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]
12117 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 10/13/17

DevinKuska wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

No, refusing to host ads because you don't want their messages on your platform is not prejudice in any sense of the word and it is most certainly not comparable to refusing any and all services to someone because of who they are. Now, if Twitter had refused to host any ads for that congresswoman even if it was for something banal like a family restaurant she owns or something, then the comparison would be more appropriate, but the way it is now you're once again comparing apples to origami. You said it yourself that prejudice is founded in preconceived judgement, so if Twitter is denying a request to place an ad in their site because they don't want to host the ad, that's not prejudice, is it? They're judging the ad for what it is and don't want it shown on their platform, that's not a preconceived judgement, that's just a normal judgement.


Depending on which bakery incident your referring to you may or may not have a point. The one I have in mind was teh baker simply didnt want to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, but the couple had frequented the bakery many times before. Thats not outright denial of service thats selectively offering services which is what Twitter is exercising. Also Twitter has reversed their decision on the ad so its original "judgement" was someones preconceived judgement that either they themselves or someone above them overturned. Again I defer to the actual definition of the word and not what I believe you are trying to say. prejudice doesn't have to be "blanket" everyday you consciously or subconsciously make prejudice choices based on your life experiences. So to answer your question... yes I think it is prejudice to shut down an opinion that may differ from you or your client base. However it is currently not against the law to have such a prejudice so I am not sure why you seem so against what I am saying unless your debating the definition of the word. In which case I gave definitions from merriam webster and the Bing library.


Well no, making a decision that was later overturned by your bosses or that you changed your mind on does not automatically make your original decision a preconceived judgement of prejudice. Again, the gay baker story isn't really a very appropriate comparison since the baker wouldn't have had to show the gay wedding cake, had he made it, on his platform. Not that it matters, because not giving your services to someone because of their attitudes is still not discrimination, nor is it comparable to not giving them your services because of who they are.
7286 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / Pacific North West
Online
Posted 10/13/17

octorockandroll wrote:

Well no, making a decision that was later overturned by your bosses or that you changed your mind on does not automatically make your original decision a preconceived judgement of prejudice. Again, the gay baker story isn't really a very appropriate comparison since the baker wouldn't have had to show the gay wedding cake, had he made it, on his platform. Not that it matters, because not giving your services to someone because of their attitudes is still not discrimination, nor is it comparable to not giving them your services because of who they are.


It would seem neither of us is going to sway each other on this matter so i will concede and say we will agree to disagree(though it seems like we are disagreeing on different things).

49 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 10/13/17

DevinKuska wrote:


FoolsTale wrote:

I'm pro choice, anyone pro life should think about the American way, for example, your not an American till your born, you have no SSN, you have no rights.
Its up to your mother to exercise HER rights, since you know, shes an American :)


Well if you commit a crime and go to jail except for human rights you dont have any rights either... so your argument doesnt really hold up on the grand scale of things. However you have a valid point that people on both sides of the "fence" should stop to seriously consider the opposing sides viewpoint. If someones flat out says I am prolife/ prochoice and the other side is just wrong... I say thats ignorance and subjective. Though I am not the be all end all of how people should be... thats just my personal opinion.


lol your under the impression that prisoners don't have rights? I don't need to read further lmao
Anyway if a mother doesn't want her unborn child, so be it, its her choice as an AMERICAN where we have the right to choose.

if someone wants to FORCE their beliefs on another person, then that person should just buy a plane ticket to Russia :P
13188 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Marshall, Michigan
Offline
Posted 10/13/17

danagram wrote:


jtjumper wrote:


weeitsnookies wrote:


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.


I wish people said this more. What good is constitutionally guaranteed free speech if big business can prevent it from ever being heard?


https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

You're free to express your freedom of speech here without the big companies getting in your way.


Fantastic. Write your president and congressman, but try to influence other voters and your out of luck. I'm talking about reaching the masses not the government.

7286 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / Pacific North West
Online
Posted 10/13/17 , edited 10/13/17

FoolsTale wrote:

lol your under the impression that prisoners don't have rights? I don't need to read further lmao
Anyway if a mother doesn't want her unborn child, so be it, its her choice as an AMERICAN where we have the right to choose.

if someone wants to FORCE their beliefs on another person, then that person should just buy a plane ticket to Russia :P


ah I think you should go further. what i said was "Well if you commit a crime and go to jail except for human rights you don't have any rights either... " As a prisoner your freedom of speech is pretty much restricted as is your right to assemble/vote. you definitely don't have the right to bear arms, your always subject to search and seizure without probable cause. ect.. what part am I wrong on? Or perhaps you only skimmed my post and didnt see the part about human rights being the exception.
1309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/13/17

DevinKuska wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

Well no, making a decision that was later overturned by your bosses or that you changed your mind on does not automatically make your original decision a preconceived judgement of prejudice. Again, the gay baker story isn't really a very appropriate comparison since the baker wouldn't have had to show the gay wedding cake, had he made it, on his platform. Not that it matters, because not giving your services to someone because of their attitudes is still not discrimination, nor is it comparable to not giving them your services because of who they are.


It would seem neither of us is going to sway each other on this matter so i will concede and say we will agree to disagree(though it seems like we are disagreeing on different things).



This.
No offense, octorockandroll, it just appears that the two of you may have diverged because of my own comments about the difference of legalities between the two suggested scenarios.

DevinKuska, I will yield to the idea that we will be implementing some type of legislature that will cover the blind spots of the United States legal system and the digital domain (within the next decade, I would hope).
As I mentioned: for the time being, the Internet is quite a gray area when it comes down to civil rights for United States citizens (and most countries, to be frank).
I think octorockandroll is focusing on the two aforementioned examples in a similar way that I was but not explaining it on a directly legal stance (again, no offense is implied here but I feel it caused confusion).

Legally speaking, prejudice would not fall under Twitter's removal of the Representative's advertisement.
Much like with most websites and their rules, products are often given under conditions that are outlined to the customer.
Twitter has outlined that there is a bit of an area for subjective analysis whether or not something fits their advertisement policies.
If you take a look at their page defining "inappropriate content" (https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175352), you will see that it can be quite subjective and based on the reviewer.

Twitter would have to fall under something similar to a "public domain" (in a legal sense) for the subjectivity to be removed (or as much of it as humanly possible) or specific legislation that demands explicit examples of what a violation would be.
Some of your other statements are quite accurate (from a personal perspective), just that I believe that people should learn that these are the laws we're dealing with in the current day (versus what may come about in the future).
7286 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / Pacific North West
Online
Posted 10/13/17

Cydoemus wrote:

This.
No offense, octorockandroll, it just appears that the two of you may have diverged because of my own comments about the difference of legalities between the two suggested scenarios.

DevinKuska, I will yield to the idea that we will be implementing some type of legislature that will cover the blind spots of the United States legal system and the digital domain (within the next decade, I would hope).
As I mentioned: for the time being, the Internet is quite a gray area when it comes down to civil rights for United States citizens (and most countries, to be frank).
I think octorockandroll is focusing on the two aforementioned examples in a similar way that I was but not explaining it on a directly legal stance (again, no offense is implied here but I feel it caused confusion).

Legally speaking, prejudice would not fall under Twitter's removal of the Representative's advertisement.
Much like with most websites and their rules, products are often given under conditions that are outlined to the customer.
Twitter has outlined that there is a bit of an area for subjective analysis whether or not something fits their advertisement policies.
If you take a look at their page defining "inappropriate content" (https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175352), you will see that it can be quite subjective and based on the reviewer.

Twitter would have to fall under something similar to a "public domain" (in a legal sense) for the subjectivity to be removed (or as much of it as humanly possible) or specific legislation that demands explicit examples of what a violation would be.
Some of your other statements are quite accurate (from a personal perspective), just that I believe that people should learn that these are the laws we're dealing with in the current day (versus what may come about in the future).


Yes what I was trying to impress upon was that I was not speaking legally... I was speaking on the literal definition of words being used. Much like someone tossing out terms like Bigot without really knowing what the word means or its roots. I used the examples because in my mind it displayed individuals expressing prejudice(literal not legal.. well the bakery was legal). However somehow that was lost in translation or Octo just disagreed I cant say for sure. I appreciate your legal understanding in the various threads we have crossed. Though I wasnt trying to use the legal precedence by any means. So i guess I explained myself poorly.
553 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F
Offline
Posted 10/13/17

jtjumper wrote:


danagram wrote:


jtjumper wrote:


weeitsnookies wrote:


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.


I wish people said this more. What good is constitutionally guaranteed free speech if big business can prevent it from ever being heard?


https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

You're free to express your freedom of speech here without the big companies getting in your way.


Fantastic. Write your president and congressman, but try to influence other voters and your out of luck. I'm talking about reaching the masses not the government.



Go convince a rich conservative to build a search engine,news outlets,and social media sites instead of relying on the platforms offered by companies that lean left.

1309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/13/17

DevinKuska wrote:

Yes what I was trying to impress upon was that I was not speaking legally... I was speaking on the literal definition of words being used. Much like someone tossing out terms like Bigot without really knowing what the word means or its roots. I used the examples because in my mind it displayed individuals expressing prejudice(literal not legal.. well the bakery was legal). However somehow that was lost in translation or Octo just disagreed I cant say for sure. I appreciate your legal understanding in the various threads we have crossed. Though I wasnt trying to use the legal precedence by any means. So i guess I explained myself poorly.


The comparison you had given (the bakery) led to a legal/subjective side-discussion.
In regard to the actual (non-legal) definition of prejudice, it still remains pretty complicated.
You could see it as prejudice because it's singling out an individual based off of the "company's views' versus that of the "individual".

The reason why I wouldn't necessarily lump it into prejudice is that they allowed the video to remain on Representative Blackwell's Twitter account, which is part of their "Free Service/Platform".
It was only under scrutiny under the professional services that they rendered her team through advertisements.
This goes back to the link to Twitter's page that outlines what they consider "inappropriate" or "offensive".
It's the subjectivity of the situation that makes it complicated.

People are often far too quick to judge a company's actions against a politician as being a political statement (for better or worse).
That logic also applies to celebrities that voice their opinion on political matters.
It's often the case where someone has violated a subsect of rules that equates in a temporary suspension or a request to remove "offending" posts or tweets within a time frame.
Yet, it is escalated in no time at all as being a political statement for or against an individual's stance on politics, religion, sexuality, or otherwise.
I find it a bit more interesting that every action has to be an action/reaction of political statements in the modern day.
13188 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Marshall, Michigan
Offline
Posted 10/13/17

danagram wrote:

Go convince a rich conservative to build a search engine,news outlets,and social media sites instead of relying on the platforms offered by companies that lean left.



I don't care about the partisan issues with my point. I see one group get censored and I think, "It could be me, next."
Anyone can make a social media site. Not anyone can make one that everyone uses. Do you think that if someone could create a meaningful immediately successful replacement for Facebook that would be used by billions of people, that they wouldn't have created one by now?
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 10/13/17
Mfw "It's okay to censor content/speech because I agree with it".
1309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/13/17

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:

Mfw "It's okay to censor content/speech because I agree with it".


Has that not always been the cause, though?
Just because there seems to be more tension on the political spectrum recently does not necessarily mean that much has changed.
I have been banned from subreddits for disagreeing with someone, or forums for stating an opinion that was not in favor of whatever the administrator or moderator, or from websites for violating its code of conduct.

Like I said, it's too often these days that people imply that there is some type of censorship simply because something they agreed with was censored (the opposite of what you seem to be implying).
Sometimes people need to take a few seconds and stop worrying about some masterful, evil, overlord plan that they see being in place ("globalist agenda", "new world order", "illuminati", or whichever this generation seems to concern itself with) and accept that they can only control themselves and their own actions (at the end of the day).
Even if there were some globalist agenda that surfaced and took over the world, an equal or greater amount of resistance would come into play.
History has shown this, time and time again.
11 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/13/17
Twitter and Facebook allow jihadists to spread their garbage ideologies all they want. Why is it ok to livestream rape and murder, but anyone who has a conservative opinion gets censored for being "triggering"?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4444016/Migrants-jailed-years-raping-woman-Sweden.html

These sub humans got two years for raping an underage girl while broadcasting it on Facebook. Facebook didn't do anything during the three hours it happened.

Yet I get banned for saying Mia Khalifa and every other woman DOESN'T deserve to get their head cut off by a jihadi nutcase.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4326850/porn-star-mia-khalifa-reveals-isis-have-threatened-to-behead-her-and-mocked-up-sick-execution-pics/

Even to someone like me, who only cared about hedonism even during the election, it's pretty obvious these social media outlets are helping politicians sell out their own people.
553 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F
Offline
Posted 10/13/17

jtjumper wrote:


danagram wrote:

Go convince a rich conservative to build a search engine,news outlets,and social media sites instead of relying on the platforms offered by companies that lean left.



I don't care about the partisan issues with my point. I see one group get censored and I think, "It could be me, next."
Anyone can make a social media site. Not anyone can make one that everyone uses. Do you think that if someone could create a meaningful immediately successful replacement for Facebook that would be used by billions of people, that they wouldn't have created one by now?


With enough creative thinking,and maybe money,people will eventually come up with a way to spread their message if one side does try to completely censor them.Like it,or not all of theses platforms can censor anyone they want since the constitution only grants us protection against our government.
28496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 10/13/17

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.


Fucking ace news! Thanks for posting!
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.