Senate hearings on Facebook, Twitter

[yankees60]

The Senate hearings on Facebook, Twitter are going on right now.

Senator Cruz is grilling Jack Dorsey of Twitter as I write this.

For me Cruz epitomizes what I generally find odious of most things Republican.

His entire focus has been on the NY Post story which brings several things to mind for me.

1) This whole Twitter controversy regarding it RAISED the profile of that story. Have not seen that acknowledged that anywhere. That what Twitter did regarding it probably ended up in more people knowing about the article than if they had done nothing

2) As far as I know, Twitter initially just banned the sharing of the URL of the article. It did not ban any discussion of the article. Cruz rails about Twitter censoring the New York Post. Are all those people who were deprived that URL just plain too dumb to do a search for the New York Post's web site and go directly to the article?

3) Dorsey calmly explained in the face of Cruz's emotional ranting that this had been a fast decision that they had made and which they fairly quickly reversed, admitting they made a mistake. Yet Cruz portrays this as if it's an ongoing practice.

4) Regarding Google having too much power. It's the same as our political system and my belief we get the political system we deserve. Google has so much power because its users give it all that power. For 7 years I stopped using Google and use Bing. Therefore, how much power does Google have over me?

Vinny

[WiseOne]

If you're going to watch them, find another source. I think it's safe to assume what is allowed on either of those platforms will be artfully edited. There's a conflict of interest there you could drive a truck through.

[yankees60]

If you're going to watch them, find another source. I think it's safe to assume what is allowed on either of those platforms will be artfully edited. There's a conflict of interest there you could drive a truck through.

I think he meant on Cspan. I read it the way you did initially, but then realized what he meant.

Of course, C-Span is always going to be my choice if possible.

Vinny

[yankees60]

So far what these hearings are revealing to me is that the heads of Google, Twitter, Google are both far more honest and intelligent than are the senators that we have. And, why each of them are the heads of their organizations. These senators are just totally out of their depth in trying to match wits with the three of them.

I constantly read how intelligent Cruz is supposed to be but, again, he just reveals to me that he is somewhat of a political lowlife. Not at all interested in any kinds of truth. Just an all out pandering politician. He is just so many light years worst than anything he accuses Facebook, Twitter, or Google doing.

Vinny

[doodle]

Any man...especially one that calls himself a Texan.... that will cuddle up to a man who has insulted him, his wife, and his dead father obviously has no honor or cojones at all.

[flyingpylon]

So far what these hearings are revealing to me is that the heads of Google, Twitter, Google are both far more honest and intelligent than are the senators that we have. And, why each of them are the heads of their organizations. These senators are just totally out of their depth in trying to match wits with the three of them.

I constantly read how intelligent Cruz is supposed to be but, again, he just reveals to me that he is somewhat of a political lowlife. Not at all interested in any kinds of truth. Just an all out pandering politician. He is just so many light years worst than anything he accuses Facebook, Twitter, or Google doing.

Vinny

The New York Post, the 4th-largest newspaper in the country, is still being prevented from accessing its Twitter account or posting. Does that seem reasonable?

[WiseOne]

I expected to see the large IQ differential that Vinny refers to. Fortunately, the law applies equally regardless of IQ. High IQ people don't get to flout laws or infringe on others' rights just because they're smart.

The online platforms can't have it both ways. Either they are a bulletin board, sort of a public utility really, that accepts all comers with minimal policing (pretty much just removing outright illegal stuff or spam), or they are effectively a user-sourced news network with the same type of bias that is present in any media agency. If the latter then that should be made generally known, and new outlets with different biases need to be created. That's a shame, but I see it as inevitable.

[Xan]

I expected to see the large IQ differential that Vinny refers to. Fortunately, the law applies equally regardless of IQ. High IQ people don't get to flout laws or infringe on others' rights just because they're smart.

The online platforms can't have it both ways. Either they are a bulletin board, sort of a public utility really, that accepts all comers with minimal policing (pretty much just removing outright illegal stuff or spam), or they are effectively a user-sourced news network with the same type of bias that is present in any media agency. If the latter then that should be made generally known, and new outlets with different biases need to be created. That's a shame, but I see it as inevitable.

Yes, if they're going to exert editorial control, then they need to be responsible for everything that gets said on their platform. I guess the debate is what editorial control consists of.

It can be a very gray area. For example, as the administrator of this forum, am I responsible for anything anybody says here? I should certainly hope not! And yet, is this site really free of editorial control? For the most part. We don't delete or edit anything that is said, except for obvious spambot content. (And yet... Is that not a form of editorial control?) We do sometimes split topics, when the discussion takes a natural fork. Every once in a great while, we ask a poster to tone it down, or even rate-limit or ban a troublesome poster. Is that editorial control?

[yankees60]

So far what these hearings are revealing to me is that the heads of Google, Twitter, Google are both far more honest and intelligent than are the senators that we have. And, why each of them are the heads of their organizations. These senators are just totally out of their depth in trying to match wits with the three of them.

I constantly read how intelligent Cruz is supposed to be but, again, he just reveals to me that he is somewhat of a political lowlife. Not at all interested in any kinds of truth. Just an all out pandering politician. He is just so many light years worst than anything he accuses Facebook, Twitter, or Google doing.

Vinny

The New York Post, the 4th-largest newspaper in the country, is still being prevented from accessing its Twitter account or posting. Does that seem reasonable?

No and never.

It was initially not allowed to post the URL for that article to its Twitter account. Same prohibition applied to everyone else. Even me when I tried.

Twitter is a private company and they made their own rules and this was a fast decision. They reversed it within 24 hours so that all the New York Post had to do was delete that original tweet and create a new one and all would have had access to the article from the New York Post's Twitter account.

But again, isn't this the Republican / conservative way? You don't like a private company's services, use someone else's? Twitter was NOT preventing anything from being displayed at the New York Post's web site. How is this any different than New York Post having their guidelines / rules which prevent you or I from posting anything we want on their web site?

Vinny

[flyingpylon]

So far what these hearings are revealing to me is that the heads of Google, Twitter, Google are both far more honest and intelligent than are the senators that we have. And, why each of them are the heads of their organizations. These senators are just totally out of their depth in trying to match wits with the three of them.

I constantly read how intelligent Cruz is supposed to be but, again, he just reveals to me that he is somewhat of a political lowlife. Not at all interested in any kinds of truth. Just an all out pandering politician. He is just so many light years worst than anything he accuses Facebook, Twitter, or Google doing.

Vinny

The New York Post, the 4th-largest newspaper in the country, is still being prevented from accessing its Twitter account or posting. Does that seem reasonable?

No and never.

It was initially not allowed to post the URL for that article to its Twitter account. Same prohibition applied to everyone else. Even me when I tried.

Twitter is a private company and they made their own rules and this was a fast decision. They reversed it within 24 hours so that all the New York Post had to do was delete that original tweet and create a new one and all would have had access to the article from the New York Post's Twitter account.

But again, isn't this the Republican / conservative way? You don't like a private company's services, use someone else's? Twitter was NOT preventing anything from being displayed at the New York Post's web site. How is this any different than New York Post having their guidelines / rules which prevent you or I from posting anything we want on their web site?

Vinny

Vinny, for crying out loud, read the previous two posts from WiseOne and Xan.

[WiseOne]

Yes, if they're going to exert editorial control, then they need to be responsible for everything that gets said on their platform. I guess the debate is what editorial control consists of.

It can be a very gray area. For example, as the administrator of this forum, am I responsible for anything anybody says here? I should certainly hope not! And yet, is this site really free of editorial control? For the most part. We don't delete or edit anything that is said, except for obvious spambot content. (And yet... Is that not a form of editorial control?) We do sometimes split topics, when the discussion takes a natural fork. Every once in a great while, we ask a poster to tone it down, or even rate-limit or ban a troublesome poster. Is that editorial control?

Yes it is, and that's ok because it's a set of ground rules that everyone knows about going in. It's why you're termed a "moderator". If people don't like it they can go form another forum. Think of Bogleheads for example. Those moderators are quite strict about what is and isn't allowed on the forum.

Twitter is a little different. It's a very unique service that's probably patent-protected to some degree. Twitter's profitability relies strongly on their status as a virtual monopoly - it's hard just to say you'll go off and find an alternative when there really isn't any. In that sense, it has more in common with a public utility than this forum. Also, having to create & maintain logins and download apps is a real barrier to using multiple platforms.

I asked my question about because I'm really not sure whether the Senate should treat them as a public utility that must take care to remain impartial, or break them up to institute competition and allow evolution of subgroups with different agendas. I'm inclined to go with option A: they should be allowed to remain a monopoly, but in return they have to abide by a strict code of impartiality.

And btw they need to restore NY Post's twitter account without their having to delete tweets. As in, they need to do it yesterday. Why the heck didn't they do it before the hearing? Monumental stupidity there if you ask me.

[Kriegsspiel]

The current imbroglios with Twitter and Facebook can be solved by stopping use, so that's what I recommend people do.

[Xan]

Here's the Post's take on it:

Twitter is Running a Blackmail Operation: https://nypost.com/2020/10/28/twitter-i ... c-for-you/

What is with Dorsey's beard??

[flyingpylon]

Part of the problem is that the social media companies are just making it up as they go along.

Twitter, Facebook Confess There Is No Evidence Of Russian Disinformation Behind Hunter Biden Story

Dorsey Just Lied To Congress And Claimed Twitter Never Censored President Donald Trump

Twitter Suspends U.S. Border Chief For Celebrating Wall’s Protection From Illegal Aliens