"... but everyone who's taken a constitutional law class knows that. The point is, of course, they're a private entity. The question then becomes, What is the responsibility of private entities to democracy and the public sphere? If The Washington Post or The New York Times had a policy to say we aren't going to print any progressive politicians op-eds, that's their right, but we would be critical of that. And they don’t have as much of a reach as Twitter in terms of users or followers. The debate should be about what you think a good public forum looks like and less about what the specific legal requirements are on Twitter."
Said Ro Khanna, quoted in an interview with Bari Weiss titled "The Twitter Files and the Future of the Democratic Party/With Silicon Valley's Congressman
Ro Khanna on why we should be skeptical of Big Tech's power" (The Free Press).
পোস্টগুলি
৫৪টি মন্তব্য:
If you’re a liberal your opinions on these matters are somewhat ‘fluid’…
question then becomes, What is the responsibility of private entities to democracy and the public sphere?
None whatsoever. Zip, zilch, nada.
Assumes compliance with all laws.
No responsibility to their product/users, either. Outside of contractual agreements tha may exist. Pretty close to none in Twitter's case.
John Henry
On November 4, 8 days after the deal closed, Twitter filed with treasury to become a bank/payments processor.
Would a bank care about being a public forum? Should it?
No Agenda listeners have known about this for over a month. I've found a few stories in obscure newsletters but otherwise not a peep.
This story from Nov 13 contains a link to the filing doc.
https://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2022/11/198598-here-is-twitter-payments-filing/
John Henry
Based on what came out in the Twitter files I’m going to consider Ro as an honest actor here, he asks a good question. But what is the answer to how well the NYT and WAPO have respected and enabled an open public square of debate.l? I think we all know that answer. So if you accept what they do, you can’t make up a higher standard for Twitter. And I’ll submit that Twitter 2.0 is meeting a higher standard already in comparison.
Did Ro just awaken from a six year slumber?
"It's a private company, they can do what they want" was a liberal Democrat talking point, repeated ad nauseum by the brainless to defend censorship, job losses due to "vaccine" mandates, mask mandates and whatever else the wanted to shove up your ass in 2021 and 2022.
They applied it not just to tech companies but also restaurants, hospitals, concert venues, airlines...
Elon Musk has turned everything upside down. Best $44 billion I've ever seen anyone spend.
Rules seem to be simple... No doxxing in order to send your violent minions out to harass those that disagree with you, and no kiddie porn.
But the best part is that mainstream "journalists" are now treated like everyone else. Along with freedom of speech, Musk is extending freedom of the press to everyone, not just the ivory towered credentialed who pretend to own the truth while they simply push liberal propaganda for their own benefit. Like the NYTs and Wash Post for example.
Good interview, but: "On whether anyone should have the power over Twitter or similar platforms: This is a place where the right and left could agree." The left position - overwhelmingly - is, It was great when the ones who had power were doing "the right things" in my not-so-humble opinion.
Apparently, our "Ministry of Truth" created by the Biden Administration considers your thoughts and the things you know our "cognitive infrastructure," and they believe that this "infrastructure" is a national security concern. "All of your thoughts are belong to us!" FBI's nudging and lying to Twitter executives was all part of their larger plan to control our "cognitive infrastructure." There is no room in this "infrastructure" for people to think for themselves and to seek their own facts, those privileges are reserved to senior members of "The Party." If you doubt this, you are "anti-intellectual," a word that probably doesn't mean what you think it means.
I think, personally, that it is a reaction to the "We have never lost a war on the battlefield" by the neocons. Where we have lost wars, it's because support for the war sagged and then disappeared. Therefore, the answer to this problem is more propaganda to prevent this from happening. Boy have they gone all out on that one. You might notice that if I object to our arming of the nazis in Kiev, the response is not logic, it's bullying, or simple repetition of baseless pro-US side propaganda. That's the intellectual life Democrats envision for our future. Bullying and propaganda, and a boot on our neck forever.
]
If they had had this propaganda infrastructure in the Viet Nam era, we would still be fighting there or have the whole region set up and run by American satraps.
John Henry.
Super interesting. Elon made his first big money at Pay Pal. He must have a plan to re-enter that space.
