Mike_L wrote:The Leftists are more than happy with Twitter censorship, Facebook censorship, YouTube censorship, Google censorship, etc -- because, as Project Veritas has repeatedly demonstrated, the censorship is mostly at the expense of conservatives.
One can be quite certain that if it were mostly the Left being defunded, deplatformed, canceled, shadow-banned and pushed down in search listings, that the tune would change very quickly. They'd be tearing out their green hair and slutwalking all the way to Washington in outrage.

Hermit wrote: ... chances are that you'll finish up with food poisoning or suffer a fall out of a third floor window.

Hermit wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

felltoearth wrote:Is it surprising that the British are running a counter intelligence/information program? I’m kinda like, yeah, that’s what the army does.

Sure, but if it's established that Twitter is a tool of governments (a willing tool, along with Facebook, Microsoft and Google) then the extent of its independence becomes questionable. Maybe it's then no better than (gasp!) RT.com!

If Twitter, along with Facebook, Microsoft and Google is, as you say. a willing tool of governments, it cannot be said that its (or their) independence becomes questionable. What can be said, is that they are exercising the discretion every commercial outfit has, to decide or change their editorial policies. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is what governments allow you to say, not what privately owned outfits allow on their turf. This is why you can rip shit out of Trump and Biden to your heart's content in the USA. Some commercial enterprises will not publish your opinion. Plenty will. Neither case has anything to do with freedom of speech.

This has something to do with freedom of speech: If you try to rip shit out of certain other heads of government in countries I won't name, chances are that you'll finish up with food poisoning or suffer a fall out of a third floor window. If you are lucky, you'll merely finish up with trumped up charges of fraud and/or corruption.

Hermit wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

felltoearth wrote:Is it surprising that the British are running a counter intelligence/information program? I’m kinda like, yeah, that’s what the army does.

Sure, but if it's established that Twitter is a tool of governments (a willing tool, along with Facebook, Microsoft and Google) then the extent of its independence becomes questionable. Maybe it's then no better than (gasp!) RT.com!

If Twitter, along with Facebook, Microsoft and Google is, as you say. a willing tool of governments, it cannot be said that its (or their) independence becomes questionable. What can be said, is that they are exercising the discretion every commercial outfit has, to decide or change their editorial policies. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is what governments allow you to say, not what privately owned outfits allow on their turf. This is why you can rip shit out of Trump and Biden to your heart's content in the USA. Some commercial enterprises will not publish your opinion. Plenty will. Neither case has anything to do with freedom of speech.

...
With less than three months before US elections, Twitter has all but memory-holed RT and other state-run media – even searching their handles draws a blank. For a supposedly free-market country, the US sure hates competition.
The official Twitter accounts for RT, Xinhua, and other media outlets owned by certain governments the US doesn’t like are being pushed into the shadows, confirming that Twitter is getting serious about its role as one of the chief enforcers of US informational supremacy.
...
-- https://www.rt.com/op-ed/498446-twitter-shadowbans-rt-propaganda-fail/

...
Twitter explained its failure to slap a scarlet letter on the BBC, NPR, or Voice of America – all state-run media organizations – by claiming these outfits maintained some degree of editorial independence. While many at the time called this out as the egregious double standard it was, that was before learning how deeply Twitter intended to bury its victims.
...

Hermit wrote:
This has something to do with freedom of speech: If you try to rip shit out of certain other heads of government in countries I won't name, chances are that you'll finish up with food poisoning or suffer a fall out of a third floor window. If you are lucky, you'll merely finish up with trumped up charges of fraud and/or corruption.

Hermit wrote:...you are conflating freedom of speech, which is a matter of law, with decisions made by commercial enterprises.

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies.

Mike_L wrote:
So yes... through censorship, the private enterprise that is Twitter suppresses (on its own platform) speech that it doesn't like. But that doesn't amount to Twitter suppressing legally-defined, government-guaranteed free speech. I never claimed that it was doing so.
My only claim with respect to US government agencies was that they might be influencing Twitter's editorial policy, specifically the decision to reduce the visibility of the RT.com and Xinhua accounts.

Mike_L wrote:
Nowhere have made I the claim that commercial enterprises infringe on legally-guaranteed freedom of speech, or that the limitations they impose on their own platforms amount to such.

