Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Jon Gabriel & Liz Wheeler on Twitter’s New Censorship
Jon Gabriel appeared on “Tipping Point with Liz Wheeler” to discuss Twitter’s new policy to “protect” it’s users from seeing things they don’t like. Will this lead to another ban of conservative voices?
.
Published in General
Is Socialist Bernie Sanders a millionaire?
If a Clinton talks in an empty forest are they still lying?
Are the wealthy young children that benefited the most from Free markets the ones trying to destroy them?
If you scratch the caring skin of a Progressive is there a Totalitarian underneath?
“It’s a private entity; he’s [Twitter CEO] welcome to do what he wants.”
It’s not that simple and that’s a losing proposition for conservatives. Twitter effectively enjoys a monopoly in its space. The same goes for Google and Facebook. Monopolies either get broken up or regulated. They are not at liberty to do as they please.
Complacency will result in defeat. While we wait for the free market to solve this problem, the free market will be destroyed by the Left. It’s important to bear in mind that the free market is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
https://mewe.com/
https://gab.ai/
These platforms are both without censorship. Not as big of an audience, but at least you can reach an audience, even with your thought crimes.
These leftists go around, all day, every day, labeling and libeling anyone who does not bow the knee to their progressive orthodoxy as racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic…
(if they could spell it, they’d probably even call us antidisestablishmentarianismistic :)
…but at the slightest whiff of doubt about their rantings, it’s hand-over-their-ears, “nah-nah-nah-I-can’t-HEAR-YOUUUU!” And they cry out to their bully big brother, Jack, or their passive-aggressive big brother, Mark, to save them from…from…something/anything…that does not fit neatly into their small and shrinking epistemological head space.
They are like Westworld’s Season 1 Dolores: “Some people choose to see the ugliness in this world, the disarray. I choose to see the beauty. To believe there is an order to our days. A purpose.”
Yeah, there’s an order alright–if you’re a robot!
Robert Heinlein’s character Lazarus Long, after a long rant about all the things he thought a man should be able to do, capped it off with the statement: “Specialization is for insects.”
How did “the Left” (whatever that means anymore) go from:
to:
Kim Jong UnTwitter/Facebook/Google/MSM/Academia to memory-hole every discordant thought that is harshing my mellow?Yeah, that’s great. I got a Gab account a while back. The place is full of wingnuts; it’s not serious competition. Without a significant user base, these are not true alternatives. Twitter still enjoys a monopoly.
Reminds me of entomologist E.O. Wilson’s observation about Marxism: “Wonderful theory, wrong species.” Wilson studies ants.
Another platform is definitely needed, but it will be limited in the short term (at least)
Until a major entity drops Twitter & publicly lambasts them, Twitter will continue to be preeminent (Fox or WSJ would be most impactful) . I would not call it a monopoly, though. People can choose other options…
Once a “major” walks away (cutting into their user base) either Twitter will change OR a new platform will emerge.
These companies effectively control the speech of others, and they’re large enough to have as much if not more of an impact on speech than government. So, I think there is some threshold that is being crossed, even if it’s not the first amendment. These platforms are guaranteed free speech interference from government, but are they guaranteed the right to interfere with the free speech rights of third party conversations?
Yes, it’s their platform and they set the rules, and ideally the free market will eventually solve the problem. But when the left controls the entire system from top to bottom, including the education of the children who should be horrified and repulsed by censorship, we shouldn’t be surprised to find that these same children embrace the censorship of “wrong think.” Conservative opinions can’t prevail if they’re never heard or treated as hate speech if they are.
I don’t think it costs anything to join Twitter. Users are commenting on a private platform owned by someone else. It might have a huge user base, but essentially it’s a private club. I’m thinking like any private club or social organization, it may well be considered outside the bounds of decorum to raise certain issues that the larger membership may be annoyed by. After all, it’s not street talk and vulgarity that you can expect when associating under the auspices of a private club. Even if you do get that and you happen to be offended, or annoyed at having comments yanked, it’s still a private club. You can leave anytime you want. I don’t see that it is appropos speaking of Twitter as a monopoly. What are they taking and giving for the nothing in money users provide? A club of any size has a certain amount of uniqueness — you could also say quirkiness — that makes it stand as separate from other associations.
Even if you dislike Twitter’s actions and editorial policy, Twitter as it exists is a healthy expression of the freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution. (did not watch the video)
After watching the video, Liz mentioned that Twitter is measuring the success of their policies based on complaints from users. It’s understandable they wouldn’t want to tie themselves down to fixed policies, and that their algorithms would be shifting all the time to reflect dynamic behavior of the internet. But as a platform that relies on advertising revenue, their success ought to be judged on how well their policies reflect on the bottom line. Are advertisers going to be less likely to pony up if users from certain demographics like conservatives are dropping out of Twitter — or perhaps even the liberal target audience dropping out from souring on the conversation — or more likely because their liberal-safe policies make more liberals feel like it’s safe to join the Twitter conversation? Maybe Twitter is too embarassed to admit that they have any intentions about making money. Most people — even conservatives in this conversation to a certain extent — seem to portray Twitter as providing a valuable service for the discussion of political and cultural topics. Under the current hysteria, it might be of only limited use in that regard.
Conservative or right leaning forums also censor people for politely stating viewpoints they don’t want considered, or that don’t add to the desired misimpression that everyone sees something or someone in about the same light. Right ?
Maybe the editors should respond, but I don’t think that goes on in this site. You have to do something to violate the CoC. Ricochet is the only social media I am a member of and that I can put in that category off the top of my head. Ricochet doesn’t filter or censor based on viewpoints, they filter based on behavior, which is laid out in the CoC. I can’t name other conservative or right leaning forums, and I can’t say that wouldn’t go on in those places.
Re # 12
I agree about Ricochet. It’s a new discovery for me that what can be said for Ricochet can’t necessarily be said for other right leaning forums. (I know I sound very naive saying I’m just waking up to this.)