"I think it's a lazy response to say that Twitter’s a private company. That may get you a good grade in high school... but everyone who's taken a constitutional law class knows that." But as Matt Taibbi has stressed from the first, the FBI is not a private company, and Twitter has been doing their censorship for them.
but everyone who's taken a constitutional law class knows that. The point is, of course, they're a private entity. The question then becomes, What is the responsibility of private entities to democracy and the public sphere?
Conservatives have been asking this question for six years, and the explanation has always been "shut up!"
The fish are becoming aware of the water. Will they crawl out of the lake or just pump it dry? Failing that, they may join this reader on his bed of ice.
I like it when you fail
I like that that's ok
I like that I am failing
But in a cooler way
He isn't wrong, but where was Ro Khanna back when only conservatives were being treated unfairly on Twitter?
Sorry, but Twitter ceased to be a "private company" the minute it was bought by a guy who's not a raging lefty. (Sort of how dissent suddenly became unpatriotic again on January 20, 2021.)
“If The Washington Post or The New York Times had a policy to say we aren't going to print any progressive politicians op-eds, that's their right, but we would be critical of that.”
Senator Cotton’s conservative op-ed got the editor fired!
If the Republicans were truly the opposite of the Democrats, then Republicans would dismantle the institutions that Democrats control once Republicans got into power.
Except they never do.
And that's how you know it's a fake political party.
"He isn't wrong, but where was Ro Khanna back when only conservatives were being treated unfairly on Twitter?"
Click the Ro Khanna tag!
"In the wake of the [Hunter laptop] article’s suppression, Taibbi said one Democratic congressman, California Rep. Ro Khanna, wrote to Twitter’s chief legal officer suggesting it was a bad look and a departure from First Amendment ideals to suppress a news report containing details that affect a presidential candidate.... "
It might be lazy but as everyone knows sloth is the mother of invention.
Bottom line: Ro wants to protect the grift. He thinks his fellow lefties may’ve been too obvious about their screwing the pooch with their Big Tech-Feds collusion, and hopes his apologetic recognition of that will calm the waters.
Some look at Ro Khanna as a man who is 'coming around'. And that may be. He's sounding like someone who has seen enough and wants to pull his party back from the edge. Perhaps. I view him with a more cynical eye. I did not hear him whisper anything when the New York Times had it's upheaval over printing an op-ed from US Senator Tom Cotton. I don't recall any Ro Khanna updates at that time. But I'll go back and look to see if he did have anything to say about it.
I think Ro is positioning himself to be the savior of his party. He's seeing the disaster that has become the Democratic Party. And though they have won the last few elections, it's been more or less a mass railing and pumping of fear against anything that is Trump or Trump-related. Throw in a few election law changes in key states and you have a President who more closely resembles a Sack O'Potatoes and a new Senator from Pennsylvania who more closely resembles a rutabaga. Ro Khanna looks at this and knows this cannot continue.
So he's positioning himself as the 'Democrat who makes sense'. The Democrat who could appeal to the large middle of the voting sphere. It may play. But I have many doubts. I tend to not trust politicians, particularly those from California screaming to be taken seriously as a moderate. It'll be hard to me to get past it.
I read this yesterday and thought Khanna sounded like a thinking human being. I saw that Bari asked him about running for potus and he demurred.
Khanna is the only dem quoted in the twitter files who pushed back when no one was looking. Don't be the right side equivalent of orangemanbad.
Khan a thinks he can gain reach for leftist ideas be using the old trope about democracy being what the majority of politically active people want. So transgenderism and grooming support democracy and free speech does not.
The left are engaged in a great con game to convince us that the great divide in society is with those who don’t agree with the, and not with those who believe in liberty, as did our brilliant Founding Fathers. It’s as if the FF had already seen the leftist movie and wanted to stop it from becoming reality.
Tired of hearing that Ro Khanna was a great man. He alerted them, but ultimatley he went along with it. He did nothing. He stopped nothing.
Twitter is a public forum with large-scale market dominance. The origin, intent, and scope of speech matter.
Huzzah to The Free Press for actually writing a good article.
tim in vermont said...
but everyone who's taken a constitutional law class knows that. The point is, of course, they're a private entity. The question then becomes, What is the responsibility of private entities to democracy and the public sphere?
Conservatives have been asking this question for six years, and the explanation has always been "shut up!"
And it has been the NRO and CATO institute leading the way on that.
The problem here is the Oligarchy. The establishments of both parties support the attacks on Trump and Trump supporters generally.
The question then becomes, What is the responsibility of private entities to democracy and the public sphere?
Hmmmm. How 'bout the responsibility of GOVERNMENT to democracy and the public sphere.
It is GOVERNMENT not "private entities" that most potently affects democracy. The "public sphere" has a choice about engaging with private entities. There is no such choice about engaging with Government*.
Consider that Government may legally deprive the public of property, liberty, even life. The prudent among us might therefore wish to grant the bare minimum powers to Government.
*The single exception is medical care. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.
The FBI has an approximately 40-agent strong division dedicated to policing social media sites. Not just Twitter, but also Facebook, Google's several sites, etc.
You know how many FBI agents are on the team hunting down the pedophiles that used Jeffrey Epstein's connections:
ZERO
Not a single member of the FBI has been tasked to arrest Epstein's clients.
The FBI isn't a law-enforcement agency. It's a crime-enabling organization and the American people should shut it down.
Okay, so it isn't on Ro Khanna, but I suppose one can note that his views were unknown to the general public, until his views aligned with the current narrative.
This is the sort of double-step the MSM specializes in: Democratic politician will say "X" at every opportunity and it will be widely reported. Later, when "not X" becomes the received truth, they will note that said politician said "not X" at some, previously unreported upon event.
A further note: The Free Press is a competitor to the MSN, but Rep, Khanna has suddenly appeared in the MSM Lately
John henry said...
On November 4, 8 days after the deal closed, Twitter filed with treasury to become a bank/payments processor.
Would a bank care about being a public forum? Should it?
No Agenda listeners have known about this for over a month. I've found a few stories in obscure newsletters but otherwise not a peep.
This story from Nov 13 contains a link to the filing doc.
https://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2022/11/198598-here-is-twitter-payments-filing/
John Henry
Musk plans on making twitter blockchain and updating it to web 3.0. Twitter will become an anonymous service and your account will most likely be linked to a seed phrase.
Everything you post will be linked to the blockchain and be stored on the internet forever in the blockchain.
Payments will be processed in a decentralized manner via blockchain and web 3.0 technology.
It will be interesting to see if he allows other blockchains to use the service. There could also be a release of a Twitter native token but they would have to build a blockchain and a consensus system. Or they could use one of the currently existing consensus systems like Ouroboros that are open source.
This would completely rock the current SWIFT system of course. The Fed is trying to implement a Central Bank Digital Currency right now.
Web 3.0 is coming for you people. You need to learn what the difference is between a Central Bank Digital Currency and a Decentralized Crypto currency is instead of just bashing Crypto as a ponzi scheme.
You are going to get the CBDC or Crypto. This is a binary choice.
You better choose Crypto.
I think the real key is what MikeR said. The debate about what Twitters responsibilities are as a private company is interesting (I guess) but the real problem here is that they were doing this all at the request of and under pressure from the FBI and other governmental agencies. So it wasn'ta private company censoring anything, it was the government.
Fen’s Law still holds after all these years: when progressives said “it’s a private company” and “get your own Twitter” they didn’t really BELIEVE those statements and will now fight like hell against anyone mouthing similar rhetoric.
One sane Democrat. Not enough by far. Tulsi Gabbard left Congress.
It probably is a lazy response to say that Twitter is a private company. By the same token it requires no more effort to ask what is the responsibility of private entities to democracy and the public sphere.
The editor of the school newspaper complaining about student apathy used to be a cliché.
Maybe it still is.
I've already sent in one comment that's not yet up. This is a follow up. I just listened to the Bari Weiss/Ro Khanna "Honestly" podcast. My cynicism on Ro Khanna was on the mark. I found his comments in the podcast to be mostly in political-speak. A lot of general, mealy-mouthed overviews ignoring the details of some pretty important things. He seems to just go with the Left-thought about certain things. He seemed purposefully naive or ignorant about the contents of the Hunter Biden laptop- claiming that there's pretty much nothing there and it's a private laptop and should remain so. He apparently knows nothing about the Tony Bobulinski interviews and does not care to know who the "Big Guy" was and/or if it was indeed his President. Fine.
He seems himself as a current Obama figure, for what that's worth. But his comments seemed to not really want to tackle what went on between the FBI and Twitter and the other social media, with the FBI literally determining who could and could not be heard going into an election. Khanna was OK with that because, as he said, the FBI was/is led by a guy appointed by a Republican (Trump). The inference was how could they be against Republicans/Conservatives?
I did not learn much in the podcast other than Ro Khanna is just a repackaged Democrat. I was more impressed with him before I heard his answers. Often times politicians seem so much better when you really don't know much about them.
Assumes compliance with all laws.
That's kind of a big assumption - one question here is, is Twitter a platform or a publisher? Different laws apply.
Your private company is as moral as you are. Musk has decided that the moral thing to do is encourage more voices rather than a select few voices. Is it at times uncomfortable and messy? Yes. Freedom is uncomfortable and messy at times. But it is preferable to living in darkness.
Somebody once said of the left that they are constantly fighting to rid themselves of the unbearable burden of freedom.
Jamie,
What I meant by assumes compliance is that they have a responsibility to comply with whatever the applicable laws might be.
Agree this may be easier said than done.
But no other public or sociatle responsibilities
At all.
John Henry
Liberals had ZERO problems with Twitter when it was a left-wing propaganda tool of the DNC and the security state.
So fuck 'em.
Crocodile tears will get you no sympathy...
Best part of the Musk takeover?
I don't see anymore sidebar stories about the WNBA, gay this, trans that, or the birthdays of Korean pop stars.
Thank you, Elon...
>...""I think it's a lazy response to say that Twitter’s a private company. That may get you a good grade in high school..."
Sez the Democrat Congressman, of the phrase that was once repeated, mantra-like and sneeringly, in response to conservative complaints that they were being censored unfairly, possibly illegally. But: Times change! Now that the mantra's application has evaporated and turned into a Conservative retort when Progressive journalists are being canceled, by golly it's lazy, maybe even imbecilic and potentially illegal to use that hateful expression in public. Now that we think about it, it's racissssss...
Well, they aren't a private entity if they are doing the government's bidding- they had become a state-adjacent actor. It is no different than if the government suggested to paper companies in the 1950s to not sell newsprint paper to certain newspaper publishers, or if the government had suggested to AT&T that they not provide phone service to conservatives in the 1970s, or as in increasingly seen today, to not provide banking and payment services to icky gunshops. What the Twitter files reveal in no uncertain terms is the very definition of fascism, and anyone defending this behavior is a fascist.
"The debate should be about what you think a good public forum looks like and less about what the specific legal requirements are on Twitter."
That's so nice of him, but for progs the debate is always already settled. Since they don't do debate, and control nearly all levers of power, the only thing that can possibly matter is a countermove--a very rare example of which Musk is demonstrating.
The other debate should be about the way the deep state conducts surveillance and suppresses speech to serve the prog cause. Hey, Mo, are you ready to investigate the suppressors and abolish the FBI?
Ro, not Mo. Sorry Ro.
I want to see people like Ro Khanna asking Mark Zuckerberg about what the FBI and DHDS are doing at Facebook and if he plans to follow Musk's example. Same for Google so forth.
Khanna slips the punch. He says “everybody knows” that Twitter is a private entity, so no 1A violation could occur. Look over there, a shiny object! He (quite deliberately) ignores the fact that the FBI and DHS and WH are totally NOT private entities and for years have been using Twitter (and FB? And Instagram? And…?) to create a false reality for all users, suppressing inconvenient facts and unwelcome opinions. The 1A violation could not be clearer. But Khanna wants us to focus on voluntary standards to be adopted by the platforms —like rules for deportment at a country club. He doesn’t want to talk about what they have been forced or paid to do by Big Government.
The MSM and social media platforms are complicit with government in what amounts to the biggest-ever betrayal of public trust. It’s like something out of “The Matrix.” And we can only hope that Musk has got the chops of a Neo.
Khanna seems to think that the laws are a good beginning, and his ability to make laws is a welcome development, but he really needs to be given complete control of everything if he's going to accomplish the many wonderful things he has in mind. Does he look anything like Mussolini?
"... but everyone who's taken a constitutional law class knows that."
I'm guessing that Khanna recognizes the essential irrelevance of the Constitution to our modern situation. Old white guys with slaves, right?
In an era where the Democratic Party and Big Tech often seem to march in lockstep, Khanna says: Maybe we should be skeptical of this kind of corporate power.
Maybe we should be skeptical of any kind of corporate power. Or any kind of power. Or maybe we should get up every morning and don our skeptical hat. Right after we ... well ... after we do all that other morning stuff ... but for sure before we look at twitter.
No concern is being shown about the FBI using social media companies to suppress speech, but lots being said about Elon Musk temp banning people for violating the TOS.
"I think it's a lazy response to say that Twitter’s a private company. That may get you a good grade in high school but everyone who's taken a constitutional law class knows that. The point is, of course, they're a private entity. The question then becomes, What is the responsibility of private entities to democracy and the public sphere?"
Gee, Ro, how about Google, YouTube, and FaceBook?
What about when they censor real Americans, which is to say "not the Left"?
If The Washington Post or The New York Times had a policy to say we aren't going to print any progressive politicians op-eds, that's their right, but we would be critical of that.
OTOH, if they suppress all information that helps the GOP that's entirely good, right?
What a scum bag
"And they don’t have as much of a reach as Twitter in terms of users or followers. The debate should be about what you think a good public forum looks like and less about what the specific legal requirements are on Twitter."
A good public forum has neutral rules that are equally imposed on everyone. The Left hates that
A good public forum does not allow "exerts" to decide who is allowed to speak, or what they're allowed to say.
A good public forum understands that the solution to bad speech is more speech, that no one is qualified to censor others because "what's they're saying is misinformation!"
If what they're saying is really false, then you can comment on the original post, pointing out the falsity
So, I would say that A good public forum does not let people post things and block others from responding to their post. Anyone who can see your post should be able to post a response to it that everyone else can see (except for this members of "everyone else" who've decided they dont' want to see what they person posts).
In sort, a good public forum is hell on Earth for the Left, because the Left is about nothing other than. lies and bullying, so can't handle honest discussion and debate
The conversation has shifted from:
Hunter Biden's own laptop strongly indicates he may have been the middle-man in a bribery scheme of Joe Biden by China and by Ukraine and the FBI not only didn't investigate, they colluded with Twitter to actively suppress the story.
to
Elon Musk is censoring reporters because he's right-wing extremist.
Ann Althouse said...
"He isn't wrong, but where was Ro Khanna back when only conservatives were being treated unfairly on Twitter?"
Click the Ro Khanna tag!
"In the wake of the [Hunter laptop] article’s suppression, Taibbi said one Democratic congressman, California Rep. Ro Khanna, wrote to Twitter’s chief legal officer suggesting it was a bad look and a departure from First Amendment ideals to suppress a news report containing details that affect a presidential candidate.... "
Ann's perfect politician.
Says the right things.
Wont actually do anything about the fascism.
Thus Ann and Ro get to feel good about themselves and they can still feel superior to all the people getting censored.
Ro Khanna is a complete sham. If he really meant what he said they would be going after him like they did with Tulsi.
Ro Khanna is a complete sham.
No, he's not. What's impressive about him is that this was a private e-mail exchange and it only came out because Musk bought Twitter and released this stuff. So none of us would have heard about his good and decent behavior if the truth hadn't come out.
Christ calls on us to do amazing things in secret. That's because it's human nature to pretend to be good and do evil shit when you think nobody is watching. (God is always watching).
So when the light is shone on what we do in the dark, we see what people have been doing in secret.
Ro Khanna = Good guy, behaves well even when it's not for public view.
FBI = Shit organization, fascist, law-breaking sons of bitches.
They have no respect for our 1st Amendment and cannot be trusted with guns, badges, or authority.
So props to Khanna and jeers to FBI. And the truth will set us free.
(See also our Pravda media that has been hiding the bodies of aborted infants for 40 years now. If abortion is "right," why are you hiding it? Why are you censoring it?)
FBI = KGB
Mainstream Media = Pravda
They have an agenda, they are very dishonest, and I do not trust them.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন