First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Twitter blocks ad from Pro-life congresswoman calling it 'inflammatory' [10/13 UPDATE - decision reversed]
29000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/14/17
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/09/twitter-drops-gop-rep-marsha-blackburns-ad-for-inflammatory-line-about-planned-parenthood.html

Just like people not wanting to know how their luxury hamburger was made Twitter wants to let people wallow in ignorance. The truth hurts and scientific fact is the most effective tool in ending the casual, on-demand, as long as you can pay for it, ending of life.

Freedom of speech isn't part of the terms of use on Twitter and now they are showing their hand.

Edit: Twitter reverses its decision.


Cydoemus wrote:

Following up on the actual topic: Twitter changed its mind on Tuesday.
https://www.recode.net/2017/10/10/16455902/twitter-marsha-blackburn-video-ad-reversal-allowed


“After further review, we have made the decision to allow the content in question from Rep. Blackburn's campaign ad to be promoted on our ads platform,” a Twitter spokesperson said in an email to Recode. “While we initially determined that a small portion of the video used potentially inflammatory language, after reconsidering the ad in the context of the entire message, we believe that there is room to refine our policies around these issues. We have notified Rep. Blackburn's campaign of this decision."


I understand the context in regard to why Twitter removed it in the first place.
At the same time, they reserve the right to change their minds on the company level as well.


9662 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Online
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/11/17
Good to see Twitter has some guts after all.
29000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/10/17

geauxtigers1989 wrote:

Good to see Twitter has some guts after all.


I'm shocked you want messages to be censored. Shocked!
48689 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/11/17
Huh? So you think they should allow her to peddle that selling baby-parts falsehood? You types are so funny, all up in arms over fake twitter and facebook posts and just ignore the truth.

Twitter is a private company and they can take out the trash as they see fit.
12052 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/10/17
Ok so I watched the ad ... it literally has nothing to do with pro-life choices ...

i'm confused
14365 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/10/17
...not quite. blocking a message from being circulated as advertisement =/= blocking the message in its entirety.



Twitter said in a statement that it has different guidelines for what is acceptable in its promoted ads and what it deems appropriate for more general tweets. That's because advertising gives accounts a much broader reach. If someone wants to seek out Blackburn's opinions, they can follow her Twitter account or navigate to her feed. An ad, however, reaches people who have not actively sought out Blackburn's opinions in those ways, and therefore the company holds it to a different standard.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/10/10/twitter-blocked-a-congresswomans-antiabortion-ad-over-baby-body-parts-but-it-allowed-an-identical-tweet/
13119 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/11/17
I thought people were supposed to do free speech in their own time. You know, like I heard people advice NFL players do. So, get to it marsha, all the free speech you want in your living room. I believe in you. .

I'm mostly kidding though, not really invested enough to have a debate but got caught by OP's title .
14365 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/11/17
as for the ad being inflamatory - claiming that those who support abortion are in favor of killing babies and then selling their body parts to research institutions as profit. that's probably quite inflamatory, and not true in general.

edit: no, twitter didn't "take out the trash". they just prevented the message from being delivered through a loudspeaker (ads).
11 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/10/17
The only part that bothers me is the beyond one sided obvious bias. The worst part is they won't even admit it. Admitting "yeah we totally lean to the left" would make these things much easier.

We are seeing this with youtube and it's "adpocalypse." Youtubers on both sides are getting boned when it comes to ads and monetization. If ad companies don't want to run their ads on a certain channel, that's fine. But youtube shouldn't be so one sided when it comes to what ad company can advertise. Oh sure you don't want a gun ad being on a left leaning channel. Sure, fine. But don't proceed to disallow them to run on right leaning actual GUN channels. That's horse shit and one sided bias. A practice that will ultimately kill youtube.

Queue the "but they can do as they want." The problem is, there really is no alternative to these sites. It's very scary having a handful of companies being able to COMPLETELY CONTROL THE FLOW OF INFORMATION. The worst part is, they aren't in the middle and they aren't unbiased. They are bias and they all lean the same way, that becomes problematic. We're seeing them control the trending, we're seeing them censor things that show up on searches. They are fighting a losing war. All of them (fb, twitter, youtube,etc) not to mention killing their own political side in the process. Do things like that and then you get presidents like Trump. Just sayin..

