Twitter Fact Checks Trump

[ClydeR]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EY-z6h9XsAIV1PF?format=png&name=small
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EY-0YwiXgAM9s4d?format=png&name=small




Twitter has placed a fact-checking warning on a tweet issued by President Trump in which he claims without evidence that mail-in ballots are fraudulent.

Twitter's move on Tuesday marks the first time the technology company has sanctioned Trump as criticism mounts about how the president has amplified misinformation to more than 80 million followers on the social media platform.

More... (https://www.npr.org/2020/05/26/862797418/twitter-points-users-to-fact-checks-of-trump-tweets-for-the-first-time)

Here is what prompted the change in policy..


On Twitter, Trump pushed the baseless theory that Scarborough killed Lori Kaye Klausutis, 28, who was found dead in Scarborough's congressional office in Fort Walton Beach, Fla., in July 2001.

"There has been a constant barrage of falsehoods, half-truths innuendo and conspiracy theories since the day she died," widower Timothy J. Klausutis wrote last week to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. "... Because of this, I have struggled to move forward with my life."

He went on to ask Dorsey: "My request is simple: Please delete these tweets,"

Despite the plea, Twitter has not removed the tweet advancing the false conspiracy theory about the death of Klausutis' wife, who had an undiagnosed heart condition, passed out and hit her head on her desk when she fell. Dorsey never directly replied to the widower's letter.


Trump says he won't stand for it. He is the President, and nobody should be able to question whether or not he is telling the truth. Will he stop using Twitter and start using something else? What would the something else be?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Clyde, mang... no one cares.

[ClydeR]

Clyde, mang... no one cares.

Um. Did you notice that the President of the United States cares?

[Solkern]

Clyde, mang... no one cares.

So when trump spouts lies, no one cares? But when Biden lies everyone cares.

Not surprised.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

So when trump spouts lies, no one cares? But when Biden lies everyone cares.

Not surprised.

Seriously, russian mole... no one cares.

[ClydeR]

If Twitter is going to check whether or not every Trump tweet is true, they'll need to hire a lot of people.

And why did they start with the tweets about mail-in voting? That's partly a matter of opinion. They should have started with Trump's insinuation that Joe Scarborough killed a lady. Fact checking the Scarborough tweets would have been easily defensible and highly popular.

[Astray]

ClydeR can I sneeze in your face?

[Seran]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EY-z6h9XsAIV1PF?format=png&name=small
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EY-0YwiXgAM9s4d?format=png&name=small





Here is what prompted the change in policy..




Trump says he won't stand for it. He is the President, and nobody should be able to question whether or not he is telling the truth. Will he stop using Twitter and start using something else? What would the something else be?

They'd have been smart to police the president from the get go and not allowed their service to be used as his bully pulpit. The man has the resources of the country available and he's crying about getting to be a feckless liar on Twitter

[ClydeR]

ClydeR can I sneeze in your face?


You're not the first person to threaten me with physical violence. When I first started posting here, I received many threats. Most of the people who threatened me are gone, but I'm still here.

If you cannot defend your ideas without resort to threats, then you should consider taking a break.

[RichardCranium]

When I'm president I'm tweeting telling everyone to drink bleach and inject disinfectant and let natural selection run its course.

[Astray]

You're not the first person to threaten me with physical violence. When I first started posting here, I received many threats. Most of the people who threatened me are gone, but I'm still here.

If you cannot defend your ideas without resort to threats, then you should consider taking a break.

LOL

Hi, PK.

[Bhaalizmo]

It's about damned time. Fuck Trump and his lies.

[Bhaalizmo]

Never forget

https://i.imgur.com/sa7OeFQ.png

[~Rocktar~]

Never forget

https://i.imgur.com/sa7OeFQ.png

Yes yes, let's silence those who dare to disagree with us because no one would possibly ever use such power against us.

Robespierre’s Law – Power you give government to do unto others will be used to do unto you.

Just dumb.

[Alfster]

Lol. Go back to fat camp.

[~Rocktar~]

Lol. Go back to fat camp.

Stop sucking Leftist dick.

[Solkern]

Yes yes, let's silence those who dare to disagree with us because no one would possibly ever use such power against us.

Robespierre’s Law – Power you give government to do unto others will be used to do unto you.

Just dumb.

difference between disagreeing, and spreading false information.
that picture isn't about disagreeing, it's about stopping the spread of false information.

[Furryrat]

difference between disagreeing, and spreading false information.
that picture isn't about disagreeing, it's about stopping the spread of false information.

Don't you get curb checked in Russia if you do that to a pic of Putin? No wonder you don't get it.

[Solkern]

Don't you get curb checked in Russia if you do that to a pic of Putin? No wonder you don't get it.

No you wouldn’t, so I do get it.

[Solkern]

https://i.imgur.com/ffIQGyy.jpg

Case in point. Yeah, they protest in Russia, as well.

[Furryrat]

No you wouldn’t, so I do get it.

Do you understand English to the point that you comprehend present and future tense, such that WILL BE does not equate to ARE?

If you do, you should reread both that NPR opinion piece and the President's tweets.

The difference between them is the 'it' you think you get.

There are two voices here, and neither quite speaks the truth. Which do you hear?

[Solkern]

Do you understand English to the point that you comprehend present and future tense, such that WILL BE does not equate to ARE?

If you do, you should reread both that NPR opinion piece and the President's tweets.

The difference between them is the 'it' you think you get.

There are two voices here, and neither quite speaks the truth. Which do you hear?

While Will and the “to be” verb can both represent future. will and going to aren’t only ways to show future. Brush up a little.
We are having a meeting at 9am
We will be having a meeting at 9am
We are going to have a meeting at 9am
While yes they do have minor differences in meaning, set schedule, unplanned and planned event.

We will be here all day.
We are here all day.
Meanings the same, what you are focusing on, is what is different.


They can also have present meanings as well
It’s 9:05 and someone asked, how long is this meeting? We will be having our meeting all day today. That donates present as well but focuses on future, as you are currently in that meeting.
We are having this meeting all day today.


Trump isn’t a doctor, he doesn’t have a medical degree or background. He should leave it up to the professionals, not his gut feeling.

Don’t try to wiggle out of it with bullshit English language excuses, at least if you try, make sure you understand tenses and uses fully.

[Alfster]

“I’m not a doctor. But I’m, like, a person that has a good you-know-what.”

[Furryrat]

Don’t try to wiggle out of it with bullshit English language excuses, at least if you try, make sure you understand tenses and uses fully.

This thread is about Twitter censoring the President's tweets about mail-in voting and otherwise overriding his message with a CNN-linked counterclaim. My posts are meant to address those dangers, and not to discuss whatever it is that you see in the pretty pictures others have posted along the way.

[Orthin]

I mean if he does not like the flag (which twitter apparently updated policy on 5/11/2020) he should just use another platform if he really wants to hit them hard.

[Solkern]

This thread is about Twitter censoring the President's tweets about mail-in voting and otherwise overriding his message with a CNN-linked counterclaim. My posts are meant to address those dangers, and not to discuss whatever it is that you see in the pretty pictures others have posted along the way.

First, it didn’t censor trumps post at all. It added a link that can show you other information. That’s a BIG difference.

[Furryrat]

First, it didn’t censor trumps post at all. It added a link that can show you other information. That’s a BIG difference.

It does not lead to 'more information.' If it were to lead to mail-in ballot statistics from past elections, or absentee ballot success rates, or fraud statistics, that would be fine.

It leads to a big angry orange faced Trump, mouth agape to imply he's angrily yelling, with a big headline that reads: Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud. It contains a few bullet points, all of which begin with, 'Trump falsely claimed...' It directly cites @CNNPolitics as the source.

[Furryrat]

And the link is titled: Get the facts about mail-in ballots.

What facts?

[Tgo01]

First, it didn’t censor trumps post at all. It added a link that can show you other information. That’s a BIG difference.

It leads to a "fact check" from CNN of all places. This is the most absurd thing I have ever heard any company doing ever. And I'm only just slightly exaggerating.

Imagine a company laughably claiming to be all about free speech and people expressing themselves suddenly deciding to "fact check" people and using a source that is clearly at odds with the person in question.

And if that weren't bad enough so far they are ONLY "fact checking" Trump. Not Biden's outright lies, not even Communist China's outright lies. Nope! Just Trump.

Imagine if Twitter were a thing during WW2.

German Jew: Please help! They are killing us!
Fact check from Adolf Hitler: This tweet is false, here's why.

Going by the shitstains that run Twitter this is probably exactly how this would play out too.

[Solkern]

It does not lead to 'more information.' If it were to lead to mail-in ballot statistics from past elections, or absentee ballot success rates, or fraud statistics, that would be fine.

It leads to a big angry orange faced Trump, mouth agape to imply he's angrily yelling, with a big headline that reads: Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud. It contains a few bullet points, all of which begin with, 'Trump falsely claimed...' It directly cites @CNNPolitics as the source.


It does lead to more information, whether you like the source or dont, or you approve of that information... it doesn’t change that fact.
And second it’s still not censorship

[Orthin]

It leads to a "fact check" from CNN of all places. This is the most absurd thing I have ever heard any company doing ever. And I'm only just slightly exaggerating.

Imagine a company laughably claiming to be all about free speech and people expressing themselves suddenly deciding to "fact check" people and using a source that is clearly at odds with the person in question.

And if that weren't bad enough so far they are ONLY "fact checking" Trump. Not Biden's outright lies, not even Communist China's outright lies. Nope! Just Trump.

Imagine if Twitter were a thing during WW2.

German Jew: Please help! They are killing us!
Fact check from Adolf Hitler: This tweet is false, here's why.

Going by the shitstains that run Twitter this is probably exactly how this would play out too.

I believe based on their policy (Twitter) you could vet Biden (or any source for that matter) any flag it if the claim is misleading or false and could spread misinformation. If I were an entity that leans to the left or the right I would be fact checking the opposition like crazy and alerting twitter of any misinformation. Shit someone could fact check the fact check if they wanted to and discredit twitters source.

But if Trump really wants to avoid all this he can post on another social media platform. And I believe it’s less freedom of speech and more so adhering to terms of service. Presumably he has agreed to their terms of service and if so this is part of their policy and he either can take it or do the most damage and move to a different platform.

[Orthin]

Oh and second paragraph wasn’t directed at you Dreaven, it was just me vamping off the first part.

[Tgo01]

I believe based on their policy (Twitter) you could vet Biden (or any source for that matter) any flag it if the claim is misleading or false and could spread misinformation.

The problem is Twitter is the sole arbiter of what is and is not fact, what is and is not fact-check-worthy.

[Risen]

There will be a number thrown around at some point. That number will be 491, or when offered as a percentage, 24%. That number, likely to be championed by the left, will be sourced here:

https://votingrights.news21.com/interactive/election-fraud-database/

An important provision about completeness and accuracy will go overlooked by the left and will become a major linchpin in the debate from proponents on the right.


Is this database complete?No. Despite the huge News21 public-records request effort, the team received no useful responses from several states — for instance, the lone cases in the database from Massachusetts, Oklahoma , South Carolina and South Dakota all came from the RNLA survey. Even in states where some local jurisdictions responded, others didn’t. In addition, it is possible that some jurisdictions which did respond failed to include some cases. Another problem is that some responses News21 received were missing important details about each case — from whether the person was convicted or charged to the circumstances of the alleged fraud to the names of those involved. Still, with those caveats, News21 is confident this database is substantially complete and is the largest such collection of election fraud cases gathered by anyone in the United States.

from: https://votingrights.news21.com/article/election-fraud-explainer/

I am curious: What other social media platform has the scale, reach and popularity of twitter, for those advocating that the president can simply choose to move to a different platform?

[Orthin]

The problem is Twitter is the sole arbiter of what is and is not fact, what is and is not fact-check-worthy.

