Jump to content

Trump Threatens Regulation: Fact Checking Suppresses Conservative Voices


Recommended Posts

Trump warns social media giants that feds can ‘regulate’ or ‘close them down’ amid fight with Twitter

President Trump warned social media giants Wednesday that the federal government could “strongly regulate” or “close them down” if they continue to “silence conservative voices,” amid a flaring battle with Twitter after the platform fact-checked one of his tweets for the first time this week.

“Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices,” Trump tweeted. “We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen. We saw what they attempted to do, and failed, in 2016. We can’t let a more sophisticated version of that happen again.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-warns-social-media-government-can-regulate-or-close-them-down-amid-fight-with-twitter

 

Facts having a Liberal bias is now steering official Whitehouse policy.  Fact checking will not be tolerated, and this will be forced by regulation.  Odd... He ran on a campaign promise of reduced regulation.  It's almost like he made a complete fucking bald faced lie.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 307
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The fucking President of the United States calling for the government to shut down media outlets.  Fascist.  Authoritarian.  Dictator.  The most dangerous person to ever occupy the Oval Office.   

I don't understand this. Shitstain is not having his free speech abridged in any way. Twitter could have deleted his Tweets but didn't. They could have banned him but haven't. What Twitter did wa

So a young, extremely fit girl just happens to faint out of the blue and hit her head in a congressman's office when no one was around?    And Epstein hung himself, amirite?  Yeah, I'm psychotic.

Posted Images

We must silence the silencers!

Stifling the press protects the First Amendment!

War is peace!

Orwell Lives.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here;s some fucking irony:

The president, within minutes on Tuesday, accused Twitter of “interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election based on fact-checking by Fake News CNN and the Amazon Washington Post,” while adding that the platform is “completely stifling FREE SPEECH,” and vowing that “I, as President, will not allow that to happen.”

So providing additional information on what somebody said is completely stifling FREE SPEECH..  But it's gets glorifyingly even better: The providing of such information will be regulated by the Federal Government. 

Holy shit. Another slow one over the plate for late night comedy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Voyageur said:

why do people who claim to love freedom, worship this asshole?

“The American President” starring Michael Douglas and Annette Benning has this line of dialogue: “ How do you have patience for people who claim they love America, but clearly can't stand Americans?”

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Complaining about the policies of a free service that he has no obligation whatsoever to use.

Sounds familiar.

 

I wonder if Guiliani has passed the e-bar exam. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Complaining about the policies of a free service that he has no obligation whatsoever to use.

Sounds familiar.

 

Seems that Fox oughta start up its own Twittersphere.   They can shut down the liberal voices, and nobody, left or right, has to hear anything that disturbs their precious little pre-conceived notions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an exercise to suggest.

Go to google.  Do a search on "Trump threatens".

Then do a search on "Obama threatens".

Compare the number of search results, and keep in mind that Obama was in office for 8 years and that the media has has 3 years beyond that to create new headlines.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, benwynn said:

I'd like to see an official statement by Twitter telling the President to go fuck himself.

errr, they just flicked me for saying that exact same thing ;-)  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, benwynn said:

Here;s some fucking irony:

The president, within minutes on Tuesday, accused Twitter of “interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election based on fact-checking by Fake News CNN and the Amazon Washington Post,” while adding that the platform is “completely stifling FREE SPEECH,” and vowing that “I, as President, will not allow that to happen.”

So providing additional information on what somebody said is completely stifling FREE SPEECH..  But it's gets glorifyingly even better: The providing of such information will be regulated by the Federal Government. 

Holy shit. Another slow one over the plate for late night comedy. 

Trump shut Twitter down? No way. He'd rather cut off his lips. He needs Twitter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fucking President of the United States calling for the government to shut down media outlets.  Fascist.  Authoritarian.  Dictator.  The most dangerous person to ever occupy the Oval Office.   

