Twitter Fact Checks Trump

[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.



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.