Trump misunderstands concept of free speech

[lil devils x]

So if Trump allows some constituents to talk to him directly at Trump tower etc (which he does, generally large donors) he must allow everyone to?



That twitter may very well be about to end up classed as both.

If it is something that is widely available to the public, yes, and yes you can call the president's office. They can email him, mail him, call and leave messages with his staff, contact him via facebook, twitter, reddit, and other social media.

The White House

President Donald J. Trump and Vice President JD Vance are committed to lowering costs for all Americans, securing our borders, unleashing American energy dominance, restoring peace through strength, and making all Americans safe and secure once again.

www.whitehouse.gov

Trump is not allowed to prevent people from contacting him in any of these ways. If they are making threats or what not, that will be handled by secret service.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Twitter is a private platform. It can accept or deny anyone according to its rights as owner. If it bans anyone, it does not infringe their right to free speech, because there's the whole of the rest of the internet for them to make themselves heard.

However, public servants are required to have a degree of openness to the public about their jobs, because the USA is a not a dictatorship. If a public official uses an open platform to explain their professional activities, they should not unfairly restrict public access. Or to put it another way, the president of the USA is answerable to and has a duty to serve the entire US public. He is not allowed to selectively silence citizens who happen to disagree with him in policy. If Trump had a Twitter account which purely covered his personal life, he (probably) would be able to block users, because it is outside the boundaries of public policy requiring openness.



No, indeed you can't... but no-one can.

So the president is therefore not unfairly disadvantaging some citizens in terms of access to public discussion.

Ah but it's a private platform not an open one.

It's immaterial. One does not refer to a grocery store as a hospital because it has a pharmacy.

No but the rules regarding Pharmacy conduct do apply to the pharmacy section. They don't suddenly get to only run the pharmacy under the rules of a general grocery store.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

If I misinterpreted, then this is a lateral move as the argument does not see the difference between putting someone on the ignore list and having them stalk and harass you.

Well Trump can mute them so he doesn't see the replies.

 

[Buyetyen]

Ah but it's a private platform not an open one.

He literally explained that it was a private platform and what that entailed.

No but

But nothing. Let's be real. This is not actually about free speech. Trump is picking this fight because he resents any attempt to tell him there is a limit on what he can and can't do. Like everything else Trump, it's all so much blustery theater. In the end he won't do shit about Twitter because he's grown dependent on it. And his executive order really only would make Twitter fact check him more in order to prove that they were making a good faith effort. Anyone intent on being a proxy for him in this fight is getting a raw deal.

Well Trump can mute them so he doesn't see the replies.

Yes. That is what I meant by a reference to ignore lists. There is still a difference between muting someone on Twitter and having them standing outside your house screaming at you. It's why protestors picketing a politician's house makes an impression.

 

[Houseman]

You need to spell out your hypothetical, actually present it since all you really said before was you mentioned "two genders" you didn't in what context that was, you didn't say what the reason for a ban was, when I tried to give some examples you poopooed them. So you need to spell it out.

Okay, cool.

So you said, in post 55, that "People aren't removed for just their political opinion, they are removed for other shit, like spreading false information" and in post 57, "...people who spread misinformation are actively doing damage to the world as a whole."

Let's assume that a "platform" removes people for spreading information they deem as false.
A user makes the claim "There are only two genders". Nothing else, just that sentence.
The platform deems this information as false, and removes this user for "spreading misinformation".

That's the hypothetical. A platform removes people for spreading "misinformation", a user says something that the platform deems untrue, and the user is removed. Simple, right?

 

[Agema]

Ah but it's a private platform not an open one.

This is not a useful contribution.

* * *

That social media exists in a slightly odd place compared to traditional media is part of the discussion; c.f. my post #75. Please can you engage with this more usefully than opaque one-liners?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

But nothing. Let's be real. This is not actually about free speech. Trump is picking this fight because he resents any attempt to tell him there is a limit on what he can and can't do. Like everything else Trump, it's all so much blustery theater. In the end he won't do shit about Twitter because he's grown dependent on it. And his executive order really only would make Twitter fact check him more in order to prove that they were making a good faith effort. Anyone intent on being a proxy for him in this fight is getting a raw deal.

And like so much stuff with Trump people are opposing move that would be beneficial in the long term simply because it is Trump saying it. If it were a case of say Hillary being fact checked only while Trump and co ran around able to make up any BS people would be likely reacting very differently.

I mean Trump could do something about Twitter. He could move to another service which could be a big blow. I mean imagine the stir if he moved to I dunno instagram only or something. Or something like GAB

Also if they only fact check Trump then it won't be a good faith effort that's the issue lol

 

[Buyetyen]

Also if they only fact check Trump then it won't be a good faith effort that's the issue lol

You are the only person in this thread who has suggested this.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

You are the only person in this thread who has suggested this.

So you're saying it would be good faith to design and implement a system against just one specific user?

 

[Buyetyen]

So you're saying it would be good faith to design and implement a system against just one specific user?

No, once again, you are the only one suggesting that and being very obtuse about it besides.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

No, once again, you are the only one suggesting that and being very obtuse about it besides.

Ok then so here's the questions again that you've dodged.

1) if Twitter publishing fact checks on Trumps tweets is not them acting as a Publisher them how is it acting as a platform when they themselves as a corporate entity are putting that out?

2) How is this situation different from The Escapist where different aspects are classified differently?

3) Do you believe a system should be applied just to Trump and doing so would constitute good faith?

 

[Worgen]

Okay, cool.

So you said, in post 55, that "People aren't removed for just their political opinion, they are removed for other shit, like spreading false information" and in post 57, "...people who spread misinformation are actively doing damage to the world as a whole."

Let's assume that a "platform" removes people for spreading information they deem as false.
A user makes the claim "There are only two genders". Nothing else, just that sentence.
The platform deems this information as false, and removes this user for "spreading misinformation".

That's the hypothetical. A platform remove people for spreading "misinformation", a user says something that the platform deems untrue, and the user is removed. Simple, right?

Ok, that makes more sense.

But we still run into the problem of there not really being two genders, its more of a spectrum, you could make the argument there are 2 sexes much more easily based on genitalia. But gender is more of a spectrum, and the term non-binary refers to those that don't align withe the male/female binary our society has. Such as a feminine man or masculine woman or a trans individual. In fact, our societial view of there just being two genders is pretty weird, a lot of other cultures have a 3rd gender or even non-gendered grouping. Such as the two-spirit folks from indigenous american cultures or the Hijra in south asian cultures. In fact there are stories of non-binary people that go back to the babalonians 4000 years ago as the first story in this vid covers.

Anyway, back to the topic, should that person be banned for spreading false information. I'm, not sure it still depends on context, if its literally just them saying it then, maybe fact checked, if they are using it against another user... depends on how they are doing it. Offhand I would say the platform should do something similar to what twitter did to trump, toss a false info alert and link to something that describes the topic in more detail. If the user was trying to sell something or harass other users more with it then maybe banning would be appropriate, but from this limited example, probably not.

 

[Buyetyen]

Ok then so here's the questions again that you've dodged.

1) if Twitter publishing fact checks on Trumps tweets is not them acting as a Publisher them how is it acting as a platform when they themselves as a corporate entity are putting that out?

2) How is this situation different from The Escapist where different aspects are classified differently?

3) Do you believe a system should be applied just to Trump and doing so would constitute good faith?

Well, the questions you ask aren't very good.

1) Why is it suddenly a capital P? Is this a legal distinction?

2) Because it's not the same situation.

3) No. I would have thought that was obvious, but I apologize for assuming.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Well, the questions you ask aren't very good.

1) Why is it suddenly a capital P? Is this a legal distinction?

2) Because it's not the same situation.

3) No. I would have thought that was obvious, but I apologize for assuming.

You not wanting to give a definitive answer doesn't make the questions not good. Using the Community argument method here won't work.
I also thought you were previously objected to sidetracking so please answer the questions.

2) How is it not the same when both are not publishing their own things but also giving a platform to others?

3) While it should have been obvious it took long enough for you to state the position and in this day and age it's good not to assume a person will always believe the obvious thing. For all I knew your position was Trump is the only politician who ever lies and so he specifically needed to be fact checked.

 

[Houseman]

But we still run into the problem of there not really being two genders

It doesn't matter how many genders there are, if gender is a spectrum, or whatever else there is about it.

What matters is that a platform has their own version of "the truth", and is willing to remove anything or anyone who disagrees. This is the danger. It's dangerous regardless if they're right or wrong.

If a company as large as twitter were taken over by Russia, or China, or nazis, and they started censoring content that disagreed with them and their ideologies, you'd probably be able to see WHY it's dangerous pretty quickly. They'd be censoring everything except what they see as "the truth". They'd be using the same power that you seem to agree with, the only difference is that someone you don't agree with is using the power.

The ability to censor and/or direct the flow public discourse is a weapon. Like nukes, it is a weapon that is too powerful to be used. It doesn't matter who uses it, or why. It simply shouldn't be used.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Ok, that makes more sense.

But we still run into the problem of there not really being two genders, its more of a spectrum, you could make the argument there are 2 sexes much more easily based on genitalia. But gender is more of a spectrum, and the term non-binary refers to those that don't align withe the male/female binary our society has. Such as a feminine man or masculine woman or a trans individual. In fact, our societial view of there just being two genders is pretty weird, a lot of other cultures have a 3rd gender or even non-gendered grouping. Such as the two-spirit folks from indigenous american cultures or the Hijra in south asian cultures. In fact there are stories of non-binary people that go back to the babalonians 4000 years ago as the first story in this vid covers.

Anyway, back to the topic, should that person be banned for spreading false information. I'm, not sure it still depends on context, if its literally just them saying it then, maybe fact checked, if they are using it against another user... depends on how they are doing it. Offhand I would say the platform should do something similar to what twitter did to trump, toss a false info alert and link to something that describes the topic in more detail. If the user was trying to sell something or harass other users more with it then maybe banning would be appropriate, but from this limited example, probably not.

Ah but based on the research of Dr Verma it's been shown there are kind of two distinct general neurological connection patterns and other research has shown there are two distinct sets of characteristics that apply to a lot of people round the world.

Here's the BBC documentary on all this


Also the argument then becomes if Gender is a spectrum and not actually biologically linked one way or another than people don't "Need" to transition as such because doing so wouldn't help. While taking the neurological component and applying it to gender gives a very good explanation and reason for transition and it being an effective treatment.

As for ancient stories as part of the argument. There's ancient stories of people using magical abilities etc. Hell based on the past and the more rigid gender binary role back then it's strange to argue that a woman doing what was traditionally a mans work back then made her another gender. Doe that mean women doing roles that used to be mens ones today are Nonbinary? I doubt most of them would see themselves that way.

I'm bringing this up to show how tough it can be to determine what should be considered false information.

 

[Exley97]

1) as much bearing as your hypothetical does.

2) It's very easy to turn round and claim it's Jest after the fact which is part of the issue so it would have to be insanely clear it was jest to begin with not done out of malice.

3) However there have been cases of people suing the escapist in the past because when it publishes articles etc or claims about people itself it isn't protected by section 230 on those. It's protected here on the forums from what we say

1. Exactly -- which is to say, your hypothetical wasn't really relevant, and my *personal* experience was offered to explain why your hypthetical example A) likely wouldn't result in your desired outcome, and B) isn't really relevant.

2. Yes, it's VERY easy to claim an insult or potentially defamatory statement wasn't meant to be taken literally (oh hello, Elon Musk), which is...what I said previously. Whether it's after the fact or not is irrelevant because you rarely get defamation cases where someone says "I absolutely mean this literally and in no uncertain terms, I am accusing this person of pedophelia and waive all claims to this being in jest!"

3. Uh....publishing articles is entirely different that forum posts. Lawsuits against the Escapist for content generated by its own staff or freelancers is not covered under Section 230. That's...the whole point of 230. Plaforms and communications providers can't be held legally responsible for the content that users post on those mediums.

 

[Buyetyen]

I also thought you were previously objected to sidetracking so please answer the questions.

No I said I was ignoring your what-ifs.

2) How is it not the same when both are not publishing their own things but also giving a platform to others?

I've lost the plot, now you're saying The Escapist doesn't publish its own content? Was that a typo?

3) While it should have been obvious it took long enough for you to state the position and in this day and age it's good not to assume a person will always believe the obvious thing. For all I knew your position was Trump is the only politician who ever lies and so he specifically needed to be fact checked.

An interesting assumption to make, but whatevs. Is this going somewhere?

 

[Exley97]

Escapist publishing their own articles would count them as a publisher.

The comments section would be protected as a platform.

Why can this NOT be applied to twitter then with their own fact checking they are choosing to publish vs platform for other stuff?

Because platforms are entitled to enforcing their own terms of service AND receiving Section 230 protection as long as they are not fundamentally altering or manipulating the actual statements or content provided by users. A ban, takedown or a "fact check" of a statement does not change the actual words. See this explainer from the Electronic Frontier Foundation: https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230

 

[Worgen]

It doesn't matter how many genders there are, if gender is a spectrum, or whatever else there is about it.

What matters is that a platform has their own version of "the truth", and is willing to remove anything or anyone who disagrees. This is the danger. It's dangerous regardless if they're right or wrong.

If a company as large as twitter were taken over by Russia, or China, or nazis, and they started censoring content that disagreed with them and their ideologies, you'd probably be able to see WHY it's dangerous pretty quickly. They'd be censoring everything except what they see as "the truth". They'd be using the same power that you seem to agree with, the only difference is that someone you don't agree with is using the power.

The ability to censor and/or direct the flow public discourse is a weapon. Like nukes, it is a weapon that is too powerful to be used. It doesn't matter who uses it, or why. It simply shouldn't be used.

Hence why fact checking can be complicated. Doesn't mean we don't need it.

Ah but based on the research of Dr Verma it's been shown there are kind of two distinct general neurological connection patterns and other research has shown there are two distinct sets of characteristics that apply to a lot of people round the world.

Here's the BBC documentary on all this

Also the argument then becomes if Gender is a spectrum and not actually biologically linked one way or another than people don't "Need" to transition as such because doing so wouldn't help. While taking the neurological component and applying it to gender gives a very good explanation and reason for transition and it being an effective treatment.

As for ancient stories as part of the argument. There's ancient stories of people using magical abilities etc. Hell based on the past and the more rigid gender binary role back then it's strange to argue that a woman doing what was traditionally a mans work back then made her another gender. Doe that mean women doing roles that used to be mens ones today are Nonbinary? I doubt most of them would see themselves that way.

I'm bringing this up to show how tough it can be to determine what should be considered false information.

I don't care about that, I'm going by what the APA says. One person does not make science, science is made by groups who test a hypothesis and ensure there is no evidence against it and that it can become a theory.

Answers to your questions about transgender people, gender identity, and gender expression

Transgender is an umbrella term used to describe people whose gender identity (sense of themselves as male or female) or gender expression differs from socially constructed norms associated with their birth sex. This includes androgynous, bigendered and gender queer people, who tend to see...

www.apa.org