Thanks: 
Likes: 
Dislikes: 
Re: Alex Jones material finding its way on YouTube again. lol
After hearing a few arguments over this, I decided to revisit this thread.
It seems to me that publisher was never a question- until one individual cried about them being denied- aka Drumpf.
From its inception they stated: Twitter is a short burst of inconsequential information. Twitter is a content-enabler, not a publisher neither a distributor. Their business specialized in status updates as a social utility. With restriction as it relates to quantity- 140 characters in 2006, doubled to 280 characters by 2017. But they have also stated it has evolved over time.
If I look at it from its inception- social network and microblogging were the constant terms used to define it.
At some point they launched a music app called Twitter Music for the iPhone. helped broadcasters and rights holders to share video content. Acquired an advertising network for social media stars
it seems the question of what/who they are came about as it appear this current prez used this Twitter for free coverage. No longer a short burst of inconsequential information, rather CONSEQUENTIAL information used by The most influential & powerful office in the world who was now using the site for shit other than what it was intended; now used to push a political agenda. For free at that.
May 26, 2020 the prez issued a statement via tweet related to possible voter fraud via mail. Out of all the means to get this across, again he chose a free platform and got pissed when they took action.
Not only that, but long ago, they gave power to their users; Users can mute other users they do not wish to interact with and block accounts from viewing their tweets. Is that stymying free speech as well?
As a result of appending something to his page questioning the legitimacy one demographic took issue; his political party and began to raise a word I hadn't seen associated with twitter which is: publisher.
I do acknowledge p.c. magazine also raised the question, but the majority of sites I have seen are conservative leaning like the federalist website- and most of their doubts have begun in the past few years not back in the previous decade (2006-2010)
I understand their need to censorship based on the many lawsuits they've endured from bots to people posting as celebrities, profile collection & even used to organize protests across the globe.
I'd like to think most of this- they never thought would occur from the genesis of wanting inconsequential information in short bursts (140) characters. nevertheless it has happened and among one of the many controversial usage is done by a sitting American president using a social platform to convey his policies, beliefs and even requests to his voters.
I wonder if the prez's supporters consider censorship when In 2016, Twitter cooperated with the Israeli government to remove content originating outside of their country. Or was it necessary then?
Payin' the cost to be the boss!
They have received legal demands from 47 countries and counting.
Again from it's beginnings: Fans of twitters said nothing about it being a publisher, rather they saw it as a good way to keep in touch with busy friends.- [sidenote] which is why it took years for me to get an account- All I read back then were people saying at 8am they are about to take a dump.About to leave the house for a hot date
(so rob my house blind!
)
In its infancy stages several high profile techys not only didnt see it as a publisher, but deemed that any form of "literate communication" was about as likely as firing up a CB radio and hearing some guy recite the Iliad.
Several firms gave their take on the content -which seems to qualify under everything but publisher, Per wiki they are listed as:
1. Pointless babble 2. conversational babble. 3. Pass-along value 4. self-promotion 5. spam 6. news
Yet from 2006 to present it has been used to promote not just small biz, but politicians and most of all the prez whose reading attention span suits 140-280 characters just fine. Now faced with international Twitter diplomacy- where a sitting prez uses it to pass judgment of events regarding allies and his enemies. 4,474 this year & counting.
Personally I'd call the prez's tweets as pointless babble. But because it has power and his minions act on it- it becomes a political platform with consequences---meaning his voters react to what they're reading be it voting wise, boycotting or possibly kicking' somebody in the ass.'
Alex Jones on the tail of the Sandy Hooks debacle- saw the people take him to court, not Twitter to court, they understood it was a platform being used by one who had as many as 5 million listeners who were told the school shooting was manufactured by actors
One whose message is so volatile- those who spoke up against Jones conspiracy were faced with death threats. Even this prez has followers who also beat people the fuck up, kids included and say he told us to. Death threats included.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ded/ar-AAH2ONq
Trump accidentally tweeted an insult at a pastor. Here’s how the pastor responded.
The “drive-by tweet” brought on “intense vitriol and hatred,” He was suddenly experiencing what many of Trump’s intended Twitter targets go through almost daily: a barrage of infuriated tweets from Trump’s followers.
The pastor stopped laughing. And published an open letter to Trump.
“Although I was an accidental casualty caught in the cross-fire of your ‘lightweight’ tweet, your attack was very purposeful and hurtful. Many others, whether American citizens or global citizens, feel wounded and hurt by the shrapnel and side-effects of your ongoing Twitter attacks. Your heart must be in a dangerous place to have such a consistent flow of defamation and disrespect towards so many,”
-- Rev. Jonathan Carl
Montana man claims Trump's rhetoric inspired him to assault boy over National Anthem
I understand why Twitter is under duress, they have a jacktail running America who can inspire hate, physical violence and so called freedom of speech givers (Alex) whom have both caused harm, all by the means of a tweet.
Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms after Twitter fact checks claims on mail-in voting fraud
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...ry?id=70899912
 |
|
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks