Meta CEO Zuckerberg is continuing to market his new text-based app Threads with the pitch that he is “definitely focusing on kindness and making this a friendly place.” This has been picked up by an eager media as a “Twitter killer” where “Friendly Threads Collides with an Unfriendly Internet.” However, what is not discussed is what makes Threads “friendly.” Zuckerberg appears to be promising the friendly confines of a censored site. Likewise, Instagram head Adam Mosseri says that politics and hard news are not worth the “incremental engagement or revenue.” It is all part of Threads’s promise for a “sane” and “kind” alternative to Twitter where greater free speech is now allowed to run rampant. It is precisely what Facebook tried to sell years ago in a pro-censorship commercial campaign.
Below is my column in the Hill on achieving “kindness” through corporate censorship:
“Sanity” has returned to the internet.
That is the message of not only Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, but also a host of gleeful pundits heralding the arrival of the “Twitter killing” text-based app Threads — the Twitter knock-off meant to destroy Elon Musk’s platform.
This is not just a cage fight between the two billionaires. Many are more interested in whether Zuckerberg can choke out free speech than in whether he can beat Musk.
Many critics opposed Musk’s dismantling of Twitter’s massive censorship system. Zuckerberg now promises a “sane” alternative that will place consumers under the watchful eye of Meta censors.
On the first day of the rollout, millions signed up, thanks in large part to Zuckerberg linking the new platform to Instagram. The censors also got to work right away. When people tried to follow Donald Trump Jr., they were met with a warning label: “Are you sure you want to follow donaldjtrumpjr? This account has repeatedly posted false information that was reviewed by independent fact-checkers or went against our Community Guidelines.”
Later, the company backed down after an outcry. But it was a telling moment. Andy Stone, who heads communications for Meta, wrote: “This was an error and shouldn’t have happened. It’s been fixed.”
But this was clearly a pre-established warning system, to be used to flag accounts disfavored by the company. It was “an error” that would likely not have been “fixed,” if not for the objections voiced on the first day of the rollout.
The controversy itself was a warning that the company has activated its signature censorship system to influence or regulate viewpoints.
Facebook has long been accused of targeting conservatives and dissenting viewpoints. Indeed, Zuckerberg’s pitch for “sane” management seemed like an appeal to those on the left who objected to the more tolerant free speech policies on Twitter after Musk’s purchase.
While there have been controversies at Musk’s Twitter over critics being banned or posts being removed, it is a fraction of the level of censorship that has long characterized Facebook and other competitors. Indeed, most of Musk’s critics attack him for reducing the “content moderation” on Twitter.
Threads’s rollout coincides with a court ruling that the government’s interventions to censor people on social media represented “the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.” Now, Facebook is offering an alternative to Twitter, with the assurance that users will be protected against any thoughts that Meta’s staff finds problematic. While free speech on Twitter is portrayed as harmful, the company has promised to “prioritize kindness.”
That sounds eerily familiar to some of us as a way to deprioritize free speech. Recently, former Twitter executive Anika Collier Navaroli testified on how she and her staff would remove anything they considered “dog whistles” and “coded” messaging. Rather than using “kindness,” Twitter used undefined standards of “safety” to cancel free speech. Navaroli declared that they were unwilling to allow the safety of others “to go to the winds so that people can speak freely.”
Facebook has long tried to get the public to embrace its role as some kind of speech overlord. Years ago, Facebook rolled out an Orwellian commercial campaign to get the public to embrace censorship. The commercials showed young people heralding how they grew up on the internet and how the world was changing, creating a need for censorship under the guise of “content moderation.” Facebook, they promised, was offering the “blending of the real world and the internet world.”
Facebook is not alone in trying to get people to accept censorship. Recently, after the court ruling, various figures assured the public that they are better off letting corporate and government censors protect them from harmful thoughts. On CNN, Chief White House Correspondent Phil Mattingly went so far as to state that it simply “makes sense” for tech companies to go along with government censorship demands.
After this week’s decision, the New York Times immediately issued a panicky tweet that the resulting outbreak of free speech could “curtail efforts to combat disinformation.”
For his part, Zuckerberg prefers to just offer “kindness” and “sanity” with few details. Of course, there is a very simple way for Zuckerberg to show that he is committed to free speech: He can release the Facebook Files.
One of the reasons many of us in the free-speech community still support Musk is that he transformed the debate over government censorship by releasing the Twitter Files. For years, politicians and pundits dismissed objections from some of us to government-corporate coordination of censorship as unproven. In Congress, Democratic members attacked witnesses for supposedly lacking proof of censorship, even as they fought to block any investigation that might uncover that evidence.
