The changing of the guard
On Monday, Jack Dorsey, the co-founder and longtime CEO of Twitter, stepped down from his post in favor of Parag Agrawal, who had been Twitter's chief technology officer. Dorsey was one of the iconic Internet entrepreneur's who co-founded one of the largest and most popular social media platforms. For many he is the billionaire who seems to look like a homeless person. Twitter itself is clearly among the woke and has tied itself to censorship in the guise of self policing content.
Parag Agrawal
The first action taken by the new CEO, within one day of the change, was to announce a new policy about what people are allowed to post on Twitter. The change has already proved quite controversial, and that left many users wondering if it would radically alter how they use Twitter. Users may no longer share "media of private individuals without the permission of the person(s) depicted." Do they mean photos?
Conservatives need not hope that things will change, because Agrawal is going to be more of the same, however Twitter does still have it's uses. I've used it to find interesting stories and unique photos. I would never attempt to use it in the manner which I use NT. Here at NT we have freedom and it is all about conversation as well as opinion.There was that man who used it to bypass the msm. He mastered it. There were times when he was mean, times he was profoud and at times brilliant. He connected with millions of average Americans. Twitter did him and the GOP a big favor by censoring him. He no longer became a campaign issue. I'm sure that Twitter gang never intended to help the GOP, but they did.
All we can hope for now is that the next congress will break up this repulsive monopoly. I would hope that Twitter keeps 25%, Parlor gets another 25% and smaller entities are granted two equal shares of the platforn as is. I know that might only be a dream.
Tags
Who is online
69 visitors
Here is a change that isn't.
From what I've read, it's going to be worse.
I wouldn't be surprised.
Wait... Congress should give 25% of Twitter to parler? Realy? Congress should give 50% of Twitter to other "smaller entities"? Let me guess. Whatever Trump's got in the works this week. Sounds like government picking winners and losers to me.
Is Twitter a monopoly in your opinion?
No. There are literally thousands of message boards on the internet.
What percentage of Twitter would those thousands equate to?
The users of these platforms choose them. The only way they can get bigger is to attract more users. What are you suggesting here? Are you suggesting that the Congress assign users to platforms? How would that work?
That Twitter and Facebook and Google be broken up as monopolies should be.
I'm not on Twitter, Facebook, or Google. If Parler, or whatever Trump's got going could attract more users they could be the biggest. They've chosen to cater to a specific demographic. Anytime you do that you reduce your potential for growth. That's just business. Twitter did not censor Trump. He was banned because of multiple TOS violations. When he signed up for Twitter he clicked "I agree" to the TOS. He violated it way more times than the average Joe could have before being banned.
Didn't St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter sign that same TOS?
Not only did he make a false claim but Jack Dorsey shared them on Twitter. St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter, falsely claimed on May 30 that every rioter arrested in his city the previous night during the fallout of the Twin Cities-area Black Lives Matter protests had been from “out of state.”
How come certain lies can stand on Twitter?
I don't know Mayor Melvin Carter or anything about him. I try to follow my own local politics and leave other local politics to other locals. Our country would do better if we didn't get so involved in affairs that don't concern us including those from "out of state".
Short answer: Twitter is radical left, hypocritical, and very biased. It allows domestic terrorists like BLM and Antifa ... and international terrorists like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran's Ayatollah Khameni to have accounts.
I used that as a single example of Twitter's blatant hypocrisy on "disinformation."
There is a mountain of examples.
No. There are lots of social media outlets.
You know that the government interfering in private business is the definition of Socialism, correct?
They are not monopolies though. If they are, so is Parler and 4chan.
Remember the case of Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States? It was a Supreme Court case that tested the strength of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. The most contentious business case at the time to reach the Supreme Court saw the United States government take on the countries largest corporation (Standard Oil) and John D. Rockefeller, the countries wealthiest businessman.
The court ruled in favor of the United States and held that a business combination was illegal when it was engaged in unreasonable restraint to trade. This resulted in the breakup of Standard Oil into separate companies, all in competition with one another, effectively lowering prices.
In the modern case of social media we have a business combination that is engaged in unreasonable restraint to freedom of thought, speech and expression.
Standard Oil was a monopoly even though there were other oil companies. If one controls 90% of the business it qualifies.
Do you think Twitter, Google, Facebook, Parler and 4chan control 90% of any social media source? Nope. Besides, it's socialism to break them up and as I recall, you are not a fan, (and neither am I for that matter).
Standard Oil drilled, transported and refined physical products that they sold to the public
They also controlled 90% of that market.
What do you purchase from Twitter? FaceBook? Google?
They do not qualify as monopolies, they don't sell anything.
Like newspapers and magazines, they sell advertising space to pay their bills
but anyone with a computer or smart phone can use whatever "platform" they choose
for free if you agree to the terms of service.
It's totally voluntary.
Known as Vertical Consolidation.
They also controlled 90% of that market.
And they thought that was good enough.
What do you purchase from Twitter? FaceBook? Google?
Their marketplace is that of opinions and speech.
They do not qualify as monopolies, they don't sell anything.
Not as industry, but as a forum, as in the Roman Forum.
I think Twitter all by itself controls about 90% of the opinion market.
Besides, it's socialism to break them up and as I recall, you are not a fan, (and neither am I for that matter).
No it isn't. The greatest Capitalist society the world has ever known put safeguards in place long ago. Have you ever heard of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act?
That 90% number you pulled out of your behind is untrue, undocumented and unsupportable. Rupert Murdoch's opinions regarding all things political as exposed on his many outlets are more universal than anything on Twitter...
You're just mad they banned Donald Trump!
It is an opinion of something that nobody can know, but a fair one.
It's like estimating that 90% of bank robbers flee the scene.
Stop thinking and look at the actual statistics.
FB is generally agreed to have 36% of the "social media market"
Twitter is smaller with fewer daily comments,
comments which are limited in media and typed characters.
There is no such marketplace.
Again, comparing two things that are not alike.
The Roman Forum was a physical place where a variety of things happened.
I see.
FB is generally agreed to have 36% of the "social media market"
Via users or comments?
Twitter is smaller with fewer daily comments,
But isn't FB more social while Twitter is more political. Are they not apples & oranges?
And are not both guilty of bias?
That is sad.
The Roman Forum was a physical place where a variety of things happened.
Ya, They didn't have the internet. Most important was the exchange of ideas.
Why is the right so determined to have uncensored wide open access and use of every social media platform possible?
Thats an easy one. They want the FREEDOM to lie , bamboozle and monger conspiracies to their hearts content. It is what they do.
What claptrap. Donald Trump used twitter to lie literally thousands of times.
Why did Twitter censor the Hunter Biden Laptop story?
Facebook also censored Miranda Devine's NY Post expose. Why? It was October, 2020 ... right before the election. Biden was behind in the polls, and the MSM/all other left wing media were desperate to dupe their viewers and readers by keeping them ignorant.
Polls don't elect presidents, the EC does.
Correct. Tech companies inserted themselves into the 2020 election, deciding to work against one party and one candidate. Twitter began meddling in the election by censoring and limiting the reach of tweets from Donald Trump, whether about election rigging, the summer of violence, the origin and treatment of covid-19 or any other issue it felt compelled to weigh in on. Meanwhile, the political speech of fellow democrats, no matter how disputed, was left untouched.
Yes, I know.
You think Trump is the only politician lying on twitter?
The left is happy because Twitter, Google, and Facebook decided to follow the Democrat directive and censure right wing views (or anything that didn't fit the Democrat narrative). They wouldn't be so happy if the same standards were applied to them.
There are right wing views all over twitter.
It's well known that the truth has a liberal bias while propaganda, lies, hate speech and subversive activity is owned by the far right.
Twitter is a cesspool. I would be leaving it too if I was responsible for creating it. Does he not want his name associated with it anymore?
Why worry about it?
He's worth $10Billion, 45 years old, CEO of Square, Inc where he reportedly makes $3.00 annually.
Currently he is sorting out opening Square Financial Services, a new bank he is growing...
Square Financial Services Begins Banking Operations (squareup.com)
He's also awaiting international approval of a $29Billion takeover of Australia's Afterpay Ltd.
He sounds like a very busy young man.
Then again, maybe he just got sick of Twitter.