This was after Bickert gave lawyer answers to the first two questions which defy any belief she is being forthright.
— Jason Kint (@jason_kint) June 4, 2020
1) She doesn't remember if she knew about Cambridge Analytica breach when she gave evidence to Parliament in Feb 2018 in DC. cc @carolecadwalla. pic.twitter.com/j5sRNPTVic
We’ve discussed before but here is the issue in Facebook’s banning decision (whether you agree or disagree). This entire chain of execs from Bickert up to Zuckerberg report into and lobby DC interests. Same group that decided not to take action on shooting and looting post. /1
and Facebook's own Joel Kaplan who prompted employee to askthe obvious question\u2b06\ufe0f: "Is it a conflict of interest to have one policy executive influencing both staying on good terms with Trump and civil rights-related moderation?" https://t.co/xa2rbG4mVk
— Jason Kint (@jason_kint) September 24, 2020
I mean look at the list:
— Jason Kint (@jason_kint) June 3, 2020
Zuckerberg - $60B+ in $FB stock
Sheryl - ditto + former political operative
Nick - former MP, UK political operative
Joel - DC political animal
Bickert - misled Parliament on Cambridge Analytica, legal counsel on shutting down competitive apps controversy pic.twitter.com/fQYJc8WvV9
I don't want to get ahead of John sharing his highlights from his strong event but @nick_clegg spent 30min making his case, the audience was polled live asking if Facebook is prepared for the upcoming election and 95% of the audience picked "No." Maybe it was worse this morning? https://t.co/jkP7GOe1Hy pic.twitter.com/yWNphBD3ts
— Jason Kint (@jason_kint) September 17, 2020
Facebook will NOT flag declarations by President Trump or any other candidate who prematurely declares victory in battleground states. The company only will flag claims stating that a candidate has won the overall election.https://t.co/7jKPSZ2fo8
— Jeff Horwitz (@JeffHorwitz) November 4, 2020
Amazing read. Don\u2019t touch my 1A but recognize microtargeting has minimized the collisions... \u201cit is wrong to censor ideas, because knowledge arises from the \u2018the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.\u2019\u201d https://t.co/jJqlwlaI2A
— Jason Kint (@jason_kint) October 14, 2020
More from Government
And it would definitely not selectively censor unfashionable opinions if it were run by a government bureaucracy.
Because public sector bodies only ever maximise The Common Good.
Could even call it The International Common Good Association, just to make sure
As Twitter is the virtual equivalent of a natural monopoly both left & right should agree that it needs to be nationalised as a public utility & subordinated & regulated as a public good but as it is a global phenomenon perhaps it could be governed by an international regulator?
— Phillip Blond (@Phillip_Blond) January 9, 2021
"I don't like the fact that Twitter is so subservient to the woke elites. Let's create a massive state regulator, so that the woke elites, which have a stranglehold on most institutions... oh no, wait..."
(I mean, he's not entirely wrong. His solution may be rubbish, but there is an issue here. Twitter really does have a substantial amount of market power.
Still: There are people who I just will not ever side with, even when they have a point. And that includes Communitarians.)
As far as I can see, there are no good solutions here.
5 years ago, I would have said "Lol, Twitter is just a private company, like any other. The Guardian wouldn't publish anything by me, but that's not "censorship". They're just not letting me use their platform."
However...
...Twitter really does benefit from substantial network effects. We are on Twitter, because everyone else is also on Twitter. You can set up a rival platform, but that would be like being the only person who has a telephone: not very useful, because there's no one you can call.
You May Also Like
Russia hasn't been a willing partner in this treaty for almost 3 decades. We should have ended the pretense long ago.
Naturally, Rand Paul is telling anyone who will listen to him that Trump is making a HUGE MISTAKE here.
Arms control agreements are good when you have willing partners. Lightens the load on our military.
— John Noonan (@noonanjo) October 20, 2018
Russia hasnt been a willing partner in years. There will be gnashing of teeth from people who do arms control advocacy full time, but this is right movehttps://t.co/WmQE43ERCB
Rand is just like his dad, Ron. 100% isolationist.
They've never grasped that 100% isolationist is not 'America First' when you examine it. It really means 'America Alone'.
The consistent grousing of pursuing military alliances with allies - like Trump is doing now with Saudi Arabia.
So of course Rand has also spent the last 2 days loudly calling for Trump to kill the arms deal with Saudi Arabia and end our alliance with them.
What Obama was engineering with his foreign policy was de facto isolationism: pull all the troops out of the ME, abandon the region to Iranian control as a client state of Russia.
Obama wasn't building an alliance with Iran; he was facilitating abandoning the ME to Iran.
Obama wouldn't even leave behind a token security force, so of course what happened was the rise of ISIS. He also pumped billions of dollars into the Iranian coffers, which the Mullah's used to fund destabilizing activity [wars/terrorism] & criminal enterprises all over the globe