Musk changed all that by showing the public an extensive network of government interventions to support censorship and blacklisting of private citizens. Much of what we know today is derived from the Twitter Files, but surely there is more to learn.
When I testified in Congress on the censorship operations, I noted that, as massive as this effort has been, Twitter is only the 14th largest social media company, according to some estimates. That means that this is only a fraction of the evidence that might be out there.
Facebook is the largest platform in the world, but so far it has steadfastly refused to offer the transparency of Twitter. If Zuckerberg is truly proud of his “sane” approach to social media, he should not fear the release of information on the past coordination with federal and congressional offices.
We assume that Facebook had the same backchannels that were established at Twitter, but the company has left the public entirely in the blind. That approach has made Meta one of the least transparent companies in the world on the scope and standards of censorship.
House committees will hopefully force Facebook to disclose some of these details. However, as Zuckerberg sells a promise of the “saneness’ and “kindness” of his platforms, he should be willing to show precisely what that means for consumers — and at what cost. After all, he has appealed to many of those consumers with the promise of a censored platform.
If Zuckerberg is so proud of his “content moderation,” he should take a victory lap and release the Facebook Files.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. & Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law George Washington University Law School.
“Killing Me Softly With His Song” is still killing me. Riffraff, Bigotry, Obnoxious is humanity. Many of you simply can’t stand that heat. It also encompasses love, self sacrifice, striving, purpose, determination and so much more. Do you think an Idea just springs forth and is such a shining light that all humanity will bow down and worship it. Not in this life. A better idea has to be shown to be good, can cope with slings and arrows, withstands and defeats the cowardly and evil (often after many defeats and failures). Show me a man or women who becomes a great inventor, CEO, leader, innovator, politician and I will show someone who is stubborn to the point of fanatic, with an eye that never wavers from the goal, loses friends who faith is weak. Who comes back when the herd needs him or her after failing and going over the cliff and now returning and asking for help. Thats when the victor forgets the “I told you so” and starts on the mission “again” and wins. Often your best victories come after your worst defeats. Stubborn, obnoxious, riffraff, but determined, persevering with sharp elbows. I love ‘em, but leave the racists behind.
What is a bigot-that’s a term that is defined by the eye of the beholder. I know bigots who never could conceive of the fact that they were a bigot.
Mr Zuckerberg certain would seem to fit the mold, since he would seem to think he can sit above the fray and make pronouncements and never get painted by the backsplash.
[Not] seen today on Thread:
“Are you sure you want to follow adamschiff? He has repeatedly posted false information that was reviewed by independent fact-checkers or went against our Community Guidelines.”
Expecting more tomorrow, maybe AOC,? Schumer? Pelosi,? Strzok,? Swalwell,? Mayorkas? Blinken? Hillary?
Lin,
HA!
Well said.
Biden?
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
The sociopath Zuckerberg corrals the triggered leftist masses into the “Threads” safe space.
Given the extremely questionable business justification for this initiative, the motivation must be political, and it is nearly assured that it involved the “Biden Administration”, possibly with them providing clandestine government funding — an eminently credible notion when one considers what is already known of the government’s censorship activities in coordination with the social media platforms, not to mention the overall unconstitutionality and extreme opaqueness of this administration.
What a creep. Imagine a pedophile cruising neighborhoods with candy and a cute puppy. That’s Mark Z. selling Threads as a “kind” place. Just jump in.
Read Kant’s brief essay What is Enlightenment? in the first paragraph you’ll quickly realize Threads is where people can go to safely remain in their ignorant state.
From what I have been reading, Threads is less a social media site but more of a personal data gathering site.
There are other Twitter like sites already in existence. Some will use Twitter, some Truth, others Threads.
Meh.
Unless there is something of interest, like that amazing rally between Andrey Rublev and Alexander Bublik at Wimbledon, I dont use any of those sites.
Killer shot. Alexander Bublik’s facial expressions: priceless
Jonathan: Beware when any billionaire offers you a new product with “kindness”. That said Zuckerberg’s new “Threads” platform does offer a “positive” alternative to Musk’s Twitter. When Musk bought Twitter he promised he was a “free speech absolutist” and that philosophy would guide Twitter. Instead, Musk has turned his newest toy into a platform for racists, misogynists, conspiracy theorist, neo-Nazis and anti-Semites. If CDT decides to return to Twitter to expand his 2024 campaign message of hate, lies and threats we know what Twitter will look like.