It may not be against the 1st amendment due to them being a private company but it is indeed censorship and that's always bad regardless of the side.
1405 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/10/17
Rather than making this a continuation of your other thread (http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-975719/outlawing-abortion), I think it would be best to focus on the censoring of content in this thread.

While it is acceptable to post your video ("first amendment" and the likes), Twitter reserves the right to remove any content as per its rules or if there were enough users that reported it as some form of abuse.
This is primarily how it works with any type of social media outlet, including outlets like this forum.
Your messages can be edited or censored based on the content if it does not follow policy or if there is a justified reason (from a moderator's perspective; which may be subjective but they do attempt to be impartial to a degree) to do so.

"Freedom of Speech" does not extend to the Internet.
This right only extends to the power of the government of the United States of America and actions of the government.
I can dismiss you from my home if you were to speak of politics, race, or gender as they seem to be "hot topics" that I have little interest to listening to when I have a guest over.
You could inform me not to step onto your land or into your home based on your perceived notions of me or my character.
A business in the public domain have restrictions upon them that require equal opportunity access but this does not include "Freedom of Speech".
Ergo, you can be kicked out of a bar if the bar explicitly informed you that there is a "no profanity" rule and you decide to curse like a sailor to reject their censoring of your usage of specific words.
The government cannot do that.

This is one of those reasons why I start to question why everyone begins to wave around the "First Amendment" as if it's a catch-all for any and all services supplied by an individual or company.
It isn't.
Twitter doesn't have to show its hands or even hide them.
As a corporation, they are allowed to delete or ban anyone whom they feel should not be on their platform.

Discussion about abortions should likely be navigated to your main thread about "Outlawing Abortions" as it seems to be a "catch-all" for discussion on abortions, in general. (this is merely my thoughts on the matter and I am almost certain this thread will digress into the tumult that the other thread has already)
27135 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Prison
Online
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/10/17
I don't think there is scientific facts here, to be honest. It is merely a question of what happened, and what has been done by Marsha Blackburn in response, which seems more like facts devoid of any discipline in science, but demands of historical accuracy.

Not sure what you there OP. If we are talking fetal tissue's scientific feasibility, I imagine such a sample would be indeed of great value to study. I consider that scientific, versus other claims that are less related to science in general.

I have watched the ad there, and while I do not see anything wrong, really, I do see a lack of scientific claims there by Marsha Blackburn, who said "I am one hundred percent pro-life. I fought Planned Parenthood and we stopped the sale of baby body parts, thank God.”

To be fair, did any of the Republican measures pass, or do they believe that their investigation themselves halted sales?

Just wondering, tis all.



29000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/11/17

namealreadytaken wrote:

as for the ad being inflamatory - claiming that those who support abortion are in favor of killing babies and then selling their body parts to research institutions as profit. that's probably quite inflamatory, and not true in general.




Seeing Twitter so visibly reject and censor the the congresswoman based on ads being able to reach a wider audience is telling. Especially when pro-choice candidates can pay for ads that use euphemisms for describe a practice that that is desperately in need of them.
14365 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/10/17
actual video (notice: the left will find this uncomfortable. it's a right -wing ad afterall)
skip to 1:00


I am 100% pro life.... we've stopped the sale of baby body parts, thank God!

just because you support girls getting an abortion, it doesn't mean you support such sale. this message is not generally true (there's always those people who choose profit over anything else). as much as i loath twitter over some choices they make, i can't say i disagree with them over this. it's also worth noting that they didn't outright censort the message - they only limit the audience who sees it.
1079 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/11/17
You're irate over twitter blocking a congresswoman from blatantly lying to the public?
29000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/11/17

Cydoemus wrote:

"Freedom of Speech" does not extend to the Internet.


Um yes the fuck it does. It just isn't guaranteed if you are using someone else's platform, like YouTube, Twitter, etc...

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.