here not there – and 1/3 actually replicate with sufficient statistical significance they might be meaningful. That is of ALL papers. Those in humanites and social sciences fare significantly worse. Not that there is not substantial replication failures in hard sciences. Almost two decades ago a plumber from the UK in night school took issue with a psychology study on what is called priming. He did not beleive the results. It took 10 years and substantial assistance but he ultimately published work in Psychology that ultimately took down the entire and substantial Priming branch of psychology. But this ultimately went further – decades of psychological studies including some of the most famous studies of the 50’s that have been taught as core principles of psychology for my entire life were subject to replication tests – THEY FAILED. The entire field of psychology has been shaken – much of the work of the past 75 years is under a cloud or has been outright falsified.
And you expect me to accept some alleged study from MIT done recently that you will not even provide over real world observations ?
No Thank You.
I would have hoped you might have leaned something from all the lies that experts and the elites have told us about covid, about Trump, about themselves.
I would note that the concept of objective truth is REJECTED by post modernism.
How is it you expect that anyone can trust anything from people who do not even beleive there is such a thing as truth ?
Say says:
“I would be happy to review the MIT study – but you did not provide it.”
Here is the MIT study. I will post it again:
https://psyarxiv.com/ay9q5
I’ve long said that religious people and like conspiracy theorists will feel slighted and largely dismissed by a rational and science based society. No doubt, those fundamentalists believing in Creationism felt prejudiced against when the government legitimately banned their nonsense from being taught as science in public schools.
The Wuhan lab leak theory was NEVER mere conjecture – nor were they censored because they were engaged in conjectured.
They were censored because it was ideologically inconvenient to allow the expression of even the possibility that it was true.
Today the Fauxi zoonotic origens theiry is nearly dead.
Covid did NOT come from the wet markets.
Extensive effort has failed to locate any animal intermediary – despite finding one within a few months for SARS and MERS – and every other Zoonotic origened virus.
The odds of discovering an intermediary 2 years later is near zero.
Conversely the lab leak theory has ALWAYS been the more probably theory. Today it is as close to certain as we can be without having patient Zero and records from Wuhan that do not exist.
Regardless, the Lab Leak Theory was not censored because its exponents used the wrong pharses to describe its credibility – as you are claiming. it was censored because it was policital dynamite. Because it would make Trump look good, because it would make Fauxi look bad. And because Fauxi was powerful enough to supress it.
Get over yourself – the facts are the facts, It is much more likely than not that Covid came from the WIV, It has ALWAYS been more likely that the Zoonotic theory. But today it is about 30,000 times more likely.
Regardless, this like the Hunter Biden laptop and myriads of other truths that have been censored merely points out the failures of censorship and the fact that it is inherently evil.
I’ll await for scientific proof if you don’t mind.
Where is your proof of the contested government actions regarding Covid?
You don’t have any. Hypocrite.
Really ? Musk has done something that only 3 governments before him managed – he has put men into space.
And you think running Twitter will be hard for him ?
I would note that running Twitter need not be the slightest complex.
The simplest solution is to censor nothing.
The few things like child porn that someone posts can be dealt with by law enforcement – that is their job.
Actually censoring “adult” and truly illegal material is only slightly more difficult.
Musk could probably fire 2/3 of twitter if he dramatically reduced censorship – because censorship is a massive amount of work.
I would further note that earnings, users, and activity would significantly increase – because people would return.
If snowflakes want a safe space where they need not confront ideas that cause them anxiety – they can curl up in their dorm rooms.
Say says:
“The simplest solution is to censor nothing.”
Why is that simple solution not the rule on this blog? You are implicitly condemning Turley for his “civility rule.”
“misinformation”
A concept that is intentionally left undefined, and that is applied capriciously. The dishonest always use vague concepts as a cover for their actual motivations.
“Misinformation” is clearly defined. Please explicate your point.
Nope.
The determination that something is clearly defined – is not the presence of a definition in a dictionary, but broadly shared comon and clear understanding of meaning.
I had a long debate with S.Meyer some time ago.
Misinformation is a near perfect example of a word that IS NOT clearly defined today – you and I do not share an understanding of what it means. Nor do most people.
This massive confusion over words is a deliberate consequence of post modernism. It is not merely Orwellian – Orwell litterally wrote specifically about it in his non-fiction.
Nearly every conflict between the left and everyone else is over the meaning of words.
What does racism mean ?
What is misinformation ?
What is a right ?