  • Like 7
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

The fucking President of the United States calling for the government to shut down media outlets.  Fascist.  Authoritarian.  Dictator.  The most dangerous person to ever occupy the Oval Office.   

 

Birall.jpg

  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Seems that Fox oughta start up its own Twittersphere.   They can shut down the liberal voices, and nobody, left or right, has to hear anything that disturbs their precious little pre-conceived notions. 

I'm sorry, are you saying that Twitter is "liberal"?
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Did you read the thread, to include Ben's OP? 

Do you think Twitter's "fact check" process is "liberal?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Do you think Twitter's "fact check" process is "liberal?"

The OP mentioned Trump & supporters being mad that Twitter fact-checked him.  If they think Twitter is exhibiting liberal bias, they're not likely to effect any change in Twitter by complaining, hence the suggestion I made. 

I don't see any loony lefties being fact checked, so - we can assume one of two things:  1) The left-leaning perspectives aren't being scrutinized   2) The left leaning perspectives are being scrutinized, and people aren't bothered by it enough to comment.     

Do you know enough about the mechanics of the process to support that it's not slanted in support of one perspective?    I don't - In a cursory search, I haven't been able to find anything newer than a 2014 report that attempted to quantify the amount of fact checking that Twitter had undertaken, and the reaction to that fact checking.   The only thing I've found that's recent is Twitter's explanation of the labeling intent - nothing about how they scrutinize content to decide what should be labeled.  It seems that making any assertions one way or the other would require that understanding.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I don't see any loony lefties being fact checked, so - we can assume one of two three things:  1) The left-leaning perspectives aren't being scrutinized   2) The left leaning perspectives are being scrutinized, and people aren't bothered by it enough to comment.     3) The positions taken by left-leaning Twitter users are largely based on facts.

FIFY.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The OP mentioned Trump & supporters being mad that Twitter fact-checked him.  If they think Twitter is exhibiting liberal bias, they're not likely to effect any change in Twitter by complaining, hence the suggestion I made. 

I don't see any loony lefties being fact checked, so - we can assume one of two things:  1) The left-leaning perspectives aren't being scrutinized   2) The left leaning perspectives are being scrutinized, and people aren't bothered by it enough to comment.     

Do you know enough about the mechanics of the process to support that it's not slanted in support of one perspective?    I don't - In a cursory search, I haven't been able to find anything newer than a 2014 report that attempted to quantify the amount of fact checking that Twitter had undertaken, and the reaction to that fact checking.   The only thing I've found that's recent is Twitter's explanation of the labeling intent - nothing about how they scrutinize content to decide what should be labeled.  It seems that making any assertions one way or the other would require that understanding.  

 

There's a subtle difference between pure partisan bullshit and "left-leaning perspectives". If Turnip had stuck to facts, he wouldn't have been fact-checked. See the difference?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Updating our Approach to Misleading Information

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2020/updating-our-approach-to-misleading-information.html

Twitter launches labels, warnings on misleading COVID-19 information

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-twitter/twitter-launches-labels-warnings-on-misleading-covid-19-information-idUSKBN22N2E4

Twitter started labeling Tweets with COVID-19 misinformation campaigns. The news yesterday was Shitstain's Tweets getting fact check labeled but the labels are not new.

Guy is doing his bothsiderism where he assumes the other side is just as bad but presents no facts showing this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ishmael said:

There's a subtle difference between pure partisan bullshit and "left-leaning perspectives". If Turnip had stuck to facts, he wouldn't have been fact-checked. See the difference?

I do indeed - and you'll note that I haven't defended Trump's BS, nor have I castigated Twitter.  I *did* say that for us to know what's right, that we'd need to understand how Twitter is selecting content for fact-checking, and what sources they are using as the basis for their analysis.  I looked, and haven't found anything more than partisan griping yet.  If you know something more?  I'd be happy to see it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The OP mentioned Trump & supporters being mad that Twitter fact-checked him.  If they think Twitter is exhibiting liberal bias, they're not likely to effect any change in Twitter by complaining, hence the suggestion I made. 

