• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Twitter stops running political ads on platform

tacomancer said:
people are shockingly easy to manipulate emotionally. Its actually quite sad and it usually takes a whole generation before people become wise to whatever the technique of the day is. But people are not perfect and because you don't have the needed education to see it doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.

and to put it bluntly, an unemotional engine like an AI is well suited to exploiting our vulnerabilities in this regard. This is like hand guns versus a nuclear bomb, there is a reasonable and optimal space for social freedoms versus technology.
Click to expand...

US Citizens have a right to be easily manipulated. That is their choice. It's not for someone else to decide.

We go there, we have lost the country.
 
ocean515 said:
US Citizens have a right to be easily manipulated.
Click to expand...

Well, we certainly know one person who has been.

:july_4th:Ocean515:july_4th:

giphy.gif
 
code1211 said:
Marketplace of ideas - Wikipedia

<snip>
The marketplace of ideas metaphor is founded in the philosophy of John Milton in his work Areopagitica in 1644 and also John Stuart Mill in his book On Liberty in 1859.[1]

It was later used in opinions by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The first reference to the "free trade in ideas" within "the competition of the market" appears in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s dissent in Abrams v. United States.[2]

The phrase "marketplace of ideas" first appears in a concurring opinion by Justice William O. Douglas in the Supreme Court decision United States v. Rumely in 1953:

"Like the publishers of newspapers, magazines, or books, this publisher bids for the minds of men in the market place of ideas".[3]

The Supreme Court's 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio enshrined the marketplace of ideas as the dominant public policy in American free speech law (that is, against which narrow exceptions to freedom of speech must be justified by specific countervailing public policies).

<snip>
Click to expand...

cen·sorship
/ˈsensərSHip/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

As I said ....
RaleBulgarian said:
There is no censorship going on here. Twitter is a privately owned company, entitled to operate as it pleases.
Click to expand...
 
washunut said:
Will be interesting to see how they define a political ad. Is any tweet by Trump or CNN on a political issue an ad? Is an ad only something someone pays Twitter for or is it any tweet they consider political?Then what is considered political? If someone tweets that we just had the hottest summer in history is that a tweet about global warming or just a statement of fact (just an example not sure if it was the hottest summer).
Click to expand...
Maybe you could try reading the article, and the linked one on the actual announcement from Twitter you'd know the answers to most of those questions and also when the answers the rest will be clarified. :cool:
 
tacomancer said:
and that pretty much has nothing to do with what twitter is addressing.
Click to expand...

It's exactly what Twitter is addressing. Ads by conservatives are the only way to counter the leftwing Twitter feed. Now they can't do that, which was the Marxist goal all along.
 
Mashmont said:
It's exactly what Twitter is addressing. Ads by conservatives are the only way to counter the leftwing Twitter feed. Now they can't do that, which was the Marxist goal all along.
Click to expand...

Please see my conversation with ocean515 and educate yourself on the real issue.
 
Good. Now, Right Wing Cum Dumpster Zuckerberg, who is openly allowing Shapiro's Daily Wire to flaunt and openly break FB's own rules while punishing others (so much for "liberal bias) needs to do the same.
 
Mashmont said:
It's exactly what Twitter is addressing. Ads by conservatives are the only way to counter the leftwing Twitter feed. Now they can't do that, which was the Marxist goal all along.
Click to expand...

Total nonsense reply.

You want a platform? Go make one.

Capitalism and rights to association are a bitch, aren't they?
 
ocean515 said:
Agreed.

These questions of subjective censorship being deployed by these dominate social media platforms raises some real Constitutional issues.

On one hand, a business/corporation should have a right to make business decisions that it feels best suit it's objectives.

On the other hand, given their dominance as a means of social discourse, should they be allowed to manipulate the information they allow their consumers to see?

It seems obvious these questions will need to be hammered out in the courts.

What is concerning to me is the endorsement of censorship on the part of so many people.
Click to expand...

That concerns me as well.

The Democrat-Socialists are quick to pursue political opponents into restaurants in mobs and harass them. Their political leaders recommend attacking political opponents and harassing them wherever they are.

They gleefully scream that individuals should be stripped of their privately owned social media accost to silence their voices.

Now the Social Media owners are employing prior restraint to systematically strip away political discourse from the marketplace of ideas.

They do all of this crying that they are protecting First Amendment rights. This simultaneously reveals their tendency toward dictatorial controls and their lack of understanding of what freedom means and demands.

