Mediaboss Marketing

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Twitter tried to subvert the Constitution by using the free market to turn the censoring of conservative thought into a defensible position. And now Americans are using their free-market choices to say goodbye to Twitter.

Thats called tit for tat.

Thats called just due.

Thats called paying the piper.

It was only a matter of time before Americans, en masse, grew weary of the whole social media clampdown on conservative thought. It was turning into quite a cycle: Social media minions censor conservatives followed by public outcry followed by congressional hearing followed by social media executive denials of censorship followed by social media minions censor conservatives followed by public outcry followed by well, the pictures pretty clear.

It was a never-ending circus act, one that always left the American public in the lurch, left to either make the case that government should crack down on private businesses or to accept that conservatives should just suck it up and suffer the censorship. Social medias leftist leaning leaders have been particularly adept at using Americas own freedoms to their particular anti-freedom purposes.

After all, the First Amendment only applies to government, not private businesses. Right?

Yet a private business that receives special shielding from the government, i.e. Section 230, which protects it from being sued for content created by users, ought not hide behind that special protection when its influence and presence grows so big that its become more a publisher, or news outlet, or publisher of news, than a platform that touts its openness to all views, all thoughts, all across the board. Right again?

In other words and this is a compelling argumentyou cant take Section 230 protections and simultaneously edit content as if a publisher.

Not when the content thats being edited is political in tone. Like The New York Posts recent Hunter Biden bombshell. Or the many, many, many whove simply retweeted The Post piece.

Or anyone else whos written critically of Democratic candidates, politicos or the party in general.

And then to not even explain the censorship, but rather send a form letter about violating some standards of community behavior? Tsk-tsk.

The people dont like it. And they start to show their dislike by taking their business elsewhere.

Twitter shares plunge as user growth slows, Fox Business recently reported.

The story goes on to say how Twitter posted decent quarterly revenues, but the expected daily user rate came in flat. Very flat, actually.

Twitter posted much stronger than expected third-quarter results thanks to surging advertiser demand, Fox Business found. [H]owever, profit slipped and daily users came in lower than analysts expected. The San Francisco company earned $28.66 million, or 4 cents per share, in the July-September period.

The earnings is 22% less than a year ago. Some of that can be chalked to COVID-19, of course. But heres the interesting part: Forecasts of daily user figures arent looking so great.

Twitter had 187 million daily users, on average, in the third quarter, but below analysts expectations of 195.6 million, Fox wrote.

So, either Twitter has been busily booting even more conservatives that make the news, or users are abandoning the platform at a high rate.

Smart money is on option two.

Minus the hard left, Americans by and large cherish their freedom of speech. And they dont take kindly to rich, elitist tech giants going to Congress and lying their butts off, pretending as if they dont censor. The who, me? line gets old, but quick.

If Twitters losing its users, that means one thing and one thing for sure: Free speech is seeing a resurgence.

Free speech advocates are looking for a new outlet. Thats not just good for all Americans; thats good for Americas free market, as well.

Read the rest here:
Twitter is losing users, just as censorship fatigue hits hard - Washington Times

As a writer, Im supposed to have a voice. Im expected to be able to articulate my opinions, do so without fear or hesitation or censorship.

In fact, writers are expected to show a mirror to society, by exercising their freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression, which is a sacred tenet in many countries and communities, is considered the cornerstone of democracies; some would even say, modern life.

We must be free to critique, free to express our beliefs, free to be able to vent our anger.

Social media gives each of us that platform. You dont have to be a writer to board the social media train, or express your opinions.

You can log on to any of your media and say exactly what you feel, and depending on the size of your platform, you will be heard.

You will receive reactions: virtual hugs or vitriol, depending on what youre saying, and how many agree or disagree with you.

Many of us do get on this train. Religion, politics, personal feelings and affairs: some of us lead as much of a public life as a movie star or a politician.

Not as many might be interested in our lives, but that does not prevent us from sharing them. Theres a growing trend though, of those who are choosing to switch off social media or, increasingly, self-censor.

Despite being a writer, I find myself guilty of self-censorship, and Im not alone.

You think twice before hitting the Send button. What used to be a privacy concern has today been burdened as well with an inability to say what you feelabout the pandemic, about politics, the economy. All of it has become somewhat personal, because were all in this unnatural survival bunker of a pandemic.

Theres a lot of strife already, stress that wouldnt go away, arguments due to living too close for too long.

Why add to that by stating facts that others would find unpalatable, especially if it doesnt make any difference in their actions?

Those who do not observe safety distancing, and other pandemic precautions might be callous or selfish in your eyes, but you do not mention this behaviour on social media.

You might hold views on religion and politics, but you hold them close to your heart, because you dont want to argue with your friends and relatives.