I don't see any loony lefties being fact checked, so - we can assume one of two things:  1) The left-leaning perspectives aren't being scrutinized   2) The left leaning perspectives are being scrutinized, and people aren't bothered by it enough to comment.     

There is that third possibility which Rain Man posted.

Institutions which champion critical thought include those of academics, science, and journalism.  All are considered left of center.  This can't just be by coincidence.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Olsonist said:

Updating our Approach to Misleading Information

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2020/updating-our-approach-to-misleading-information.html

Twitter launches labels, warnings on misleading COVID-19 information

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-twitter/twitter-launches-labels-warnings-on-misleading-covid-19-information-idUSKBN22N2E4

Twitter started labeling Tweets with COVID-19 misinformation campaigns. The news yesterday was Shitstain's Tweets getting fact check labeled but the labels are not new.

Guy is doing his bothsiderism where he assumes the other side is just as bad but presents no facts showing this.

Sorry O - did your slippers get a little wet when you leaked a little in your rocking chair this morning?    If you want to talk about what I said - stick to that, and quit trying to constantly assign your prejudices to me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, benwynn said:

There is that third possibility which Rain Man posted.

Institutions which champion critical thought include those of academics, science, and journalism.  All are considered left of center.  This can't just be by coincidence.

I won't discount that - but, as much as the folks like to balk at the suggestion that the media doesn't lean?  I do balk at that.  I don't have time to dig it up, but, there's an interesting graphic that, if we accept its objectivity, describes the partisan slant of several "information outlets".  A bunch of what gets quoted here as justification for discounting any conservative perspective comes from sources that are a bit off center - and yeah, just like many offered as support for right-leaning perspectives.  

getting back to the OP, I don't know how Twitter chooses content for scrutiny, and 'til that's known? Any assumption for/against is nothin' more than bias confirmation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

...
getting back to the OP, I don't know how Twitter chooses content for scrutiny, and 'til that's known? Any assumption for/against is nothin' more than bias confirmation. 

Perhaps someone used this:  twitter-report-violationhttps://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-report-violation

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

A bunch of what gets quoted here as justification for discounting any conservative perspective

We discount things that are verifiable bullshit.  We discount things that promote hate, inequality and ignorance.  We discount things that contradict human decency and empathy.  Don't blame us because those things come from the Reich.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

getting back to the OP, I don't know how Twitter chooses content for scrutiny, and 'til that's known? Any assumption for/against is nothin' more than bias confirmation. 

For or against is irrelevant.  You don't like Twitter?  Don't use it.  Don't read it.  Don't follow anyone who uses it.  Pretty simple.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Swimsailor said:

We discount things that are verifiable bullshit.  We discount things that promote hate, inequality and ignorance.  We discount things that contradict human decency and empathy.  Don't blame us because those things come from the Reich.

No hate or ignorance there, is there?   

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
2
 Advanced issues found
 
1
23 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

  A bunch of what gets quoted here as justification for discounting any conservative perspective comes from sources that are a bit off center - and yeah, just like many offered as support for right-leaning perspectives.  
n bias confirmation. 

I don't see much "conservative" perspective here, or in the US generally, anymore. Reactionary perspective? Yeah, there's a lot of that bullshit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, atyourcervix said:

Has Joe Scarborough been exonerated yet?  Just curious.  

You should ask the woman's family directly.  You'll get a bit more bang for your buck dragging her memory through the mud.

Let us know how it goes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, benwynn said:

You should ask the woman's family directly.  You'll get a bit more bang for your buck dragging her memory through the mud.

Let us know how it goes.

Since when do murder cases not get prosecuted because the victim's family says it shouldn't be?  My guess is her father is one of your elks.

  • Downvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No hate or ignorance there, is there?   

See AGITC, That's just it, You are trying to pick a fight where there just is none.  I have stated thais many times before.....  THE LEFT IS NOT OUT TO GET CONSERVATIVES LIKE THE RIGHT IS TRYING TO BLOW UP OUR HEADS...  Maybe it is because we have most of the the educated and eloquent folks on our side, Not a bad thing.  We would definitely loose in hand to hand combat(cause no gunz duh), but as the civil war and most others proved, with right on your side you generally end up on top.  The right, at this point in time, is spewing hate and vitriol to all who will listen...  The left is trying to beat the right simple really, you guys already own the low road..... bigly...  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, atyourcervix said:

Since when do murder cases not get prosecuted because the victim's family says it shouldn't be?  My guess is her father is one of your elks.

Have you ever not been an ignorant asshole? dumber than a box of hammers? (apologies to hammers everywhere).  It's not a murder case when those who investigate it is not a case.  Now get back to DC and find that pizza basement.

There has been a series of pathetic and despicable posters here and you belong in the shithead hall of fame.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, atyourcervix said:

Since when do murder cases not get prosecuted because the victim's family says it shouldn't be?  My guess is her father is one of your elks.

Oh.... There was a murder case?   Could you first give me a little background on what you made up in your head on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Have you ever not been an ignorant asshole? dumber than a box of hammers? (apologies to hammers everywhere).  It's not a murder case when those who investigate it is not a case.  Now get back to DC and find that pizza basement.

There has been a series of pathetic and despicable posters here and you belong in the shithead hall of fame.

You don't get it.  Prosecuters are only competent when they DROP cases AFTER the conviction and the suspect is a Republican.  In this case, by not pursing a case at all the Prosecutor is clearly a DemoRAT in league to cover up a murder.

Pizza!  Benghazi!  Lock her up!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no progressive voice in the MSM - time for my weekly self-cite !! 

The Reich argues that the MSM is mostly lefty: but they do not understand what a left-wing media might do . .  

An actual left-wing media would stand up fore-square for $15/hr min wage, and M4A, and question the Forever War and military spending and nukes. 

An actual left-wing media would defend the right of Cuba, Venezuela and Iran to exist; and express outrage over the suffering of the people in those countries directly caused by the US national security blob.  

A left-wing media would challenge the Drumphista's hissy fit against Obama for speaking out - while the Reich bashes Obama on a daily basis. 

A left-wing media would draw our attention to the utter incongruity of Drumph's claim of "draining the swamp" while firing four IG's 

A left-wing media would report and analyze American structural and cultural racism; not treat killings of minorities by cops as isolated events. 

A left-wing media would staunchly defend Antifa and Black Lives Matter. 

In the mainstream TV and radio media, the left-wing is not there. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, d'ranger said:

Have you ever not been an ignorant asshole? dumber than a box of hammers? (apologies to hammers everywhere).  It's not a murder case when those who investigate it is not a case.  Now get back to DC and find that pizza basement.

There has been a series of pathetic and despicable posters here and you belong in the shithead hall of fame.

Not so fast.  Give him a chance to at least fabricate some interesting detail on this.   You are underestimating the entertainment value of the psychotic mind.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shaggy said:

See AGITC, That's just it, You are trying to pick a fight where there just is none.  I have stated thais many times before.....  THE LEFT IS NOT OUT TO GET CONSERVATIVES LIKE THE RIGHT IS TRYING TO BLOW UP OUR HEADS...  Maybe it is because we have most of the the educated and eloquent folks on our side, Not a bad thing.  We would definitely loose in hand to hand combat(cause no gunz duh), but as the civil war and most others proved, with right on your side you generally end up on top.  The right, at this point in time, is spewing hate and vitriol to all who will listen...  The left is trying to beat the right simple really, you guys already own the low road..... bigly...  

OK - I took offense to being labeled "The Reich", and *I* am picking a fight?    There is indeed a LARGE portion of "the left" who don't have any interest in finding compromise, who want nothing less than complete obliteration of everyone who holds a perspective they oppose.  There's a lot of that on the right, too.  Is it more helpful to suggest that those people don't exist, or admit that they exist and differentiate your perspective from that?   "We have most of the educated and eloquent folks on our side"?  If you really believe that - you need to go partake of a little more of that newly legal herb.   

"You guys already own the low road"?   

Who's picking a fight?   

It ain't me brudda - I'm pointing out that differences in perspective might be valid, and explaining why.   I'm not pigeonholing anyone, or casting aspersions as to intelligence, ability or intent, and those things, if you actually are honest enough to acknowledge them, are part and parcel of emotional responses that aren't supported by reality.  Read your post again for the most recent example. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'm sure ya don't.  To the bolded part?  We're very much in agreement. 

Don't forget, I was a "republican" before Republican meant bat-shit crazy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, benwynn said:
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The OP mentioned Trump & supporters being mad that Twitter fact-checked him.  If they think Twitter is exhibiting liberal bias, they're not likely to effect any change in Twitter by complaining, hence the suggestion I made. 

I don't see any loony lefties being fact checked, so - we can assume one of two things:  1) The left-leaning perspectives aren't being scrutinized   2) The left leaning perspectives are being scrutinized, and people aren't bothered by it enough to comment.     

There is that third possibility which Rain Man posted.

Institutions which champion critical thought include those of academics, science, and journalism.  All are considered left of center.  This can't just be by coincidence.

You don't see what you don't look for. There are a few choice items promoted by The Left (what little there is) that have been debunked by Snopes etc etc. And there are a couple of "fact check" web sites that strenuously try to support a lot of Trump's bullshit... the problem there is that you run into serious inconsistencies sooner or later... usually sooner.

Another big factor is the bias of the observer. All looks yellow to a jaundiced eye. For example, the Failing New York Times is often the banner-waver for Leftist Mouthpiece Media, according to righties, yet they did not report on Bush & Cheney's warrantless wiretap program. That's not leftist.

There is some bias in media. The reason why the rightie news talk-talk guys like to holler about how THEY ALL LIE! is two-fold, one it fills up air time that would otherwise require actual content plus it reinforces the prejudices of their viewers; two it provides moral cover for their own blatant lies. But there is no leftie version of Rush Limbaugh much less Alex Jones. AGITC and I have gone around about this several times. There's just no "there" there.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

Don't forget, I was a "republican" before Republican meant bat-shit crazy.

I was never a Republican. However, I used to vote about 50/50 between the parties and didn't care a twig for partisan bullshit... still don't actually... and as rural Southern veteran, I would have called myself "conservative" up until about 1990 when it started meaning psycho troglodyte. Took me about ten years to realize it was over.

There are no conservatives that I know of, in USA politics of 2020.

- DSK

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I don't - and that's the funny thing - if you still hold conservative/pragmatic perspectives, why do you try so hard to diminish them in conversation? 

Can’t say I’ve seen anything conservative on this board in years. But that’s not a surprise, the TeaPublicans haven’t been conservative since the Iraq war lies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Not so fast.  Give him a chance to at least fabricate some interesting detail on this.   You are underestimating the entertainment value of the psychotic mind.

So a young, extremely fit girl just happens to faint out of the blue and hit her head in a congressman's office when no one was around?   

And Epstein hung himself, amirite?  Yeah, I'm psychotic.  You  were suffered mass induced hypnosis form dictards like Joe Scarbourgh who convinced your feeble brain that TRUMP RUSSIA COLLUSION!!!!

  • Downvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BravoBravo said:

 

Birall.jpg

How typical.  When someone points out the absurdity of your Messiah, you try to change the subject.

You no longer even TRY to defend his insanity.  You just try to deflect.

Sad.  Bigly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, benwynn said:

You are underestimating the entertainment value of the psychotic mind.

 

11 minutes ago, atyourcervix said:

So a young, extremely fit girl just happens to faint out of the blue and hit her head in a congressman's office when no one was around?   

And Epstein hung himself, amirite?  Yeah, I'm psychotic.  You  were suffered mass induced hypnosis form dictards like Joe Scarbourgh who convinced your feeble brain that TRUMP RUSSIA COLLUSION!!!!

See?

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The OP mentioned Trump & supporters being mad that Twitter fact-checked him.  If they think Twitter is exhibiting liberal bias, they're not likely to effect any change in Twitter by complaining, hence the suggestion I made. 

I don't see any loony lefties being fact checked, so - we can assume one of two things:  1) The left-leaning perspectives aren't being scrutinized   2) The left leaning perspectives are being scrutinized, and people aren't bothered by it enough to comment.     

Do you know enough about the mechanics of the process to support that it's not slanted in support of one perspective?    I don't - In a cursory search, I haven't been able to find anything newer than a 2014 report that attempted to quantify the amount of fact checking that Twitter had undertaken, and the reaction to that fact checking.   The only thing I've found that's recent is Twitter's explanation of the labeling intent - nothing about how they scrutinize content to decide what should be labeled.  It seems that making any assertions one way or the other would require that understanding.  

 

Since you want to make this a comparison between what is Tweeted by President Trump and "loonie lefties", perhaps you'd like to explain how the two are similar in their role, their power, their influence, and their audience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, benwynn said:
44 minutes ago, benwynn said:

You are underestimating the entertainment value of the psychotic mind.

 

12 minutes ago, atyourcervix said:

So a young, extremely fit girl just happens to faint out of the blue and hit her head in a congressman's office when no one was around?   

And Epstein hung himself, amirite?  Yeah, I'm psychotic.  You  were suffered mass induced hypnosis form dictards like Joe Scarbourgh who convinced your feeble brain that TRUMP RUSSIA COLLUSION!!!!

See?

That's not entertainment, that's mocking the mentally and morally feeble and disabled.

I fully support the mocking, by the way.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's great that the Republicans are insisting on an in-person convention. I think the Repubs should also hold remote conventions of local fans in stadiums across the country. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The OP mentioned Trump & supporters being mad that Twitter fact-checked him.  If they think Twitter is exhibiting liberal bias, they're not likely to effect any change in Twitter by complaining, hence the suggestion I made. 

I don't see any loony lefties being fact checked, so - we can assume one of two things:  1) The left-leaning perspectives aren't being scrutinized   2) The left leaning perspectives are being scrutinized, and people aren't bothered by it enough to comment.     

Do you know enough about the mechanics of the process to support that it's not slanted in support of one perspective?    I don't - In a cursory search, I haven't been able to find anything newer than a 2014 report that attempted to quantify the amount of fact checking that Twitter had undertaken, and the reaction to that fact checking.   The only thing I've found that's recent is Twitter's explanation of the labeling intent - nothing about how they scrutinize content to decide what should be labeled.  It seems that making any assertions one way or the other would require that understanding.  

 

There are no loony lefties and even if there were none are an unhinged, psychopathic POTUS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fakenews said:

There are no loony lefties and even if there were none are an unhinged, psychopathic POTUS.

Oh, there are unhinged loony lefties. It's just that no one pays any attention to them. Cause they're loony.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No hate or ignorance there, is there?   

The President of the United Fucking States of America is threatening to shut down media outlets and you want to sing Kumbaya?  Don't want to be associated with the Reich?  Don't support a fascist authoritarian dictator.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was twitter's fact check justified?

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52815552

Mr Trump tweeted, without providing evidence: "There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent."

Twitter put a warning label in the post and linked to a page that described the claims as "unsubstantiated".

 

 

We expect cites from anonymous posters here before we believe them.