Mike_L wrote:
Looking at the Wikipedia introductory paragraph on censorship:

Mike_L wrote:
My only claim with respect to US government agencies was that they might be influencing Twitter's editorial policy, specifically the decision to reduce the visibility of the RT.com and Xinhua accounts.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Mike_L wrote:
My only claim with respect to US government agencies was that they might be influencing Twitter's editorial policy, specifically the decision to reduce the visibility of the RT.com and Xinhua accounts.

So you entered this thread completely off topic in order to have an excuse to shill for RT, you say?

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mike_L wrote:
So yes... through censorship, the private enterprise that is Twitter suppresses (on its own platform) speech that it doesn't like. But that doesn't amount to Twitter suppressing legally-defined, government-guaranteed free speech. I never claimed that it was doing so.
My only claim with respect to US government agencies was that they might be influencing Twitter's editorial policy, specifically the decision to reduce the visibility of the RT.com and Xinhua accounts.

FFS, Mike, Twitter can't suppress or promote the speech of anyone who doesn't feel like posting on Twitter. What we are talking about here is the promotion or amplification of media outlets via Twitter. You or anyone can demand that RT or Xinhua be given a platform anytime and anywhere their fanboys might like, and be told to buzz the fuck off with that complaint. You can't do much here to increase the visibility of RT.com. Anyone who wants to can dial up the URL of either of those cesspools, but promoting them elsewhere using commercial entities does not generate free speech issues for any but their sorry-ass fanboys.

Mike_L wrote:
Nowhere have made I the claim that commercial enterprises infringe on legally-guaranteed freedom of speech, or that the limitations they impose on their own platforms amount to such.

Oh, do fuck off, Mike. Proving that you've nowhere made some claim is a big job and a thankless task, and one not to be taken very seriously. Nobody presently trying to engage with you expects to be able to do so; all we can do is explain why we don't take you seriously.

Mike_L wrote:
Looking at the Wikipedia introductory paragraph on censorship:

And one more time. Censorship is of ideas and is not about the withholding of free advertising, which is what happens on Twitter. No ideas get examined on Twitter.

"...all we can do is explain why we don't take you seriously."

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Mike_L wrote:
My only claim with respect to US government agencies was that they might be influencing Twitter's editorial policy, specifically the decision to reduce the visibility of the RT.com and Xinhua accounts.

So you entered this thread completely off topic in order to have an excuse to shill for RT, you say?

felltoearth wrote:Mike is upset because RT.com’s disinformation doesn’t get the same respect as Washington Post’s disinformation. He doesn’t use those words, but that’s basically it.

Mike_L wrote:
Twitter is public communication.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Mike_L wrote:
My only claim with respect to US government agencies was that they might be influencing Twitter's editorial policy, specifically the decision to reduce the visibility of the RT.com and Xinhua accounts.

So you entered this thread completely off topic in order to have an excuse to shill for RT, you say?

RT didn't come into it until my fourth post in the thread (on page 2).

The "shilling" just proceeded naturally from that, as it always does.
.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mike_L wrote:
Twitter is public communication.

It's not publicly-funded. You've gotten something that's openly available by loading its URL into a web browser or app mixed up with a public service.

If your government filtered out requests to load the Twitter http address at your gateway router, you could call it censorship.

Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies.

Mike_L wrote:So yes... through censorship, the private enterprise that is Twitter suppresses (on its own platform) speech that it doesn't like. But that doesn't amount to Twitter suppressing legally-defined, government-guaranteed free speech. I never claimed that it was doing so.

Cito di Pense wrote:Don't censor yourself, Mike. Tell us what you really think...

SafeAsMilk wrote:Yes, you naturally shill for RT every chance you get, in this case you even ignored the thread topic in order to do it

What do you want, a cookie for having enough self control to wait four posts to overtly peddle your tired wares?

Mike_L wrote:

If your government filtered out requests to load the Twitter http address at your gateway router, you could call it censorship.

No. Censorship is not the sole preserve of government. From the Wikipedia entry again...

Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies.

Mike_L wrote:
One can be quite certain that if it were mostly the Left being defunded, deplatformed, canceled, shadow-banned and pushed down in search listings, that the tune would change very quickly.

Mike_L wrote:

felltoearth wrote:
Please outline what you believe is happening here.

A repeat of this...