Should Twitter reveal old Twitter's role in spreading disinformation about the Hunter Biden laptop?

[Estro Felino]

Yeah and he’s exposed himself as a giant loser in the process. Advertisers have largely abandoned ship as the trolls come out in force, bullying, harassing and otherwise degrading others. Hiding behind “mah free speech” like the cowards they are.
I never used Twitter before, so I couldn’t care less. But it’s been beyond amusing to watch the show.

I give you an example. Roseanne Barr's tweet would be considered within freedom of speech in my country.
Because she has the right to express an opinion.
After Racist Tweet, Roseanne Barr’s Show Is Canceled by ABC (Published 2018)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No. Freedom of speech.

Free speech is freely exchanging ideas without the state saying you can't, it's being able to tell the established institutions to bugger off and the state can't do anything.
Being a jerk, what many people call an exercise in free speech, is just being a jerk. Being punished for following the rules you agreed to is just life. Saying the rules shouldn't apply is having am overinflated sense of entitlement.
You must agree to the rules to use any social media platform.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I give you an example. Roseanne Barr's tweet would be considered within freedom of speech in my country.
Because she has the right to express an opinion.
After Racist Tweet, Roseanne Barr’s Show Is Canceled by ABC (Published 2018)

That has nothing to do with free speech. She said it. She got to. Her employer, those paying her paycheck and paying to make her show, are also free to associate with those they wish to and free to not extend relationships with someone they have found, for whatever reason, to be someone they no longer wish to continue to do business with.

 

[Estro Felino]

That has nothing to do with free speech. She said it. She got to. Her employer, those paying her paycheck and paying to make her show, are also free to associate with those they wish to and free to not extend relationships with someone they have found, for whatever reason, to be someone they no longer continue desire to do business with.

I have never understood what she said wrong.

 

[Estro Felino]

Free speech is freely exchanging ideas without the state saying you can't, it's being able to tell the established institutions to bugger off and the state can't do anything.
Being a jerk, what many people call an exercise in free speech, is just being a jerk. Being punished for following the rules you agreed to is just life. Saying the rules shouldn't apply is having am overinflated sense of entitlement.
You must agree to the rules to use any social media platform.

In my country nobody cares what other people say.
There is a wider notion of freedom of speech.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have never understood what she said wrong.

I care so little about social media and celebrity crap I don't know what she even said.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In my country nobody cares what other people say.
There is a wider notion of freedom of speech.

I'm sure Italy still honors agreements between parties.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm sure Italy still honors agreements between parties.

If they violate constitutional freedoms, we don't honor them

 

[SomeRandom]

I give you an example. Roseanne Barr's tweet would be considered within freedom of speech in my country.
Because she has the right to express an opinion.
After Racist Tweet, Roseanne Barr’s Show Is Canceled by ABC (Published 2018)

And in mine. Her show would still be cancelled though.
You can say whatever you want. You’re not entitled to do so without social consequences.
Celebrity tweets and statements have been under a microscope since ancient times. If they reflect poorly on whatever project or company they belong to, they will face potential consequences as a direct result of this thing called PR. Again this has been a thing since before Plato!
Roseanne exercised her right to free speech. Her employers merely exercised their right to decide on the future of the project that they have full ownership of. They can do that for whatever reason they like. That’s just how it works. Always has.
Free speech does not equal a right to a platform. She can still say whatever the hell she wants. She just can’t do so at the expense of those she represents in public.
Indeed many celebrities have lost their shows for a lot less.
So what’s the issue again?
The company she works for can fire her for whatever reason they see fit. Seems like this tweet of hers was deemed to reflect poorly on said company, so they fired her. And?
That’s just how showbiz works, hell it’s how being employed in general works. If I wrote on social media some crass tasteless joke and my profile was immediately recognised as belonging to the specific company I work for, my butt would be fired faster than you could say
“But my free speech.”
Like companies have stipulations on social media presence for a reason these days.

Free speech is not some magical shield one can hide behind to avoid responsibility. Which I see happening more and more these days. I guess personal responsibility is considered overrated lol

 

[Estro Felino]

And in mine. Her show would still be cancelled though.
You can say whatever you want. You’re not entitled to do so without social consequences.
Celebrity tweets and statements have been under a microscope since ancient times. If they reflect poorly on whatever project or company they belong to, they will face potential consequences as a direct result of this thing called PR. Again this has been a thing since before Plato!
Roseanne exercised her right to free speech. Her employers merely exercised their right to decide on the future of the project that they have full ownership of. They can do that for whatever reason they like. That’s just how it works. Always has.
Free speech does not equal a right to a platform. She can still say whatever the hell she wants. She just can’t do so at the expense of those she represents in public.
Indeed many celebrities have lost their shows for a lot less.
So what’s the issue again?
A company will always worry about the image they have in public. So if an employee of theirs does or says something that jeopardises said image, then they will either get fired or face disciplinary action. That’s just how it works in business. All businesses. I fail to see where her right to free speech was infringed upon. No business is legally required to keep her employed. That’s not how it works in grownup land. Shocking I know

Free speech is not some magical shield one can hide behind to avoid responsibility. Which I see happening more and more these days. I guess personal responsibility is considered overrated lol

But in my country dismissal without just cause is not doable. It becomes illegal if the employer wants to prevent the employee from exercising a constitutional freedom (like that Art. 21 Constitution).
So her show wouldn't have been cancelled here.

 

[SomeRandom]

But in my country dismissal without just cause is not doable. It becomes illegal if the employer wants to prevent the employee from exercising a constitutional freedom (like that Art. 21 Constitution).
So her show wouldn't have been cancelled here.

Roseanne is American last I checked.
Neither yours or my own constitutions apply.
And indeed they can fire you for whatever reason they want to in America. As is my understanding. No where in their constitution does it stipulate that an employer must retain someone. She exercised her right to free speech. Her company exercised their right to cancel a project they own. No laws were broken and indeed no one’s rights were infringed upon.
So what’s the issue?


This so called example of free speech being under attack is pretty flimsy, I must say. Sorry, but like I said, many celebrities have lost their shows for a hell of a lot less. Including those in my own country. And we have far better unionisation than the States lol

 

[Estro Felino]

Roseanne is American last I checked.
Neither yours or my own constitutions apply.
And indeed they can fire you for whatever reason they want to in America. As is my understanding. No where in their constitution does it stipulate that an employer must retain someone. She exercised her right to free speech. Her company exercised their right to cancel a project they own. No laws were broken and indeed no one’s rights were infringed upon.
So what’s the issue?


This so called example of free speech being under attack is pretty flimsy, I must say. Sorry, but like I said, many celebrities have lost their shows for a hell of a lot less. Including those in my own country. And we have far better unionisation than the States lol

But that was not my question.
I had asked @Shadow Wolf what Roseanne Barr had said wrong in that tweet.
I do respect the company's decision to cancel her show.
I just want to know why.
What's wrong with what she said.

 

[SomeRandom]

But that was not my question.
I had asked @Shadow Wolf what Roseanne Barr had said wrong in that tweet.
I do respect the company's decision to cancel her show.
I just want to know why.
What's wrong with what she said.

My apologies. You brought it up and due to the context I assumed you were using it to illustrate a violation of freedom of speech

As to her specific tweet, as I understand it, she likened Obama’s adviser to an ape, and I think that is considered a slur in American culture (or she used a slur. I’m only going by what was reported on the news.)
Either way that’s something that would get you fired in most offices even, let alone get your show cancelled.
Like are you honestly asking why it’s not a good thing to post something that can very easily be construed as racist on social media? Seriously?

 

[Estro Felino]

My apologies. You brought it up and due to the context I assumed you were using it to illustrate a violation of freedom of speech

As to her specific tweet, as I understand it, she likened Obama’s adviser to an ape, and I think that is considered a slur in American culture (or she used a slur. I’m only going by what was reported on the news.)
Either way that’s something that would get you fired in most offices even, let alone get your show cancelled.
Like holy crap, racist much? Geez!

I think that her tweet was not that explicit. She didn't type the woman's name explicitly, so hers was a very subtle joke.
I think that that tweet was considered controversial because of its political content. Because Hillary's e-mails have cast doubts on the 44th POTUS' sympathies and affiliations, especially as for the management of the wards in the ME.

 

[SomeRandom]

I think that her tweet was not that explicit. She didn't type the woman's name explicitly, so hers was a very subtle joke.
I think that that tweet was considered controversial because of its political content. Because Hillary's e-mails have cast doubts on the 44th POTUS' sympathies and affiliations, especially as for the management of the wards in the ME.

Doesn’t really matter. Even Fox News called it racist. Fox News!!
I think they hate Hilary Clinton just on principle alone lol

Celebrities often mock or support or even denounce various politicians using jokes that don’t really get them in any trouble. That’s considered their right. If they do so in a way that crosses the lines of social acceptability, then that’s when they are subject to consequences.
That’s just how it works.
What’s the old meme?
We live in a society! Lol

 

[Revoltingest]

You're entitled to your opinion.

I grant you the same right.

I'm not presenting evidence because in all of these situations there are NDAs quite early in the supply chain process, and providing much quickly makes things specific enough to be recognisable.

But just to clarify my position;
1) I deliberately used the term MICC, not MIC. Congress is part of this issue, not a victim of it, and voters supporting Hawks (simplistically) is also part of it.
2) I didn't use the term conspiracy because on the whole I don't see it as such. There are simply too many parties rewarded for certain types of behaviour which can lead to overspends within the sector. That included politicians, and generals.

Generally, the MIC is invoked to claim a conspiracy
(the MICC), ie, that the private sector & military form
a cabal to send government to war. All unevidenced.

Without crossing boundaries relating to specific contracts or situations, I've been involved in deals around maintenance systems for various defence forces, with deal values of 9 figures, just around software and related services.
At that point, major defence forces aren't generally buying 'a maintenance system' but are instead effectively buying a supply chain, part of which includes the maintenance system, but the larger part being the production and maintenance backbone itself, which both produces and maintains the weapons/logistical equipment/whatever.

This perspective wouldn't illuminate which
parties are controlling or influencing government
to go to war.

I was in aircraft engineering design. I saw no
evidence that any of my employers had such
sway in government. (Moreover, Northrop was
particularly lacking in influence in the 70s, &
sucked hind teat regarding USA government
contracts. Complex story there for another day.
The others I worked for were insignificant.)

But you & I wouldn't have been in a position to
see the alleged MICC function anyway.

There is a huge amount of political lobbying at that point. If the production facilities are in state A vs B it literally impacts on employment figures in a material way. If the software provider is domestic vs foreign, there's a whole new paradigm, some of which is sensible (data sovereignty in fact) and some of which is simply political scare-mongering (data sovereignty as a political football)

The lobbying is by the manufacturer, the maintenance company (which may be the same or different, and is commonly a whole supply chain web), the software provider, the politicians, trade unions, and more.

Where is the evidence that they lobby for war,
not merely for service & materiel contracts?

It's not a conspiracy, for all that there are shared interests. It's capitalism, but at a scale that can directly impact on political process.

Where is the evidence that this uncoordinated
range of influences sends us to war?
The better explanation is that because we're
so capable with the MIC, the voters are quite
comfortable voting for hawkish candidates
who send us to war.

I've worked for a domestic provider, and for a 'foreign' provider, and you best believe that the messaging from a political point of view is vastly different, and bears little resemblance to reality.

Anyway...you have your own experiences, and that's fine. I'm not trying to convince you, just saying what I've seen.

I claim no expertise either. There were meetings beyond me, and I only ever saw the ramifications.
But I think I did gain some insight.

Kinda agree with these points. I use the term MICC, and the government (and even opposition politicians) are a force exuding pressure, not victim of it (in my experience).
And I think 2 is true. Just not the only factor.

We both have some insight.
It just isn't all that useful regarding the
MICC because we weren't in any role to
observe the claimed control of government.

Again....
The MICC is a common liberal claim.
They embrace it because it's useful.
They vote for hawks, who send us to
(& keep us in) war. The MICC is their
scapegoat.
This deflects blame from their leaders.


Note also that the MICC claim regarding
USA would be more in my arena, since
you're a ferriner.
Perhaps your country has such a conspiracy
that's real & possibly evidenced.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I give you an example. Roseanne Barr's tweet would be considered within freedom of speech in my country.
Because she has the right to express an opinion.
After Racist Tweet, Roseanne Barr’s Show Is Canceled by ABC (Published 2018)

The thing is, she had the right to say it. And the fact is, she said it.

Just as ABC had the right to fire her for saying it and potentially alienating its advertisers, which are a network's bread-and-butter.

It's not like she got arrested or something.
But having a "right" to say something doesn't mean other people don't have a "right" to call you out on it.

 

[Ponder This]

Elon Musk has hinted that he will reveal the logs of old Twitter's role in censoring and spreading disinformation before the 2020 election. This conspiracy was connected to Hunter Biden's laptop story, that was deemed Russian Disinformation. This led to good journalism being censored and suppressed and the lie sold as real.

The Swamp, Democrat Party, Main stream media, and Big Tech appear to have colluded in a disinformation campaign before the 2020 election. Does anyone think the details should be revealed or should this be buried, so the same tactics can be used again by the same cabal?

If true, what should be the consequences for this monopolistic conspiracy to defraud the voters? Was this an isolated event or business as usual for this same Cabal of powerful people? Was Trump right about fake news and its orders coming from the swamp?

Yes, Trump was right about fake news and we know that Twitter banned political voices and censored information. Perhaps we will find out how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Consequences should probably include government officials removed from office, Twitter employees removed from Twitter, and legislation considered with regards to the censorship of political speech.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, Trump was right about fake news and we know that Twitter banned political voices and censored information. Perhaps we will find out how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Consequences should probably include government officials removed from office, Twitter employees removed from Twitter, and legislation considered with regards to the censorship of political speech.

Trump is the epitome of fake news.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But that was not my question.
I had asked @Shadow Wolf what Roseanne Barr had said wrong in that tweet.
I do respect the company's decision to cancel her show.
I just want to know why.
What's wrong with what she said.

In America it is a norm that you can be fired at any time, for any reason, with or without cause. It's called at will employment. Now, we do also have protections against wrongful termination, but the media tends to be on a more contractual basis and no one can be legally mandated to extend contractual agreements beyond the agreed period or if the terms of the agreement have been breached.
It doesn't matter what Rosanne said or did or didn't do. Whatever it was, NBC or whoever decided to act in their right of association and ended it. And in America shows get cancelled for way less, including network executives failing to realize people were recording a show on DVR and watching it later. But it's their business.