Look in a dictionary. They can be misapplied, but their meanings are clear.
so I point out what is both obvious and correct – that the meaning of words is the shared understanding of people communicating, and that dictionaries are merely attempts to document that meaning.
And your reply is to direct me to a dictionary ?
Logic is not your forte.
I have no problems using dictionaries – but lets use 50 year old dictionaries – those are more likely to accurately reflect the accepted meaning of much of the country.
The meaning of words changes over time. Sometimes naturally, other times through ideology.
I doubt you and I share the same definition of racism. If it has not changed already dictionaries will soon change to reflect yours rather than mine.
But that does not change the fact that what you call anti-racism, I call racism, and that regardless of which label you use – it is EVIL.
Words are SYMBOLS for what they mean.
If I say
X=frogs, Y=bugs,
X eats Y,
and you say – no Y = mountain lions
Then the satatement X eats Y is no longer true.
Say says:
“I doubt you and I share the same definition of racism. If it has not changed already dictionaries will soon change to reflect yours rather than mine.”
There is one commonly accepted sense of the word “racism.” We just never will agree to whom it applies. I don’t call people racists. At most, I will call something said as “racist,” but from that I won’t condemn the person as a racist. Genuine racists are not shy to self-identify, e.g., members of the KNK, neo-Nazis, etc. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt; unjustly accusing someone as a racist is self-defeating. But I will not shy away from condemning a racist statement.
“‘Misinformation is clearly defined.”
Really? What is Twitter’s definition?
It’s clearly defined in the dictionary. How it’s applied may vary.
sam, use
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/misinformation
to see an authoritative definition.
“sam, use”
The issue is *Twitter’s* definition. So what is it?
Secondarily, please do explain how *Twitter* applies *their* definition consistently.
Incidentally, one can infer Twitter’s “definition” of “misinformation,” based on their application of it, e.g., with respect to Covid.
It’s any information that contradicts their chosen “experts” — their selected “public health authorities.” (Gee, guess who they are.) That is *not* a valid definition. It is an appeal to authority — to their authorities.
In other words, their capricious view of “misinformation” is what I’ve been saying all along: Any information that contradicts Establishment opinions is labeled as “misinformation.” And, as I’ve been saying, they use the concept “misinformation” as a cover to ban opinions they don’t like.
It is an appeal to BAD authority.
One of the many important functions of free speech is to drive us toward correcting error.
If the CDC gets to make a pronouncement and no one is permitted to challenge it – if it is in error there will never be a correction.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
ALWAYS the authoratative meaning is the shared understanding of ordinary people.
The purpose of words is to communicate.
The purpose of dictionaries is to aide us in reaching that shared understanding.
They are not the end, they are the means.
I would further note the debate over the meaning of specific words – is stupid.
If you succeed in defining misinformation such that it includes truth – that also alters the meaning of censoring missinformation.
Very few of us support censoring the truth in most any context.
That is why the admissions regarding the Biden laptop are so damning.
Because you censored them.
Had people been exposed to the truth and voted for Biden anyway – they would have been informed of what they were voting for and he would be legitimate.
Paul,
If an account is temporarily or permanently suspended at Twitter, there is a public notice, for example: twitter.com/realDonaldTrump
Yes, liberals have also been banned from Twitter: wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ban-us-mid-term-elections
So have non-political accounts like twitter.com/animalIife
There is generally no public notice here, so it’s harder to know if Darren blocked an account or if the person just decided to leave. I did see Darren publicly notify one person:
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/03/11/two-new-york-colleges-under-fire-after-targeting-conservative-students-and-groups/comment-page-1/#comment-2070059
I suspect that the commenter Squeeky Fromm was also banned for extreme racism, such as her comment 10:18 AM comment archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/20210430154145/https://jonathanturley.org/2021/04/30/georgetown-professor-under-fire-for-reading-the-n-word-in-a-class-on-free-speech-and-racism/
I’ve also seen people say that they were banned and that they’re using another IP address to get around the ban.
Anon,
The article that you refer to is 4 years old. Hardly relevant to the current circumstances. It also states that a considerable amount of those banned” Were suspended because they were suspected of being run by pro Trump members masquerading as liberal activists”. Kind of dilutes the amount of true liberals banned, don’t you think?
Paul, you wrote “I challenge anyone to put forth one that has been left leaning.” You did not give a time span. I figured I’d help you out, did a simple search, and gave you an article with several examples — more than the “one” you asked for, after excluding the ones that may have been conservatives masquerading as liberals. I was not trying to convince you of anything, only trying to respond to your request for info. If it’s not what you’re looking for, then look it up for yourself using whatever time constraints or other constraints are important to you.
I also gave you examples of people who’d been banned here, again trying to help you out.
Anon,
You are correct. I apologize. You were trying to help and I took it as adversarial. This is just such a hot button for me. I am a strict free speech advocate. And although many dismiss the ” slippery slope” hypothesis, I don’t. I have gone back and forth with many on this subject. I don’t believe in “” misinformation” per se’.
I believe in lies. I certainly believe in hypocrisy which is what we are seeing with the outrage over Musk buying Twitter. I used the aliens/ pyramids, Elvis is alive examples often. Those are just comical. But I will stretch it out a little further. If someone wants to put out on Twitter that Ivermectin helped them get over Covid, SO WHAT?? If you are stupid enough to get heath care information from Twitter , you deserve what you get. Do your own investigating .Maybe ask a doctor for advice.
I don’t ask a plumber for advice when my electricity goes out.
And I will take it a step even further. There is no such thing as ” hate speech”. There are calls for violence. Which should be censored. But calling someone a pejorative should not be banned. Now I would never use the N- word. Or the F- word to describe a gay person. And a private company has the right to ban those words. To me Hate Speech calls for violence. Not just something that hurts someone’s feelings. So where does the line get drawn?
I am of Italian decent. And I take no offense at Dago, W.O.P ( which, BTW means With Out Papers) , today that might be another term I hate, Cultural Appropriation. What’s next? Can’t call someone an idiot because they might cry?
Paul,
Glad we can resolve things quickly when there’s a misunderstanding — this is part of why I consider you a good-faith discussant.
With respect to Twitter, just as you think “If you are stupid enough to get heath care information from Twitter , you deserve what you get,” I think that if someone chooses to create a Twitter account and accept their Terms of Service, then they accept the consequences of those Terms. If you don’t like their Terms, don’t agree to them.
Anon,
I am in total agreement. Twitter is a private company. And can set their own rules. And any individual can decide whether to comform to those rules or not use the site.
But I can’t believe fear that has been put forth by some by the possibility of Musk controlling Twitter.
If he changes the rules, doesn’t the ” if you don’t like the rules don’t use the site” axiom apply as it has been stated over and over again?
Why the outrage by idiots like Boot and Reich? My guess is that they like the ” rules” now but might not like them post Musk.
This hypocrisy seems so simple to me I can’t believe anyone is defending it.
Thank you for the respectful discourse.
Amen
Paul,
I agree. If Musk takes control of Twitter and changes the Terms, then anyone who doesn’t like the new Terms can leave.
As for “Why the outrage by idiots like Boot and Reich?,” we’d have to read their arguments in full. I read Reich’s Guardian column and Boot’s tweet, but I don’t have the impression that that’s the full extent of either of their arguments. As best I can tell, they are not arguing about what is legal but about what they believe is good for society, and those arguments have multiple components (e.g., social media is a megaphone rather than a platform for speech where all speech gets the same amplification, social media companies use algorithms to amplify some content over other content, and those algorithms are hidden from users but have a real impact on what people see and the likelihood of information “bubbles” that result in more extreme beliefs).
I support freedom of speech, but I also think that the algorithms used by social media companies do real harm. Personally, I’d like to see the algorithms themselves regulated, which is a very different issue than whether accounts get banned.
No! No! No!.
We need to get rid of S230 protections that is all.
There is no place for government in regulating speech in any form.
I am opposed to the idiocy that Social media is engaged in – but regulation is NOT the remedy.
Whether this is fixed by someone like Musk buying twitter – which with near certainty would have cascadeing effects through the market
or by people just slowly becoming fed up enough they go elsewhere
the remedy for private censorship must ultimately be private.
The conduct that Twitter and others engage in must fail in the marketplace – where ultimately I beleive it well.
Government has no business taking sides in this issue. S230 probably did not create this – but it made it worse.
Regardless, we should always allow bad ideas to fail on their own naturally where possible.
That is how we best learn.
Paul,
One other thing: people who are not on Twitter may still be impacted by Twitter’s policies, for example, if someone on Twitter publishes the name/address/email/phone of someone who is not on Twitter and falsely accuses them of something heinous (say, child sex trafficking), then that second person may get death threats. The speech on these platforms can have very serious effects.
“if someone on Twitter publishes the name/address/email/phone of someone who is not on Twitter and falsely accuses them of something heinous “
Doesn’t that make them libel?
Defamatory speech whether on platforms or not is subject to lawsuits for Torts.
The only question is the extent to which the platform – rather than the individual creating and posting the content is responsible.
The platform is ALWAYS responsible when they speak with their own voice. They are no different from others.
The platform is also responsible when it speaks though its editorial choices. Especially afirmative ones.
When a Platform claims nuetrality – but does not act nuetrally – it is engaged in clear advocacy.
When that advocacy is censorship – it is not just a matter of free speech – but one of defamation.
When you take down a post – you are defaming the author.
Anon,
Can’t reply to April 20 10;50 or 12;36
I don’t have the exact quotes from Boot and Reich right now. I know Boot said something about ” content moderation” Which is a euphemism for censorship.
I don’t need to see a ” full argument ” in order to be against censorship. And I agree, I don’t think they are speaking about legal manifestations. But they both seem to be really fearful of Musk taking over Twitter. Wouldn’t you agree? Because they are fine, moral upstanding individuals? Who show no bias whatsoever? Boot, Reich and others had no problem with Twitter until Musk put in his bid. Wonder Why? What changed?
And I don’t give a SH*T what these two morons think about what is good for society. Especially Reich. In my opinion, from everything that I have read or seen, he is at heart a socialist. That disqualifies him from everything in my book.
And it is interesting that you bring up the algorithms. I think that is the biggest fear of the Twitter board. If Musk buys Twitter, the algorithms will become public knowledge. And in my opinion, it will expose that they slant far in one direction. Bet you can’t guess in which direction I think they slant?
One your one other thing: I agree completely.
I strongly suspect that making the algorithms public is only going to expose moderate bias in the algorithms.
What it will actually expose is that far more of the bad choices were and are made in Social Media by PEOPLE.
Some algorithm did not tell Twitter and FB to kill the NYPOST story – that choice was made by people.
The biggest flaws in your argument are that as a rule – one party is not permitted to unilaterally alter the terms of their contract.
Twitter for many years sold itself as a free speech platform – as THE free speech platform. It was even in their TOS
That was a lie.
We hold companies accountable when they lie to get our business,
when they make promises they do not uphold.
We do not allow they to weasle out of that by changing contracts unilaterally.
Further no contract can waive defamation before the fact.
You can defame someone with your own speech or with speech related choices.
When Twitter blocked the NYPost account and took down links to their web site as disinformation.
They defamed the NYP. And they did so based on LIES.
They can and must be culpable for such choices.
If you subscribed to Twitter when they were selling themselves as the free speech platform for the internet.
If you subscribed under older terms of service – THAT is the contract twitters has with you.
Calling something a TOS does not change what it is – a contract. Contracts can not be changed unilaterally or coercively.
Next if you agreed to some TOS – later or now – you are entitled to that TOS.
You are entitled to expect that if you agreed to censor ship by Twitter that it will do so consistently not arbitrarily and capriciously.
If as an example twitter is going to censor misinformation – then Fauxi and the CDC should be shutdown – no place has shilled more Covid garbage. CDC’s polices and public commentary are constantly contradicted by THEIR OWN DATA AND STUDIES.
So why is CDC still up ?
The libs of Ticktok censoring is incredible – there is no comentary – it is just those on the left speaking in their won words.
If Twitter is going to censor libofticktok – it needs to censor the libs that libsofticktok is showing.
If twitter is going to censor purportedly sexist or homophobic remarks – then it must censor almost all islamic posters.
As well as Russia.
If you provide a service and you do not apply the TOS unifromly – then Twitter is in breach.
I honestly do not care all that much about left wing nut censorship – ultimately it is self destructive.
The more censorship you have – the lower trust is.
But you are constantly making half an argument and pretending it is the whole.
Contracts have TWO sides. Anything that is not bidirectional – is not binding.
Further while I do not think legal remedies are necescary – there are plenty that exist.
Censorship is itself speech – specifically it is defamatory speech.
S230 immunizes Social media from responsibility for the speech of others – you can not escape responsibility for your own.
When Twitter censors something – they are saying this person and their content is untrustworthy.
That is defamation and the defense is truth. If twitter censors – and it is not correct in doing so – the party censored is entitled to damages for defamation.
Anonymous,
I suspect you are the anonymous with whom I agree. Can you tell me how you managed to find this post by Darren? I’m not aware that one can search the names of posters.
Darren stated:
“You made a comment on this page suggesting that another commenter commit suicide in a violent manner. Your gross violation of the civility rules is not acceptable and consequently your commenting privilege is permanently revoked.”
There is someone currently imploring me to commit suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate bridge just minutes from my home. I’ve asked Darren to take this violation down, but I am not aware that he has done so. I even warned him that I had a good mind to report his malfeasance to Turley. Perhaps, he is asleep at the switch, but at least there is a precedent here which he is seemingly ignoring in my case.
How can I determine if Darren is doing his job in policing this blog?
Hi Jeff,
Yes, I’m the anonymous commenter who has had a number of friendly exchanges with you. FWIW, I emailed Turley after I saw the comment from the fake Svelaz account to you about the GGB, and it was deleted not long after. But I don’t think there was any warning to the person who posted it. I have no insight into when Darren posts comments to people vs. not.
Re: finding that comment from Darren, I’d read it at the time, so I at least knew it existed. Using a Google search, I was able to find an approximate date of when Art Deco last posted, and then I just did a text search on pages of comments for several columns around that time, checking for comments from Darren. For better or worse, Google doesn’t index all of the pages of comments here, or it would have been easier to find.
Anonymous,
If you don’t mind me asking: many times have you emailed Turley? Is he grateful that you notify him? Do he lament such hateful comments? Or does he not acknowledge your email?
Though a violation of his civility rule, it would not occur to me to trouble Turley with such violations because it is not a genuine threat to me, and it’s not my responsibility to police his blog. It’s presumably Darren’s and certainly Turley’s.
It’s just a shame that Turley is seemingly unperturbed that his blog is so uncivil. It certainly is not something of which Turley would be proud to exhibit as a sterling example of good speech conquering bad speech. Despite his noble intentions, his very own blog, in fact, is proof of just the opposite!
Jeff,
I don’t email Turley about the vast majority of the incivility that I see here, but have emailed about a few, including threats of violence and comments that encourage people to commit suicide. Sometimes I’ll also alert him to errors in his columns. I do not expect a response to any of the emails I send; he’s occasionally sent a brief thanks or some other brief reply.
Anonymous,
I’m surprised that Darren’s email is not published since it would seem that it is his job to police this blog. It’s certainly not yours. Darren ought to notify us whenever someone violates the rules and the actions taken to enforce them in order to be a deterrent to others. One can’t help but wonder if Turley is genuinely determined to clean up his blog or prefers not to look for trouble unless infractions are brought to his attention in which case he no longer can ignore them.
My guess is that he realizes that his civility rule is a paper tiger. By now, he likely has resigned himself to the blog’s incivility.
Please stop entertaining “trolls and juvenile posters” like jeffsilberman. Just ignore them. They’re not here to contribute anything constructive to the blog.
Please. Listen to the order of the sergeant major, Say and Meyer.
Truly remarkable to watch the MSM melt down over Musk’s offer to buy this train wreck known as Twitter. Just go over their pictures in your mind: Stelter, Lemon, Joy Reid, Scarborough, the woman who used to work for Bush as a press secretary. Just weeping over the thought of perhaps having Orange Man Bad back on Twitter. Man, oh man…
Nazis, USSR and China’s Mao would be proud of today Democrats adherence to propaganda for power!
Never anticipated that the Twitter walls might be breached by a maverick billionaire and shareholder protections.
Shows that there are a lot of ways to skin a lefty cat.
Even a few Billionaires realize Democrats are destroy the Golden Goose! When Greed blinds you to the exploding debt and destrction of society…you can end up like Venezuela where girls have to sell themselves to survive and ALL but the Very top SOCIALIST government officials and their cronies FLEE!
Since 2014, at least 5.6 million Venezuelans—more than 18 percent of the population
the issue is not who can speak but “who can be heard.
Cant be more clear. The left admitting their positions cannot standup to debate.
Twitter is a megaphone for for the media. Reporters spend more time trying to drive their stories on twitter, than doing research on stories.
Like all things leftist, they squeal about damage, bur never offer any examples.
That is exactly what they are. I honestly believe that the MSM were having their lunch eaten so badly by web 2.0 companies they decided to join rather than beat them. Doesn’t matter if only ten people are watching CNN or MSNBC when complicit social media blasts their content all over creation. I suspect that the real issue is Musk is threatening other, sweeter deals that were made.