Based on their policies and people yes they have the ability to exercise what to act and not act on. The hope is they would act fairly but they may not. That being said, they do not force Trump (or anyone) to use their platform and if it is known to be unfavorable to whomever then there is the ability to not use it. Trump is a compelling force for both sides; wherever Trump decides to hang his hat for sending whatever he wants out (social media platforms) so too will everyone else.

[Tgo01]

Based on their policies and people yes they have the ability to exercise what to act and not act on. The hope is they would act fairly but they may not. That being said, they do not force Trump (or anyone) to use their platform and if it is known to be unfavorable to whomever then there is the ability to not use it. Trump is a compelling force for both sides; wherever Trump decides to hang his hat for sending whatever he wants out (social media platforms) so too will everyone else.

Twitter enjoys the benefits of being a platform.

I'm fine with this if tomorrow Twitter is like "Yo, we are officially a publisher now." Then you know, whatever, like you said Trump can find another platform.

The problem is Twitter wants it both ways: all of the pros of being a publisher but with the protections of being a platform.

[Orthin]

There will be a number thrown around at some point. That number will be 491, or when offered as a percentage, 24%. That number, likely to be championed by the left, will be sourced here:

https://votingrights.news21.com/interactive/election-fraud-database/

An important provision about completeness and accuracy will go overlooked by the left and will become a major linchpin in the debate from proponents on the right.



from: https://votingrights.news21.com/article/election-fraud-explainer/

I am curious: What other social media platform has the scale, reach and popularity of twitter, for those advocating that the president can simply choose to move to a different platform?

Any platform this president jumps to and decides to post on will most assuredly become more popular. Shit if Trump decided to post on the PC (and somehow got through the ironclad bot question system) this place would be flooded. Of course nothing would probably gain the prominence of Twitter, but you can't tell me that if Trump started posting Reddit's that folks would not flock to every single one. Shit the traffic shift could even put the lean on Twitter to amend their policies to entice him back

[Seran]

The problem is Twitter is the sole arbiter of what is and is not fact, what is and is not fact-check-worthy.

Which is their right. If the President wants to post his lies, insinuations, innuendoes and harassment, he's free to avail himself of any other service. Hell, I'm sure he could make his own blog on the Whitehouse.gov.

Because the President wants to make use of Twitter's platform and it's millions or users, he has to abide by their terms of service. Period.

[Orthin]

Twitter enjoys the benefits of being a platform.

I'm fine with this if tomorrow Twitter is like "Yo, we are officially a publisher now." Then you know, whatever, like you said Trump can find another platform.

The problem is Twitter wants it both ways: all of the pros of being a publisher but with the protections of being a platform.

I mean can you fault Twitter for that as a company? Are they supposed to be held to a higher moral standard than any other company or person because of this?

This seems like a similar circumstance for the president who is looking to post his information while also not having his words or actions be called into question on a world stage.

[Orthin]

Also let it be known that I am not fanning any political flames (purposely) I just find this particular topic interesting.

[Tgo01]

Which is their right.

No it's not their right as a platform.

If Twitter wants to act like a publisher then they need to start being treated like a publisher, meaning they will be responsible for slander and other crimes that are posted on their site.

[Solkern]

No it's not their right as a platform.

If Twitter wants to act like a publisher then they need to start being treated like a publisher, meaning they will be responsible for slander and other crimes that are posted on their site.


No, it is a right of their platform. It’s their company. Don’t like it, don’t use it.

[Tgo01]

I mean can you fault Twitter for that as a company?

Yes because up until recently these websites were acting as a platform which is the freedom the government gave them because the government didn't want to stifle this wonderful thing known as the internet.

But if these companies are going to abuse this privilege then it needs to be taken away.

Newspapers don't make it a secret that they are a publisher, they can silence whoever they want, they can deny a voice to whoever they want, but it comes with a price, namely that the newspaper company is responsible for any slander that is published in their newspaper.

Newspapers would love it if they could both choose what is and is not published on their platform AND are immune from lawsuits, but they don't get the best of both worlds. Why should Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and the rest continue to enjoy the same immunity when they are in some ways way worse than a newspaper is in regards to what they do and do not allow on their service?

[Tgo01]

No, it is a right of their platform. It’s their company. Don’t like it, don’t use it.

No it's not. They were given this immunity from lawsuits as long as they acted like a platform and not a publisher. This is an actual, real thing.

If someone slanders Trump on Twitter then guess who Trump can sue? The person who posted it, Twitter is immune from lawsuits.

If someone on CNN slanders Trump then guess who Trump can sue? Both the person who slandered him AND CNN because CNN allowed the slander on their platform when they are well within their rights to deny that person a voice on their platform.

Twitter wants to both be immune from lawsuits AND silence whoever the hell they want. Why do you think they deserve this special treatment?

[Astray]

but your meme is wearing a mask? - Orthin

It's not a mask, it's part of the armor the character wore. The design is pretty slick overall.

[Seran]

No it's not their right as a platform.

If Twitter wants to act like a publisher then they need to start being treated like a publisher, meaning they will be responsible for slander and other crimes that are posted on their site.

Publishers take and edit submitted works day in and day out, that's how they make money. Because Twitter monetizes advertisements, doesn't make users somehow exempt from the terms and conditions agreed to in order to use their service. Platform or publisher or whatever.

[Orthin]

Yes because up until recently these websites were acting as a platform which is the freedom the government gave them because the government didn't want to stifle this wonderful thing known as the internet.

But if these companies are going to abuse this privilege then it needs to be taken away.

Newspapers don't make it a secret that they are a publisher, they can silence whoever they want, they can deny a voice to whoever they want, but it comes with a price, namely that the newspaper company is responsible for any slander that is published in their newspaper.

Newspapers would love it if they could both choose what is and is not published on their platform AND are immune from lawsuits, but they don't get the best of both worlds. Why should Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and the rest continue to enjoy the same immunity when they are in some ways way worse than a newspaper is in regards to what they do and do not allow on their service?

So I think the difference between the newspapers as publishers and Twitter as publishers lies in who is publishing the material. For newspapers (with the exception of OP EDs and advertisements) is from the newspapers staff. So in this case yes they should be available for slander and libel since they control the content and are also the creators of the content.

I think how Twitter dodges this is in the fact that they are not publishing as their own but providing an outlet for information to be published. The president published his own Tweet through their system and then CNN through Twitters policy flagged it as potential misinformation and CNN provided their information. Since Twitter is not the direct publisher of the information it would not fall on them, they are the third party service who happens to have the material on their system/platform. Now, if CNN through their labelling on Twitter posted something akin to slander or libel (or any person for that matter) those parties would and should absolutely be explored for litigation.

I do think there are other avenues to drive at Twitter though, if their terms of service/policy regarding these fact checks are noticeably being enforced hap hazardously I would think there would be some window of opportunity to bring about some change to Twitter or potential litigation (though I am not savvy to those things). If someone/something can provide data that Twitter's policy is specifically being used to only target certain people/groups as misinformation over others then Twitter should be held accountable, but the data needs to support the allegations and not be left up to anecdotes or heresay.

[Orthin]

It's not a mask, it's part of the armor the character wore. The design is pretty slick overall.

but can they sneeze through it? A guy has to know

[Astray]

but can they sneeze through it? A guy has to know

Oh man, the material is essentially liquid muscle. So maybe? They can talk and breathe so sneezing through it might be a real issue. Though the only time they wear the suits is once.

https://i.imgur.com/U52Z96W.png

The guy on the right has serious sneeze guard issues.

[Orthin]

No it's not. They were given this immunity from lawsuits as long as they acted like a platform and not a publisher. This is an actual, real thing.

If someone slanders Trump on Twitter then guess who Trump can sue? The person who posted it, Twitter is immune from lawsuits.

If someone on CNN slanders Trump then guess who Trump can sue? Both the person who slandered him AND CNN because CNN allowed the slander on their platform when they are well within their rights to deny that person a voice on their platform.

Twitter wants to both be immune from lawsuits AND silence whoever the hell they want. Why do you think they deserve this special treatment?

Don't news authorities have different legal standards set in place that could be factoring in to this? I don't think Twitter is considered a news organization like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC etc are. I believe with at least broadcast news their are rules they have to abide by according to FCC.

[Orthin]

Oh man, the material is essentially liquid muscle. So maybe? They can talk and breathe so sneezing through it might be a real issue. Though the only time they wear the suits is once.

https://i.imgur.com/U52Z96W.png

The guy on the right has serious sneeze guard issues.

Sweet so two people to never fuck with and also amazing potential alter ideas!

[Tgo01]

Publishers take and edit submitted works day in and day out, that's how they make money.

Yes but Twitter isn't a publisher, they are a platform. Now you get it? Good.

[Tgo01]

So I think the difference between the newspapers as publishers and Twitter as publishers lies in who is publishing the material. For newspapers (with the exception of OP EDs and advertisements) is from the newspapers staff. So in this case yes they should be available for slander and libel since they control the content and are also the creators of the content.

Newspapers choose what does and does not get published on their platform. Not everything written in a newspaper is from an employee of said newspaper, a lot of them are freelance journalists, but if it gets published in a newspaper then the newspaper is open to liable.

[Seran]

No it's not their right as a platform.

If Twitter wants to act like a publisher then they need to start being treated like a publisher, meaning they will be responsible for slander and other crimes that are posted on their site.

It's their sole right as a company offer a service conditioned upon acting within terms and conditions and community standards. The argument that they shouldn't be the sole arbiter of posted content is fuckin ridiculous. It's their service, it's decision on what is or isn't acceptable. It's their right, just as it's his right as a common citizen to sue them if he feels they've breached a covenant of good faith or contract.

[Seran]

No, it is a right of their platform. It’s their company. Don’t like it, don’t use it.

Exactly

[Tgo01]

Don't news authorities have different legal standards set in place that could be factoring in to this? I don't think Twitter is considered a news organization like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC etc are. I believe with at least broadcast news their are rules they have to abide by according to FCC.

News organizations are not immune from slander lawsuits although it is much tougher to sue them for slander.

Internet companies were given this unique protection way back when the internet was young because the government wanted to see the internet flourish and not stifle innovation because internet companies were worried about lawsuits because of what their users said, but the government assumed the internet companies would stick to the idea of them being a platform and not a publisher and up until very recently have have been very good on this. But lately they are acting worse than China's internet censorship, and hmm...with an election just a few months away. Weird.

[Tgo01]

It's their sole right as a company offer a service conditioned upon acting within terms and conditions and community standards. The argument that they shouldn't be the sole arbiter of posted content is fuckin ridiculous. It's their service, it's decision on what is or isn't acceptable. It's their right, just as it's his right as a common citizen to sue them if he feels they've breached a covenant of good faith or contract.

Why do you hate facts so much? I'm not sure how else I can explain this to you so it gets through that thick skull of yours.

If Twitter wants to be a publisher then fine, they can be a publisher. They don't get the protection of being a platform AND have the luxury of being a publisher.

[Solkern]

Why do you hate facts so much? I'm not sure how else I can explain this to you so it gets through that thick skull of yours.

If Twitter wants to be a publisher then fine, they can be a publisher. They don't get the protection of being a platform AND have the luxury of being a publisher.

Twitter is a platform, for people voice their opinions, and views, Twitter doesn’t publish anything themselves technically speaking. But under terms and service. They have every right to do what they did to Trump. You agreed to it when you sign up for twitter. These people don’t get paid by twitter to make post. They aren’t employees by twitter.
Facebook, MySpace, WeChat, they are all the same. They all do the same.

[~Rocktar~]

Twitter is a platform, for people voice their opinions, and views, Twitter doesn’t publish anything themselves technically speaking. But under terms and service. They have every right to do what they did to Trump. You agreed to it when you sign up for twitter. These people don’t get paid by twitter to make post. They aren’t employees by twitter.
Facebook, MySpace, WeChat, they are all the same. They all do the same.

