Joe Rogan podcast with Jack Dorsey, Tim Pool, Vijaya Gadde

[ch33zw1z]

Who is forcing them to do anything? Or even advocating that?

Disingenuous at best. While conservative mouth pieces violate TOS and get ousted, this is exactly where the discussion has been pushed.

 

[brycejones]

Who is forcing them to do anything? Or even advocating that?

So your concern isn’t advocacy. Got it.

 

[UglyCasanova]

My concern isn’t advocacy. I’m not even sure what that’s supposed to mean.

 

[brycejones]

My concern isn’t advocacy. I’m not even sure what that’s supposed to mean.

I am concerned but not surprised that you don’t understand what that means in the context of your frequent posts about the evils of companies enforcing their TOS on their platforms.

 

[Greenman]

Is the podcast tainted because it's Joe Rogan or because UC linked to it?

 

[JSt0rm]

Is the podcast tainted because it's Joe Rogan or because UC linked to it?

its tainted because you are here sniffing around.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Who is forcing them to do anything? Or even advocating that?

I'm pretty sure you yourself have done exactly that before. Multiple other conservatives on here have, and lots of conservative politicians and political commentators have advocated that. They've done that even as they scream that's what people are trying to do to ISPs and how its some unfathomable evil.

 

[JSt0rm]

I'm pretty sure you yourself have done exactly that before. Multiple other conservatives on here have, and lots of conservative politicians and political commentators have advocated that. They've done that even as they scream that's what people are trying to do to ISPs and how its some unfathomable evil.

like he has no history or some shit. lol.

 

[brycejones]

I'm pretty sure you yourself have done exactly that before. Multiple other conservatives on here have, and lots of conservative politicians and political commentators have advocated that. They've done that even as they scream that's what people are trying to do to ISPs and how its some unfathomable evil.

Who he? Never except when he does it.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I'm pretty sure you yourself have done exactly that before.

Show me

 

[Vic]

One of the guys is a multi billionaire who founded and heads one of the largest social media platforms out there so yeah I’ll hear him out.

And who has a vested interest in people believing that his own particular social media platform has no viable alternatives.

 

[woolfe9998]

Watched the first 20 minutes of it. It's a legit/good discussion of social media censorship policies. It's 3:25 long though, so I wouldn't expect many people to watch it.

 

[WelshBloke]

Why wasn't this a conversation when it was newspapers as the primary news source?
Why wasn't this a conversation when it was radio as the primary news source?
Why wasn't this a conversation when it was TV as the main news source?

All those things had a tighter control over things than social media companies do.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I’m not sure what you mean, there’s been a constant battle over censorship vs freedom in all those mediums for as long as they’ve been around.

 

[WelshBloke]

I’m not sure what you mean, there’s been a constant battle over censorship vs freedom in all those mediums for as long as they’ve been around.

So if the debate has happened why are we treating the new media as if it's a new problem?

 

[UglyCasanova]

Because it is a new problem. We are in uncharted territory here on this particular issue. But the conversation censorship is certainly not a new one. Typically we address it from a perspective of a government on its people but ultimately core is the same.

 

[Vic]

Because it is a new problem. We are in uncharted territory here on this particular issue. But the conversation censorship is certainly not a new one. Typically we address it from a perspective of a government on its people but ultimately core is the same.

But Twitter isn't the government.

Suppose you wrote a letter to the editor of your local newspaper, and your local newspaper declined to publish it. Would that failure to publish represent an infringement of your right to free speech?

 

[WelshBloke]

Because it is a new problem. We are in uncharted territory here on this particular issue.

Why is ths a new problem? The old media had a much tighter grip on any narrative. Go try to get a newspaper to print an article that it doesn't agree with!

 

[UglyCasanova]

But Twitter isn't the government.

Suppose you wrote a letter to the editor of your local newspaper, and your local newspaper declined to publish it. Would that failure to publish represent an infringement of your right to free speech?

I’m aware it isn’t the government. No the newspaper not publishing wouldn’t infringe on my right to free speech, censorship on Twitter doesn’t violate free speech either. That’s the legalistic arguement and that’s fine. There can be interesting discussion about monopolistic sizes of these companies etc but let’s not even go down that path. The most interesting conversations in the podcast between the reporter and Dorsey was on the moralistic and ethical ramifications both for and against it.

 

[brycejones]

I’m aware it isn’t the government. No the newspaper not publishing wouldn’t infringe on my right to free speech, censorship on Twitter doesn’t violate free speech either. That’s the legalistic arguement and that’s fine. There can be interesting discussion about monopolistic sizes of these companies etc but let’s not even go down that path. The most interesting conversations in the podcast between the reporter and Dorsey was on the moralistic and ethical ramifications both for and against it.

So now that we have settled the matter of rather or not you have a right to use Twitter or any other platform in the internet to spread your message. What did your find interesting about those conversations and why? What were some of the arguements that went beyond the requirements of the Constitution and made this a new problem vs the printing press, radio, and TV?

 

[Vic]

I’m aware it isn’t the government. No the newspaper not publishing wouldn’t infringe on my right to free speech, censorship on Twitter doesn’t violate free speech either. That’s the legalistic arguement and that’s fine. There can be interesting discussion about monopolistic sizes of these companies etc but let’s not even go down that path. The most interesting conversations in the podcast between the reporter and Dorsey was on the moralistic and ethical ramifications both for and against it.

The moral and ethical argument we should be having here is not whether or not Dorsey should be so magnanimous as to grant us free speech on his platform, but why we should use his platform at all.

 

[Infamous1]

I am watching this podcast and In my opinion the argument is all about context. The fact is that they are saying that they have to take individual tweets by the context it was written. Hate speech is something that needs to be dealt with on a case by case senerio. If someone is being threatened or is being attacked because of race or politics and it gets to the point where the person is feeling threatened, then I agree that Twitter needs to step in and take action. The argument that it is a bias against the right hold no ground. Saying that white people are being targeted is a weak point and rogan should see that this company has policy for discrimination and harassment. It’s also possible that there are more threats and hate speech coming from people on the right. This is an issue that conservatives need to deal with. Remember that the alt right came to Charlottesville to fight and protest. Someone was killed. So I’m sorry but there is no Merritt for conservative to feel that they are being targeted.

 

[Infamous1]

Start your own. Free speech and free market remain intact.

The real conversation is protections for free speech without net neutrality, or reinstating net neutrality.

So are you in favor of having hate speech on Twitter without any oversight? This whole episode is about this guy who is feeling targeted by the left because of hate speech directed to him.... who is the snowflake now..

 

[Infamous1]

Anybody listening in, very interesting conversation about the limits, expectations, and problems surrounding these massive social media companies and their trying to manage themselves within the context of free speech. I will give Dorsey credit for sure for at least talking about it and admitting it’s way less than ideal and work to be done.

This guy who is complaining about liberals harassing him, then he should get off Twitter. This is a stupid argument and this guy pool is only giving his own perspective which is completely one sided. Rogan is better than this and he is embarrassing himself for having this guy on his show. Dorsey is right when he say that you need to have the context of the situation to make a decision. It’s a private company so they are allowed to make rules to follow. There is an early way out of this.. don’t be a racist asshole on Twitter.

 

[ch33zw1z]

So are you in favor of having hate speech on Twitter without any oversight? This whole episode is about this guy who is feeling targeted by the left because of hate speech directed to him.... who is the snowflake now..

See post #21

And you just described why the OP cares.

I personally won't care if conservatives start their own twitter-like service, maybe call it Bitter, and their TOS allows vulgarity of whatever nature. I don't have to visit the site or use it