The differences of opinion are increasingly turning out to be differences in morality, and those can create unsurmountable rifts. So you begin to type in the input or comment box on your social media, but delete it. Observers say that these aborted posts amount to a third of the total number of posts that are actually made.

To keep the peace, youd rather not engage with those who are loud and proud, because lets face it, what would you gain from the interaction?

Raised blood pressure, distraction, ruined peace. That said, self-censorship comes at a price. Censoring yourself, and being unable to be who you are in public affects your mental health, your self-image, and, ironically enough, your relationships.

The next time the urge to self-censor on social media takes you, consider examining the reasons why. It is valid to protect your privacy and your mental space.

And it is normal to engage in a degree of curation in order to present your social-media self. If the urge to censor yourself comes from wanting to avoid arguments, that is also your right.

It is possible, however, to create social media accounts that are unknown to your loved ones, your work, and your professional persona.

The true cost of self-censorship is the lack of diversity of opinionthat is when we are sucked into a tyranny of the vocal minority.

As a friend of mine wisely said, the burdens of religion are those for the religious to bear, and the same can be said of politics. Just because you dont say something does not mean you do not feel them. As a writer, I channel these feelings into my fiction, and would encourage everyone to find an outlet, whether it is enjoying or creating art, or music, or simply soaking in nature where possible.

And remember, you dont have to bear the burden of an unexpressed stanceyou can always find other ways to have your voice heard, be it on social media, or otherwise.

Twitter: @damyantig

More:
The price of self-censorship - The New Indian Express

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testifies remotely during a Senate Commerce Committee hearing Wednesday about reforms to Section 230, a key legal shield for tech companies. Greg Nash/Pool/Getty Images hide caption

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testifies remotely during a Senate Commerce Committee hearing Wednesday about reforms to Section 230, a key legal shield for tech companies.

The CEOs of some of the biggest tech platforms defended the way they handle online speech to an audience of skeptical senators, many of whom seemed more interested in scoring political points than engaging with thorny debate over content moderation policies and algorithms.

Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter's Jack Dorsey and Google's Sundar Pichai appeared virtually Wednesday at a hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee that was supposed to focus on a decades-old legal shield insulating tech companies from liability over what users post.

But many Republicans on the committee used the opportunity to berate the executives over suspicions that their companies and employees are biased against conservatives a frequent complaint on the right for which there is no systematic evidence. Several members pressed Dorsey about Twitter's decision later reversed to block links to a controversial New York Post story about Hunter Biden, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's son.

"Mr. Dorsey, who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear?" Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas bellowed at Twitter's chief executive in one of the hearing's most theatrical moments.

Dorsey, a yoga devotee who says he tries to meditate every day, quietly responded that users agree to Twitter's terms of service when they sign up and said Twitter did not have the ability to influence elections.

Democrats mainly focused their questions on what steps the platforms are taking to protect from election interference and crack down on hate speech and radicalization as well as how the tech companies have contributed to the downfall of local news media by sapping advertising spending.

Several Democratic members called foul on the timing of the hearing, just six days before the election. "We have to call this hearing what it is, it's a sham," Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii said. "I'm not going to use my time to ask any questions because this is nonsense."

Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut accused his Republican colleagues of wanting to "bully and browbeat these platforms" into favoring President Trump.

Bipartisan agreement that Section 230 should change but not about why or how

All of the companies have changed their policies this year about what posts are allowed about voting and the election. Facebook and Twitter in particular have taken increasingly aggressive action against posts that make false claims about voting or undermine confidence in the electoral process including putting warning labels on some of the president's most inflammatory attacks on voting by mail.

The law in question, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, is under attack from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle but for different reasons.

Republicans say it gives cover for tech platforms to censor conservatives unfairly, including Trump, while Democrats say the companies should have to take more responsibility for the hate speech, false claims and other harmful content that proliferate on their platforms.

"The reality is that people have very different ideas and views about where the lines should be," Zuckerberg told senators. "Democrats often say that we don't remove enough content, and Republicans often say that we remove too much."

Trump says the law should be revoked, and his Justice Department has asked Congress to pass legislation holding platforms more accountable for what their users post.

Biden has also said the law should be revoked. House Democrats have introduced their own bill that would hold tech companies liable if their algorithms amplify or recommend "harmful, radicalizing content that leads to offline violence."

Tech executives say legal shield is essential to promote online speech

On Wednesday, the CEOs told the committee they agreed that the law should be updated to reflect the current state of the world, 24 years after it was first written. But they defended its legal protections and warned that removing it entirely would result in their companies taking a heavier hand with user content.

They noted that Section 230 not only makes them largely immune from liability of what users post but also empowers them to make decisions about what content to remove and what to allow.

Dorsey and Zuckerberg said there should be more "transparency" about the decisions that online platforms make when determining what content can stay up and what they take down.

Dorsey said he agreed with critics that the companies' policies can feel "like a black box" to outsiders.

"Section 230 is the most important law protecting Internet speech, and removing Section 230 will remove speech from the Internet," he said.

Editor's note: Facebook and Google are among NPR's financial supporters.

Originally posted here:
Facebook, Twitter, Google CEOs Defend Themselves From GOP Censorship Accusations - NPR

Censorship and loss of First Amendment rights should concern us all

In reference to an Oct. 28 letter to editor from Bill Powell concerning theft of campaign sign, removing/stealing a sign from someones property is not only a crime, but violating their free speech right.

As bad as this is, I would ask Mr. Powell to look beyond this, to todays environment on social media. We used to have news organizations that reported the news, not their ideology. We now have social media, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube. These companies now put a blackout/ censorship on any point of view that they do not agree on. And sadly, many take it as the truth.

We should all be of concern of our First Amendment rights being taken away from us, no matter what side of the political fence you may stand on. Wake up people!

Gerald Davis

LaVale

The rest is here:
Censorship and loss of First Amendment rights should concern us all - Cumberland Times-News

Editors note: As the Nov. 3 election draws near, the Daily Universe is exploring different national and local issues impacting voters in a series of stories.

A number of recent nationwide surveys suggest political self-censorship may be on the rise in America, particularly among young adults.

Data from a July 2020 survey from the libertarian Cato Institute showed 62% of Americans say the current political climate prevents them from sharing their views in fear of causing offense, up from 58% in 2017. Additionally, 37% of responders under 30 admitted they were worried their political opinions could hurt their career paths, compared to 30% of 30-54 year-olds and 24% of 55-64 year-olds.

Similarly, a fall 2019 Heterodox Academy survey found 55% of college students in the United States are reluctant to share political views with their peers.

With the 2020 presidential election just days away, some BYU students acknowledged their hesitancy to share political views and attributed it to a variety of fears, including confrontation, losing friends and cancel culture.

In a social media survey on The Daily Universe Instagram account, 51% of responders said they do not generally feel comfortable sharing political opinions while 22% said it depends on the situation. Just 27% of responders noted their willingness to express political views regardless of the circumstance.

One student admitted they generally feel comfortable talking politics in one-on-one conversations, but over social media or in public, heck no. Another student said they also choose to steer clear of addressing political topics on social media because people are much more tactless behind a screen.

One student responder said it seems when you share them people view it as an attack on their views and get upset. While another said, people are incredibly rude if you have an opinion different than theirs.

Malia Vick, a freshman from Fayetteville, Georgia, acknowledged her willingness to share political opinions depends on how intense people are.

I wont deny my beliefs, Vick said. But some people just want to fight.

BYU political science professor Lisa Argyle, who is currently doing research on political self-censorship, has found talking politics can bring a high level of anxiety to some.

Political conversations can create tension, confrontation, put you on the spot for things you are not very confident about or challenge your view of yourself and the world, Argyle said. All of these things create what psychologists call self-threat, which manifests as anxiety. The easiest way to avoid the discomfort and anxiety is to not talk politics at all.

Fellow BYU political science professor Ethan Busby agreed with Argyle, noting that many people want to avoid the tense conflict that can come from political discussions. Busby pointed to uncomfortable family gatherings, workplaces and certain marriages as common settings where political self-censorship can take place.

With regard to younger, college-aged adults, Busby feels some might be hesitant to talk politics because they think they dont know as much or havent been involved in politics for very long.

It could also be that younger people feel that theyre generally less-established and have more to lose from controversy and disagreement, Busby said.

Jeremy Pope, another BYU political science professor, noted some college-aged adults might refrain from talking politics to appear more socially acceptable. He also acknowledged some can be nervous about how an authority figure might react to their political opinions.

According to Pope, the difficulty in analyzing political self-censorship among young adults is determining whether or not this behavior is really problematic or just social interaction as it normally unfolds.

While Argyle noted talking politics can seem threatening to some college students, she has found that younger people are generally more likely to share political views than older people. She mentioned college can be a formative environment where students are exposed to a wide range of new ideas and beliefs.

This leads to more political discussion and changing attitudes than people typically have later in their lives, Argyle said.

As the 2020 presidential election nears, Busby said some people choose to remain silent about politics simply because they are tired of hearing so much about the candidates and issues. He noted election fatigue can be common at the end of any campaign in any election year.

Argyle mentioned political self-censorship has been present in America for several years, no matter who the president is or the prominent national issues at the time. She also expects the behavior to continue well into the future, regardless of who wins this years election.

It is a natural psychological reaction for people to shift what they are willing to say and how they want to say it based on who they are talking to and the context they are in, Argyle said. That is not a new development in the last four years and I think its unlikely to go away in the next four years, no matter who wins the election.

Excerpt from:
Is political self-censorship on the rise? - The Daily Universe - Universe.byu.edu