I can picture that woman walking around a gulag with a notebook taking complaints from prisoners, and then reminding them that they are there because they are considered problematic by the communist party, with a smile on her face. She is that scary.
March 13, 2019
Comment to Joe Rogan Experience #1258 – Jack Dorsey, Vijaya Gadde & Tim Pool:
[Rupp’s comment may be a little overstated but it’s not wrong.
This was an fantastic podcast. Daughter Jaime strongly recommended it to me. She was super impressed with Tim Pool. I’m really glad I listened to it.
Jack Dorsey is, of course, the co-founder and CEO of Twitter. Vijaya Gadde serves as the global lead for legal, policy, and trust and safety at Twitter.
If you are following the suppression of speech in social media issue you must listen to this. After faltering a bit in the beginning Tim Pool articulates the case for free speech extraordinarily well. There were times when he would say something so clearly and compelling I could not think of anything other than, “Wow!”. More than once, in response, Gadde would respond with, “I don’t know what that means.” They apparently live on a different planet.
I did form the opinion that they are probably not being deliberately malicious. Everyone agreed that the political left wants to ban anyone opposing them from social media. Twitter’s own internal data shows that the political left has a strong tendency to only follow those of a similar political view while the political right are much more likely to follow a political mix. Even if Twitter employees were politically neutral, which they are not, there would be difficult challenges in creating a social media platform that was “comfortable” for all participants. Because the political left exercises their Outrage Culture with the tiniest or even fabricated justification and the political right tends to shrug it off, the “squeaky wheel gets greased.” This comment by Vokzmedizen is a good summary of this aspect of the discussion:
The left wants to suppress free speech, and is cowardly in its willingness to rat people out to accomplish this, and hypocritically willing to deliberately exaggerate and distort context to claim offense they do not actually feel (In fact, they are overjoyed to discover something ‘actionable’ in what the other person said, even when they know full well something else was meant!) They right is loathe to suppress free speech, and does not wish to show gutlessness by reporting people, and would rather contend with the offender directly.
So it is obvious that a policy that relies on reporting frequency and simply accepts statements of harm in the report, and seeks for context in the ‘tweets’ that supports the report rather than exonerates the speaker, is going to manifest serious skewing to the left. This is simply because the left is going to report anything opportunistically, while the right will only report on the truly egregious.
A fair policy would take THIS ‘context’ into account, and tend to give LESS credence to reports that are essentially harassment themselves (left), and MORE credence to reports that come from the right. The REALITY is most likely that Twitter CREATED the policy in order to FACILITATE the left methodology. There are many other facilitations that source a DELIBERATE skew. For example, accusers are anonymous. The accused is allowed to face his accuser in our culture, anything else is generally considered Stalinist. Again, as mentioned, the policy against misgendering is politically left. Again, they consider dog piling bannable, but yet a coordinated mass reporting is considered legitimate.
My impression is that Tim Pool completely outclassed Dorsey and Gadde. They were overwhelmed.
I suspect Tim is right in that Twitter will continued down the path of good intentions not realizing that this path cannot turn out well. Twitter management doesn’t really want to facilitate the avalanche even if they do have strong signals it is coming. Because they view themselves as just another snowflake (Pool’s analogy) they will not realize they were a contributor when the avalanche (civil war was discussed) happens.—Joe]
“…they will not realize they were a contributor when the avalanche (civil war was discussed) happens.”
And they really won’t realize that CW2 will be 4th Generation and the ROE (Rules Of Engagement) will be ‘Bill Clinton’s ROE as applied to the Serbs’ 20 years ago.
One alternative to this bias of social media is to simply not participate. Who needs that crap anyway? Does reading the Tweets of some inarticulate ranting leftist enhance our lives in any way? Kitten and puppy pictures on Facebook are cute, but there’s only so many I need to see.
I check into Facebook maybe a couple times a month, have no Twitter account, barely know what Instagram is, and am probably missing a few other social media outlets.
I know that there are folks who live (virtually) through that media. Basically their lives would end as they know them if their smart phones went down for a day. What a sad commentary.