The Q is whether Threads can capitalize on Twitter’s weaknesses–the fact that major media personalities and advertisers have deserted Twitter? Musk’s Achilles heel is that Twitter is toxic to most major advertisers. And Musk desperately needs advertising dollars to service his debt burden of $13 billion at a cost of $300 million per quarter. So is Threads an existential threat to Twitter? Lou Paskalis, CEO of AJL Advisory says: “In the long run Threads is a threat because the scale of Instagram and the amount of discipline and rigor that Zuckerberg will bring that Musk does not”.
I think you recognize the threat posed by Threads so your column is an attempt to provide Musk with the first line of defense. So you attack Facebook that you claim wants to “embrace censorship” and then falsely claim Musk’s release of the “Twitter Files” proves the FBI was forcing Twitter to “censor” conservative speakers. None of that was true despite the smoke and mirrors of the Republican House hearings.
One thing is certain. Threads now provides a significant threat and alternative to the kind of vile nonsense and hate we see on Twitter. these days. That’s why I’m not on Twitter. I get my daily dose of that kind of stuff right here on your platform!
Dennis, you are slipping. I know it is not the weekend but no denigration of Turley for not addressing subject matters on HIS BLOG that you deem relevant? Those subjects that you want to address always have to do with Trump. I am no Trump fan, but you certainly give credence to the mental illness known as TDS.
As far as Twitter censorship, I am on Twitter. I was suspended in 2021 for putting forward the POSSIBILITY that Covid originated in the Wuhan lab. Not saying that the FBI was behind it but if you listened to Psaki, you can draw a straight line between the Biden Administration and Twitter censorship. You admit that you are not on Twitter. I am. The abundance of hate comes from the Left.
Emotional Italian: I don’t “denigrate” Prof. Turley. I take issue with many of the positions he takes and I try to provide an alternative. There is a big difference.
When you were suspended from Twiitter in 2021 when was that? The “Wuhan theory” was being pushed by DJT in 2020 and after by Fox and other right-wing pundits provided an echo chamber. The theory posited that Covid-19 escaped from the Wuhan lab as the result of a bio-warfare experiment that went bad. DJT used the theory to rationalize why he refused to acknowledge the threat from the pandemic–blaming the Chinese and then offering pseudo-science treatments. The “Wuhan Lab” theory is just that–a theory. I haven’t seen any conclusive evidence to prove it–or disprove it. So it remains just a theory.
And you can’t “draw a straight line” between the Biden administration and Twitter censorship of you. Under the previous Twitter management it did moderate content they felt was providing misinformation about the Covid-19 pandemic–which you have to admit was a serious public health threat. During this existential threat the public needed accurate and truthful information to protect themselves. As a private company Twitter was entitled to take the steps it thought were necessary to prevent the spread of misinformation. So if Twitter suspended you it wasn’t under orders from the Biden administration. However, there is one one to satisfy yourself. Ask Elon Musk to provide you with the “Twitter Files” or any other evidence you were suspended under orders from the Biden administration. I seriously doubt such evidence exists because Prof. Turley has offered no evidence that Twitter was part of some government conspiracy to silence critics of the Covid-19 policies. Conspiracy theories don’t carry much weight with me. Facts and proof are the coin of the realm!
Dennis, to be pedantic, its a hypothesis, not a theory. That is, the Wuhan Lab Hypothesis.
In science, a theory is something well established such as general relativity.
So what is a conspiracy theory?
A well established truth that those in power wish to distract public attention from?
Correct. The CIA “invented” the term for that very purpose.
So if a chocolate-borne disease begins in Hershey, Pennsylvania, the assertion that it probably began in the Hershey chocolate factory rather than a wet market in the town of Hershey, would be the Hershey-factory hypothesis.
Kansas Elder — 🙂
David B. Benson: You are right. The “Wuhan lab” explanation put forward by those who want/wanted to play the blame game over the rapid spread of Covid-19 is a hypothesis–an assumption which has yet to be tested. The media commonly referred to Wuhan as a “theory”–and that gives it much more credit than it deserves. I will revise my reference.
Dennis, we can disagree on the ” disparage” part. But you are consistent in being dismissive of the topics that Turley chooses to address on HIS BLOG.