Your concern on this topic is justified on various levels for various reasons. The leadership of this kind of thinking is evil and devious. Their followers are just plain ignorant and stupid.

The rest of us are concerned.
 
code1211 said:
That concerns me as well.

The Democrat-Socialists are quick to pursue political opponents into restaurants in mobs and harass them. Their political leaders recommend attacking political opponents and harassing them wherever they are.

They gleefully scream that individuals should be stripped of their privately owned social media accost to silence their voices.

Now the Social Media owners are employing prior restraint to systematically strip away political discourse from the marketplace of ideas.

They do all of this crying that they are protecting First Amendment rights. This simultaneously reveals their tendency toward dictatorial controls and their lack of understanding of what freedom means and demands.

Your concern on this topic is justified on various levels for various reasons. The leadership of this kind of thinking is evil and devious. Their followers are just plain ignorant and stupid.

The rest of us are concerned.
Click to expand...

I had a recent epiphany after reading through this thread and others like it, and noting the support for these actions by the usual crowd.

It seems there is a belief among them that people are incapable of applying rational thought and logical reasoning to what the see and hear.

In effect, an admission of a deficiency, and a susceptibility to propaganda and manipulation.

That drew me to the sources they use to understand what to think about any given topic.

It's explains why their fake news sources can feed them all this biased, distorted information, and they don't question it for a second.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
cen·sorship
/ˈsensərSHip/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

As I said ....
Click to expand...

Your new post affirms that there IS censorship going on here.

What makes you think that anyone suppressing or prohibiting the flow of ideas is not censoring them?

Did you read your post before posting it?
 
code1211 said:
Your new post affirms that there IS censorship going on here.

What makes you think that anyone suppressing or prohibiting the flow of ideas is not censoring them?

Did you read your post before posting it?
Click to expand...
Apparently, you didn’t read the entire definition.
“ that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security”

Twitter is not publicly owned and as such has zero/nada/no responsibility to allow anything it doesn’t want. Deal with it.
 
ocean515 said:
I had a recent epiphany after reading through this thread and others like it, and noting the support for these actions by the usual crowd.

It seems there is a belief among them that people are incapable of applying rational thought and logical reasoning to what the see and hear.

In effect, an admission of a deficiency, and a susceptibility to propaganda and manipulation.

That drew me to the sources they use to understand what to think about any given topic.

It's explains why their fake news sources can feed them all this biased, distorted information, and they don't question it for a second.
Click to expand...

As McCluhan, said, the medium is the massage. More and more, it seems, people do not consume news as a source of information, but rather as a bias confirmation device.

They find comfort in the message they receive rather than critically analyzing what the news they consume is actually saying set in the world of actual events. Very few are asking, "If this is true, what else must be true?"

The current Impeachment device, the Quid Pro Quo, is the perfect example.

Biden confessed to and bragged about executing a Quid Pro Quo on behalf of Obama to interfere in the government's administration of a sovereign state for the personal profit realized by his son.

Trump did nothing of this sort. The Ukrainian president says he felt no pressure. Trump said he applied no pressure. The transcript reveals no pressure was asserted or acknowledged.

However, those who receive propaganda-as-news from CNN, NBC and the Leftist Elitists are told, and they believe, that Trump did what Biden has confessed to having done and then bragged about AND that Biden did no such thing.

Video taped evidence of Biden actually confessing and bragging about having done what they condemn Trump for having done is dismissed.

There is a cognitive disconnect in this. If it's not bias confirmation, then it's something worse. Good people can be diverted from good thinking. It's happened before and it's happening again all around us.
 
code1211 said:
As McCluhan, said, the medium is the massage. More and more, it seems, people do not consume news as a source of information, but rather as a bias confirmation device.

They find comfort in the message they receive rather than critically analyzing what the news they consume is actually saying set in the world of actual events. Very few are asking, "If this is true, what else must be true?"

The current Impeachment device, the Quid Pro Quo, is the perfect example.

Biden confessed to and bragged about executing a Quid Pro Quo on behalf of Obama to interfere in the government's administration of a sovereign state for the personal profit realized by his son.

Trump did nothing of this sort. The Ukrainian president says he felt no pressure. Trump said he applied no pressure. The transcript reveals no pressure was asserted or acknowledged.

However, those who receive propaganda-as-news from CNN, NBC and the Leftist Elitists are told, and they believe, that Trump did what Biden has confessed to having done and then bragged about AND that Biden did no such thing.

Video taped evidence of Biden actually confessing and bragging about having done what they condemn Trump for having done is dismissed.