The problem is, when they start doing shit like this in a clearly political attack, they censor others, shadow ban people and so on, then they become a publisher because they are shaping content. Thus, if they want to do that, they should lose the Section 230 protections.

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/fcc-commissioner-issues-grim-warning-tech-execs-twitter-engaged-president-partisan-political-bias

[Tgo01]

But under terms and service. They have every right to do what they did to Trump. You agreed to it when you sign up for twitter.

This isn't how the real world works. If Twitter's terms and service said they own your house and car after you make your first tweet do you really think this is legally binding?

If Twitter's terms and service said their employees were immune from murder charges if the president uses their platform do you think this holds up?

No.

Ergo it matters not what their terms and service states.

This really isn't difficult. If Twitter wants to be able to "fact check" only Trump and wants to censor conservatives and boot conservatives from their platform while they let liberals run wild then all they have to do is state they are a publisher and not a platform. It seems you too want Twitter to have special protections for some reason and at the same time have the power ignore the provisions those special protections require. Why is that?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I can't believe you guys are arguing about a free internet platform where literally anyone can use it so long as they follow the terms of service which means they've given up essentially all rights in what the platform does once it's posted.

Those folks saying don't like it, don't use it are right.

Frankly I can't believe people use it, only ever irritated me so I dumped all that social media shit and am very much enjoying not seeing it.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

This isn't how the real world works. If Twitter's terms and service said they own your house and car after you make your first tweet do you really think this is legally binding?

If Twitter's terms and service said their employees were immune from murder charges if the president uses their platform do you think this holds up?

No.

Ergo it matters not what their terms and service states.


Most people call this a logical fallacy.

[Seran]

Why do you hate facts so much? I'm not sure how else I can explain this to you so it gets through that thick skull of yours.

If Twitter wants to be a publisher then fine, they can be a publisher. They don't get the protection of being a platform AND have the luxury of being a publisher.

They're not facts just because you're trying to spin it that way and they're not suddenly wanting to be a publisher just because it fits your narrative to try and paint them into a box.

[kookiegod]

I am going to be amused by Trump's social media executive order.

Wonder how far he's going to shred the First Amendment to the Constitution. His party and his supporters at FOX might actually turn on him. This might be his jump the shark moment.

Its one thing to keep wrongly calling the press the "enemy of the people" and weaponizing politics in the way he does it. Quite another to actually quell freedom of the press, esp the platform from which he has spouted the majority of his 20000+ lies and counting.

[Seran]

This isn't how the real world works. If Twitter's terms and service said they own your house and car after you make your first tweet do you really think this is legally binding?

If Twitter's terms and service said their employees were immune from murder charges if the president uses their platform do you think this holds up?

No.

Ergo it matters not what their terms and service states.

This really isn't difficult. If Twitter wants to be able to "fact check" only Trump and wants to censor conservatives and boot conservatives from their platform while they let liberals run wild then all they have to do is state they are a publisher and not a platform. It seems you too want Twitter to have special protections for some reason and at the same time have the power ignore the provisions those special protections require. Why is that?

If people stupidly agreed to terms of service which granted entitlement to their assets, then Twitter would have a cause of action to quiet title and take ownership. The problem is that would be an unconscionable clause and would be unenforceable in a court of law.

It's not just conservatives who are having their misleading, objectionable or libelous materials taken down. Unless of course you're including David Duke, the American Nazi Party and Guccifer 2.0 as conservatives unfairly wronged by censorship, which of course wouldn't be surprising coming from you.

[Seran]

I am going to be amused by Trump's social media executive order.

Wonder how far he's going to shred the First Amendment to the Constitution. His party and his supporters at FOX might actually turn on him. This might be his jump the shark moment.

Its one thing to keep wrongly calling the press the "enemy of the people" and weaponizing politics in the way he does it. Quite another to actually quell freedom of the press, esp the platform from which he has spouted the majority of his 20000+ lies and counting.

Sadly it's not just the first amendment he's shat all over. I'm imagining what few of his level headed advisors who are still around are begging the President to dial it back

[Solkern]

This isn't how the real world works. If Twitter's terms and service said they own your house and car after you make your first tweet do you really think this is legally binding?

If Twitter's terms and service said their employees were immune from murder charges if the president uses their platform do you think this holds up?

No.

Ergo it matters not what their terms and service states.

This really isn't difficult. If Twitter wants to be able to "fact check" only Trump and wants to censor conservatives and boot conservatives from their platform while they let liberals run wild then all they have to do is state they are a publisher and not a platform. It seems you too want Twitter to have special protections for some reason and at the same time have the power ignore the provisions those special protections require. Why is that?


Sadly that is how the world is. You live in, you should know it. Terms and agreements are only legally standing when they are related to use of said service or platform, demanding someone’s car isnt legal and wouldn’t hold up in court. I bet 99% of the people don’t read apples Terms and agreements.
Writing in the Terms and agreements they are immune to murder if they work for twitter? Seriously wtf? That is the most dense thing I’ve ever heard. Maybe you should read about what is allowed and not allowed in companies terms of service.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/migrated/safeselling/terms/

[Solkern]

I can't believe you guys are arguing about a free internet platform where literally anyone can use it so long as they follow the terms of service which means they've given up essentially all rights in what the platform does once it's posted.

Those folks saying don't like it, don't use it are right.

Frankly I can't believe people use it, only ever irritated me so I dumped all that social media shit and am very much enjoying not seeing it.


Yeah, I’ve never had a twitter account and see zero fucking reason to get one. I barely even use Facebook.

[Tgo01]

If people stupidly agreed to terms of service which granted entitlement to their assets, then Twitter would have a cause of action to quiet title and take ownership.

I was actually going to waste my time replying to all of your points but then I read this and decided against it. Seriously you can't be this fucking stupid to think a single sentence in an 80+ page terms of service agreement which states you are signing over your house to the business in question if you use their service gives the business any sort of claims to your home. You just can't be this much of a retard.

[Tgo01]

Sadly that is how the world is. You live in, you should know it. Terms and agreements are only legally standing when they are related to use of said service or platform, demanding someone’s car isnt legal and wouldn’t hold up in court. I bet 99% of the people don’t read apples Terms and agreements.
Writing in the Terms and agreements they are immune to murder if they work for twitter? Seriously wtf? That is the most dense thing I’ve ever heard. Maybe you should read about what is allowed and not allowed in companies terms of service.

Point is you can't just make yourself immune to lawsuits simply because you stick it in a terms of service. Don't you think every company in the entire world would be doing that if it were that simple?

[Parkbandit]

I am going to be amused by Trump's social media executive order.

Wonder how far he's going to shred the First Amendment to the Constitution. His party and his supporters at FOX might actually turn on him. This might be his jump the shark moment.

Its one thing to keep wrongly calling the press the "enemy of the people" and weaponizing politics in the way he does it. Quite another to actually quell freedom of the press, esp the platform from which he has spouted the majority of his 20000+ lies and counting.

Not sure you understand what the First Amendment is...

[Parkbandit]

If people stupidly agreed to terms of service which granted entitlement to their assets, then Twitter would have a cause of action to quiet title and take ownership. The problem is that would be an unconscionable clause and would be unenforceable in a court of law.

So.... it matters not what their terms and service states.. given that you just agreed with him.

I think progress has been made! And they said you lack the ability to learn.

PROGRESS!

[Alfster]

I can't believe you guys are arguing about a free internet platform where literally anyone can use it so long as they follow the terms of service which means they've given up essentially all rights in what the platform does once it's posted.

Those folks saying don't like it, don't use it are right.

Frankly I can't believe people use it, only ever irritated me so I dumped all that social media shit and am very much enjoying not seeing it.

This for sure.

[Seran]

I was actually going to waste my time replying to all of your points but then I read this and decided against it. Seriously you can't be this fucking stupid to think a single sentence in an 80+ page terms of service agreement which states you are signing over your house to the business in question if you use their service gives the business any sort of claims to your home. You just can't be this much of a retard.

Which is why you omitted the rest of the post which pointed out why this wouldn't work and pointing out that as always your examples are pure hyperbole.

[Furryrat]

The problem with Twitter now is that it has become so large and used by everyone from small town local police, municipalities, state legislatures, governors, US congress, and the President of the United States, to directly communicate with constituents in what has become the most efficient way possible. Twitter taking preference for one party over another will now lead to regulation and dare say it, eventual government control, which was exactly what we should all want to avoid. It was the very premise for the long-gone dream of Net Neutrality. Media providers should not be taking sides.

[Tgo01]

Which is why you omitted the rest of the post which pointed out why this wouldn't work and pointing out that as always your examples are pure hyperbole.

Your dumb ass said this would entitle the business to take ownership of the property but would be subsequently unenforceable in court. It wouldn't even fucking making it court because this is completely ludicrous.

Much less Twitter you want it both ways. But also much like Twitter you are both despicable cretins who don't understand the law.

[Tgo01]

The problem with Twitter now is that it has become so large and used by everyone from small town local police, municipalities, state legislatures, governors, US congress, and the President of the United States, to directly communicate with constituents in what has become the most efficient way possible.

Exactly. People saying "Just use another service!" are missing the very obvious point, Google/YouTube, Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, they have crushed the competition in the sphere of social media to the point where these 4 companies/sites pretty much mean social media now. When someone says "Social media" you think of these 4 sites.

These sites got to where they are BECAUSE of the protections the federal government carved out for them with the expectation that they would use their protections for good and allow the free exchange of ideas with minimal interference and certainly not by taking sides.

But here they are, mere months out from an election and clearly taking sides and pieces of excrement like Seran are cheering them on and saying "Just go to another site!" Fuck you, you know nothing piece of shit.

Just answer me one question, WHY do you feel Twitter/Reddit/YouTube/Facebook should be special? Just answer this one fucking question, but you can't because like I said you are a piece of shit. You know they are playing favorites, you know they are taking sides because it's an election year, you know there are no alternatives, you know there are no alternatives because they have crushed all competitions because of the protections the federal government gave to them, and you know they are pushing the side YOU want to win and really that's all that matters to worthless sacks of shit like you isn't it?

[Seran]

The problem with Twitter now is that it has become so large and used by everyone from small town local police, municipalities, state legislatures, governors, US congress, and the President of the United States, to directly communicate with constituents in what has become the most efficient way possible. Twitter taking preference for one party over another will now lead to regulation and dare say it, eventual government control, which was exactly what we should all want to avoid. It was the very premise for the long-gone dream of Net Neutrality. Media providers should not be taking sides.

Here in bizzaro world, modern day Conservatives argue for more government control and regulation. But only so far as it allows their mentally deficient party leader to bully and harass the citizens of his country. Welcome to the new normal in your party

[Furryrat]

Here in bizzaro world, modern day Conservatives argue for more government control and regulation. But only so far as it allows their mentally deficient party leader to bully and harass the citizens of his country. Welcome to the new normal in your party

Please highlight where I 'argued for more government control and regulation.' In fact, if you read the words you quoted, you would see that I did the exact opposite.

[Tgo01]

Here in bizzaro world, modern day Conservatives argue for more government control and regulation.

I'm not for more regulation, I just want Twitter and the rest to be held to the same standards as any other company. You are the only person here (well and Solkern) who want Twitter to be special yet you can't explain why they should have special rights.

[Seran]

Please highlight where I 'argued for more government control and regulation.' In fact, if you read the words you quoted, you would see that I did the exact opposite.

My post was actually pointing out the calls for oversight and regulation by the man in the Whitehouse and his FoxNews allies. Your post is a pretty bias neutral observation of the likely result of social media's community standards

[Seran]

I'm not for more regulation, I just want Twitter and the rest to be held to the same standards as any other company. You are the only person here (well and Solkern) who want Twitter to be special yet you can't explain why they should have special rights.

No, I'm arguing that your lumping Twitter into a category of content producers is a flawed argument. Blogging has been around for nigh thirty years and hosts all the way from pioneers like Myspace, to modern day Twitter and Instagram, set rules to what you can and cannot post and freely remove material that doesn't meet their community standards. Companies have never farmed their content screening out to unaffiliated third parties.

The argument that municipalities and government figures deciding to use a blogging website is grounds for regulation, it's not. That some authority figures chose to engage in cyber-bullying or disruptive political propaganda , yet demand special treatment and exemptions from community standards agreements they entered into is also wrong.

[Methais]

Um. Did you notice that the President of the United States cares?

He means no one cares about you. And he is correct.

[Astray]

He means no one cares about you. And he is correct.

This is correct.

[Methais]

LOL

Hi, PK.

Pk would never have the self control to pull off ClydeR all these years. He's too stupid.

ClydeR is stupid too, but a different stupid.


Which is their right. If the President wants to post his lies, insinuations, innuendoes and harassment, he's free to avail himself of any other service. Hell, I'm sure he could make his own blog on the Whitehouse.gov.

Because the President wants to make use of Twitter's platform and it's millions or users, he has to abide by their terms of service. Period.

You might be even more butthurt than cwolff at this point. And he took butthurt to a whole new level.

[Tgo01]

No, I'm arguing that your lumping Twitter into a category of content producers is a flawed argument. Blogging has been around for nigh thirty years and hosts all the way from pioneers like Myspace, to modern day Twitter and Instagram, set rules to what you can and cannot post and freely remove material that doesn't meet their community standards. Companies have never farmed their content screening out to unaffiliated third parties.

The argument that municipalities and government figures deciding to use a blogging website is grounds for regulation, it's not. That some authority figures chose to engage in cyber-bullying or disruptive political propaganda , yet demand special treatment and exemptions from community standards agreements they entered into is also wrong.

Just answer why you think Twitter should have special rights? This isn't a hard question for a normal person, but you're a retard so I understand the difficulty.

[Parkbandit]

Pk would never have the self control to pull off ClydeR all these years. He's too stupid.

ClydeR is stupid too, but a different stupid.

ClydeR is someone who is a delicate, sensitive little flower who is used to pretending to be something he is not on the Internet.


You might be even more butthurt than cwolff at this point. And he took butthurt to a whole new level.

I don't know.. if cwolff came back and Seran left.. would you even know the difference?

[Tisket]

I don't know.. if cwolff came back and Seran left.. would you even know the difference?

Who was cwolff?

[Seran]

Just answer why you think Twitter should have special rights? This isn't a hard question for a normal person, but you're a retard so I understand the difficulty.

I don't accept your premise that it even needs to be considered. Go ask Hannity for a better argument.

[HOUSE]

I can't believe you guys are arguing about a free internet platform where literally anyone can use it so long as they follow the terms of service which means they've given up essentially all rights in what the platform does once it's posted.

Those folks saying don't like it, don't use it are right.

Frankly I can't believe people use it, only ever irritated me so I dumped all that social media shit and am very much enjoying not seeing it.

DONALD TRUMP, PLEASE SEE ATTACHED.

[Methais]

Yeah, I’ve never had a twitter account and see zero fucking reason to get one. I barely even use Facebook.

Twitter is the most cancerous place on the internet. You're not missing shit by not being on there.

[Solkern]

Point is you can't just make yourself immune to lawsuits simply because you stick it in a terms of service. Don't you think every company in the entire world would be doing that if it were that simple?

You don't get it, do you, you can not make a TOS that makes you immune to law, agreeing to TOS, you agree to give up your rights, within the confines of their platform. that is YOUR choice to give up your rights, you don't have to if you don't want to.

[Tgo01]

I don't accept your premise that it even needs to be considered. Go ask Hannity for a better argument.

Because you don't understand the topics you insert yourself into. Sad!

[Seran]

You don't get it, do you, you can not make a TOS that makes you immune to law, agreeing to TOS, you agree to give up your rights, within the confines of their platform. that is YOUR choice to give up your rights, you don't have to if you don't want to.

It's that disconnect between reality and the conservative news is conveniently ignoring. When a government official decides to use social media, it doesn't make it a public utility subject to regulation or third party oversight requirements. Twitter is a business, it makes money based on site traffic and users are required to agree to conditions of usage. Twitter reserves the right, as does any business, to refuse service and to moderate its service. If Trump or anyone else wants to try and make a discrimination claim, they're more than welcome to try. Twitter hasn't broken any laws that I can find.

[Methais]

It's that disconnect between reality and the conservative news is conveniently ignoring.

This is an amazing ASHLIANA like display of Zero. Self. Awareness.

[Tgo01]

You don't get it, do you, you can not make a TOS that makes you immune to law, agreeing to TOS, you agree to give up your rights, within the confines of their platform. that is YOUR choice to give up your rights, you don't have to if you don't want to.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying.

Twitter is immune from things such as being sued for slander. You are suggesting they are somehow immune to these things because it's in their TOS. No. That's not what is happening.

The federal government carved out an exemption for internet companies because they wanted to foster growth on the internet and they assumed companies would allow a free exchange of ideas, in other words they thought businesses would allow freedom of speech and wouldn't take sides. And up until a few years ago, oh about a few days after Trump won, they have done exactly that. But now they are entering the territory of being a publisher and when you're a publisher you are open to lawsuits, you can't throw shit like that into your terms of service and assume that would work. It doesn't work like that.

Let me see if I can explain this to you in another way to see if you can understand.

Book publishers can be sued for publishing slander because they have full control over what is and is not published. They don't have to allow any racist redneck or racist member of the Nation of Islam a platform, they can pick and choose who is published.

Now if you look at a convention center that merely provides a place for people to speak then the convention center can't be sued for slander because they are only allowing people a place to speak, they have no creative control over what people say at their convention center and thus aren't taking sides.

Do you get it now?

So let me ask you this, do you think it should be Twitter's responsibility to remove statements that are slanderous and if they don't they should be sued? If not why not considering you think they should have full creative control over what people can and cannot say on their platform?

[~Rocktar~]

It's that disconnect between reality and the conservative news is conveniently ignoring. When a government official decides to use social media, it doesn't make it a public utility subject to regulation or third party oversight requirements. Twitter is a business, it makes money based on site traffic and users are required to agree to conditions of usage. Twitter reserves the right, as does any business, to refuse service and to moderate its service. If Trump or anyone else wants to try and make a discrimination claim, they're more than welcome to try. Twitter hasn't broken any laws that I can find.

Yes, yes, they must be innocent because the great legal scholar Seran hasn't found any legal violation. That's almost as credible as Comey and the FBI finding no intent.

The issue you and all the other Leftist intentionally ignore is that they get special protections form lawsuit under section 230 because they are classed as a medium and not a publisher. When you start to control, edit, restrict, direct or otherwise alter the content then you are acting as a publisher.

You can disagree all you want, the legal precedence is out there and it's why all the tech giants went to congress to get this law done and have paid handsomely to keep that status.

We are not asking for new regulations, we are asking to have the existing regulations enforced and have them declared publishers, then let the system have at them. I am very sure that in minutes of losing that status, many many lawsuits would flood the courts over the tech giants bullshit behavior regarding censorship, monopolistic practices and so on. Why they have not been looked at regarding monopolies is boggling, Standard Oil and AT&T controlled less market than Google and yet, look at them.

So, either make them behave as a medium and cut out this bullshit and it absolutely is bullshit, or let them lose their protections and let the market sort it out.

Simple, elegant and effective. That is what we need.

[Seran]

Yes, yes, they must be innocent because the great legal scholar Seran hasn't found any legal violation. That's almost as credible as Comey and the FBI finding no intent.

The issue you and all the other Leftist intentionally ignore is that they get special protections form lawsuit under section 230 because they are classed as a medium and not a publisher. When you start to control, edit, restrict, direct or otherwise alter the content then you are acting as a publisher.

You can disagree all you want, the legal precedence is out there and it's why all the tech giants went to congress to get this law done and have paid handsomely to keep that status.

We are not asking for new regulations, we are asking to have the existing regulations enforced and have them declared publishers, then let the system have at them. I am very sure that in minutes of losing that status, many many lawsuits would flood the courts over the tech giants bullshit behavior regarding censorship, monopolistic practices and so on. Why they have not been looked at regarding monopolies is boggling, Standard Oil and AT&T controlled less market than Google and yet, look at them.

So, either make them behave as a medium and cut out this bullshit and it absolutely is bullshit, or let them lose their protections and let the market sort it out.

Simple, elegant and effective. That is what we need.

Popularity if a product or service doesn't make a monopoly. Only when the action's of a company inhibit competition, innovation or instances of price fixing does an unfair practices or FTC review become relevant.

Your review of Section 230 is lacking. Can you show where there's a violation of the Communications Decency Act by Twitter for flagging the President's post as misleading? The section clearly states that there is no civil liability on the part of the platform for acting in good faith to material it found to be objectionable. They could have removed the post entirely and still be acting in accordance with the CDA.

Again, the President can try to sue, but Twitter's immunity is clearly defined by law. The President can also try to use an EO to reinterpret the act, but any court will see the plaintext of the law and tell him he's drunk.



(2)Civil liability: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)

[Parkbandit]

Executive Order signed.

Good. Now THAT is a step in the right direction for protecting the First Amendment.

[Solkern]

Executive Order signed.

Good. Now THAT is a step in the right direction for protecting the First Amendment.


Wouldn’t twitter, adding that additional information, also fall under their freedom of speech? They didn’t censor, edit, remove or alter what trump wrote. They added information.

[Parkbandit]

Wouldn’t twitter, adding that additional information, also fall under their freedom of speech? They didn’t censor, edit, remove or alter what trump wrote. They added information.

If they are editing content in any manner, then they shouldn't have the protection they currently have.

[Tgo01]

Wouldn’t twitter, adding that additional information, also fall under their freedom of speech? They didn’t censor, edit, remove or alter what trump wrote. They added information.

If they want to "correct" free speech then they can be held liable for slander so they better hire a shit load more people to monitor each and every single Tweet to make sure nobody is advocating violence, or encouraging law breaking, or engaging in slander, or any other type of shit that can get them in legal trouble.

Or they can knock it the fuck off with their censorship and one sided "fact checking."

[Tgo01]

I really don't understand what some people don't get about this.

No one is saying Twitter can't do whatever they want with their business. If they want to ban all conservatives and only allow far left leaning terrorist tweets then they can have it, but they lose their protections from being sued and being held liable for criminal actions conducted on their site.

If they want to continue to enjoy those benefits then they stop censoring and "fact checking" only certain people (namely members of the Trump administration.)

If you don't agree with these two statements then you clearly have an agenda to push and don't care for facts or reason.

[Seran]

I really don't understand what some people don't get about this.

No one is saying Twitter can't do whatever they want with their business. If they want to ban all conservatives and only allow far left leaning terrorist tweets then they can have it, but they lose their protections from being sued and being held liable for criminal actions conducted on their site.

If they want to continue to enjoy those benefits then they stop censoring and "fact checking" only certain people (namely members of the Trump administration.)

If you don't agree with these two statements then you clearly have an agenda to push and don't care for facts or reason.

Or how about 3) You know what you're talking about, but being Dreaven, I feel that constitutional protections and the law should only apply to President Trump so long as it's beneficial, complimentary or that he agrees with. Further more, I feel social media's compliance with Federal law should exempt the President and other Conservative Pundits from being held accountable for deliberate spread of misinformation, cyberbullying and making threats.

[Solkern]

If they want to "correct" free speech then they can be held liable for slander so they better hire a shit load more people to monitor each and every single Tweet to make sure nobody is advocating violence, or encouraging law breaking, or engaging in slander, or any other type of shit that can get them in legal trouble.

Or they can knock it the fuck off with their censorship and one sided "fact checking."

Once again, they didn’t censor anything.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

You should post the definition of censor so we all know what it means.

[Seran]

Executive Order signed.

Good. Now THAT is a step in the right direction for protecting the First Amendment.

