Twitter blocks Senate candidate from advertising false claim about Planned Parenthood

[mala]

Twitter blocks Senate candidate from advertising false claim about Planned Parenthood

Ultimately, the viral anti-abortion videos were found to be deceptively edited, and two activists behind the videos were indicted in Texas, where the charges were dismissed, and later in California. The heavily criticized investigation led to a report that attacked Planned Parenthood, but the group has been cleared in a series of parallel state investigations.

I've seen some people complaining that twitter is censoring people now based off of this but that's ridiculous and childishly whiny thinking.
Twitter is a private company and what it chooses to allow on it's platform is entirely up to it. If you don't like that then go get a job at a company and then just start yelling out whatever stupidity is on your mind and see how long you keep your job.
If anything I feel that entities like fb, twitter, and others should do more to keep false claims away from gaining traction and especially in the advertising sections. This is no different than a nutritional company stating trying to claim in an ad that their vitamin mix cures cancer. And frankly I think we have enough of that with Alex "performance artist" Jones hawking his snake oil pills on his show.

 

[grasping the after wind]

So to be clear on what is happening here, is Twitter's position that they can objectively prove her claim that she stopped Planned Parenthood from selling baby parts is false? Are they saying that it is objectively provable that Planned Parenthood does not sell baby parts or that it is only objectively provable that the representative did not stop Planned Parenthood from selling baby parts? Is it at all possible that they are saying that they don't trust a video and then assuming what they believe to be true is an objective reality? And is their position that they are correct in censoring and that they will censor all false claims? I am not asking if they have the right to censor, even in a biased way or even on a whim, their own site as that is a given. I am asking if they believe that they have objective proof that the claim is false that false claims should be censored by them and if they treat all claims that are false in the same way. Have they censored any false claims by people that are not on the political right? Have they ever even questioned any claims by people that are on the political left?

 

[KCfromNC]

So to be clear on what is happening here, is Twitter's position that they can objectively prove her claim that she stopped Planned Parenthood from selling baby parts is false? Are they saying that it is objectively provable that Planned Parenthood does not sell baby parts or that it is only objectively provable that the representative did not stop Planned Parenthood from selling baby parts? Is it at all possible that they are saying that they don't trust a video and then assuming what they believe to be true is an objective reality? And is their position that they are correct in censoring and that they will censor all false claims? I am not asking if they have the right to censor, even in a biased way or even on a whim, their own site as that is a given. I am asking if they believe that they have objective proof that the claim is false that false claims should be censored by them and if they treat all claims that are false in the same way. Have they censored any false claims by people that are not on the political right? Have they ever even questioned any claims by people that are on the political left?

Why are you harping on "objective proof"? Why would that be the standard for policy decisions this company should be held to - are any others?

 

[mala]

So to be clear on what is happening here, is Twitter's position that they can objectively prove her claim that she stopped Planned Parenthood from selling baby parts is false? Are they saying that it is objectively provable that Planned Parenthood does not sell baby parts or that it is only objectively provable that the representative did not stop Planned Parenthood from selling baby parts? Is it at all possible that they are saying that they don't trust a video and then assuming what they believe to be true is an objective reality? And is their position that they are correct in censoring and that they will censor all false claims? I am not asking if they have the right to censor, even in a biased way or even on a whim, their own site as that is a given. I am asking if they believe that they have objective proof that the claim is false that false claims should be censored by them and if they treat all claims that are false in the same way. Have they censored any false claims by people that are not on the political right? Have they ever even questioned any claims by people that are on the political left?

yes the video was proven to be a fake and highly edited to convey a lie.
you can feel free to read up on it if you like there are lot's of articles out there.

furthermore
Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy - Wikipedia

A select committee, the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce Select Investigative Panel on Planned Parenthood, was formed to further investigate Planned Parenthood, with Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn serving as the chairman.[49][50] On September 21, the panel voted 8-0 to recommend holding StemExpress in contempt of Congress for failure to comply with a subpoena.[51] The six Democratic members of the panel walked out of the meeting in protest before the vote.[52] The committee's final report recommended that "the National Institutes of Health be required to stop funding fetal tissue research, and that the huge health provider Planned Parenthood be stripped of U.S. funding." According to Science, the report contained multiple inaccuracies.[53] Democratic members of the panel - who had not been permitted to read, respond to, or vote on the final report - released an alternate report,[54] in which they criticized the committee for relying on "McCarthy-era tactics" and of relying on "unsourced, unverified documents" in writing the report. A Planned Parenthood spokesperson described the report as "“nothing more than a partisan attack on Planned Parenthood and women’s access to safe and legal abortion” and noted that 13 state-level investigations and other congressional inquiries had found no wrongdoing.[55] The Washington Post, New York Magazine and Los Angeles Times described the panel's inquiry as a "witch hunt" and criticized both its findings and tactics in editorials.[56][57][54]