Same here, only more so. The closest I come to social media is a few blogs I read. None of the usual outlets. No smartphone, either.
SILENCE = DEATH
If you don’t come out of the closet and defend yourself in public you will be called a subhuman monster who should be exterminated and the ignorant masses will go along with it.
Or by stating your opinion, do you place yourself higher on the list of subhuman monsters to be cleansed?
I ‘m pretty sure the ignorant masses will worry about keeping their own skins intact and go which ever will provide the greatest safety.
I do find it depressing the the best and brightest just don’t get freedoms shall not be infringed.
It’s posted elsewhere that “If you’re not on someone’s list, you’re not doing enough.”
Whose list should we be concerned about?
They’re not some neo sans-cullotes storming the barricades while shouting Liberté, égalité, fraternité!”
They’re cowards outside of their safezones, and not much braver inside them, since they’ve been noted to cut and run at the fist sign of violence exerted against them.
They’re loudmouths who pontideficate to hear themselves speak and convince their constituents to re-elect them to their cushy places on the .gov gravy train.
The military forces?
They’re more likely to take the constitutionalist patriot’s side or just simply sit out any festivities and remain in garrison.
So far, we’re seeing quite a lot of Sheriff’s declaring that their counties are ‘2nd Amendment Sanctuaries’.
When I bought my first gun it was because Bill Clinton had just been elected, I realized gun ownership was going to get much more difficult, and I had just gone through the Ruby Ridge incident from only a few miles away. I felt so powerless that I knew I had to change. I bought my first gun without a paper trail. All the ammo I purchased for many months was cash only from local stores. When I went to a gun show I wore a disguise and turned off my cell phone miles before I pulled into the parking lot. I was very, very careful to not let it be widely known I was a gun owner. I finally realized, with some help from my wife, that if the situation was so bad that I needed to keep my head that low, it was past time to Shoot the Bastards. I didn’t think it was time to start shooting so what was the alternative? What would be the best use of my limited resources? I decided to go the opposite direction. I was going to be public and make noise. And I mean that both figurately and literally.
That said, I was at the NRA convention one year talking with a well known “shooting personality”. He told me, “You and I will never have to worry about getting into a shooting battle with the government over guns.” I was a bit surprised that he could say that with so much certainty. “Why is that?”, I asked. His reply showed he had put more thought into that I had initially given him credit for, “Because, when they start rounding people up you and I will be at the very top of the list.”
I still think it is better to be “loud and proud” than to hide in the closet.
She kept repeating “violate our rules” and “pattern and practice”.
How’s this for “pattern and practice”: All the Hamas, al-Qaeda, Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood accounts who routinely call for violence, the destruction of Israel, and the deaths of Jews and Americans. How many have been permanently banned? How many have even been warned or suspended?
And they have the Twitter folks dead to rights on disparately-enforced rules. They can hide behind “It’s a rule, we enforce it on everybody”, but the way the rules are written and arbitrated — what’s allowed and what’s not — clearly favor one side over the other. The example given about the “trans” debate: whether a person born male can ever be female, and whether it’s appropriate to use pronouns reflective of the biological reality. That is a valid ideological debate with a LOT of free speech implications, but the way the rules are written open ONE SIDE ONLY to suspension or banning based on what the OTHER side finds “offensive”. In the context of “misgendering”, it’s considered an innocent mistake when done to conservatives, and a deliberate and actionable attack when done to “trans” people.
Of course the side prone to being “offended” will “win” the majority of these encounters.
MySpace disappeared when Facebook came along.
Maybe a DuckDuckGo privacy protecting website will replace Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc.
I think the vast body of SCOTUS decisions regarding free speech in company towns and in shopping centers should apply as plainly and directly analogous.
Second, the way the rules are applied is similarly regulated by First Amendment decisions regarding such things as parade or demonstration permits.
Third, the decisions and dicta regarding the “Heckler’s Veto” are things Facebook and other leftist-run and infested digital forae of that ilk would do well to read and heed.