Awesome, the President has requested a review of the law! How's that for action; within sixty days the Federal government will review, analyze, examine and recommend without any force and effect of the law. The President, with his almighty powers of the Executive reserves the right to bitch, moan, and complain about any results or inaction and bears no responsibility for incursion on the independent nature of the DOJ or FTC.

[Parkbandit]

Once again, they didn’t censor anything.

Can you give us all some examples of censorship?

[Solkern]

You should post the definition of censor so we all know what it means.

Maybe I should, since people don’t seem to know what that word means

[Solkern]

Can you give us all some examples of censorship?


China removing all social media on post on Weibo, WeChat, and information within China about Tiananmen Square.
China removing and blocking all information in mainland China about the Hong Kong protest.
China removing internet access to people who post anything against the government, while also removing said post.

That’s censorship.

[Wrathbringer]

China removing all social media on post on Weibo, WeChat, and information within China about Tiananmen Square.
China removing and blocking all information in mainland China about the Hong Kong protest.
China removing internet access to people who post anything against the government, while also removing said post.

That’s censorship.

You're retarded.

[Solkern]

You're retarded.

Says the person that doesn’t know the difference between quarantine and isolation.

Glad you can add so much valuable insight. I think PK added more to these forums than you.

[Tisket]

You're retarded.

You're not wrong.

[Parkbandit]

China removing all social media on post on Weibo, WeChat, and information within China about Tiananmen Square.
China removing and blocking all information in mainland China about the Hong Kong protest.
China removing internet access to people who post anything against the government, while also removing said post.

That’s censorship.

So that is the only type of censorship you are familiar with?

If you require more information, I'm here to help you.

Can you think of any other types of censorship?

[Tgo01]

If you don't agree with these two statements then you clearly have an agenda to push and don't care for facts or reason.

Case in point:


Or how about 3) You know what you're talking about, but being Dreaven, I feel that constitutional protections and the law should only apply to President Trump so long as it's beneficial, complimentary or that he agrees with. Further more, I feel social media's compliance with Federal law should exempt the President and other Conservative Pundits from being held accountable for deliberate spread of misinformation, cyberbullying and making threats.

[Tgo01]

Once again, they didn’t censor anything.

First of all they censor shit all of the time.

Second of all you're really being nitpicky with the word "censor" here.

Allowing someone FREE SPEECH and then taking it upon themselves to act as the arbiter of truth and to "provide the facts" for someone's free speech is censorship.

Why are you denying this? Is this what you think "free speech" entails? Imagine if the government decided this was how free speech worked. This is the type of shit that they do in communist shit holes that people like Seran love so much.

Yeah sure, the government allows you "free speech", but at the same time the government takes it upon themselves to decide what is and is not fact and can correct everyone's speech in real time. Yeah, great "free speech" you got going on there.

[time4fun]

We've known for some time that State actors have been abusing social media platforms to spread misinformation to the American people for their own political benefit.

Instead of being angry at Twitter for trying to stop it, maybe you should be angry that your own President is one of those State actors.

[Tgo01]

We've known for some time that State actors have been abusing social media platforms to spread misinformation to the American people for their own political benefit.

Instead of being angry at Twitter for trying to stop it, maybe you should be angry that your own President is one of those State actors.

Oh goodie, someone who knows even less about shit than Seran does has decided to chime in.

All we need now is Back to comment and this will truly be a party.

[Neveragain]

We've known for some time that State actors have been abusing social media platforms to spread misinformation to the American people for their own political benefit.

Instead of being angry at Twitter for trying to stop it, maybe you should be angry that your own President is one of those State actors.

As soon as you call out your districts House rep. Nancy Pelosi for her daily stream of lies, that Twitter doesn't fact check.

BTW, what's that like knowing she told people to go to China town during a pandemic after calling our president a racist for stopping flights from China?

Do you regularly walk past the massive amounts homeless in the SF streets while that districts house rep eats ice cream from the comfort of her mansion?

More importantly, is Nancy's expensive ice cream made from man milk?

[Neveragain]

Oh goodie, someone who knows even less about shit than Seran does has decided to chime in.

All we need now is Back to comment and this will truly be a party.

The worst part, she's going to vote for Biden. Imagine having to swallow that giant lump of shit after spending 12 years bashing old rich racist white guys.

I mean, I feel like I have just eaten a shit sandwich knowing that this is the Democrat option to Trump.

[Tgo01]

The worst part, she's going to vote for Biden. Imagine having to swallow that giant lump of shit after spending 12 years bashing old rich racist white guys.

It's pathetic because Democrats have convinced themselves that merely voting Democrat makes them a good person and that they can't be racist or sexist or any other -ist.

[Astray]

Eh, make it a global fact check and not a singular individual. If it's not already that.

I don't really care, Twitter is shit.

[Solkern]

First of all they censor shit all of the time.

Second of all you're really being nitpicky with the word "censor" here.

Allowing someone FREE SPEECH and then taking it upon themselves to act as the arbiter of truth and to "provide the facts" for someone's free speech is censorship.

Why are you denying this? Is this what you think "free speech" entails? Imagine if the government decided this was how free speech worked. This is the type of shit that they do in communist shit holes that people like Seran love so much.

Yeah sure, the government allows you "free speech", but at the same time the government takes it upon themselves to decide what is and is not fact and can correct everyone's speech in real time. Yeah, great "free speech" you got going on there.


We don’t have free speech. You do know that right? People get arrested all the time for “free speech”

Twitter is a private company, they are using freedom of speech, to add a counter argument to Trump’s post. That’s in their right to do so. Trump used his freedom of speech to make a post on Twitter, twitter as a private company used its right to counter argue Trump’s claims. How twitter chooses to do this on their OWN platform, is their choice.

[Tgo01]

We don’t have free speech. You do know that right? People get arrested all the time for “free speech”

You really love nitpicking and deflections.

Let's just go back to my original question that you didn't answer, why do you feel Twitter should receive special protection to both have the power to editorialize the content on their site AND be immune from lawsuits and the like, a privilege no other company in the US enjoys.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

We don’t have free speech.

We 100% absolutely have free speech.

[~Rocktar~]

Popularity if a product or service doesn't make a monopoly. Only when the action's of a company inhibit competition, innovation or instances of price fixing does an unfair practices or FTC review become relevant.

Ummm, controlling a lion's share of a market by using anti-competitive practices does indeed constitute a monopoly. You know, things like threatening advertisers if they advertise on a competitor, skewing search results to hide your competitors or dissenting opinion, frivolous lawsuits, out right theft of intellectual property. All of which the major tech companies have done.


Your review of Section 230 is lacking. Can you show where there's a violation of the Communications Decency Act by Twitter for flagging the President's post as misleading? The section clearly states that there is no civil liability on the part of the platform for acting in good faith to material it found to be objectionable. They could have removed the post entirely and still be acting in accordance with the CDA.

Says the world class lawyer. Facts are, a lot of people that are far more legally educated than you or I seem to think that I am right including a lot of legal advisers to the White House and POTUS.


Again, the President can try to sue, but Twitter's immunity is clearly defined by law. The President can also try to use an EO to reinterpret the act, but any court will see the plaintext of the law and tell him he's drunk.

Quoted for posterity.

[Solkern]

You really love nitpicking and deflections.

Let's just go back to my original question that you didn't answer, why do you feel Twitter should receive special protection to both have the power to editorialize the content on their site AND be immune from lawsuits and the like, a privilege no other company in the US enjoys.

People who write for the New York Times, etc are employed and paid by said company. Twitter is a platform that requires people who use their services to agree to a TOS. They aren’t paid employees of twitter. By agreeing to use twitter, you are giving up your rights, it’s that simple, I’m 100% sure twitter said in its TOS that it can do what it did to Trump, and you agree to this by using its service. If you don’t agree, you can’t use it. Just like a private company mandating people to wear mask, even though it’s not required by law. Because it’s their company. They choose the rules. Don’t like it, don’t use it.

[Solkern]

We 100% absolutely have free speech.


And what happens if you start spouting racist words, or threatening messages to people? Like to the president?

Pretty sure slander isn’t protected under freedom of speech either.

So we have freedom of speech, as long as you follow the rules of it. So is that really freedom of speech?

[Tgo01]

People who write for the New York Times, etc are employed and paid by said company. Twitter is a platform that requires people who use their services to agree to a TOS. They aren’t paid employees of twitter. By agreeing to use twitter, you are giving up your rights, it’s that simple, I’m 100% sure twitter said in its TOS that it can do what it did to Trump, and you agree to this by using its service. If you don’t agree, you can’t use it. Just like a private company mandating people to wear mask, even though it’s not required by law. Because it’s their company. They choose the rules. Don’t like it, don’t use it.

You keep saying this. This is NOT how it works. I have explained this to you multiple times now. You are just flat out wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with Twitter's TOS.

EVERY company must abide by these rules. Even phone companies! Phone companies can't decide "Hey we don't like these KKK members saying this shit on our service so we just aren't going to allow them to say this shit" because if they do then they become legally responsible for ANY communication that happens on their service. And no phone companies can't get around this by simply having their customers agree to a TOS. They either have to say "We don't censor speech on our service" and are immune to lawsuits or they say "Yes we do censor speech" and are now responsible for lawsuits because they are taking an active role in deciding what is and is not allowed on their service.

And don't deflect again by saying this isn't censorship.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

or threatening messages to people? Like to the president?

First of all, your example itself is so retarded. Do you believe that people who say mean words about our president, even threaten him like say... mocking up his severed head or even a play in the park where he's slain, are rotting away in jail? Or even went to court? Jesus christ man, do you read the vomit argument you just made?

Yes, we have that freedom of speech, and I can be a racist, bigot, homophobe, whatever...

[Solkern]

First of all, your example itself is so retarded. Do you believe that people who say mean words about our president, even threaten him like say... mocking up his severed head or even a play in the park where he's slain, are rotting away in jail? Or even went to court? Jesus christ man, do you read the vomit argument you just made?

Yes, we have that freedom of speech, and I can be a racist, bigot, homophobe, whatever...

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-18-months-prison-threatening-kill-trump-70350318

Yes I do.

So come again? Pretty sure this man went to court, and is/was rotting in jail. Maybe you should check before you make claims?
Seems like my “vomit argument” was right.

[Tgo01]

And what happens if you start spouting racist words, or threatening messages to people? Like to the president?

Pretty sure slander isn’t protected under freedom of speech either.

So we have freedom of speech, as long as you follow the rules of it. So is that really freedom of speech?

We absolutely do have freedom of speech. People misunderstand the concept of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is your right to an opinion, saying you think black people are lazy is an opinion, a disgusting and racist opinion, but an opinion.

Saying you want to kill someone isn't an opinion and thus depending on the circumstance is illegal.

Slander also isn't an opinion and isn't even something that the government punishes you for but rather it's something another citizen punishes you for.

Shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater when there isn't a fire isn't even illegal unless someone is injured in a panic you caused, and that's because someone was injured as a direct result of your speech which again wasn't an opinion.

[Solkern]

We absolutely do have freedom of speech. People misunderstand the concept of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is your right to an opinion, saying you think black people are lazy is an opinion, a disgusting and racist opinion, but an opinion.

Saying you want to kill someone isn't an opinion and thus depending on the circumstance is illegal.

Slander also isn't an opinion and isn't even something that the government punishes you for but rather it's something another citizen punishes you for.

Shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater when there isn't a fire isn't even illegal unless someone is injured in a panic you caused, and that's because someone was injured as a direct result of your speech which again wasn't an opinion.


That’s my point, we have freedom of speech, as long as follow certain guidelines.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-18-months-prison-threatening-kill-trump-70350318

Yes I do.

You read the vomit you write? You realize, likely millions of people, have said Trump should die, be executed, get COVID19, Snoop Dog made a music video where he shoots Trump... those people are free and still hating on Trump. Credible threats made by people serious about killing him... yeah, those people are likely in jail.

OK OK OK. Lets pretend you are correct. Why isn't that red head Kathy ugly chick in jail? She paraded around with a severed head of trump. What about the thesbians who did the killing of trump in central park. How about some foreigner saying Trump should be killed-king faggot Johnnie Depp.

What about this guy on Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Donald-Trump-needs-to-die/222934681054778

[Solkern]

You read the vomit you write? You realize, likely millions of people, have said Trump should die, be executed, get COVID19, Snoop Dog made a music video where he shoots Trump... those people are free and still hating on Trump. Credible threats made by people serious about killing him... yeah, those people are likely in jail.

OK OK OK. Lets pretend you are correct. Why isn't that red head Kathy ugly chick in jail? She paraded around with a severed head of trump. What about the thesbians who did the killing of trump in central park. How about some foreigner saying Trump should be killed-king faggot Johnnie Depp.

What about this guy on Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Donald-Trump-needs-to-die/222934681054778


That frankly doesn’t matter now does it? You made a post, I proved you wrong. Plain and simple.

You said these people aren’t rotting in jail, or even went to court. I showed you an example, where it did happen.
Now you want to add conditions?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

That frankly doesn’t matter now does it? You made a post, I proved you wrong. Plain and simple.

LMAO. Take your toys and go home webster.

[Solkern]

LMAO. Take your toys and go home webster.


It’s ok, I understand, you got put in your place and now you’re butt hurt and throwing insults.

[Solkern]

LMAO. Take your toys and go home webster.


So come on, you said we have 100% freedom of speech? Now it’s 100% UNLESS you make a credible threat? Gee that doesn’t mean it’s 100% now does it?

You said no one goes to court or is rotting in jail for making threats to the president, because we have 100% freedom of speech! Well, obviously that’s wrong.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

So come on, you said we have 100% freedom of speech? Now it’s 100% UNLESS you make a credible threat? Gee that doesn’t mean it’s 100% now does it?

Yes, we 100% have freedom of speech.

[Solkern]

Yes, we 100% have freedom of speech.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-18-months-prison-threatening-kill-trump-70350318

Tell it this person.


Gedlu was observed across the street from Dallas’ Adolphus Hotel just 30 minutes before Trump arrived there for a fundraiser. Dallas police officers noticed Gedlu holding a “Kill Trump” sign and detained him as he screamed “kill the president.”

He didn’t have any weapons, nothing.. looks like he was using his “free speech”
So why was he arrested and thrown in federal prison?

[Astray]

So come on, you said we have 100% freedom of speech? Now it’s 100% UNLESS you make a credible threat? Gee that doesn’t mean it’s 100% now does it?

Okay, okay. You have the freedom to walk up to a group of black guys and drop the N bomb. Does this exclude you from consequence?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Ok, hey person, we 100% have freedom of speech.

[time4fun]

So come on, you said we have 100% freedom of speech? Now it’s 100% UNLESS you make a credible threat? Gee that doesn’t mean it’s 100% now does it?

You said no one goes to court or is rotting in jail for making threats to the president, because we have 100% freedom of speech! Well, obviously that’s wrong.

There's always been a carve out with Freedom of Speech that exempts "true threats". There are actually several categories of speech that get either less protection or no protection under the 1st Amendment.

That doesn't mean we don't have freedom of speech.

Also Freedom of Speech doesn't apply to private entities. It *only* applies to the government.

[Seran]

Ummm, controlling a lion's share of a market by using anti-competitive practices does indeed constitute a monopoly. You know, things like threatening advertisers if they advertise on a competitor, skewing search results to hide your competitors or dissenting opinion, frivolous lawsuits, out right theft of intellectual property. All of which the major tech companies have done. Twitter doesn't control a lions share of anything beyond Twitter users. There are countless other blogging or social media platforms. So no, they're not a monopoly.


Says the world class lawyer. Facts are, a lot of people that are far more legally educated than you or I seem to think that I am right including a lot of legal advisers to the White House and POTUS.


Now there's a ripe logical fallacy. "The President has a lot of legal advisors, so I am right." Richard Nixon also had a lot of legal advisors and he was still impeached. Having a lawyer, or even a hundred thousand lawyers doesn't add credibility by association.


The order “is 95% political theater – rhetoric without legal foundation, and without legal impact,” said Daphne Keller, an expert on internet law at Stanford University.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-trump-executive-order-analysi/trumps-order-taking-aim-at-twitter-is-bluster-legal-experts-idUSKBN234361

[time4fun]

As soon as you call out your districts House rep. Nancy Pelosi for her daily stream of lies, that Twitter doesn't fact check.

BTW, what's that like knowing she told people to go to China town during a pandemic after calling our president a racist for stopping flights from China?

Do you regularly walk past the massive amounts homeless in the SF streets while that districts house rep eats ice cream from the comfort of her mansion?

More importantly, is Nancy's expensive ice cream made from man milk?

Your attempts to avoid having to address my point are transparent and ineffectual. But you are tacitly admitting that Trump is using Twitter to intentionally spread misinformation, and you're also tacitly admitting you're okay with it.

You who rages against tyranny both real and imagined is defending a blatant retaliation by an elected official (the highest elected official, as it turns out) against a private entity for pointing out his lies (i.e. saying things he doesn't want to hear). This is the exact situation the 1st Amendment was written to protect us from. And on some level- you must understand that. Which means that on some level, you understand that your desire for democracy and freedom reaches its limits when it is no longer politically convenient for you.

[time4fun]

Twitter doesn't control a lions share of anything beyond Twitter users. There are countless other blogging or social media platforms. So no, they're not a monopoly.\

Correct. Also our current anti-trust laws are largely based on price. They generally don't apply to services like what Google, Twitter, and Facebook offer. We could go back and forth all day about whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but right now it is a thing.

So as a legal question, the answer right now appears to be that Twitter is incapable of qualifying as a monopoly.

[Tgo01]

Your attempts to avoid having to address my point are transparent and ineffectual. But you are tacitly admitting that Trump is using Twitter to intentionally spread misinformation, and you're also tacitly admitting you're okay with it.

Even if Trump is lying on Twitter, so?

Pelosi is on the news almost every fucking day completely lying about Trump, should the news start censoring her words or interrupting her every sentence to say "Our fact checkers say you are lying"? Something tells me you would be against that, but you're such a fucking idiot you probably really believe that everything Pelosi says is fact.

[Solkern]

Even if Trump is lying on Twitter, so?

Pelosi is on the news almost every fucking day completely lying about Trump, should the news start censoring her words or interrupting her every sentence to say "Our fact checkers say you are lying"? Something tells me you would be against that, but you're such a fucking idiot you probably really believe that everything Pelosi says is fact.

That’s the problem, trump supporters don’t care if he lies, but care if the Dems lie, and vice versa

[Tgo01]

That’s the problem, trump supporters don’t care if he lies, but care if the Dems lie, and vice versa

I care when anyone lies, in case you missed my point (which you clearly did), I'm not in favor of ANY company which provides a platform to these people to decide that THEY get to decide who is and is not telling the truth.

I don't want MSNBC or CNN to "fact check" Pelosi after every sentence (because that's how often she lies), and I don't want Twitter to "fact check" Trump's tweets. That is not their role in any of this.

You, Seran, and time4shit4brains are the ones saying it's okay if Twitter fact checks Trump but for some reason you don't think Twitter should lose their special protection and gosh darnit I can't help but notice none of you are demanding Twitter, CNN, et al fact check Democrats on a regular basis as well.

[time4fun]

I would say that there's some serious false equivalence going on here. First, the lie that Twitter targeted is a lie that intentionally misrepresented a part of our elections in a way that would have prevented people from voting. i.e. our own President was spreading misinformation aimed at influencing our election. That's a far cry from typical political shading.

Secondly, the President of the United States should be held to a *higher* standard than all others. The standards Trump supporters are applying to him at this point are criminally low. So it doesn't really matter what anyone else is doing- we don't grade POTUS's behavior on a curve. "Presidential" should be a positive adjective.

Finally, the sheer number of lies that Trump spews out on Social Media are without parallel. We are literally talking about 18,000 lies told in the past 3.5 years. That's not a shrug your shoulders thing. That is damaging to our nation. And the lies he tells are often intentionally so.

And none of this addresses the fact that an elected official is attempting to use the power of his office to stifle speech because it was critical of him. Again, this can't be overemphasized: This is literally why the 1st Amendment was created.

This is as un-American as you can get. When did anything good ever come from government officials retaliating against speech that isn't flattering to them?

[Tgo01]

First, the lie that Twitter targeted is a lie that intentionally misrepresented a part of our elections in a way that would have prevented people from voting. i.e. our own President was spreading misinformation aimed at influencing our election. That's a far cry from typical political shading.

Trump's "lie" was actually a prediction. You can't fucking "lie" about a prediction nor can you fact check it. Stop being a stupid cunt for the sake of being a stupid cunt.


Secondly, the President of the United States should be held to a *higher* standard than all others. The standards Trump supporters are applying to him at this point are criminally low. So it doesn't really matter what anyone else is doing- we don't grade POTUS's behavior on a curve.

See now, Solkern, THIS is someone saying "I don't care when MY guy lies, but I think it's the end of the world when the other guy lies!" Look at the mental gymnastics she is engaging in. If she keeps this up for another dozen or so posts then Seran might be at risk of losing his belt and title.

[Risen]

As an interesting fact from the side, if we presume that Trump prevails in his pursuit and starts a path that circumvents the rather broad protections that were established in 1996 by Congress for internet-based companies I am fearful that it will still fail the final test. Each corporation barring explicit regulation that is tailored to purpose by the government can simply assert it is exercising its own First Amendment rights. For a little light reading on the matter:

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/939/corporate-speech

With special interest to this particular Supreme Court finding that I am very sure we would not want to lose:


In another win for corporate speech, the Court decided in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. ____ (2014), that closely held corporations could not be required to provide coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 for forms of contraceptives that violated the owners religious beliefs.

[Tgo01]

Each corporation barring explicit regulation that is tailored to purpose by the government can simply assert it is exercising its own First Amendment rights. For a little light reading on the matter:

Yes. These companies are more than free to start regulating any and all speech on their platforms, but then they lose their protections. They can't have it both ways.

[Solkern]

I care when anyone lies, in case you missed my point (which you clearly did), I'm not in favor of ANY company which provides a platform to these people to decide that THEY get to decide who is and is not telling the truth.

I don't want MSNBC or CNN to "fact check" Pelosi after every sentence (because that's how often she lies), and I don't want Twitter to "fact check" Trump's tweets. That is not their role in any of this.

You, Seran, and time4shit4brains are the ones saying it's okay if Twitter fact checks Trump but for some reason you don't think Twitter should lose their special protection and gosh darnit I can't help but notice none of you are demanding Twitter, CNN, et al fact check Democrats on a regular basis as well.

And since time4fun has me on ignore I predict she is going to quote your post which clearly missed my point and say something vapid like "Exactly."



You literally just said, “even if trump is lying on Twitter, so?”
Than tried to show it doesn’t matter cause the Dems lie

[Tgo01]

You literally just said, “even if trump is lying on Twitter, so?”
Than tried to show it doesn’t matter cause the Dems lie

Christ, man. Even after I explained my already coherent point you still don't understand what I said?

And worse yet here comes time4fun who is literally saying she doesn't care when her side lies you just gloss over that to rehash what I have already said and explained to you twice?

Stop being so fucking dishonest, that is Seran's and time4fun's specialty and it's all they really have in their life.

[Risen]

Yes. These companies are more than free to start regulating any and all speech on their platforms, but then they lose their protections. They can't have it both ways.

Not arguing this point, because I believe that the 1996 protections need to be looked at again. I would not have chosen the course the president did, but I am also not the president. I do want to be sure my point was clear, though. Let me rephrase.

Twitter can simply assert it is exercising its own First Amendment rights. The government regulates, the corporation moderates (or censors or limits or approves or insert-your-own-narrative).