There is a cognitive disconnect in this. If it's not bias confirmation, then it's something worse. Good people can be diverted from good thinking. It's happened before and it's happening again all around us.
Click to expand...

Well said. Exactly and precisely on point.

Being and old grey haired baby boomer, I've often wondered how people get swayed to support things that are outrageous. I think of German citizens in the '30's.

Today, I am seeing the answer to my question played out in real time.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Apparently, you didn’t read the entire definition.
“ that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security”

Twitter is not publicly owned and as such has zero/nada/no responsibility to allow anything it doesn’t want. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

You are laboring under the delusion that censorship is only possible if it is conducted by a government. That is not true.

The definition you posted makes this clear. Why are you unable to understand it?
 
code1211 said:
You are laboring under the delusion that censorship is only possible if it is conducted by a government. That is not true.

The definition you posted makes this clear. Why are you unable to understand it?
Click to expand...
The definition makes it clear that Twitter isn’t censoring. It isn’t that they aren’t allowing certain ads. That would be censoring.

Twitter is getting out of the business of allowing any political ads. That means they want to be like Switzerland in WW2. Neutral.

Get it now?

Probably not. :roll:
 
RaleBulgarian said:
The definition makes it clear that Twitter isn’t censoring. It isn’t that they aren’t allowing certain ads. That would be censoring.

Twitter is getting out of the business of allowing any political ads. That means they want to be like Switzerland in WW2. Neutral.

Get it now?

Probably not. :roll:
Click to expand...

Not exactly true.What constitutes a 'political ad"?
The policy will not apply to voter-registration drives. Will it apply to Black Lives Matter or Greenpeace? Will Twitter bar Planned Parenthood from advertising its abortion services? How will Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has called for social media companies to censor political ads, react to the news that the National LGBTQ Task Force can no longer sponsor outreach to at-risk transgender youth?
 
KLATTU said:
Not exactly true.What constitutes a 'political ad"?
The policy will not apply to voter-registration drives. Will it apply to Black Lives Matter or Greenpeace? Will Twitter bar Planned Parenthood from advertising its abortion services? How will Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has called for social media companies to censor political ads, react to the news that the National LGBTQ Task Force can no longer sponsor outreach to at-risk transgender youth?
Click to expand...
You must be truly uninformed if you don’t know what constitutes a “political ad”. And based on the, not politically affiliated, groups you named, it’s easy to see that, indeed, you are truly uninformed.
 
ocean515 said:
Well said. Exactly and precisely on point.

Being and old grey haired baby boomer, I've often wondered how people get swayed to support things that are outrageous. I think of German citizens in the '30's.

Today, I am seeing the answer to my question played out in real time.
Click to expand...

In the case of 30's Germany that bought Hitler to power, one of his promises was that there would be food for everyone within a day of him getting power.

Germany at that time was a failing nation state and there were literally people starving in the streets. On the night of his win, there were wagons pulled through the streets by horses distributing bread to citizens.

As the saying goes; When the table is empty, there is one problem, when the table is full, there are many problems.

After Hitler "filled the table", he needed "the single issue" to focus thought and that was hate of the common enemy. The common enemy included Jews among a group that Hitler defied as denying justified wealth from the German People.

Today, the Democrat-Socialists are employing the same "common enemy" tactic to maintain their base of power and to divide the American people along contrived lines.

Today's US Conservatives think the Democrat-Socialists are odd and a little dim witted. They pity their opponents. The Democrat-Socialists think that anyone who stands in their way is evil. They hate their opponents.

Since they are filled with hate instead of logic or reason, they cannot see how silly and contrived their conclusions are. It's comical in a "Hitler's not laughing at you, he's laughing with you" kind of a way.

It's easy to see why you think of 30's Germany. The tools and tactics have been resurrected and put to use by a new group and they seductively use them. Again.
 
Last edited:
RaleBulgarian said:
The definition makes it clear that Twitter isn’t censoring. It isn’t that they aren’t allowing certain ads. That would be censoring.

Twitter is getting out of the business of allowing any political ads. That means they want to be like Switzerland in WW2. Neutral.

Get it now?

Probably not. :roll:
Click to expand...

Censoring anything is censorship. If they have decided to censor political ads, they are censoring political ads.

Are you really this dense?
 
code1211 said:
Censoring anything is censorship. If they have decided to censor political ads, they are censoring political ads.

Are you really this dense?
Click to expand...
You definitely are if you believe what you just posted.
 
Looks like Tweety will have to tell his Russian buddies to move their interference to Facebook this time around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom