DNC leak

[Ostroeuropa]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... rom-trend/

This marks an ongoing trend from Twitter admins to censor trending topics which do not advance a radical progressive or neoliberal agenda, previous targets being Gamergate and pro-trump trends.

What are the implications of large corporations being able to dictate what is and is not acceptable in the public square?

We've also seen this year a number of stories alleging facebook has been censoring content that is not in line with a progressive agenda, and that google has been fiddling search results to benefit the clinton campaign.

In my opinion, given the highly interconnected nature of our establishment, this amounts to government censorship by the backdoor. By handing over the dirty work to corporations, the argument that freedom of speech only applies to government action can be utilized, even if the implicit understanding is that these actions will attain a corporation favors and amounts to something akin to large campaign finance contributions. It highlights a system failure of corporatist-democracy and the corrupt nature of our officials.
As we saw from the DNC leaks, politicians and officials have little issue with collaborating with private entities to control the political narrative. There only functional difference between corporatist censorship and government censorship is that corporatist censorship makes our elite less accountable for their actions.

Twitter benefits from routine journalistic and political usage and elites shilling for the usage of its platform, in conjunction with corporatism meaning that usual free market consumer tactics of boycotts will be rendered less effective. (Reporting on the boycott not likely to spread, competitors have barriers to entry, the company itself gets high profile users who benefit from it, etc.).

I don't see a way to deal with these issues except by tackling the broader systemic problems of corruption, insularity of our elites, media centralization, and political orthodoxy dominating a number of our institutions.

[Pandeeria]

Are you proposing that we expand the first amendment to make businesses such as Twitter comply with it?

[Ostroeuropa]

Are you proposing that we expand the first amendment to make businesses such as Twitter comply with it?

I would say its worth considering given the modern nature of the public square, yes. The alternative seems to be allowing the upper classes to control political discourse.

[Sorgun]

Of course.

[Bakery Hill]

"Radical progressive agenda"? As a socialist I'm quite happy the DNC's got hacked.

[Minzerland]

Inb4:

[Tyrinth]

"Radical progressive agenda"? As a socialist I'm quite happy the DNC's got hacked.

America's terminology has a somewhat different meaning.

[Knootoss]

It's really quite simple:

Stop. Using. Twitter.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's really quite simple:

Stop. Using. Twitter.

I've covered why this isn't practical in the OP.

Free market capitalism tactics do not appear to be effective against corporatism

Example;
We stopped borrowing money from banks as much, so the government just shoves money into their hands.

It is practically impossible to boycott if the government can take your money from you, and give it to the corporations anyway.

For another, the media will simply not widely distribute knowledge of a boycott and will continue shilling for twitter, since they are a part of the system which benefits from its existence.

[Pandeeria]

Are you proposing that we expand the first amendment to make businesses such as Twitter comply with it?

I would say its worth considering given the modern nature of the public square, yes. The alternative seems to be allowing the upper classes to control political discourse.

Do you not believe that is treading on the right's of business owners? Or do you think that is a necessary evil to keep political discourse open and alive?

[Ostroeuropa]

I would say its worth considering given the modern nature of the public square, yes. The alternative seems to be allowing the upper classes to control political discourse.

Do you not believe that is treading on the right's of business owners? Or do you think that is a necessary evil to keep political discourse open and alive?

I think it's a necessary evil. Plenty of business regulations are put in place to safeguard the public good. Anti-trust acts for instance, etc.

Do private businesses have the right to deny transpeople bathrooms, for instance?
Its notable that a substantial section of the modern left only becomes pro-business rights when it comes to censorship.

[Bakery Hill]

"Radical progressive agenda"? As a socialist I'm quite happy the DNC's got hacked.

America's terminology has a somewhat different meaning.

Ah dear I can't fucking keep up haha

[Pandeeria]

Do you not believe that is treading on the right's of business owners? Or do you think that is a necessary evil to keep political discourse open and alive?

I think it's a necessary evil. Plenty of business regulations are put in place to safeguard the public good. Anti-trust acts for instance, etc.

Do private businesses have the right to deny transpeople bathrooms, for instance?
Its notable that the modern left only becomes pro-business rights when it comes to censorship.

Well, most the modern left now a days is extremely pro-business, and simply are in favor of regulation. But yeah, I agree, we should definitely consider expanding the first amendment further. Perhaps as long as the discussion doesn't directly threaten the business's well being (such as advertising a competitor) then open discussion should be allowed.

[Ostroeuropa]

I think it's a necessary evil. Plenty of business regulations are put in place to safeguard the public good. Anti-trust acts for instance, etc.

Do private businesses have the right to deny transpeople bathrooms, for instance?
Its notable that the modern left only becomes pro-business rights when it comes to censorship.

Well, most the modern left now a days is extremely pro-business, and simply are in favor of regulation. But yeah, I agree, we should definitely consider expanding the first amendment further. Perhaps as long as the discussion doesn't directly threaten the business's well being (such as advertising a competitor) then open discussion should be allowed.

True enough. It's the intersection of neoliberalism and radical progressivism. It allows elites to frame left-right politics in ways other than economic.

Where can we see the DNC leaks?

Wikileaks.

[Flaskjinia]

Well, most the modern left now a days is extremely pro-business, and simply are in favor of regulation. But yeah, I agree, we should definitely consider expanding the first amendment further. Perhaps as long as the discussion doesn't directly threaten the business's well being (such as advertising a competitor) then open discussion should be allowed.

True enough. It's the intersection of neoliberalism and radical progressivism. It allows elites to frame left-right politics in ways other than economic.

Where can we see the DNC leaks?

Wikileaks.

H888 no not Hillary ether j would vote for desz nuss rather than no j would rather die by getting bit to death by scorpions for the rest of my life than vote for I would not ducking no I would no so the stupid crit truth trump just an idiot

[Gravlen]

What, exactly, are we crying censorship over here?

[Ostroeuropa]

What, exactly, are we crying censorship over here?

Twitter and Facebooks reaction to the DNC leaks.
Facebook has declared they are a 'dangerous' website and will block posting links to wikileaks. Twitter removed DNCLeaks from its trending results at its peak. (Something they've done before, but not in an election year to relevant election news.).

It would be akin to removing a front page NS thread from view and using the defense that if you want to post in that thread you can use the search bar to find it.

[Imperializt Russia]

Are you proposing that we expand the first amendment to make businesses such as Twitter comply with it?

I would say its worth considering given the modern nature of the public square, yes. The alternative seems to be allowing the upper classes to control political discourse.

Oh no! Nothing changing!

[Ostroeuropa]

I would say its worth considering given the modern nature of the public square, yes. The alternative seems to be allowing the upper classes to control political discourse.

Oh no! Nothing changing!

That's literally the problem yes.

[Gravlen]

What, exactly, are we crying censorship over here?

Twitter and Facebooks reaction to the DNC leaks.
Facebook has declared they are a 'dangerous' website and will block posting links to wikileaks.

That's because they host emails containing viruses though, isn't it?

Twitter removed DNCLeaks from its trending results at its peak. (Something they've done before, but not in an election year to relevant election news.).

Your source said it was gone for 20 minutes? No tweets were removed, the hashtag wasn't banned....

It would be akin to removing a front page NS thread from view and using the defense that if you want to post in that thread you can use the search bar to find it.

Actually, it would be like removing it from the Latest Thread tab on the left
<-

You can still access the thread, read it and post in it. That is not censorship.

[Ostroeuropa]

Twitter and Facebooks reaction to the DNC leaks.
Facebook has declared they are a 'dangerous' website and will block posting links to wikileaks.

That's because they host emails containing viruses though, isn't it?

Twitter removed DNCLeaks from its trending results at its peak. (Something they've done before, but not in an election year to relevant election news.).

Your source said it was gone for 20 minutes? No tweets were removed, the hashtag wasn't banned....

It would be akin to removing a front page NS thread from view and using the defense that if you want to post in that thread you can use the search bar to find it.

Actually, it would be like removing it from the Latest Thread tab on the left
<-

You can still access the thread, read it and post in it. That is not censorship.

1. 20 minutes was sufficient for it to drop from trending, as well as balkanize the trend into dozens of successors trying to circumvent the censorship. It did not recover.

2. No, because there isn't the equivalent of a front page on twitter. You could only see the tweets if you follow someone who tweeted there, or if you actively searched for it. It is censorship, because it acts to suppress speech. Nothing about censorship requires a total deletion.

[Vassenor]

Twitter and Facebooks reaction to the DNC leaks.
Facebook has declared they are a 'dangerous' website and will block posting links to wikileaks.

That's because they host emails containing viruses though, isn't it?

Twitter removed DNCLeaks from its trending results at its peak. (Something they've done before, but not in an election year to relevant election news.).

Your source said it was gone for 20 minutes? No tweets were removed, the hashtag wasn't banned....

It would be akin to removing a front page NS thread from view and using the defense that if you want to post in that thread you can use the search bar to find it.

Actually, it would be like removing it from the Latest Thread tab on the left
<-

You can still access the thread, read it and post in it. That is not censorship.

You're making people have to put effort in. Clearly that is censorship.

[Ostroeuropa]

You're making people have to put effort in. Clearly that is censorship.

Suppose every single democrat on this forum were automatically blocked so you had to click the "Show post" thing.
Would that be censorship, or would you be similarly dismissive because it's only a little extra effort.

[Katganistan]

Inb4:

(Image)

Since many people seem not to understand what the First Amendment actually IS.... let's go through this line by line.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

1) Congress will not legally recognize any religion as the 'official' US religion, 2) Congress will not legally forbid any religion from being practiced freely; 3)Congress will not make a law limiting the freedom of speech, 4)Congress will not outlaw or limit the press (which can be interpreted as newspapers, radio news, television news, magazines, internet news); 5)Congress will not make it illegal for people to gather in groups that are not rioting/breaking the law/harassing people 6) Congress will not make it illegal to criticize the government and demand changes.

CONGRESS. The Government.

Individuals can shout you down. Colleges can tell you to get off their property. Businesses can say, "We choose not to allow you to use our social media site to say the things you say." TV stations don't HAVE to give you air time to say what you want (unless you're running for office, and then they have to give equal time to the candidates). Newspapers don't HAVE to publish your letters. Radio hosts can hang up on your ranting. Your boss can fire you for saying things that reflect badly on yur company, or that make others feel harassed (hostile workplace) if that is substantiated.

And NONE of that violates your freedom of speech.

[Minzerland]

Inb4:

(Image)

Since many people seem not to understand what the First Amendment actually IS.... let's go through this line by line.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

1) Congress will not legally recognize any religion as the 'official' US religion, 2) Congress will not legally forbid any religion from being practiced freely; 3)Congress will not make a law limiting the freedom of speech, 4)Congress will not outlaw or limit the press (which can be interpreted as newspapers, radio news, television news, magazines, internet news); 5)Congress will not make it illegal for people to gather in groups that are not rioting/breaking the law/harassing people 6) Congress will not make it illegal to criticize the government and demand changes.

CONGRESS. The Government.

Individuals can shout you down. Colleges can tell you to get off their property. Businesses can say, "We choose not to allow you to use our social media site to say the things you say." TV stations don't HAVE to give you air time to say what you want (unless you're running for office, and then they have to give equal time to the candidates). Newspapers don't HAVE to publish your letters. Radio hosts can hang up on your ranting. Your boss can fire you for saying things that reflect badly on yur company, or that make others feel harassed (hostile workplace) if that is substantiated.

And NONE of that violates your freedom of speech.

It was a joke...