At any point Trump can provide a cite to a study that proves his claim.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sol Rosenberg said:

Trump and his bullshit repeater, Bullshit Barbie, both vote by mail in Florida. 

Understandable as they are Americans not DemocRATS

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Laura Loomer? Ahhh... that’s the kind of conservative AGITC and Fido love.

Yeah, that stupid lying piece of shit tried to use her own fuckup to foment discord. She’s just another bullshitter, and based on this she’s about as stupid as most. 
 

BTW, I disagree about AGITC. 
 

https://www.boredpanda.com/fake-slashed-tire-tweet-laura-loomer/

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

So apparently Trump is preparing a mystery EO For tomorrow that some are saying has to do with twitter.  Expect a breathtaking overreach that’s DOA.

I really hope he does. The entertainment value will be enormous.

Frankly I've never understood just how Presidents get away with EO's anyway. The entire concept seems to be utter bullshit. OK in a dire emergency, maybe, provided there's an automatic short sunset clause (say 6 months) and the restriction that no order can suspend, modify or contravene the Constitution. But otherwise? Hell no.

WRT why pick on the Prez and not nutcase lefties, well, it's the PREZ spreading lies immediately in the runup to an election. He and anyone else tweeting about election matters & potential fraud need to be held to very high standards of truth here.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I really hope he does. The entertainment value will be enormous.

Frankly I've never understood just how Presidents get away with EO's anyway. The entire concept seems to be utter bullshit. OK in a dire emergency, maybe, provided there's an automatic short sunset clause (say 6 months) and the restriction that no order can suspend, modify or contravene the Constitution. But otherwise? Hell no.

WRT why pick on the Prez and not nutcase lefties, well, it's the PREZ spreading lies immediately in the runup to an election. He and anyone else tweeting about election matters & potential fraud need to be held to very high standards of truth here.

FKT

Yes, this should be a hoot. He's going to make it illegal to make fun of him or contradict him in any way. Oh, boy! This is going to be good!

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ishmael said:

I thought he was talking about Immanuel Cant.

I thought he was talking about a partially milled log....

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I do indeed - and you'll note that I haven't defended Trump's BS, nor have I castigated Twitter.  I *did* say that for us to know what's right, that we'd need to understand how Twitter is selecting content for fact-checking, and what sources they are using as the basis for their analysis.  I looked, and haven't found anything more than partisan griping yet.  If you know something more?  I'd be happy to see it. 

Trump is the only one using Twitter as an "official White House Communications" device, as far as I know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Trump is the only one using Twitter as an "official White House Communications" device, as far as I know.

Nobody could have imagined that an Official WH Communications Channel would be completely unregulated, unsupervised even. But this is where we have arrived. Elections matter. I don't think Twitter and such (PA?) should be regulated in any way by any kind of government decree unless congress determines that it has some monopoly power, which it may well have since Trump does not disseminate his official communications in any other way.

Interesting problem. Simplest and most obvious solution is removal of Trump from office. But the Party is not going to do that. Too late to educate the idiot masses. Shutting down Twitter would work. Is anyone going to miss it? I've never had a use for it.

Very interesting issue...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, El Boracho said:

Nobody could have imagined that an Official WH Communications Channel would be completely unregulated, unsupervised even. But this is where we have arrived. Elections matter. I don't think Twitter and such (PA?) should be regulated in any way by any kind of government decree unless congress determines that it has some monopoly power, which it may well have since Trump does not disseminate his official communications in any other way.

That's Trump's *choice* not his sole option to communicate. He's done it because it was effectively impossible to criticise or check him absent intervention by the owners of Twitter. So it's in no wise a monopoly.

As for regulation, Twitter has the right to do what they like on their own platform if it's within the law. Thay could attach a tag saying 'This is total bullshit' to every twit Trump makes, if they so decided.His options would be limited to bitching and finding another platform to spread lied from.

I really, really hope he loses the next election in a landslide.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites