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]
87236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 10/13/17 , edited 10/13/17
Social media platforms and Google have been making these kinds of (at times hypocritical) decisions for quite some time, so no surprise here; they have an agenda and are increasingly pushing it. It is only censorship when the government does it. If only cake makers were not forced to put messages on cakes that they disagree with - hypocrites! I don’t use either Twitter or Facebook.

“What we call Man's power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument.” C.S. Lewis
7809 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / Pacific North West
Offline
Posted 10/13/17 , edited 10/13/17
Well I read the article and watched the ad. Not sure I would call it inflammatory but then again people use the terms bigot and fascist often now and obviously don't know the definition of the word so who knows what twitter thinks inflammatory means. Though today's internet based culture doesn't exactly breed a lot of critical thinking does it?

What I find interesting about threads such of these is seeing the same people opposite viewpoints on a matter depending on whether it fits their personal belief system. For instance some on here might say "Twitter is a private company can do whatever they want against anti abortion activists" yet in another thread you can see the same person say " This baker cant decide to not to sell to XXX because they were gay/trans/whatever." It seems odd that people can say private organizations can do as they like when its on an issue they agree with. However when the issue is "inflammatory" they deem it a violation of law. Now is this ad offensive? Sure, to someone it is. Then again I find it offensive when I get ads from Google as their dismissal of privacy I found bordering invasion of privacy.

As to the congresswoman I don't think she should be making such ads. In fact I think politicians should stay out of the media to begin with. Especially President Trump who seems addicted to twitter. I find it offensive that we the people pay our congress/senators hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to make the country run. Yet they spend their time making ads, interviews, and humoring lobbyists... ahh but I digress.
qwueri 
25330 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 10/13/17 , edited 10/13/17
12147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 10/13/17 , edited 10/13/17

DevinKuska wrote:

What I find interesting about threads such of these is seeing the same people opposite viewpoints on a matter depending on whether it fits their personal belief system. For instance some on here might say "Twitter is a private company can do whatever they want against anti abortion activists" yet in another thread you can see the same person say " This baker cant decide to not to sell to XXX because they were gay/trans/whatever." It seems odd that people can say private organizations can do as they like when its on an issue they agree with.


That's an extremely bad analogy. Not allowing certain messages on your social media platform is not even in the same ballpark as allowing people to discriminate against others. You're comparing apples to origami here.
7809 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / Pacific North West
Offline
Posted 10/13/17 , edited 10/13/17

octorockandroll wrote:


DevinKuska wrote:

What I find interesting about threads such of these is seeing the same people opposite viewpoints on a matter depending on whether it fits their personal belief system. For instance some on here might say "Twitter is a private company can do whatever they want against anti abortion activists" yet in another thread you can see the same person say " This baker cant decide to not to sell to XXX because they were gay/trans/whatever." It seems odd that people can say private organizations can do as they like when its on an issue they agree with.


That's an extremely bad analogy. Not allowing certain messages on your social media platform is not even in the same ballpark as allowing people to discriminate against others. You're comparing apples to origami here.


Well thats certainly up for debate. I would say declining a service someone has paid you to provide as atleast in the same ballpark as not selling a goods/service at all. The part I think you may be forgetting is to get an ad posted you have to first pay the platform (Bing/google/twitter/myspace,ect) So in effect this is a form of discrimination. But then again whats wrong with discrimination? Humans do so all the time to varying degress no? If you have a dislike for food X that you have tried a dozen times but a new version of it comes out, your likely to discriminate against it by saying you will dislike it because you have tried similar products before. Or perhaps you generally dislike republicans/democrats/religious people/white people, ect.

What my point was, that people find things offensively discriminatory only when it follows their beliefs. When its suits their fancy its freedom of X, but when its a matter they strongly feel opposed to its discrimination or some such. Does that make sense? A great example is President Trump, most would agree the man says offensive things on a fairly regular basis, some overly so. While others seeing the same thing view it as liberty and telling the truth. Mr. Obama faced the same critique. Not that this is somehow a bad thing(well it is when its dividing the country), I just find it amusing how peopls perspectives on things change depending on the environment, and not on the greater topic at large.
1453 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/13/17 , edited 10/13/17

DevinKuska wrote:
What I find interesting about threads such of these is seeing the same people opposite viewpoints on a matter depending on whether it fits their personal belief system. For instance some on here might say "Twitter is a private company can do whatever they want against anti abortion activists" yet in another thread you can see the same person say " This baker cant decide to not to sell to XXX because they were gay/trans/whatever." It seems odd that people can say private organizations can do as they like when its on an issue they agree with. However when the issue is "inflammatory" they deem it a violation of law. Now is this ad offensive? Sure, to someone it is. Then again I find it offensive when I get ads from Google as their dismissal of privacy I found bordering invasion of privacy.


The bolded statement is easy to explain.
The bakery would be legally considered a "public accommodation" in accordance with Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Internet and privately held companies do not fit the legal criteria for "public accommodation" and the Civil Rights Act do not apply to such things as personal views on abortion or politics (directly speaking, abortion can be an indirect statement of one's religious beliefs).
Any statement I have made about the bakery (in regard to the discrimination suit) was solely focused onto the legality of the situation.
Just like my statements on this thread have to do with the legality of the situation.

This is why I informed the OP that the "First Amendment" does not apply to the Internet when you are utilizing someone else's infrastructure, servers, websites, or otherwise.
Without some type of Civil Rights Act that focuses primarily on electronic communications, there isn't a legal precedence to compare the two (i.e. "Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission/Supreme Court" vs the non-legal "Twitter versus Representative Blackburn").
The latter has no legal jurisdiction or precedence, while the former does.
We do have laws and regulations that determine what a public establishment, in the physical domain, can or cannot do.
We do not have laws or regulations that determine what a private establishment, in the digital domain, can or cannot do.

In fact, there has been a case where Southwest Airlines was held in violation of Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Desegregation of Public Facilities) due to their website not being handicap accessible.
The District Court found that since the website is not a physical location that they were not legally required to follow the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
On the other hand, there have been other District Court cases that have explicitly stated: "electronic space" (in regard to the Civil Rights Act).
The point I am attempting to make is that without clear, concise, outlined legislation around the Internet the concept of Civil Rights and "do's and do not's of businesses in cyberspace" is going to be a gray area.
One district court will disagree with another and vice versa until there is a federal mandate explaining the law (or a state-based one, mind you).
1453 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/13/17 , edited 10/13/17
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.
12147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 10/13/17 , edited 10/13/17

DevinKuska wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


DevinKuska wrote:

What I find interesting about threads such of these is seeing the same people opposite viewpoints on a matter depending on whether it fits their personal belief system. For instance some on here might say "Twitter is a private company can do whatever they want against anti abortion activists" yet in another thread you can see the same person say " This baker cant decide to not to sell to XXX because they were gay/trans/whatever." It seems odd that people can say private organizations can do as they like when its on an issue they agree with.


That's an extremely bad analogy. Not allowing certain messages on your social media platform is not even in the same ballpark as allowing people to discriminate against others. You're comparing apples to origami here.


Well thats certainly up for debate. I would say declining a service someone has paid you to provide as atleast in the same ballpark as not selling a goods/service at all. The part I think you may be forgetting is to get an ad posted you have to first pay the platform (Bing/google/twitter/myspace,ect) So in effect this is a form of discrimination. But then again whats wrong with discrimination? Humans do so all the time to varying degress no? If you have a dislike for food X that you have tried a dozen times but a new version of it comes out, your likely to discriminate against it by saying you will dislike it because you have tried similar products before. Or perhaps you generally dislike republicans/democrats/religious people/white people, ect.

What my point was, that people find things offensively discriminatory only when it follows their beliefs. When its suits their fancy its freedom of X, but when its a matter they strongly feel opposed to its discrimination or some such. Does that make sense? A great example is President Trump, most would agree the man says offensive things on a fairly regular basis, some overly so. While others seeing the same thing view it as liberty and telling the truth. Mr. Obama faced the same critique. Not that this is somehow a bad thing(well it is when its dividing the country), I just find it amusing how peopls perspectives on things change depending on the environment, and not on the greater topic at large.


This is not up for debate, nor is it discrimination. Refusing service to someone because the ad they want you to post does not comply with your terms is not prejudicial, outright refusing service to anyone who has a different sexual orientation than you is. That's not up for debate, that's a fact.
2300 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 10/13/17 , edited 10/13/17
Considering everything she says in the ad is a lie based off A debunked video that several investagations found Planned Parenthood innocent and the video maker guilty of several crimes. Why does anyone care that Twitter told this person No you can't lie like that on our privite business platform?
7809 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / Pacific North West
Offline
Posted 10/13/17 , edited 10/13/17

octorockandroll wrote:

This is not up for debate, nor is it discrimination. Refusing service to someone because the ad they want you to post does not comply with your terms is not prejudicial, outright refusing service to anyone who has a different sexual orientation than you is. That's not up for debate, that's a fact.


While there is CURRENTLY no legal precedence for this I suspect that will change in the next decade. As is I am under the impression Congress/senate were already working on legal outlines for what to do about internet "grey areas." As far as refusing service because it doesn't coincide with your companies beliefs.. that is by definition prejudice isn't it?

prej·u·dice
VERB
give rise to prejudice in (someone); make biased:
"the statement might prejudice the jury"
synonyms: bias · influence · sway · predispose · make biased · make partial · color

a (1) :preconceived judgment or opinion
(2) :an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge

Now if your speaking from a strictly legal standpoint then I will yield to your opinion. As currently you are correct in the court of law. Interesting that twitter reversed its opinion. I wonder if the ad was originally removed prematurely before it was actually reviewed. Or perhaps someone simply thought it might be percieved as heavy handed moderation. Either way since the authors personal tweet was allowed I don't really think twitter was in the wrong either way.
7809 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / Pacific North West
Offline
Posted 10/13/17 , edited 10/13/17

neotag wrote:

Considering everything she says in the ad is a lie based off A debunked video that several investigations found Planned Parenthood innocent and the video maker guilty of several crimes. Why does anyone care that Twitter told this person No you can't lie like that on our private business platform?


Not sure what part she said was a lie. The "debunked video" you speak of was found to be factually the offices in question offering to sell for research purposes human tissue/organs. From what I understand the process of paying for um...the goods.... is within legal guidelines. The issue the video makers made was illegally recording without consent, as well as fraudulently portraying themselves. Now if we are talking about whether its "evil" or not to sell human tissue from "aborted" babies... thats another issue and probably much more incendiary topic wise.
12147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 10/13/17 , edited 10/13/17

DevinKuska wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

This is not up for debate, nor is it discrimination. Refusing service to someone because the ad they want you to post does not comply with your terms is not prejudicial, outright refusing service to anyone who has a different sexual orientation than you is. That's not up for debate, that's a fact.


While there is CURRENTLY no legal precedence for this I suspect that will change in the next decade. As is I am under the impression Congress/senate were already working on legal outlines for what to do about internet "grey areas." As far as refusing service because it doesn't coincide with your companies beliefs.. that is by definition prejudice isn't it?

prej·u·dice
VERB
give rise to prejudice in (someone); make biased:
"the statement might prejudice the jury"
synonyms: bias · influence · sway · predispose · make biased · make partial · color

a (1) :preconceived judgment or opinion
(2) :an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge

Now if your speaking from a strictly legal standpoint then I will yield to your opinion. As currently you are correct in the court of law. Interesting that twitter reversed its opinion. I wonder if the ad was originally removed prematurely before it was actually reviewed. Or perhaps someone simply thought it might be percieved as heavy handed moderation. Either way since the authors personal tweet was allowed I don't really think twitter was in the wrong either way.


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.
79 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 10/13/17 , edited 10/13/17
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 :)
7809 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / Pacific North West
Offline
Posted 10/13/17 , edited 10/13/17

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.
7809 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / Pacific North West
Offline
Posted 10/13/17 , edited 10/13/17

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