she headed up a sham committee to play politics instead of relying on facts and science to play to her base.
now she is trying to use that showboating to score more points with her base.
twitter did the right thing in rejecting the ads.
she is more than welcome to retool the ads to remove the offending material and resubmit them if she wants to or she can use a rival network of some kind to push it. that's up to her.

 

[FenderTL5]

So to be clear on what is happening here, is Twitter's position that they can objectively prove her claim that she stopped Planned Parenthood from selling baby parts is false? Are they saying that it is objectively provable that Planned Parenthood does not sell baby parts or that it is only objectively provable that the representative did not stop Planned Parenthood from selling baby parts? Is it at all possible that they are saying that they don't trust a video and then assuming what they believe to be true is an objective reality? And is their position that they are correct in censoring and that they will censor all false claims? I am not asking if they have the right to censor, even in a biased way or even on a whim, their own site as that is a given. I am asking if they believe that they have objective proof that the claim is false that false claims should be censored by them and if they treat all claims that are false in the same way. Have they censored any false claims by people that are not on the political right? Have they ever even questioned any claims by people that are on the political left?

None of the above, you're making the wrong argument.
Twitter blocked it because it was inflammatory, not based on the presumption of accuracy/inaccuracy.

 

[HannahT]

Twitter has a reputation for inflammatory, and hateful stuff. (Shrugs) Maybe they are changing their ways.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Twitter has a reputation for inflammatory, and hateful stuff. (Shrugs) Maybe they are changing their ways.

Only when it goes against your belief. Right?

 

[JackRT]

Twitter has a reputation for inflammatory, and hateful stuff. (Shrugs) Maybe they are changing their ways.

Hasn't blocked Trump yet (it would be for his own good IMHO).

 

[Fireinfolding]

Twitter has a reputation for inflammatory, and hateful stuff. (Shrugs) Maybe they are changing their ways.

True, the video "Twitter Censoring Trump Supporters" is one video that touches on this among others. In one you can see where anything positive posted to Trump is quickly dropped, there is a woman who made a video on this if I can only find it again showing her posting and her following up and how the vile spewing ones are made to remain. Likely to make it appear as if he is not supported at all.

 

[HannahT]

Only when it goes against your belief. Right?

I'm not on Twitter, and so I wouldn't know.

I hear people - average Joe on the street - say twitter is a sewer. You hear it on TV shows, and with political commentary too.

It's not like the reputation is a new revelation. They have been saying that for years now.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Why are you harping on "objective proof"? Why would that be the standard for policy decisions this company should be held to - are any others?

Because I wish to know the truth rather than just accept a story. If a company claims to be doing something for a specific reason I would like to know if I ought to believe that company or not. I can't see how that is hard to understand. If a company told you that their product would make you superintelligent would you not want some objective proof of nthe claim. So yes as a customer and consumer of goods and services I intend to hold companies to the standard of objective proof for their claims. Why would i not do that?

 

[grasping the after wind]

yes the video was proven to be a fake and highly edited to convey a lie.
you can feel free to read up on it if you like there are lot's of articles out there.

furthermore
Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy - Wikipedia


she headed up a sham committee to play politics instead of relying on facts and science to play to her base.
now she is trying to use that showboating to score more points with her base.
twitter did the right thing in rejecting the ads.
she is more than welcome to retool the ads to remove the offending material and resubmit them if she wants to or she can use a rival network of some kind to push it. that's up to her.

From the article.
"PPFA staff repeatedly state that the organization makes no money from tissue donations, and that the US$30–100 charge only covers procurement cost."

This from the article seems from my perspective to say that PP does indeed sell baby body parts. They just do not make a profit from those sales. Retailers often sell items below cost making no profit from them, but even those evil capitalists aren't dishonest enough to claim those items are not actually being sold but donated with a charge to cover procurement costs. So I guess that Twitter's claim of falsehood rests upon the representative falsely claiming to have stopped PP from selling baby body parts. Is there reliable evidence that PP still sells them or if you prefer, still donates them with a charge for procurement costs. Has PP ever explained what are the procurement costs it incurs when a woman donates( BTW without charging for procurement costs or often realizing she has donated this to PP. ) her fetal property to PP?

As far as I am concerned Twitter can reject any advertising it pleases to reject and need not explain itself. I have nothing against a company refusing to take money from someone. I just hope that they will not at some time use the same criterion they claim to be using here in censoring users of their product and not just advertisers.

 

[grasping the after wind]

None of the above, you're making the wrong argument.
Twitter blocked it because it was inflammatory, not based on the presumption of accuracy/inaccuracy.

That's a much worse idea than blocking something because it is false. . Blocking something because it is supposedly inflammatory is really a subjective call. If given the ability and the choice I might have blocked everything said by Hillary Clinton over the entirety of her life as being inflammatory. I certainly would do so for our DEAH Governor here in NY State as he has been a constant source of inflammatory remarks about anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders. He basically told all conservatives to leave the state. So using inflammatory as my basis for blocking political speech, I can block anything I find not to my liking because by being not to my liking it is inflammatory.

 

[FenderTL5]

That's a much worse idea than blocking something because it is false. . Blocking something because it is supposedly inflammatory is really a subjective call. If given the ability and the choice I might have blocked everything said by Hillary Clinton over the entirety of her life as being inflammatory. I certainly would do so for our DEAH Governor here in NY State as he has been a constant source of inflammatory remarks about anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders. He basically told all conservatives to leave the state. So using inflammatory as my basis for blocking political speech, I can block anything I find not to my liking because by being not to my liking it is inflammatory.

Marsha Blackburn is 'local' to where I live and when I posted my comment I had a local newscast on here at my desk (linkage to article).

There's a myriad of reasons I would never vote for Marsha Blackburn, her vile verbiage aside.
It'll be interesting to see how she responds given her stance on eliminating net neutrality and turning control of content over to the ISPs.

 

[KCfromNC]

From the article.
"PPFA staff repeatedly state that the organization makes no money from tissue donations, and that the US$30–100 charge only covers procurement cost."

This from the article seems from my perspective to say that PP does indeed sell baby body parts.

You seemed to be so worried the company wasn't basing their decisions on objective facts, yet here you are jumping to a conclusion based on how it seems or feels to you.

 

[HannahT]

I saw on yahoo article that they reversed their decision.

 

[grasping the after wind]

You seemed to be so worried the company wasn't basing their decisions on objective facts, yet here you are jumping to a conclusion based on how it seems or feels to you.

Are you truly unaware of the difference between the meaning of the words "Seems"
and "Feels" ?

If one feels something is the case one bases one's idea on nothing tangible.

If one decides that something seems to be the case, one has looked at the evidence and concluded that the most likely possibility among a number of possibilities is a specific one.

The evidence that PP admits that it received money for baby body parts makes it seem, no matter what one might feel about it , that they are selling those baby body parts. their pretense of it being a donation is directly contradicted by their acceptance of remuneration for them. Calling that remuneration a reimbursement for procurement costs is really weak. Try charging for procurement costs when donating a loved one's organs and see what happens.

 

[KCfromNC]

Are you truly unaware of the difference between the meaning of the words "Seems"
and "Feels" ?

I know one thing in common - neither are the objective facts you thought were so important just a few posts ago.

If one decides that something seems to be the case, one has looked at the evidence and concluded that the most likely possibility among a number of possibilities is a specific one.

Yeah, I get it. But likely isn't the same as objective fact.

The evidence that PP admits that it received money for baby body parts makes it seem, no matter what one might feel about it , that they are selling those baby body parts.

For some reason no one can get the legal system to agree. I wonder why.

 

[Audacious]

The really confusing thing here, to me, is: Where is the market for illegally harvested fetuses? Who sees a dead fetus and thinks "Look at the great business opportunity!" or feels a sudden urge to purchase them?

 

[AirPo]

The really confusing thing here, to me, is: Where is the market for illegally harvested fetuses? Who sees a dead fetus and thinks "Look at the great business opportunity!" or feels a sudden urge to purchase them?

Small minds fall for big lies.