|
Replies: 71
| visibility 1
|
Legend [15730]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17364
Joined: 2/1/99
|
I'm surprised there is support for Twitter's "Fact Checking"
May 28, 2020, 9:59 AM
|
|
of Trump's Tweet. I have never heard of Twitter "Fact Checking" any other tweet, ever. But I'm not on the site much so I don't know. If that's true, and that they just did it to Trump's two tweets, I think they're out of their minds. It's indefensible as some sort of impartial attempt to put "truth" out there. The number of misleading comments made on Twitter in any given minute is...what...a thousand? Ten thousand? Do they REALLY want to claim an impartial fact-checking platform in that environment? Heck, Trump himself has said a couple thousand things more outrageous than his comment on mail-in ballots. And when I clicked the "Get the Facts" link, it took me to a Politico story about Trump's misleading comments...NOT some objective information site on the process or integrity of mail-in voting.
What if we do have mail-in voting and it does lead to voter fraud? Will they then remove their "Fact Check" because it's now a fact?
And I think I read a couple comments from the CEO of Twitter saying that he was concerned about Trump saying that the governor was mailing out ballots (as opposed to registration documentation, I guess?). This is something that THEY need to clarify? A thousand people, the news and the Governor of California couldn't clarify?
I'm not arguing that they had no right or that a private company can't do whatever it wants. It can. But what an arrogant and ignorant misstep from the guy. Say what you want - it's obviously a biased, partisan move. Twitter, Facebook, etc - they need to stay out of deciding who is telling the truth and who is lying. They need to stop banning people who think the current direction is wrong. Millions of people raise counterpoints on their sites every day. Stupid positions get shouted down and valid counterpoints get a platform. If they had this policy, anyone saying that wearing a mask was necessary three months ago would have been banned. Lunacy.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [46765]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30687
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Re: I'm surprised there is support for Twitter's "Fact Checking"
May 28, 2020, 10:03 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4710]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 4779
Joined: 1/8/19
|
Re: I'm surprised there is support for Twitter's "Fact Checking"
May 29, 2020, 1:37 AM
|
|
Bye bye twitter. Bet they cry like a little ##### when they lose their legal protections that were allowing them to behave as an arm of the DNC with zero accountability. Maybe their Chinese masters, which they never fact check, will step up and bail them out. If you can't trust a commie who can you trust?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I mean I’ve seen fact checks on the Plandemic video and othe
May 28, 2020, 10:07 AM
|
|
r conspiracy stuff on Facebook.
Trump lies a lot and his Twitter is a cesspool of conspiracy and hate. That’s not really an exaggeration.
I’m good with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [59969]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22462
Joined: 5/24/17
|
Re: I mean I’ve seen fact checks on the Plandemic video and othe
May 28, 2020, 10:09 AM
|
|
I am fine with it, just bad optics. Especially when a supposed picture of the Minneapolis Cop wearing a MAGA hat was circulating and it wasnt the same guy.
So the picking and choosing isnt cool, they would need to be more consistent for it to mean anything. Right now, it just looks like a pissing match.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15730]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17364
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Exactly right. By appointment themselves truth-reviewers
May 28, 2020, 10:33 AM
|
|
Of Trump they are opening themselves up to serious liability.
I don’t really care because I don’t use Twitter but I think they’ve made a big mistake letting their political views influence their business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16212]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12765
Joined: 11/14/09
|
Twitter has already made an exception with Trump's
May 28, 2020, 3:20 PM
|
|
account by leaving it active. I believe they've shared where since it's the actual POTUS they kind of have to leave it up. Other tweeters who have posted similar bunk passed as fact have been taken off - it happens on all sides. So I guess this is where they can find their middle ground. The policy might allow for some that would have otherwise been banned back on their airwaves, with caveats such as this in place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40656]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23591
Joined: 1/29/05
|
I think everyone would be good with it
May 28, 2020, 10:10 AM
[ in reply to I mean I’ve seen fact checks on the Plandemic video and othe ] |
|
If Twitter weren't protected as a platform to NOT provide commentary and censorship of voices they do not like. If they want to act like the media, then they should have to deal with consequences like the media and be held to the same standards as media.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22380]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31277
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Allowing the President to spread lies to 20 million people
May 28, 2020, 10:43 AM
|
|
on Twitter "is a biased partisan move."
Everyone knows that the president is a lying sack on an extraordinarily unprecedented level. Republicans just get upset when he gets called out on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15730]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17364
Joined: 2/1/99
|
You think that because you are blinded by your partisanship
May 28, 2020, 11:07 AM
|
|
but the TRUTH is that you could point to outright lies from probably hundreds of politicians, pundits and others every single hour. Those were ignored, but a tweet against voting-by-mail was flagged. You will pretend like that's appropriate but it is obviously biased and partisan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22380]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31277
Joined: 11/30/98
|
You're a rabid Trump supporter staking out a position
May 28, 2020, 11:12 AM
|
|
regardless of the facts. That's what overwhelmingly partisan actors do.
Trump supporters actually WANT to be lied to. This thread is proof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15730]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17364
Joined: 2/1/99
|
I don't want to be lied to. That's not what this is about.
May 28, 2020, 11:49 AM
|
|
I know Trump makes stuff up. This isn't about that. It's about a company with enormous influence on the country making a sound business decision, which this was not. As I said, I am confident that someone properly motivated (ie, not me) wanted to, they could find about 60 lies infinitely more blatant than Trump's comment about voter fraud. But we won't see flags on those, which opens Twitter up to claims of obvious bias.
I am currently in full support of Trump's re-election. I was a Never-Trumper in 2016 and did not vote for him. Since then, through all his boorish behavior and outlandish comments, I have seen (pre-pandemic), record low unemployment, record low black unemployment, Mexico begin to stop immigrants at their southern borders, prison reform, tax reform, regulatory reform, no new military skirmishes, and revised trade agreements with key trading partners. Undoubtedly he has failed in terms of reigning in spending and balancing the budget, and no doubt other areas you could point out. But to me the pros outweigh the cons. All of this while being under constant overt attacks from the hostile media (whether you consider it justified or not, which I do not). Now I'm asked to choose between a man with four years at the helm with those credentials or a man who is 78 years old, showing signs of decline, also has issues with interacting with women, also has questionable corruption in his past, also says outlandish thing, also is prone to losing his temper when challenged, who has never held the highest position at any level of government, who is working with a committee to figure out who he is and who will be picking the VP NOT based on qualifications but on the candidate's gender and race. I'm sorry if I come across as a Trump zealot to you but I don't feel I am. I am sorry that these are the two choices we are left with, but given this choice, to me, the decision is an easy one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22380]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31277
Joined: 11/30/98
|
You have to be a zealot to write what you just wrote.
May 28, 2020, 11:57 AM
|
|
It's such a jaundiced hypocritical screed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15730]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17364
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Okay then.
May 28, 2020, 12:03 PM
|
|
I'm going to end on that one, because I've been called hypocritical, but never jaundiced, and I've never had anything I've written called a screed. So, I'll try to be mindful of my zealousness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22380]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31277
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
So it’s purely Machiavellian then?
May 28, 2020, 12:06 PM
[ in reply to I don't want to be lied to. That's not what this is about. ] |
|
Seems like there’s some other means that could get you the same ends. Like maybe a backbone could be grown inside of someone, he’ll anyone, in the GOP that doesn’t call talk show hosts murderers.
Folks bending over for him is what he counts on, but there’s not as many that have joined the side like you have. He counts on the support of the zealots, racists, and the extremists he’s brought under the tent and then enough of the old guard that votes straight ticket.
The sad part is the excusing of his boorish behavior and transparent calls for accountability of others when he is held to no account at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15730]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17364
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Yeah, like I said...not a good set of choices. I think
May 28, 2020, 12:20 PM
|
|
anyone who is not a zealot (I'm not longer clear if that includes me...thanks a lot Chucktown) would agree with that.
I would reject the idea that it is Machiavellian in that that seems a bit harsh to me. I just think, if you were given a choice between a guy who is boorish, treats women questionably, is prone to outrageous comments, and lashes out when attacked but has governed proactively with the results as I've outlined, or a slightly less nasty version of that person who is showing signs of decline (this is just my opinion, of course, but we're talking about my support), has announced that he'll select a VP on criteria that have nothing to do with their ability to do the job, and who has never sat in the decision-maker, buck-stops-here chair at any time in his career...the choice isn't too hard.
I respect that others feel differently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15730]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17364
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Er. Chuckston.***
May 28, 2020, 12:22 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [347]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 1062
Joined: 7/1/19
|
Do they really have “enormous influence on the country” though?
May 28, 2020, 3:39 PM
[ in reply to I don't want to be lied to. That's not what this is about. ] |
|
Outside of people following Trump, since our president is conducting his official business on Twitter (a phrase I never thought I would write), does anyone really take twitter seriously? I don’t know anyone who uses twitter for anything other than entertainment. Maybe there is a large part of the country that uses twitter as a news source, but I’m definitely unaware of it.
Kind of like YouTube, and those doctors that posted there and got removed. If you are getting your news from Twitter or YouTube, the issue is with you and not the information you found on either of those sites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22380]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31277
Joined: 11/30/98
|
You posted over 80 posts yesterday.
May 28, 2020, 12:43 PM
|
|
You must have had about 8 cups of coffee you were so wound up, jumping all over the place logically, confident in your ignorance of facts and hypocrisy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [55989]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31615
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Didn't the voter fraud tweets come on the heels of
May 28, 2020, 11:13 AM
[ in reply to You think that because you are blinded by your partisanship ] |
|
Trump tweeting conspiracy theories about Morning Joe being a murderer? I don't think voter fraud is the issue here. It's Trump firing off a rapid torrent of bullshit that's extremely problematic and the fact that he does this exclusively on Twitter gives them a degree of responsibility for the repercussions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [55989]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31615
Joined: 8/27/02
|
I don't think it's biased or partisan at all.
May 28, 2020, 11:03 AM
|
|
Social media outlets are determining how best to balance freedom for their users against their responsibility for providing a platform. It's a really thorny question that defies partisanship. Republicans will find themselves in an awkward place, for example, when they decide how to react to Trump drafting a unilateral executive order constraining Twitter's freedom to run its own business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34089]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33587
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: I'm surprised there is support for Twitter's "Fact Checking"
May 28, 2020, 11:05 AM
|
|
What if we do have mail-in voting and it does lead to voter fraud? Will they then remove their "Fact Check" because it's now a fact?
That's an important question. The answer is that the statement was unsubstantiated when Trump made it. A lot of people, including right here on Tnet, think there is ample evidence of voter fraud with or without mail-in ballots. It's not true.
If there is rampant voter fraud in the future, then that would be a new fact and we should adjust our beliefs accordingly.
By analogy, if Trump pretends that an asteroid is heading towards Earth, a fact-check would be in order. If later on an asteroid is discovered heading towards Earth, that would be a new fact. In each case, the claim was baseless when made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34505]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41369
Joined: 4/20/01
|
like RussiaRussiaRussia?***
May 28, 2020, 11:09 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15730]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17364
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Of course. Those should have all been flagged. Once it was
May 28, 2020, 11:11 AM
|
|
proven true, they could post them. Of course, we now know it wasn't true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34089]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33587
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Of course. Those should have all been flagged. Once it was
May 28, 2020, 11:22 AM
|
|
What posts are you referring to that should have all been flagged?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15730]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17364
Joined: 2/1/99
|
I don't have specifics. Maybe none. As I said, I'm not on
May 28, 2020, 11:52 AM
|
|
Twitter. I'm saying that, based on the idea that claims of Trump working with Russia had not been proven at the time, they would fall under the same scrutiny as voter fraud not being proven yet. But I don't have any specific examples and see other post for my level of motivation to find them (zero). If that wasn't a claim by many on Twitter, then I'd be surprised but I wouldn't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34505]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41369
Joined: 4/20/01
|
Well, just over a million tweets from our great press about
May 28, 2020, 12:07 PM
|
|
every pube being a russian agent...but no big deal
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34089]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33587
Joined: 9/13/99
|
yawn***
May 28, 2020, 12:28 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15730]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17364
Joined: 2/1/99
|
See, I disagree. If the president says that vote by mail
May 28, 2020, 11:10 AM
[ in reply to Re: I'm surprised there is support for Twitter's "Fact Checking" ] |
|
will result in voter fraud, even if he says that it DEFINITELY WILL, I know that's his opinion.
How about every Tweet that said that Trump would be a disaster for the economy and country? Shouldn't those be flagged? I mean the truth is that we didn't KNOW that he would be a disaster. Once it's proven, they can repost them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34089]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33587
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: See, I disagree. If the president says that vote by mail
May 28, 2020, 11:14 AM
|
|
I definitely draw a distinction between what you understand and what lots of ding dongs understand.
If everyone were as smart as you, we wouldn't need fact-checks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15730]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17364
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Ha ha. Too kind as always, Spoon.***
May 28, 2020, 11:59 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [347]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 1062
Joined: 7/1/19
|
I somewhat agree.
May 28, 2020, 11:11 AM
|
|
I generally think Twitter shouldn’t fact check anything (obviously it’s their right to). Just seems very arbitrary to flag those two, pretty much everything Trump tweets is filled with lies.
But the only reason I would really support it is, we are dealing with something totally new- a president is using his Twitter to conduct official business. He announces decisions on Twitter, previews action on Twitter, etc. If our president is using that platform to handle duties of his office, then maybe a fact check on his account is acceptable.
If he was just using twitter to post comments on things or what’s on his mind, and not handle policy, then I would be totally against them doing it (again, they have the right to just think it’s stupid of them). But he uses it as a tool of the job, so maybe some scrubbing is needed. I’m my ideal world, he would have a staffer handle his account and only post things that were vetted, but that’s never going to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15730]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17364
Joined: 2/1/99
|
You're all over it.
May 28, 2020, 11:14 AM
|
|
That's exactly right. The only thing I would say is that if Twitter felt like the POTUS was using his Twitter account for official use, and they thought because of that, actions must be taken, they could transparently announce the change in policy. But they didn't. They just said that they have to be responsible for misinformation and flagged Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34089]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33587
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: You're all over it.
May 28, 2020, 11:24 AM
|
|
Maybe there's a difference when the leader of the country is misleading the population about facts that underlie our free democratic process. Maybe Twitter wants to avoid being a part of that.
We're not talking about you or me posting some nonsense in favor or against a candidate. We're talking about the Executive Branch of the US Government lying about US elections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I think the President (any President)
May 28, 2020, 11:26 AM
|
|
should endeavor to increase the faith the American people have in its democratic processes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15730]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17364
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Maybe, but as I said, if that's the case, simply say that.
May 28, 2020, 11:54 AM
[ in reply to Re: You're all over it. ] |
|
I would disagree with it but it would be a defensible and transparent policy. "The POTUS gets extra scrutiny on our platform per the fact that he's the highest ranking person in the Executive Branch and his utilization of our platform blurs the line between simple outreach and actual official policy." Again, I think this would be a mistake, but then at least they have a justification for disproportionate scrutiny, and they are transparent about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I think this a good point...
May 28, 2020, 11:21 AM
[ in reply to I somewhat agree. ] |
|
Everything about this is unprecedented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Well, it would definitely be wrong of them to
May 28, 2020, 11:19 AM
|
|
single him out. I guess the "fact-checking" thing is new, so we'll have to see how it is used. I've been pleased to see something similar on Facebook....a lot of times, I'll see something a friend posted being earmarked as false or misleading. You can still click on it and decide for yourself, but I've never seen it be wrong, in my opinion.
On Facebook, it's obviously an automatic algorithm of some kind, because Facebook obviously isn't individually monitoring random accounts. There may be some merit to only worrying about fact-checking of accounts with very large amounts of followers, to have the best effect. But I don't know anything about Twitter's mechanism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
On that paragraph about Facebook...
May 28, 2020, 11:19 AM
|
|
I want to clarify...I've never seen *Facebook* be wrong about tagging something that is false.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
After thinking, I don't really have a "right/wrong"
May 28, 2020, 11:34 AM
[ in reply to Well, it would definitely be wrong of them to ] |
|
opinion about Twitter's practice here. It's whatever they want to do. If their fact-checking results in content that I don't like, then I'll stop using Twitter. If their fact-checking results in content that I do like, then maybe I'll use it more.
I do think it'd be a difficult thing to manage, so the company will have to navigate that. Ultimately, they are going to do what's best in the interest of increasing revenue. If their fact-checking practice is done such that fewer people want to use the site, they'll probably stop it or modify it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Maybe "wrong" is the wrong word
May 28, 2020, 11:41 AM
|
|
As I alluded to in my follow-up post. It's not a moral issue, I don't suppose. Maybe a better word would be "ineffectual". If it looks like there's a personal animus toward the President, then the fact-checking wouldn't have any positive effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
why do you say they have a personal animus towards him?***
May 28, 2020, 11:45 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I don't say that.***
May 28, 2020, 11:45 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20518]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11667
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: I'm surprised there is support for Twitter's "Fact Checking"
May 28, 2020, 3:00 PM
|
|
Social media is going to have to be regulated, or we're going to eat each other.
We don't have to regulate - nor should we even try to regulate - each and every post. It'd be like trying to eradicate crabgrass.
What we do need to do is subject the most-reposted stuff to scrutiny before it cements in the minds of the public as fact.
Lies are toxic, and we've got the public being savagely - and often deliberately - misled, by those who have learned how to use social media platforms to spread lies and even belief systems that are dangerous to both public discourse and our long-term prospects of remaining a unified nation.
Above a certain threshold of reposts, stuff should get reviewed. Across all platforms. Argue about the number all you want, but stuff that is seen by massive numbers of people needs to get some objective eyeballs on it before we just let it metastasize out there.
Where that line is will of course be a matter of intense debate and disagreement, but we are way on the wrong side of the equation right now...and right now, it's the trolls that rule the Earth.
How does this toxicity and level of misinformation help anybody? It's almost biblical, like the Tower of Babel.
The Internet was supposed to help us connect, but if we don't work out how truth and objective fact are going to rule the day, we need to unplug the durn thing, and like, tomorrow. Because right now it is not being used either productively or responsibly and it is hurting our society - across the entire world - a lot more than it's helping.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [41916]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38111
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Trump repeatedly lies and attacks on Twitter
May 28, 2020, 3:31 PM
|
|
His latest over the conspiracy murder theory was the last straw for them, obviously, as it brought more pain to the victim's family. He's the president and he's chosen to use this platform as his voice to the people. Then he repeatedly lies to them with it. As we've seen, many of his followers blindly believe his lies. It's dangerous.
I applaud the move, and I hope it makes him--and his blind followers who believe any BS he spouts--very, very, very angry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [41916]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38111
Joined: 11/30/98
|
If I may add...
May 28, 2020, 3:32 PM
|
|
Trump has violated their TOS so many times anyway they should have banned him a long time ago. For that, shame on Twitter. They let him lurk around because it gets them hits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17999]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30143
Joined: 9/9/06
|
If a President is tweeting it, I want it fact checked
May 28, 2020, 3:44 PM
|
|
His office and position are unusual in their power and influence so I think it's not only a wise business decision, but a necessary decision as a public service to fact check everything a President says on twitter. I'd love for them to be able to fact check every tweet a President makes, but with Trump, I think that's probably impossible. I'd also love it extended to all of Congress and Federal Departments but I expect that'd be a logistical nightmare.
I'm surprised at the argument isn't about who should do the fact-checking (ex.) libs being upset at dailycaller being listed as a fact-checker on Facebook) as the act of fact-checking seems like something people would want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14451]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 22868
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: If a President is tweeting it, I want it fact checked
May 28, 2020, 3:50 PM
|
|
who is fact checking the dems. uh, no one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17999]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30143
Joined: 9/9/06
|
You don't have to believe them, that's your right.***
May 28, 2020, 3:57 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Orrrrrr...they could just s t f u and let people decide
May 28, 2020, 4:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17999]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30143
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Sure they could do that, and I'm fine with it either way
May 28, 2020, 4:10 PM
|
|
but them fact-checking the President of the United States isn't that big of a deal.
Curious, if the President said the Sun rotates around the Earth and Twitter fact-checked to point out that it's not true, would you still be so upset?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Sure they could do that, and I'm fine with it either way
May 28, 2020, 4:14 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17999]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30143
Joined: 9/9/06
|
I don't see the leap, other than one has been politicized.***
May 28, 2020, 4:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Of course you don't
May 28, 2020, 4:38 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17999]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30143
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Trump said this about mail-in ballots...
May 28, 2020, 4:51 PM
|
|
"There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent."
That seems to point to an absolute case about a subject matter that's 1.)Civically very important and 2.)Easily misunderstood so it seems fair to me for the subject to be expanded upon. I would expect Twitter to do the same for whoever is making the claim as a sitting President going into an election. That seems beyond reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20518]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11667
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: Of course you don't
May 28, 2020, 4:51 PM
[ in reply to Of course you don't ] |
|
There is an exemption to freedom of speech, and that is when some idiot is using that freedom to endanger the freedom and well-being of other people.
You can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. You can't joke about having bombs at airports. And you can't pass on nuclear secrets to foreign adversaries. Nor can you actively recruit on behalf of a foreign power for the purpose of opposing your own government; this is called "sedition".
All of those are exemptions to absolute freedom of speech. It's kind of the "your rights end where somebody else's nose begins" rule.
Similarly, telling damaging lies about other people - as Trump is repeatedly doing to Joe Scarborough, for instance - and telling lies about the American government to negate a legal voting right would also seem to cross that line as well.
There are exemptions to absolute freedom of speech...unless you're a nihilist, anyhow. The trick, as ever, is figuring out where that line is.
In this case, Twitter isn't even banning Trump or infringing upon his freedom of speech in any particular; they're just calling his lies exactly what they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Next thing you know, there will be weaponized trolling
May 28, 2020, 4:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20518]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11667
Joined: 10/15/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Bro you need to get out more if you're scared of Tweets
May 28, 2020, 5:10 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20518]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11667
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: Bro you need to get out more if you're scared of Tweets
May 28, 2020, 5:19 PM
|
|
I'm not afraid of a tweet.
You and I are two fellas having an argument. That's fine. At the end of the day if we bumped into each other at a Clemson tailgate, the way it would go is, we'd end up drinking beer and talking football and the politics would sort of go away, because at the end of the day politics can't survive either beer or football, and people find a way to get along.
What I'm talking about is something else, involving fake accounts, paid professionals pretending to be fellow Americans, who are not only not interested in resolving differences, but are actively inciting you and I to hate each other more than we actually do, and keeping the pot stirred and making sure that no resolution actually happens. And real fights and real fallout - and certainly real division - is resulting because of this crap.
They are not fellow Americans. They are not even real people at the other end of their accounts. One professional troll usually has several hundred on-line alter egos.
That's what "troll farms" and "weaponized trolling" are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I'm messing with you
May 28, 2020, 5:26 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [41916]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38111
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [41916]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38111
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [881]
TigerPulse: 57%
Posts: 2125
Joined: 2/3/12
|
It's because he is attacking our electoral system
May 29, 2020, 12:44 AM
|
|
just like his comrades in Russia. They won't remove his conspiracies about the congressional aide who died, as much as her family begs them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Seriously?
May 29, 2020, 12:51 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [881]
TigerPulse: 57%
Posts: 2125
Joined: 2/3/12
|
Yes
May 29, 2020, 1:39 AM
|
|
and your wet dream in 4XL tennis shorts is attacking the whole election system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Idiot ignored***
May 29, 2020, 1:52 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 71
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
