Twitter Fact Checks Trump

[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-t...-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?