The General Technology Thread

[T.Lex]

Yeah, I'll readily concede that I'm not the most conversant in it. Although, I was blocked on Twitter by a prominent conservative state legislator for a disagreement during the RFRA debacle. I thought it worked that I couldn't tweet at them, but I can still tweet about them.

No one is kicking anyone out of the public square, so to speak, just actively ignoring them very selectively.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

So... government communications posted exclusively in a billboard housed in a private building and the building's owners don't allow certain people to go in.

The fact that Twitter is a private company probably has some part in this. Can a private company block access to a public forum? Can Twitter ban accounts and deny them access to a public forum?

Say a public official holds a speech inside a private venue, like a stadium. If the politician can’t eject opposing views, but the private venue kicks people out on their own, then we really don’t have a right to a public forum after all.

If anything, the ruling needs some major clarification for it to pass.

Edit: Also seeing some problems with people taking issue with the NFL's ruling today... and also this.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

The right to say what you please does not imply a responsibility on a private entity to provide you with bandwidth. As long as they're paying with it out of their own pocket, they can throw you out or limit your speech. Cf profanity filters, rules against racist messages, etc. If the .gov or a member of it seeks to take refuge in your space, and you agree to allow it, your other rules, or even ones crafted for this .gov entity, will stand. The member of .gov may even, from his own pocket, establish such a refuge for himself. In all this, public money may not be used for any of these purposes.

After all that, and probably a couple of other things lost in my disordered mind, it's not a positive development for members of our .gov to be actively avoiding our opinions.

 

[jamil]

So... government communications posted exclusively in a billboard housed in a private building and the building's owners don't allow certain people to go in.

The fact that Twitter is a private company probably has some part in this. Can a private company block access to a public forum? Can Twitter ban accounts and deny them access to a public forum?

Say a public official holds a speech inside a private venue, like a stadium. If the politician can’t eject opposing views, but the private venue kicks people out on their own, then we really don’t have a right to a public forum after all.

If anything, the ruling needs some major clarification for it to pass.

Edit: Also seeing some problems with people taking issue with the NFL's ruling today... and also this.

That’s an unintended consequence that I was going to post about. That the ruling kinda established a precedent that sets twitter in sort of new space.

 

[Cameramonkey]

That’s an unintended consequence that I was going to post about. That the ruling kinda established a precedent that sets twitter in sort of new space.

LOTS of unintended consequences now that "the public square" no longer exists solely on public space. Private companies are becoming the defacto public square/common carrier for ideas and it is something that will have to be addressed.

 

[actaeon277]

Well, if you go with that ruling, than Twitter can't ban anyone either. Because then they can't follow the political figure.

 

[jamil]

Well, if you go with that ruling, than Twitter can't ban anyone either. Because then they can't follow the political figure.

Not sure I accept the logic. I'll have to chew on that one awhile.

On second thought, I don't accept the logic. A service provider banning users for violating terms of service isn't the same as a POTUS blocking a user from an official government account established on that service.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Not sure I accept the logic. I'll have to chew on that one awhile.

On second thought, I don't accept the logic. A service provider banning users for violating terms of service isn't the same as a POTUS blocking a user from an official government account established on that service.

That, and anyone can still read the accounts... without making an account.

If this is about "talking to" elected officials... it's even more of a nonsense ruling. Nothing stops anyone from reading them, though.

 

[T.Lex]

Honestly, the best analogy I can come up with is pamphleteering.

Those kinds of leaflets could be printed by a private company and distributed by paid contractors on private property. If an elected official walks by, they can refuse to accept the pamphlet. Nothing can force that elected official to accept that leaflet.

 

[jamil]

That, and anyone can still read the accounts... without making an account.

If this is about "talking to" elected officials... it's even more of a nonsense ruling. Nothing stops anyone from reading them, though.

Okay. That's a fair point. Without social media, whose ever had an opportunity to "talk to" an elected official in as personal way that you can on Twitter? Not the average Joe.

But, I think a ruling is on more solid footing that is based on the idea that the @POTUS account belongs to the people. It's a two-way communication tool that never existed before.

IRL, you have a right to say stuff directed at the POTUS. You don't have a right for the POTUS to hear you. So to me, I think the analog of that, in the twitterverse, is that the POTUS can mute people, but not block them--on official social media accounts. I think his personal twitter account is his own business. He talks and blocks at his own whim. Of course it'd help if he'd use the @POTUS account for official business and his own twitter account for whatever it is that he does.

It's my understanding that if I block you, you can still tweet @me, and your followers will see your tweet in their timelines. But my followers won't see it unless they search for it. The algorithm is probably more complicated than that (probably depends on whether I've been flagged as a conservative too).

 

[jamil]

Honestly, the best analogy I can come up with is pamphleteering.

Those kinds of leaflets could be printed by a private company and distributed by paid contractors on private property. If an elected official walks by, they can refuse to accept the pamphlet. Nothing can force that elected official to accept that leaflet.

But can the POTUS otherwise block the distribution of the pamphlet to a group of people? Say the pamphlets are distributed by mail. Can the potus order the post office not to deliver them to him or his followers?

When it arrives in his mailbox, he can toss it in the trash without reading. On twitter, he can mute the person.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I thought this was because @theRealDonaldTrump was blocking people. At least, that's what I read. I didn't think it was related to @POTUS. If the judge wants to pretend TRDT account is somehow as official as POTUS... That's even more of a stretch.

 

[jamil]

I thought this was because @theRealDonaldTrump was blocking people. At least, that's what I read. I didn't think it was related to @POTUS. If the judge wants to pretend TRDT account is somehow as official as POTUS... That's even more of a stretch.

Yeah. It's a stretch. But the only reason they can stretch it is, Trump uses the two accounts interchangeably, but usually his @realDonaldTrump account.

He should stick to making administrative announcements on his @POTUS account, and just use his personal account for Trumping.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

For those not aware... you may be wondering why you're getting so many "Privacy Policy update" e-mails. Here's my inbox, for example...

This is due to GDPR... a new consumer privacy standard requiring companies collecting info on EU citizens to have better data protection, including the ability to have a "right to be forgotten".

Most international companies are simply applying the new standards across the board for all users, since that's the easiest implementation... so non-EU citizens will mostly benefit from the additional protections.

 

[actaeon277]

But can the POTUS otherwise block the distribution of the pamphlet to a group of people? Say the pamphlets are distributed by mail. Can the potus order the post office not to deliver them to him or his followers?

When it arrives in his mailbox, he can toss it in the trash without reading. On twitter, he can mute the person.

A blocked person can still read the President's tweets.
So in your example, it would be more like... the pamphlets go out to everyone. But not everyone can send a letter back.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Pornhub launches VPNhub, its own virtual private network app

 

[Cameramonkey]

Pornhub launches VPNhub, its own virtual private network app

They are really diversifying... first gun porn, now this.

 

[jamil]

A blocked person can still read the President's tweets.
So in your example, it would be more like... the pamphlets go out to everyone. But not everyone can send a letter back.

There's not a completely consistent IRL analog to twitter. When you block someone who follows you, I'm pretty sure that twitter "unfollows" that person from you. So unless someone you you've blocked follows someone who retweets or replies to something you've tweeted, it's not going to be in their timeline. They can see what you tweeted if they search for it. But they have to know to search for it. To include little nuances like that, the pamphlet analogy breaks down.

I agree with the courts if it's limited to government "official" accounts. If we're going to at least pretend like the government is actually of the people, then it's not the single office holder's call to block a person just because he doesn't like what people say. I'd say its fair to establish official policies about what constitutes "blockable" behavior. Certainly harassment shouldn't be tolerated. But then that should be covered by twitter's terms of use anyway.

 

[jamil]

Pornhub launches VPNhub, its own virtual private network app

They are really diversifying... first gun porn, now this.

Guess we'll be seeing more INGO shill accounts.

 

[jkaetz]

In addition to the below, scammers are trying to piggyback and creating phishing messages that look like a privacy policy update. Stay alert.

For those not aware... you may be wondering why you're getting so many "Privacy Policy update" e-mails. Here's my inbox, for example...

This is due to GDPR... a new consumer privacy standard requiring companies collecting info on EU citizens to have better data protection, including the ability to have a "right to be forgotten".

Most international companies are simply applying the new standards across the board for all users, since that's the easiest implementation... so non-EU citizens will mostly benefit from the additional protections.