https://t.co/N8upH04568
Having a Twitter account is not a right.
If you incite violence on Twitter, the company can - and should - stop you. Good call.
https://t.co/N8upH04568
Always beware of powerful people pretending to be victims.
https://t.co/0A5D5eJFvL
That's the real story here.
https://t.co/wJPejtAvWy
I don't trust them to get these decisions right, which is why I think they should have a heavy presumption in favor of leaving speech up--especially political leaders' speech. But if an official is truly inciting imminent violence, I don't see how they can justify not acting.
— Jameel Jaffer (@JameelJaffer) January 9, 2021
It also happens to human rights activists, too.
https://t.co/csD3eOoHX7
You know what actually *is* a Free Speech issue around Twitter suspending people?
— Andrew James Carter (@Carter_AndrewJ) January 9, 2021
All the black, Jewish, Muslim, LGBTQ, women, and members of all other marginalised groups whose accounts have been wrongly removed due to baseless mass-reporting by those who hate them.
https://t.co/IOya3Whbb0
Yes! And the Syrians, Iranians, Filipinos, Turks, Egyptians, Saudis, etc who have either been subject to bad sanctions law or these corporations' complicity with their autocratic leaders.
— Jillian C. York (@jilliancyork) January 9, 2021
More from Trump
I read part of the transcript of the Trump call.
— Eric Weinstein (@EricRWeinstein) January 4, 2021
The following strikes me.
A) Trump is a true political outsider & the only one to reach the Presidency with zero government experience.
B) There is an obvious open institutional conspiracy to prevent any outsider gaining power.
If you look at the situation from a predictive models perspective instead of the more rigorous and appropriate (under normal circumstances) "prove your case or gtfo" perspective, trusting the opposite of whatever the left side says has an AMAZING track record, as we know it.
Literally, the best heuristic most people have right now, in terms of how often it gets things right versus *completely* wrong, is "whatever CNN, the NYT, public health officials, and the Democrats said... yeah, the opposite." That is, they're wrong WAY outside of statistics.
They're also not just wrong. They're *completely* wrong, backwards, often transparently covering something up that they don't want known or refuse to believe. This isn't just a legitimation crisis because there's a heuristic: whatever the official left narrative is, is wrong.
There are a few reasons why such a heuristic would be more predictive than not. One of those is conspiracy, and another is mass hysteria with ideological capture. We know at least one of those is happening and have rather strong evidence both are. That makes conspiracy reasonable
Unless Trump's new lawyer is going to argue Hilary Clinton went to court and lost 60 times and then launched an attack on the Capitol, these clips of Democrats objecting to vote counting and being overruled by VP Biden are a waste of time.
— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) February 12, 2021
Also this is such a small thing but one thing I noticed in that Trump campaign ad the defense just ran, there were no citations, unlike every clip that the impeachment managers showed
Michael Van Der Veen is giving us the full Fox News Primetime Defense.
PROCESS ARGUMENT.
DRINK.
Lol my guy this is the chance to rebut the evidence that they’ve presented against Trump.
You May Also Like
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.