I don’t know if idiot Lawrence Tribe has a blog, but if he does , I would never post there and if I did, I would not be so egotistical as to suggest that other topics than the ones he chooses on HIS BLOG were the way to go
As far as the lab,I was specific in my post. I said that it was not a bioweapon. Just gain of function experiment that escaped the lab. You are correct, we will never know the truth about the origins of Covid. But there are basically two theories. Wet market or Bio lab. What does common sense tell you? A animal to human transition that took place less than 10 miles from a bio lab? Or a bio lab that was doing gain of function research on bat viruses?
I don’t believe in ” Disinformation” or Misinformation”, there are truth or lies. Those two terms are used by those who are too weak mentally to come up with a counter argument. If you are getting your medical advice from social media instead of a medical professional, you deserve the consequences.
If you want to say that Elvis is still alive SO WHAT? If you want to say that the aliens built the pyramids, SO WHAT?
I know that the social media companies are private entities and can make their own rules. But I saw press conferences with Psaki that she intimated that they were ” advising” social media companies about ” Covid Misinformation”.
Emotional Italian: When a pandemic, like Covid-19, spreads rapidly worldwide responsible public officials should not engage in the “blame game”. But that’s exactly what the Trump WH did when we needed a coordinated response. DJT blamed the “Chinese” as a distraction and pushed dangerous remedies. As a result many Americans refused to get vaccinated and, as a result, a lot of Americans died unnecessarily.
We’re both too young to remember the “Spanish flu”–the last serious pandemic the country ever experienced. Why that pandemic was blamed on the “Spanish” defies rational explanation. The pandemic actually broke out first in Kansas among soldiers returning from WW1 in Europe. So why didn’t we call it the “Kansas flu”? We seem to have a bad habit of blaming others for our problems.
You say “SO WHAT” that some believe Elvis is still alive or that aliens built the pyramids? People can believe whatever they want. The problem with your Q is that in a rational world we have to deal in VERIFIABLE FACTS”. So much in social media, including this blog, deals in claims that are not based on VERIFIABLE FACTS. The whole controversy around Hunter Biden is an example of making allegations without any basis in fact. Prof,. Turley has engaged in this–making “allegations” about Hunter and the Biden family without any factual basis. GOP House Committees have held hearings to try to prove Turley’s “allegations” but without much success. Witnesses have gone missing. One claimed “whistleblower”, a Russian oligarch who claims he made payoffs to Joe Biden, hasn’t been seen in years. The GOP has another alleged “whistleblower” they claim would expose corruption in the Biden family. His name is Gal Luft, an Israeli-American. Where is he? Luft is on the run. Yesterday, the DOJ announced an indictment of Luft for violating FARA, among other charges. Luft was arrested in Cyprus but skipped bail and fled. The DOJ said in a statement that Luft “subverted foreign agent registration laws in the US to seek to promote Chinese policies.”
Now if you believe that Elvis is still alive you might also believe the DOJ indicted Luft solely to keep him from testifying before one of the GOP House committees. You might see that claim being made on right-wing social media. So if you are into “SO WHAT” you are going to have a hard time sorting out the truth from fiction.
Dennis, I noticed you did not answer my question. What does common sense tell you? Do you dispute the accepted conclusion that Covid came from China? If you accept that, I ask you again, what is more likely. The virus originated in a bio lab doing gain of function research or a wet market that just happened to be in the vicinity of the lab? In a country that is approximately 3.7 million square miles.
I was not saying that I believed that Elvis was still alive. Or that Aliens built the pyramids. But as Americans, we have the right to put forth those propositions. As you can tell I am terrified at governmental restrictions on free speech. Unless they EXPLICITLY call for violence all speech should be tolerated.
My wife has quoted the part from ” The Godfather” to me many times. When Jack Woltz says ” I don’t care how many Dago, Guinea, Greaseball WOPS” to Tom Hagen, I never take offense. Because unlike many today, I am not a PU**Y.
I am not going to take the bait and go down the Trump/ Biden road. That is ultimately for the courts and the voters to decide.
My SO WHAT phrase has to do with free speech. Not verifiable facts. It is up to every individual to do their ” Homework”. That is why I stated that ” Disinformation” and “Misinformation” were phrases used by the intellectually weak. Do you own research and come up with a counter argument. It is not the job of the government to save us from ourselves. All individuals have the right to an opposing view. Even if it cannot be” verified.”
Censorship is the first move of a totalitarian government. We have seen that numerous times in history.
If a dog from your regime side bit your face off, I’m pretty sure you’d claim it was sunburn caused by global warming.
That’s the type of thing that are facts and proof in your realm.
Dennis says “platform for racists, misogynists, conspiracy theorist, neo-Nazis and anti-Semites.”
All of whom have free speech rights, you moron. And for good reason. The alternative is that people like your dumb ass get to decide who is and who isnt in those categories. Or just let the government do it for you. You will NEVER get it.
Tom: Yeah, I call out all of them when I encounter them–racists, neo-Nazis, etc– all the scum of this earth! But I would not take away their 1st Amendment rights or kick them off this blog. But I do draw the line at “speech” that causes threats of violence or actual violence. In a previous comment I pointed out that DJT posted the home address of former president Obama on his Truth Social. Within hours one of his followers on TS re-posted Trump’s message, and on cue loaded his van with weapons and explosives and drove to Obama’s neighborhood looking to assassinate him. Turley made a big deal about the guy who wanted to kill Justice Kavanaugh but has said nothing about the real threat to Obama.
So I am all in favor of “free speech” so long as it does not encourage acts of violence. Jack Smith apparently thinks so too because he is about to indict DJT for recklessly encouraging violence on Jan. 6.–that almost resulted in a coup that would have brought about a dictatorship of one man. But maybe you think that would have been a good thing. If you do you are on the wrong side of the 1st Amendment and the law!
What a coincidence that the whistleblower who just came forward with a highly credible and detailed account of Biden corruption now finds himself indicted by Biden’s DOJ.
Gretchen Whitmer and her 15 FBI agents and informants of the fake plot to kidnap her approve your message.
Dennis M.–you must enjoy your “daily dose”, otherwise why bother with this platform? So far as I know, you’re free to leave anytime.
Dennis is paid by the character to troll this forum to offset the dismal earnings he makes from his Democrat run state. Didnt you hear? Red States are floating the US economy whereas Blue States are sinking our national economy. Dennis would thank Florida and Texas Governors if he were allowed, but his handlers would censor xim/xer
😉
The States in America Where Incomes Grow Faster
New federal data show a striking divergence between earnings growth in GOP-led states and progressive states.
The disparity owes to GOP-led states adding more jobs, including in higher-paying industries like tech and finance, along with faster-growing wage…..Earnings nationwide rose 5.4% on average between the first quarters of 2022 and 2023, but much less in New York (2.6%), Indiana (2.6%), California (2.9%), Connecticut (3.4%), Rhode Island (3.6%), Maryland (4%), New Jersey (4.3%), Oregon (4.5%) and Illinois (4.6%). Apart from Indiana, these states are run by Democrats—and most have been for years. They boast high taxes and a high cost of living, which along with Covid lockdowns spurred increased out-migration during the pandemic.
Meanwhile, earnings in the same period surged in North Dakota (9.7%), New Mexico (9.6%), Nevada (9.1%), Florida (9.1%), Nebraska (8.6%), Hawaii (8%), South Carolina (8%), Alaska (7.9%) and Texas (7.7%).
https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-states-incomes-economic-growth-bureau-of-economic-analysis-465ce23
Like all things Zuck, Threads will be bland and soulless.
Dennis, it’s notable that Turley’s twitter account hasn’t posted anything in the past few days?
It’s odd that he hasn’t posted or that you don’t see any of Turley’s tweets. All I see is “nothing to see here yet”.
The worst tyrants have a smiling face.
As with academia, so too with Threads. Those who express opinions that are “uncollegial” or “unfriendly” will be suppressed and punished.
How naïve do these opinion-controllers think we are?
Ever notice how being “collegial” or “friendly” always sides with Leftist dogma?
“However, what is not discussed is what makes Threads ‘friendly.’” (JT)
Pulling back the curtain — well done, JT
Threads is more civil than twitter. That’s what the friendly implies.
It’s their choice and their right. Turley also prefers civility and decorum. He enforces those rules. Threads is doing nothing different than what his blog does.
It’s their choice and their right.
True, and Turley never denied that. But it becomes something different if the government gets involved and influences that choice.
I’m certain threads will support chopping off your private parts with a smile and supportive friendly affirmation.
I’m also certain your pronoun demands will be enforced on those not “kind enough” to support insanity.
Free market. It will be interesting to see which app wins out. Threads seems to promise an anodyne, bland experience, like a lobotomized Twitter. The internet version of Zuck’s own colorless, empty-eyed personality. Which will prevail? Will virtue-signaling celebrities and snarky media types be content with the Ministry of Truth, so they can bask in the glory of their own echoes? Only time will tell.
What was interesting was that a LOT of conservatives flocked to threads when it went online. It showed many were not satisfied with twitter. Problem is they found out they couldn’t post what they usually do on Twitter because their terms and conditions are different and they criticized the site for censoring conservatives despite the fact that they agreed to the their terms upon signing up. It’s guaranteed none spent any time reading their terms. They just willfully agreed to them.
Nobody willfully agrees to terms they haven’t read.
It’s a do it or forget it proposition.
Only a dummy calls that agreeing.
Everyone is coerced or banned.
“. . . empty-eyed personality.”
Great description.
There was always something that bothered me about his eyes. Now I know what.
Professor Turley is being quite hypocritical. His own blog practices what other social media sites do on a daily basis.
Threads gained over 30 million members since its launch. Many conservatives flocked to the site only to find themselves complaining of being censored because they couldn’t post what they posted on Twitter. Many were upset and accuse Threads of censoring conservatives. What is truly funny is that the reason they flicked to threads was because Twitter has not been meeting their needs and expectations.
Notice that even Turley’s twitter posts are no longer being shown. “Nothing to see here yet”. Did anyone notice that?
Threads is of course a private company and they can censor or moderate their site any way they please.
To those who complain about threads censoring conservatives, you agreed to their terms and conditions. Clearly they didn’t bother reading them and stupidly agreed to their terms. Just as they did with twitter.
The professor is upset that Twitter may have a new competitor and it’s proving to be a success so far.
“Threads is of course a private company . . .”
That it is a private company does not mean that a particular policy or action is right.
Get a moral compass.
It’s their company, their rules. If you want to join their site you have to agree to their rules. If you don’t like them, don’t sign up.
Whether it’s moral or not is irrelevant. What you do have is choices. You can go to Twitter, Truth social, Parler, Gab, etc. Threads is just a new competitor. Professor Turley is ignoring the fact that Threads is no different than his own blog when it comes do moderating content. It’s their right.
Again, all true unless and until the government gets involved in influencing its actions. Then it’s a problem. And since that’s happened with social media companies so far, it would be naive in the extreme to think that’s not going to happen with Threads. Only Musk has had the cojones to put a stop to it and shine sunlight on it. And for that, he’s hated by the bad guys and loved by the good guys.
Threads is a direct government censorship project you fool.
I guess it makes sense. Zuckerjerk has never had an original idea. Myspace.
In the 1930’s and 40’s, the major corporations in Germany were all in bed with the nazis.
Any one who was is still constantly harassed by the same doofusses today who shriek it’s a private company and they can do whatever they want until it’s campaign contribution or gay wedding bake a cake time or support Trump or MAGA time. They still demand reparations and pull the guilt by association nearly a century later.
They are babbling lying idiots who cannot be taken seriously or believed for one second.
“It was real in their head”.
Lol anytime Turley (disingenuously) talks about free speech, seeing as how he’s such a fan of censorship in reality…
Also, Threads won’t ruin Twitter. Musk has been hard at work on the job since he paid too much for it. Just because he let’s Nazis speak more freely doesn’t mean he’s for free speech.
All the nazis are already dead dumb dumb.
Little Markie Zuckerberg. So proud to be the FBI’s little media snitch. Mr. Sniffer Whiffer has probably nominated Little Markie for the Presidential Medal of Freedom for “saving democracy”. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
If there are two parks, one is nice and clean and filled with people having normal conversations, and the other is filled with graffiti, hobos, loud punk music, and people screaming wild BS, which one would most go to?
This is free market economics. People are choosing what level of content moderation they want. Not at all a free speech issue.
Fine, then Facebook should lose it’s special protection (section 230) from the govt. since they are being an editor.
And yor anaology is stupid since nothing is preventing you from having a normal conversation in the second park. Also what park would you rather go to, one that if you look or say the wrong thing (defined by some other being) you get removed, arrested and not allowed to return or one where you are allowed to be yourself?
His analogy is correct. You can have a nice conversation on Twitter, but the riff raff, bigotry, and obnoxious ruin the experience. Therefore threads offers a place where people can avoid that. Conservatives or those who would be considered riff raff in twitter have been finding out they can’t post what they usually do on Twitter so they cry foul after stupidly agreeing to their terms. Terms that explicitly say those kinds of postings will not be allowed.
Since they are a private company they are perfectly within their right to moderate or censor content that violates their rules. Turley’s blog has the same privilege as a private site. Why he’s complaining is certainly odd.
“Since they are a private company they are perfectly within their right to moderate or censor content that violates their rules.”
Section 230
Section 230 does not prevent them from creating and enforcing their own rules.
It prevents them from being an editor. They want it both ways.
No, because threads is not a publishing company. They don’t edit content. They either restrict it or delete it. Section 230 does not prevent them from doing that.
People sign up to the platform. By signing up they agree to the terms and conditions and they include the right to moderate content and delete content that violates their terms and conditions.
“moderate content and delete content”
Otherwise known as editing. You are just playing semantics. Either let all content go online or remove 230. It’s that simple.
No, editing means changing the content’s wording or sentence structure. Not regulating what is posted. Deleting content is not editing. It’s removing, censoring content. Moderating means controlling the tenor or tone of posts without changing the wording within posts. For example. Restricting or forbidding racist comments means moderating the dialogue to make sure it does not cross certain points.
Debate moderators don’t edit the debaters comments. They control the dialogue and keep bickering and insults from getting out of hand or stops them all together.
Clearly you don’t understand what editing means.
“Deleting content is not editing.”
That is *not* an editorial decision?!
You are a very useful Apologist.
And your MO is ridiculously obvious: Play games with words until decent people are so confused and fatigued, that they give up.
Restriction is editiing
“They don’t edit content.”
From Threads: “This account has repeatedly posted false information . . .”
News flash: That is called an *editorial* comment. And there are scads of them.
Lets say I run an online chat platform dedicated to cats. I am very much allowed to prohibit and delete non-cat related posts without losing Section 230 protection. Same thing with FB or Twitter, they are allowed to remove posts that go against their guidelines.
“You can have a nice conversation on Twitter”
Define nice.
Scream everyone is a hate filled nazi bigot racist fascist except the democommie burn down the cities exterminate white people gay trans pedo supporting pronoun enforcing war mongering destroy russia debank deplatform get then fired punch them in the face psychotic raging sheep.
They are “really nice” people.
So you’re saying that a private company could create an area where they could keep out people who act ways they do not like or think things they do not like or like things they do not like?
Like could Facebook buy East Baltimore and clear-out all the people it doesn’t like and only allow people it does? What if Mark Zuckerberg bought Germany and cleared out all the undesirables there?
As a private company they can censor content they deem uncivil or content that does not meet their criteria. It’s their right. It doesn’t get any more simple than that.
If it’s so simple, answer the questions.
Your comment simply states that their right is to create criteria and enforce it, that is pretty broad. I think it would be nice if it were true, but there are some limits, aren’t there?
Bonus points: Can a NGO act in the same way?
It’s not “pretty broad” that they can create their own criteria and enforce it. It’s literally their right to do whatever they want and enforce it. Because it’s their platform. They created it. People are free to sign up or not. If they choose to sign up they have to agree to their terms and conditions. If they don’t agree then they don’t get in.
There are a lot of private blogs where their rules are not limited at all. They can censor anything they don’t like. Threads is no different except it’s just a whole lot bigger and more complex.
An NGO may act the same way provided they are not being overly discriminatory about what content they allow. They can still have civility rules like this blog has and enforce them.
So a cake baker can kick out blacks if it wants, right?
You also ignore the special protection facebook gets from the govt.
No, because you’re not signing up and agreeing to a cake baker’s terms of service. His service as a business open to the public is subject to anti-discrimination statutes.
Facebook doesn’t get any special protection. If you’re referring to section 230 it does not make it a government entity either. If that were true professor Turley’s blog would also be receiving “special protection protection” otherwise he would be liable to being sued.
“No, because you’re not signing up and agreeing to a cake baker’s terms of service.”
Fine, then the cake baker will just have you sign something stting that you are not black.
“His service as a business open to the public is subject to anti-discrimination statutes.”
You just argued earlier that Facebock is a business so they can do whatever they want. Facebook is open to the public so therefor should not be able to discriminate.
You suffer from not being logically consistant. You just want things that you agree with.
That would require the baker post the terms and conditions in order to buy a cake. Problem is as a business that offers a service in exchange for money open to the public cannot discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation or, nationality.
Facebook account holders are not customers and are not paying to join the platform. They voluntarily join and as a condition they must agree to their terms and conditions.
You’re conflating two very different things. You don’t pay to get into Facebook. You voluntarily join. One involves paying for services the other does not.
“You suffer from not being logically consistant. You just want things that you agree with.”
No. You’re suffering from simple ignorance.
I most surely pay. I pay for the internet service, I paid for the device to see the internet. I pay for the ads. So you believe facebook makes no money off of these people volunteers? Wow, I wonder how they keep running with no customers.
A potential cake cutomer voluntarily goes to that baker, so he can then discriminate. Just face it, you just like/want the conservative voice censured.
“I most surely pay. I pay for the internet service, I paid for the device to see the internet. I pay for the ads.”
You pay for the internet service. That doesn’t mean you’re paying for Facebook. You’re paying for access to the internet. Your service provider cannot ban you from your access because you said something racist or disagree with something. Because you paid for it. You voluntarily join Facebook and as a condition to joining you must agree to their terms.
It’s clear you don’t understand how the internet and social media works.
So you can make all your customers sign a terms of service notice before entering and then discriminate all you like?
“Like could Facebook buy . . .”
You mean like it bought the 2020 election?
Lots of people show up at Pride celebrations lmao
Isn’t it interesting how they rap themselve around the number one deadly sin?
Saint Thomas Aquinas from the Summa on the most grievous sin: pride
But on the part of the aversion, pride has extreme gravity, because in other sins man turns away from God, either through ignorance or through weakness, or through desire for any other good whatever; whereas pride denotes aversion from God simply through being unwilling to be subject to God and His rule. Hence Boethius [Cf. Cassian, de Caenob. Onst. xii, 7 says that “while all vices flee from God, pride alone withstands God”; for which reason it is specially stated (James 4:6) that “God resisteth the proud.” Wherefore aversion from God and His commandments, which is a consequence as it were in other sins, belongs to pride by its very nature, for its act is the contempt of God. And since that which belongs to a thing by its nature is always of greater weight than that which belongs to it through something else, it follows that pride is the most grievous of sins by its genus, because it exceeds in aversion which is the formal complement of sin.
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3162.htm#article6
“This is not just a cage fight between the two billionaires. Many are more interested in whether Zuckerberg can choke out free speech than in whether he can beat Musk.”
https://youtu.be/DNPvXvs75qA
Performative? Symbolic?
Mid-life crisis?
“However, as Zuckerberg sells a promise of the “saneness’ and “kindness” of his platforms, he should be willing to show precisely what that means for consumers — and at what a cost.”
Like the spooky Meta commercial using the Rousseau painting? You know, the painting featuring the tiger attacking the water buffalo but somehow in the commercial they’re buddies or something and all the people looking at it eem to be hypnotized.
https://youtu.be/CgNx_3fXRzo
The spooky Meta commercial.
“what is not discussed is what makes Threat “friendly.””
Typo?
Friendly can be another way of saying civil.
Turley has his own civility rules regarding conduct on his blog. Threads is entitled to the same. Strangely, he’s complaining about something he does with his own blog.
The theme of Turley’s criticism is that Big Tech is censoring on behalf of the ruling Democrat regime.
If you have evidence, or even a semi-rational belief, that Turley censors people on this blog because government bureaucrats flag certain commenters, then present it. Otherwise, you’re doing what Democrats virtually ALWAYS do, take something that has a kernel of truth to it then twist it, spin it, distort it into something else.
Everyone sees through it.
Turley is making assumptions based on nothing more than his own biased views. He’s entitled to that.
According to Turley’s civility rules. He reserves the right to censor openly racist comments.
Big tech can censor whatever it wants. They are private entities and they have every right to run their sites as they please and create their own rules.
Democrats are not the government. If the Democratic Party which is NOT a government entity suggests censoring something they can make the suggestion. There’s a difference between a party and the government.
The DNC or the RNC can demand or ask to have some content censored or reviewed. Because they are not government entities.
The point is threads can censor whatever it wants because it’s a private company. You have not demonstrated any evidence that the government is involved. You’re just assuming it is.
“[Anon] is making assumptions based on nothing more than [its] own biased views.”
And so, there’s no need to read any further.
When leftist get corrected on the Dodds decission, Zuck boots , stiffles, hides, their opinion. Stating facts is no an uncivil action. That is just you redefining words again.
Zuck is free to remove all the opinions he disagrees with. Just stop lying about what he is doing. He has stolen proprietary technology from twitter and opened a closed discussion board.
Speaking of lying, what proof do you have that proprietary technology was stolen?
Remember Twitter fired a lot of experienced engineers. They knew how to create a platform and use openly available technology. Zuckerberg could have used his own technology to compete with twitter.
The techs of Twitter and the whistle blowers of threads. Learn 2 code and you’d understand the evidence.
Zuckerberg is the typical scumbag Harvard brat, such as Schiff, and others of that ilk, for colluding with the FBI et al. History, his heritage and their suffering, should have taught him better. But NO!! He is lost on the cautions expressed by George Santayana and Martin Niemoller. When they come for Zuckerberg, there’ll be no one left to protest.