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]
15054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/10/17

21stCenturyGemini wrote:

You're irate over twitter blocking a congresswoman from blatantly lying to the public through a loudspeaker?


fixed - they only took away the loudspeaker and allowed her message to be shared and spread among individuals.
they didn't outright block her...for better or worse.
21385 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / SoFlo
Online
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/11/17

Cydoemus wrote:
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)


I try not to comment in these threads. Posters "like yourself" will make a compelling and educated argument, but you'll get ignored and your efforts wasted on OP. I hope I'm wrong and the OP engages you on your points because I agree with your post.
1453 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/11/17

MysticGon wrote:


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.


I believe you may have forgotten (or are not aware of) the time that Twitter had taken down an anti-abortion group's advertisement that displayed controversial images of fetuses.
Correct me if I am wrong but I think the name of this group was "Live Action" or something similar to that.
They were promoting an advertisement that suggested that undercover video stings of Planned Parenthood were a good thing to do in order to promote an "anti-abortion rhetoric".
They were promptly removed from Twitter and informed them that they can post this video to their direct Twitter account but the advertisements were removed due to the content.

This is the same thing in-play.
This is not new and the Congresswoman should have known this (or her Public Relations/Social Media team(s) should have) before posting such a video as an advertisement.
The outrage seems artificial and expected by her and her team, though.
So it appears that the Congresswoman is hoping to pull a President Trump-level of exposure on her advertising being pulled by Twitter to generate popularity (for her) and resentment (towards Twitter).
15054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/11/17
by the way, if twitter didn't take any action and let them use the advertisement platform, it would send a message that twitter, at least partially, supports said message. preventing her from using the ad platform to distribute the message is one way for twitter to distance themselves from her, while not outright blocking her.
31796 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/10/17
Freedom of speech is real however a company can block whatever it likes if you don't like it don't use the product.

12147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/10/17
Oh boo hoo, a private company declined to advertise for someone's feels over reals campaign. Another eeevil liberal blow to freedom from consequence, I mean freedom of speech.
16212 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/10/17
Not really sure why I should care. Political ads are cancer anyways.
1453 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/13/17

MysticGon wrote:


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...



You are always using somebody else's platform.
Your ISP handles all of the data that you're sending and receiving.
They can censor what you can or cannot access if they feel the need for it.
There are plenty of domestic internet service providers that do this out of the gate.
Then, it extends into the realm of the "Interweb".
Here, you are either on somebody else's website, forum, server or otherwise.
Moderators and Administrators of these domains, servers, or platforms can censor what you say, see, or do.

For example, I am certain you cannot see any forums dedicated to the Crunchyroll Moderators on this forum.
Why? Because your access has been limited to that of a "user".
Just like a moderator may edit or delete a post if it goes against the website's guidelines.
From the ISP to the website or service, there are many "breakpoints" where your content can or has been manipulated in some fashion or another.
This is why VPNs and custom/foreign DNS servers have become popular in the last year or two, as more people are realizing that websites are supplying "custom feeds" to an individual based either on their geological location, internet service provider, cookies or user account.

I will repeat: "Freedom of Speech" does not extend to the Internet.
Your messages and content are supplied to you (and others) on an "at-will" basis.
5652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / BuBbLeS!
Offline
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/13/17
naw it's not that they blocked/deleted it due to lies, it's more along the lines it was the right stating truths that was gathered without official means, thus, attacking the left is bad, but the left can attack the right all they want on twitter, facebook, and many others. in some cases it's encountered and welcomed.

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/04/20/new-documents-prove-planned-parenthood-illegally-profited-from-selling-aborted-baby-parts/
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/planned-parenthood-exec-caught-on-tape-i-think-selling-baby-parts-is-a-grea
62163 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / The stars.. too b...
Offline
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/13/17
Twitter is one of those companies that thinks you're unable to think critically. A video removed because it's "Inflammatory" ? More like ruins their agenda... While I'll agree they have the right to remove anything from their platform they deem inflammatory. They're just silencing dissenting opinions to form their own echo chamber. Can we just start calling Social Media and the corresponding companies, "The Ministry of Truth"?

As for those that call "selling baby parts" fake, could you explain the Project Veritas videos? Those were clearly staged, and they knew they were being recorded, right? Or they were just talking about selling fetus parts because they just wanted to troll??

In this day where lots of states have abortions up to 36 weeks, this kind of argument is distracting. Who cares if they're selling the parts, really? What gets me, and it really should have people put in prison for a long, long time, is the murder of life in the womb. So how much is 36 weeks? About 8 months give or take. What the video shows very accurately is the destruction of the FORMED and LIVING fetus. But lets be real here, the people willing to kill babies in the womb, I would say they already lack the empathy to care if those parts are sold or not.


Abortion is a get out of jail free card for irresponsible women, so they can go on and bang hundreds of men with no repercussions. Oh, but be a man, and get a woman pregnant that wants to keep the kid and your fucked for 18 years... Yay third wave Feminism, turning women into the irresponsible babies that they flush from their wombs.

There's obviously valid reasons to have an abortion but in todays climate, it's used as an eraser for shit decisions.
3713 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / The lowest stratum
Offline
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/10/17
Y'all need to learn to divorce ends from means:

Only on the surface am I happy when the anti-abortion crowd gets shot down in such an alarming fashion. Blackburn's line is less false than part of a narrative I dislike; the notion that it's just a straight falsehood is itself false, as the situation she's referring to is complicated and lends itself to competing explanations. I think hers is unfair, but to call it false is more than the data allows and disallows interpretation. This makes the support for censoring her dangerous. Not because of the first amendment - forget about that - but because it indicates an astonishing comfort with large media corporations curating and shaping the ideas acceptable in social discourse. Corporations with neither desire nor incentive to create a good society. Being free to do something doesn't make it good, or acceptable. And it's not like most people (i.e., any of you) have a disinterested command of all the relevant facts and ideas, so that you could act as a check. Thus here the private/public distinction is little more than a smokescreen, as are attempts like Cyodemus's at regulation-based jargon: Images of fetuses are quite different from Blackburn's mere statement, so that Cyodemus's conflation of the two functions primarily as argumentative fog. Perhaps Blackburn's team might have imagined some blowback to the ad, but having it demonetized? No way; predicting such a thing would be impossible. And indeed, I'm surprised it happened; I wouldn't have thought things have regressed this far yet. As an academic - i.e., someone with expert knowledge - who routinely witnesses media and large corporations ruining and messing up understanding of my field and manipulating people in the process - and fears just how far this will go, I'll be happy if this blows up in Twitter's face. I may disagree with this person on abortion, but I'll always side against the technocratic vise. I wish her and her team well in drumming up the aforementioned resentment.

And I haven't forgotten about you, sundin13. I've been busy with life and research, which have both been exciting recently. Did you read Ta-Nehisi Coates's article on Trump as the first white president?
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/11/17
Good no more pro life lawmakers
This is partially because of my mommy issues
16212 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/10/17

auroraloose wrote:

Y'all need to learn to divorce ends from means:

Only on the surface am I happy when the anti-abortion crowd gets shot down in such an alarming fashion. Blackburn's line is less false than part of a narrative I dislike; the notion that it's just a straight falsehood is itself false, as the situation she's referring to is complicated and lends itself to competing explanations. I think hers is unfair, but to call it false is more than the data allows and disallows interpretation. This makes the support for censoring her dangerous. Not because of the first amendment - forget about that - but because it indicates an astonishing comfort with large media corporations curating and shaping the ideas acceptable in social discourse. Corporations with neither desire nor incentive to create a good society. Being free to do something doesn't make it good, or acceptable. And it's not like most people (i.e., any of you) have a disinterested command of all the relevant facts and ideas, so that you could act as a check. Thus here the private/public distinction is little more than a smokescreen, as are attempts like Cyodemus's at regulation-based jargon: Images of fetuses are quite different from Blackburn's mere statement, so that Cyodemus's conflation of the two functions primarily as argumentative fog. Perhaps Blackburn's team might have imagined some blowback to the ad, but having it demonetized? No way; predicting such a thing would be impossible. And indeed, I'm surprised it happened; I wouldn't have thought things have regressed this far yet. As an academic - i.e., someone with expert knowledge - who routinely witnesses media and large corporations ruining and messing up understanding of my field and manipulating people in the process - and fears just how far this will go, I'll be happy if this blows up in Twitter's face. I may disagree with this person on abortion, but I'll always side against the technocratic vise. I wish her and her team well in drumming up the aforementioned resentment.

And I haven't forgotten about you, sundin13. I've been busy with life and research, which have both been exciting recently. Did you read Ta-Nehisi Coates's article on Trump as the first white president?


I think the fact that this is an advertisement that they are choosing not to run instead of a personal opinion that they are taking down is relevant. There will always be some connection between advertiser and platform/target content, so I think that to some degree, Twitter has to protect themselves from things that they consider potentially damaging, whether that means they don't want to show advertisements for things that may drive people away from the platform or that they feel with somehow harm the user experience on Twitter.

That said, this is the type of stance that should be applied evenly, so if similarly "inflammatory" (to use Twitter's words) comments are appearing in advertisements by left-leaning politicians, that does create potential problems. Generally, I think some limitations on certain things are fine if they are made clear and evenly enforced (for example, Youtube demonetization isn't really clear, well understood or evenly enforced so I have some issue with the enforcement more than the principle). Still, I am less concerned about the handling of advertisements than the handling of raw speech.

And yes, I have read that article.
2005 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / PA, USA
Online
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/13/17
The Marsha ad is cliché as hell, at best. "Inflammatory," though? What's so special about this ad, for it to have garnered attention from Twitter higher ups? Petty party lines, I imagine. After all, it's trendy to zealously attack each other's throats and then turn around and wonder why everyone is so divided.
883 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F
Offline
Posted 10/10/17 , edited 10/10/17

niotabunny wrote:

naw it's not that they blocked/deleted it due to lies, it's more along the lines it was the right stating truths that was gathered without official means, thus, attacking the left is bad, but the left can attack the right all they want on twitter, facebook, and many others. in some cases it's encountered and welcomed.

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/04/20/new-documents-prove-planned-parenthood-illegally-profited-from-selling-aborted-baby-parts/
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/planned-parenthood-exec-caught-on-tape-i-think-selling-baby-parts-is-a-grea


A Grand Jury in Texas has already cleared PP of any wrong doing based on those documents,and the videos.

People have proven that the videos being released by Center for Medical Progress are edited,and even take statements out of context.


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