[Neveragain]

Your attempts to avoid having to address my point are transparent and ineffectual. But you are tacitly admitting that Trump is using Twitter to intentionally spread misinformation, and you're also tacitly admitting you're okay with it.

You who rages against tyranny both real and imagined is defending a blatant retaliation by an elected official (the highest elected official, as it turns out) against a private entity for pointing out his lies (i.e. saying things he doesn't want to hear). This is the exact situation the 1st Amendment was written to protect us from. And on some level- you must understand that. Which means that on some level, you understand that your desire for democracy and freedom reaches its limits when it is no longer politically convenient for you.

I didn't at all say I support the president on this. What I did say is, I expect you and Twitter to call out the lies coming from those that are equally, if not more powerful, than the president.

I also think that we decided that gov. officials can't block people on Twitter.

At the logical level, is it possible for Twitter to be an absolute arbiter of truth?

Would you trust a Trump supporter to handle your ballot?

[Solkern]

I didn't at all say I support the president on this. What I did say is, I expect you and Twitter to call out the lies coming from those that are equally, if not more powerful, than the president.

I also think that we decided that gov. officials can't block people on Twitter.

At the logical level, is it possible for Twitter to be an absolute arbiter of truth?

Would you trust a Trump supporter to handle your ballot?


What pisses me off about twitter, is that they picked this instance, and only this instance to do this fact check shit.
If you are going to do it, be fair and do it for all things.

[time4fun]

What pisses me off about twitter, is that they picked this instance, and only this instance to do this fact check shit.
If you are going to do it, be fair and do it for all things.

While I get this sentiment to an extent, the problem with it is that if you run with this it means that anyone who has lied prolifically on Twitter up to this point becomes functionally immune to fact checking. (Because they weren't fact checked previously)

In reality, Twitter picked this statement because it is consistent with their misinformation efforts up to this point. They've focused on election interference by hostile State actors. They've literally been hauled into Congress to testify about what they're doing to stop State actors from manipulating elections through their platform.

Trump was spreading misinformation to do just that.

There was nothing arbitrary about the decision, and it really was done because they felt they had the "cover" of consistency

[Risen]

What pisses me off about twitter, is that they picked this instance, and only this instance to do this fact check shit.
If you are going to do it, be fair and do it for all things.

I think that is media over-saturation that is causing this perspective you have. What you are hearing these days is "Twitter's First Fact Check" of the president's tweets. In truth, there were other fact checks and markers placed, well before.

The Twitter policy was announced Feb 4, 2020 and went into effect 30 days later on March 5, 2020. Facebook published a like policy late 2019. Twitter first made big news when it tagged what it claims was a manipulated video from the White House Director of Social Media posted on March 7th. Facebook quickly followed suit on this particular video. And that is around the first time that I recall hearing about how unfair it is that conservative voices are being shut out.

What I find amusing presently is that Twitter is kicking out fact-check markers all over the place now, on a broad spectrum. I am sure the left will support the view that correctly applying the artificial intelligence to function properly would take time, while the right will evangelize the blatant targeting of its presence and reach beyond the "fake-news media with the facts" that our president has insisted is the only reason he uses Twitter for.

There is one grain of truth in all of that, in that Twitter is testing and applying the applicability of its policies and automation on those accounts with the broadest reach and appeal as "a public service". This undoubtedly must include our very prominent-tweeting president. In an odd way, the president could claim to be important enough to Twitter to be fact-checked as a badge of honor.

[Parkbandit]

Seran.... another retard is entering the ring...

You better buckle up, Buttercup.

Welcome back, time4fun!!

[Tgo01]

While I get this sentiment to an extent, the problem with it is that if you run with this it means that anyone who has lied prolifically on Twitter up to this point becomes functionally immune to fact checking. (Because they weren't fact checked previously)

In reality, Twitter picked this statement because it is consistent with their misinformation efforts up to this point. They've focused on election interference by hostile State actors. They've literally been hauled into Congress to testify about what they're doing to stop State actors from manipulating elections through their platform.

Trump was spreading misinformation to do just that.

There was nothing arbitrary about the decision, and it really was done because they felt they had the "cover" of consistency

Look at time4fun jump through those hoops!

[Seran]

I think that is media over-saturation that is causing this perspective you have. What you are hearing these days is "Twitter's First Fact Check" of the president's tweets. In truth, there were other fact checks and markers placed, well before.

The Twitter policy was announced Feb 4, 2020 and went into effect 30 days later on March 5, 2020. Facebook published a like policy late 2019. Twitter first made big news when it tagged what it claims was a manipulated video from the White House Director of Social Media posted on March 7th. Facebook quickly followed suit on this particular video. And that is around the first time that I recall hearing about how unfair it is that conservative voices are being shut out.

What I find amusing presently is that Twitter is kicking out fact-check markers all over the place now, on a broad spectrum. I am sure the left will support the view that correctly applying the artificial intelligence to function properly would take time, while the right will evangelize the blatant targeting of its presence and reach beyond the "fake-news media with the facts" that our president has insisted is the only reason he uses Twitter for.

There is one grain of truth in all of that, in that Twitter is testing and applying the applicability of its policies and automation on those accounts with the broadest reach and appeal as "a public service". This undoubtedly must include our very prominent-tweeting president. In an odd way, the president could claim to be important enough to Twitter to be fact-checked as a badge of honor.

We're within six months of our nations Presidential election and following the manipulation of foreign actors in our elections in 2016, social media is finally stepping up to the plate. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, they've all been deleting thousands of accounts belonging to obvious social manipulation programs belonging to Russian groups within their country and in the African Continent. Now we have claims by the President that China is acting to support Biden, if this is true than a service is owed to prevent the same manipulation being engaged on behalf of the President by Trump.

[Tgo01]

We're within six months of our nations Presidential election and following the manipulation of foreign actors in our elections in 2016, social media is finally stepping up to the plate. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, they've all been deleting thousands of accounts belonging to obvious social manipulation programs belonging to Russian groups within their country and in the African Continent. Now we have claims by the President that China is acting to support Biden, if this is true than a service is owed to prevent the same manipulation being engaged on behalf of the President by Trump.

There are thousands of accounts, including politicians such as Hillary Clinton, who are saying Trump and other Democrats who challenged Biden, are Russian assets yet you don’t want those accounts deleted. Weird. Almost as if you don’t really give a shit about the shit you posted but instead just want to push your agenda. You are a very weak and small man.

[Parkbandit]

We're within six months of our nations Presidential election and following the manipulation of foreign actors in our elections in 2016, social media is finally stepping up to the plate. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, they've all been deleting thousands of accounts belonging to obvious social manipulation programs belonging to Russian groups within their country and in the African Continent. Now we have claims by the President that China is acting to support Biden, if this is true than a service is owed to prevent the same manipulation being engaged on behalf of the President by Trump.

Now THIS IS HOW YOU DEFEND THE BELT!

Well done.

[Methais]

Or how about 3) I, Soyran, am a massive retard.

This is correct.

[Methais]

We've known for some time that State actors have been abusing social media platforms to spread misinformation to the American people for their own political benefit.

Instead of being angry at Twitter for trying to stop it, maybe you should be angry that your own President is one of those State actors.

Is the Russia investigation heating up yet though?

[~Rocktar~]

Now THIS IS HOW YOU DEFEND THE BELT!

Well done.

LOL
A second career as a sports commentator?

[Risen]

And then, there is this.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-trump-minneapolis/twitter-hides-trump-tweet-for-glorifying-violence-idUSKBN2350UC


Twitter hid a tweet by U.S. President Donald Trump behind a warning for the first time on Friday, accusing him of breaking its rules by "glorifying violence"

[Tgo01]

And then, there is this.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-trump-minneapolis/twitter-hides-trump-tweet-for-glorifying-violence-idUSKBN2350UC

Yup. Meanwhile there are verified accounts on Twitter right now calling for violent riots all over the US whose tweets haven't been silenced yet. No bias going on here!

[Methais]

That’s the problem, trump supporters don’t care if he lies, but care if the Dems lie, and vice versa

It's more about how they're only interested in "fact checking" people they disagree with.

You would think after 548732047324 pages of pointless semantics arguments, this part would have been obvious by now.

[Tgo01]

It's more about how they're only interested in "fact checking" people they disagree with.

Exactly. If Twitter was regularly "fact checking" Democrats I probably wouldn't even give a shit, it's the complete one sided bullshit going on that pisses me off.

And by "regularly" I mean regularly, not Twitter fact checking one tweet from some local city council Democrat that has no significance on anything.

[HOUSE]

I can't believe twitter is being so mean. Don't they know that this mail-in voter fraud lie is his new election strategy?

If only he could have a safe place to spew his brain diarrhea... Poor President Snowflake McTweety.

Wait, he could come here! This is mostly a safe place for people with zero empathy.

[Tgo01]

I can't believe twitter is being so mean. Don't they know that this mail-in voter fraud lie is his new election strategy?

If only he could have a safe place to spew his brain diarrhea... Poor President Snowflake McTweety.

Wait, he could come here! This is mostly a safe place for people with zero empathy.

So what are the current theories on who HOUSE is? McGuyver? Androidpk? cwolff? sellstuff1?

[HOUSE]

I don't know who any of those schmucks are.

Sorry dude, I'm just not obsessed with you. I just felt the human need to rustle some jimmies of the snowflakes over here at PC\TheDonald.

[Tgo01]

I don't know who any of those schmucks are.

Notice they always say this too before being outed.

[HOUSE]

I'm yer mom. Go back to your basement or I'm turning off the internet.

[RichardCranium]

So what are the current theories on who HOUSE is? McGuyver? Androidpk? cwolff? sellstuff1?

All of them sharing one account.

[Methais]

I don't know who any of those schmucks are.

Sorry dude, I'm just not obsessed with you. I just felt the human need to rustle some jimmies of the snowflakes over here at PC\TheDonald.

lol macgyver

https://media.giphy.com/media/nU2DWkl8rU9I4/giphy.gif

[Seizer]

So what are the current theories on who HOUSE is? McGuyver? Androidpk? cwolff? sellstuff1?
Theory it’s Alashir trying to show how much fun he can be.
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?124806-Share-your-numbers&p=2152260#post2152260

[Seran]

I don't know who any of those schmucks are.

Sorry dude, I'm just not obsessed with you. I just felt the human need to rustle some jimmies of the snowflakes over here at PC\TheDonald.

PC\TheDonald, that's not only hilarious but incredibly accurate.

[Seran]

And then, there is this.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-trump-minneapolis/twitter-hides-trump-tweet-for-glorifying-violence-idUSKBN2350UC

A President threatening to use military violence against his people. Are we sure we're not talking about a dictator from Venezuela or the Philippines?

[Tgo01]

PC\TheDonald, that's not only hilarious but incredibly accurate.

You just know the new mystery person is batshit crazy when Seran takes a liking to him.

[Some Rogue]

He was quoting former Miami Police Chief Walter Headley, who in December 1967, said "when the looting starts, the shooting starts." Headley was police chief during racially charged protests in Miami in 1967 and was known for his "stop and frisk" tactics. This is the same guy who strip searched a black man and dangled him from an overpass. This is who our president sees as a role model. That guy also said "We'll show them police brutality"

[Tgo01]

This is who our president sees as a role model.

Fact check: False.

[Tgo01]

He was quoting former Miami Police Chief Walter Headley, who in December 1967, said "when the looting starts, the shooting starts." Headley was police chief during racially charged protests in Miami in 1967 and was known for his "stop and frisk" tactics. This is the same guy who strip searched a black man and dangled him from an overpass. This is who our president sees as a role model. That guy also said "We'll show them police brutality"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1266434153932894208?s=20

Trump was right once again, and Some Rogue is wrong as usual.


Looting leads to shooting, and that’s why a man was shot and killed in Minneapolis on Wednesday night - or look at what just happened in Louisville with 7 people shot. I don’t want this to happen, and that’s what the expression put out last night means....

And he's right by the way. A looter was shot and killed by a store owner in Minneapolis.

[Alfster]

Ooo Twitter even hid the tweet from the official white house account too. Twitter has become a top tier troll.

[Parkbandit]

Ooo Twitter even hid the tweet from the official white house account too. Twitter has become a top tier troll.

So, it's censoring.

I'm glad they decided to become a publisher.

Can't wait for the lawsuits to explode on them.

[Tgo01]

Courts and Democrats: Politicians can't block people! That's illegal!
Courts and Democrats on Twitter literally silencing politicians:

[Alfster]

So, it's censoring.

I'm glad they decided to become a publisher.

Can't wait for the lawsuits to explode on them.

They'll go as well as Nunes suing the fake cow account.

[Parkbandit]

They'll go as well as Nunes suing the fake cow account.

We shall see what happens if their special protection goes away.

[Some Rogue]

So, it's censoring.

I'm glad they decided to become a publisher.

Can't wait for the lawsuits to explode on them.
And then they can ban Trump for being a liability and slandering people like Joe Scarborough and watch when he poops his diapers and cries for the camera.

[Alfster]

Courts and Democrats: Politicians can't block people! That's illegal!
Courts and Democrats on Twitter literally silencing politicians:

Acting on behalf of the government is the difference here. Politicians can absolutely block people when it's their personal accounts.

[Alfster]

We shall see what happens if their special protection goes away.

They'll probably just move their headquarters to another country.

[Some Rogue]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1266434153932894208?s=20

Trump was right once again, and Some Rogue is wrong as usual.


And he's right by the way. A looter was shot and killed by a store owner in Minneapolis.

He was probably just being sarcastic right? I mean he literally quoted word for word some police chief from the 60's then after he was called out for inciting violence he tries to backtrack and cover himself. No Balls.

[Tgo01]

And then they can ban Trump for being a liability and slandering people like Joe Scarborough and watch when he poops his diapers and cries for the camera.

And that's perfectly fine as long as they are liable for slander, which will pretty much end Twitter because there is no way in hell they can have enough employees to censor the endless amount of slander that goes on in that site.

[Tgo01]

Acting on behalf of the government is the difference here. Politicians can absolutely block people when it's their personal accounts.

No there is not two sides to this. You can't on one hand say politicians can't block people because Twitter is an official platform to speak to citizens and then turn around and say Twitter is well within their rights to censor politicians. Stop already.

[Tgo01]

He was probably just being sarcastic right? I mean he literally quoted word for word some police chief from the 60's then after he was called out for inciting violence he tries to backtrack and cover himself. No Balls.

You were wrong, I even fact checked you to show you were wrong. Why do you hate fact checkers?

[Alfster]

No there is not two sides to this. You can't on one hand say politicians can't block people because Twitter is an official platform to speak to citizens and then turn around and say Twitter is well within their rights to censor politicians. Stop already.

Trump himself is the reason it's considered an official platform. You're aware he made a point to call that out, right?

Twitter doesn't have to play by the rules governing the government. Government employees do.

[Some Rogue]

You were wrong, I even fact checked you to show you were wrong. Why do you hate fact checkers?

https://news.yahoo.com/where-does-phrase-looting-starts-115045464.html?.tsrc=jtc_news_index

Oh George Wallace said it too. Purely a coincidence I am sure.

[Tgo01]

Trump himself is the reason it's considered an official platform. You're aware he made a point to call that out, right?

Twitter doesn't have to play by the rules governing the government. Politicians do.

Yeah and I'm saying the government should be behind the court's decision here that politicians are apparently sacrosanct on Twitter, but as usual Democrats and Never Trumpers such as yourself will contort yourself into a grotesque abomination trying to explain why it made sense when the courts said Trump couldn't block people and why it's okay for Twitter to censor Trump.

You're just being a contrarian because you hate Trump so badly that you probably gnash your teeth at night thinking about him before falling asleep. It's okay, buddy, there is professional help for people such as you but the first step is admitting you have a problem.

[Tgo01]

https://news.yahoo.com/where-does-phrase-looting-starts-115045464.html?.tsrc=jtc_news_index

Oh George Wallace said it too. Purely a coincidence I am sure.

What you're saying is a lot of people have said it and uttering that phrase doesn't necessarily mean you like those people and that you aren't calling for the murder of black people just because you say it?

Fact check: True.

Good job, Some Rogue. I would give you gold star but you would probably think I'm marking you as a Jew.

[Alfster]

Yeah and I'm saying the government should be behind the court's decision here that politicians are apparently sacrosanct on Twitter, but as usual Democrats and Never Trumpers such as yourself will contort yourself into a grotesque abomination trying to explain why it made sense when the courts said Trump couldn't block people and why it's okay for Twitter to censor Trump.

You're just being a contrarian because you hate Trump so badly that you probably gnash your teeth at night thinking about him before falling asleep. It's okay, buddy, there is professional help for people such as you but the first step is admitting you have a problem.

Or I simply don't care at all. It's fucking Twitter. Government has their own rules. Those rules don't apply to private entities. It's that simple. Don't like it? Don't use twitter.

[Tgo01]

Government has their own rules. Those rules don't apply to private entities.

Today I learned that the government can't make rules that apply to businesses. Thanks for educating me.

[ClydeR]

Trump's dispute with Twitter could revive support for the Fairness Doctrine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine) among Republicans. Republicans have been arguing against any return of the Fairness Doctrine for a very long time, at least as long as Fox News has been around.

[ClydeR]

https://i.imgur.com/qRwpKe5.png
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1275409656488382465 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1275409656488382465)


Twitter is really bad at this.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Twitter needs to be cancelled.

[Methais]

https://i.imgur.com/qRwpKe5.png
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1275409656488382465 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1275409656488382465)


Twitter is really bad at this.

For people even more lazy than me:

https://i.imgur.com/0eLNOVN.png

[Tgo01]

So saying anarchists won't be allowed to take over federal property is considered a "threat", but racist Tom Arnold can say this:


2nd Amendment is for everyone including black men with long guns but it's fucking time for us white liberal men to stand up for our brothers & sisters. Borrow our dad's hunting rifles & go nose to nose with Trump’s gang of misfit tools. Let's do it

[Methais]

Borrow our dad's hunting rifles & go nose to nose with Trump’s gang of misfit tools. Let's do it

Maybe I'm thinking of something else, but didn't dems try to push something through that would make borrowing someone's gun illegal without a background check?

"Daaaaaaad I need your gun to shoot Trump people!"

[Tgo01]

Maybe I'm thinking of something else, but didn't dems try to push something through that would make borrowing someone's gun illegal without a background check?

Pretty sure they did.

[Tgo01]

I can't wait until Twitter censors this tweet of Trump's for threatening people with the law!!11!!


I have authorized the Federal Government to arrest anyone who vandalizes or destroys any monument, statue or other such Federal property in the U.S. with up to 10 years in prison, per the Veteran’s Memorial Preservation Act, or such other laws that may be pertinent.....

[Gelston]

I can't wait until Twitter censors this tweet of Trump's for threatening people with the law!!11!!

Funniest thing I saw, people on FB saying "THE PRESIDENT CANNOT CREATE LAWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111"

It has always been illegal to destroy or deface Government property.

[Tgo01]

It has always been illegal to destroy or deface Government property.

Not in ultra far left liberal land. It's funny really that all it took was a president who supposedly broke the law all the time for liberals to not care about other people breaking the law.

[Candor]

Not in ultra far left liberal land. It's funny really that all it took was a president who supposedly broke the law all the time for liberals to not care about other people breaking the law.

As I have mentioned before, when Trump gets reelected, some liberals are really going to freak out. There will be riots, looting, violence, and destruction. These people are not going to care about laws when they "express their frustration" at the outcome of the election.

But it will be entertaining to see CNN react to the news of another four Trump years.

Yeah I know, Trump is down 10 points or so in some polls. After the 2016 election, I would have thought that trust in polls would have declined a bit.

[Solkern]

As I have mentioned before, when Trump gets reelected, some liberals are really going to freak out. There will be riots, looting, violence, and destruction. These people are not going to care about laws when they "express their frustration" at the outcome of the election.

But it will be entertaining to see CNN react to the news of another four Trump years.

Yeah I know, Trump is down 10 points or so in some polls. After the 2016 election, I would have thought that trust in polls would have declined a bit.

Would you put money on this?

[Gelston]

As I have mentioned before, when Trump gets reelected, some liberals are really going to freak out. There will be riots, looting, violence, and destruction. These people are not going to care about laws when they "express their frustration" at the outcome of the election.

But it will be entertaining to see CNN react to the news of another four Trump years.

Yeah I know, Trump is down 10 points or so in some polls. After the 2016 election, I would have thought that trust in polls would have declined a bit.

Most polls I've seen are national polls, which mean just as much as winning the national popular vote. Supposedly the state polls have a much, much closer margin.

[Parkbandit]

Most polls I've seen are national polls, which mean just as much as winning the national popular vote. Supposedly the state polls have a much, much closer margin.

BUT HILLARY WON THE POPULAR VOTE DUH!

[Methais]

Would you put money on this?

I would.

[ClydeR]

Supposedly the state polls have a much, much closer margin.


Yes, double much. For example, the margin in Texas is just 3 percentage points.

[Solkern]

I would.



I’m more than happy to bet you, and anyone else, $100 trump doesn’t win re-election.

[rolfard]

I’m more than happy to bet you, and anyone else, $100 trump doesn’t win re-election.

Saved

[Solkern]

Saved

And what? I made a separate thread stating this same exact thing.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?124650-Betting-on-the-election&highlight=

[Methais]

I’m more than happy to bet you, and anyone else, $100 trump doesn’t win re-election.

Alright. This is us shaking on it. I get to be Dutch. Because I've got a plan.

Youuuuuu son of a bitch!

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ObviousEnragedFlamingo-size_restricted.gif

Have my $100 ready the day after the election.

Someone remind me to collect from Solkern the day after the election. :lol:

[Solkern]

Alright. This is us shaking on it. I get to be Dutch. Because I've got a plan.

Youuuuuu son of a bitch!

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ObviousEnragedFlamingo-size_restricted.gif

Have my $100 ready the day after the election.

Someone remind me to collect from Solkern the day after the election. :lol:


When you pay me, I want it all in ones, so I can make it rain.
And go to the strip club afterwards.

[Methais]

When you pay me, I want it all in ones, so I can make it rain.
And go to the strip club afterwards.

Alright, all 1s.

And by 1s, I mean pennies.

https://media.tenor.com/images/9e3e781285c43d3b11332a5346523872/tenor.gif

When you lose your bet, I'll accept cocaine if that's easier for you.

[Solkern]

Alright, all 1s.

And by 1s, I mean pennies.

https://media.tenor.com/images/9e3e781285c43d3b11332a5346523872/tenor.gif

When you lose your bet, I'll accept cocaine if that's easier for you.

Damn, you are gonna make me offend some strippers by flicking pennies at them?! Have a heart... this is the girls college tuition we are talking about.

Weed is legal in the states now? I’ll take a $100 of weed if that is easier for you.

[Methais]

Damn, you are gonna make me offend some strippers by flicking pennies at them?! Have a heart... this is the girls college tuition we are talking about.

Don't worry, you won't need to do any of that.

[ClydeR]

Trump needs to reconsider his nearly daily bashing of mail-in voting.





https://i.imgur.com/nHMj3EC.png
https://twitter.com/posglen/status/1282777432139931649










https://i.imgur.com/PjEITx0.png
Search results from http://www.trumptwitterarchive.com/archive

[RichardCranium]

Damn, you are gonna make me offend some strippers by flicking pennies at them?! Have a heart... this is the girls college tuition we are talking about.

That's called making it hail.

[Bhaalizmo]

I didn't know it had a name. And here we are in a coin shortage too, damn.