As John discussed yesterday, President Trump is allegedly preparing some sort of executive order that would clamp down on Twitter and potentially other social media outlets. This is apparently a move in response to the company’s decision to start “fact-checking” some of the President’s tweets and flagging them as being content of dubious accuracy.
Whether or not this is something that the White House is even able to do will likely be a subject of debate until the courts settle the matter, but that’s hardly the key issue at hand. At National Review, David Harsanyi wrote at length about the folly of Twitter deciding to jump into the business of fact-checking and flagging certain bits of content and not others. He notes that politics is rarely a dispute over facts, but rather values, dooming such fact-checking efforts to wind up being viewed as partisan harassment.
Once Twitter begins tagging some tweets and not others with “what you need to know,” it will be staking out partisan positions. The Trump tweets that precipitated its first fact-check are a good example of this. It would have been far more reasonable for the social-media giant to label Trump’s ugly and slanderous tweets about Joe Scarborough as misleading. Instead, Twitter decided to inaugurate its policy by alleging that Trump had dishonestly claimed that mail-in ballots would lead to “a Rigged Election.”
As I said, what Harsanyi is talking about is the danger of blurring facts with values as they engage in this fact-checking process. That’s a valid point to be sure, and this activity will only serve to paint Twitter even further into a liberal corner in the eyes of the public. But as I see it, even that isn’t the main issue to be concerned with here.
The real bottom line is that Twitter could have avoided all of this by remaining a platform, as I’ve been saying for years. As long as Twitter simply provided users with accounts and let them tweet what they wish without comment, they would be acting essentially as the 21st century equivalent of a corkboard in a college dormitory. If someone posts something offensive, the fault lies with the person pinning up the offending material, not the manufacturer of the corkboard.
Yes, there would be exceptions. Users violating the law by either posting child pornography, clearly slanderous or libelous defamations or similar offenses would probably place the legal burden on the company to quickly delete the offending content and cancel accounts to the best of their ability. But beyond that, they should be in the clear.
Now, however, they have claimed the title of “content provider” by providing editing services to tweets based on their own judgment
Removing protections from spreading child porn and terrorist postings would be a good start.
Twitter has long shadow banned conservatives, constitutionalists, Republicans, pro life and anti- jihadists.
Let Twitter dig it’s grave and crawl in it. I’d be happy to fill it in.
If nothing else, President Trump could legally issue an executive order prohibiting government agencies from contracting with these corporations.
That would really hurt Google and Amazon, among others.
I wish he would add Gab to his social media outlets.
Since his election, Trump has posted to Twitter thousands of times. (Over 11,000 times, by the end of 2019.) It’s a wonder that he has somehow found the time to work in 266 rounds of golf.
Trump has used Twitter’s free social media service as his own personal propaganda outlet, followed by over 80.4 million readers. Now he’s bitching and threatening the company with regulatory retribution because two out of his thousands of posts got flagged for fact checks?
@Greg: greggie the rock shoots and misses like always. Twitter crossed the line. It is one thing to print what others say and write, but when they publish their own material they moved into a different category. Now, they are open to liable suits.
According to Trump, though he can’t state what legal line they crossed, because there actually isn’t one.
This is just another effort at distraction.
@Greg: greggie the rock, the legal issue is all over credible news sites, but then again, you are a rock and can not understand. Trump knows and countered it today with an EO.
@Greg: They decided to single him out for “fact checking”, which they then proceeded to turn into a means to spread their own lies. I know leftists love to have someone else pay for their propaganda, but Trump is not the fool you think he is.
@Greg: They are either a public forum, or they are a publisher.
When they start to decide on what material can be viewed, and influence readers on what to think about that information, they are a publisher.
Now normal liability laws apply to them.
They broke the agreement in being a public forum.
And that’s the point. Why those two tweets?
Because twitter is using this as their own propaganda.
The only way the Dems could win the next election is using mail in ballots. A natural check against low-information voters actually voting is getting the ballot box. This makes it easy for those who wouldn’t usually vote to vote, as they pull the lever for the Democrats because they are indoctrinated by a endless sea of propaganda in news, entertainment, and education. It’s a wide-scale coup by using the the tyranny of the majority.
I didn’t elect Jack Dorsey to use his immune social media platform as a tool to decide the next election.
And now Twitter has doubled down.
Just asking for a libel suit.
Twitter slapped a warning on this tweet that it was violating the rules by “glorifying violence” but would be allowed to remain because it is in the “public’s interest”to see the tweet. However, Twitter disabled likes, replies and bookmarking.
Hey, Twitter, fact-check EVERYBODY…….or none at all.
Go back to being a bulletin board.
Therein lies the difference that Comrade Greggie doesn’t seem to be able to grasp.
Remember, the shooter at the Naval Air Station in Texas had communicated with his jihadi buddies via Twitter. Why wasn’t he tweets flagged, or better yet, removed by the Twitter police? Why hasn’t Twitter deleted CCP propaganda instead of leaving it up or “fact checked” it like they seem to like doing to conservatives, including now the President? Are the rioters in Michigan, Colorado, Missouri and other states promoting violence via Twitter that the Twitter police are not removing since Twitter is one of the main ways violent groups communicate?
Make no mistake; if ATT&T put a recording on your telephone conversations saying that your conversations were “fact checked” and you were spreading false information, Comrade Greggie would be one of the first people to complain.
That bit of b.s. is an example of a false dilemma fallacy, aka a false dichotomy. Twitter isn’t purely one or the other.
It’s a privately owned billboard that the public is allowed to freely use at the discretion of the owner. Those who create its content are responsible for the content they create. The owner may remove content or discontinue a user’s privileges if they deem them not to meet their company and community standards. The company is responsible for comments or content that the company itself posts.
Because the “Twitter police” cannot possibly monitor every post made by 330 million Twitter users, nor do they have a crystal ball that allows them to see the future. They can, however, often detect bot accounts, and they do tend to notice questionable posts made by their highest-profile users.
@Nan G: Who does Trump mean will start shooting? I take it to mean the looters, as they have in the past.
@Greg: Funny how that liberal shit only goes one way.
@Greg: Because the “Twitter police” cannot possibly monitor every post made by 330 million Twitter users, nor do they have a crystal ball that allows them to see the future. They can, however, often detect bot accounts, and they do tend to notice questionable posts made by their highest-profile users.
Like gun control laws twitters rules of use cant be applied to all so they play the game by enforcing them only on those they want to silence.
Well, of course the Left will interpret his words to mean pro-Trump vigil antes.
But the facts of history show that some looters (or their close company) include shooters who use cover of rioting to kill rival gang members and people in authority like firefighters, EMTs and police.
There is also a history of some business owners standing on their roofs and shooting over the heads of would-be looters.
Who did Pres Trump mean?
He’s speaking now, perhaps he will clarify.
@Nan G, #16:
I believe many angry people will interpret his statement to mean that the military could be called in to put down violence—which would be very likely to assure violence. God only knows what sort of calculating bad actors it would bring out of the woodwork.
Maybe the guy should get a full-time Twitter editor—assuming he wants clear, unambiguous statements instead of statements like the foregoing. Though I’m not sure that he does. I think he’s deliberately flooding the media with comments calculated to create distracting controversy. Minutes ago, he stated the US—in the midst of a global health crisis—is severing all ties with the World Health Organization. He’s getting ready to blow up our already-shaking relations with China—announcement to be made shortly—which could put even more strain on our own weakened economy. Meanwhile, North Korea’s nuclear fuel plants are still in full production.
There in lies the issue greggie the rock. They are now responsible for liable on their pages that they post. Don’t tell me greggie the rock that you missed this again!
@Greg: If he got a Twitter editor, hopefully they can translate to whining crybaby so liberals won’t misinterpret.
The WHO proved itself nothing but a tool of China. Let the CCP fund them.
@Deplorable Me, #19:
Trump is the one doing the whining. It just takes the form of an angry outburst. A couple of posts flagged for factual inaccuracy out of way over ten thousand, and he’s throwing a major tantrum like somebody took his cookie away from him. And once again, he’s trying to use the power of his office to retaliate and terrorize into submission.
Did you notice he hasn’t cited any credible information backing up the bullshit he posted? It’s because there isn’t any credible information to back it up.
He makes stuff up. The only reason anybody believes it is because they want to believe it, and because they’ve heard the same b.s. stated countless times elsewhere.
According to Donald Trump. In fact, W.H.O. is an international presence-on-the-ground in numerous foreign locations where the next dangerous virus might emerge. They provide a real-time stream of information from places proximate to the possible sources of danger. Of course, you have to pay attention as the information rapidly changes. On that, Trump was several weeks behind the curve, totally fixated on China. He claimed Chinese travel restrictions had put down the threat. Most of the COVID-19 cases in the U.S. originally got here by way of Europe.
Strike 3 greggie the rock. The issue here is the information they put out was inaccurate and cost thousands of lives. You just can not understand can you!
@Greg: We realize you are truth challenged due to your lack of unbiased informational sources, like twitter and NBC
The World Health Organization (WHO) tried to calm fears of a pandemic on Jan. 14 by repeating China’s claim that coronavirus was not contagious among humans. Despite Tawians warnings and positive cases they chose to ignore.
Its you who makes shit up Greggiepoo or parrot your lying sources.
Um… no it isn’t. Did you miss the subject of this article?
“Whining” isn’t whining when it is, actually, a fact. It is a FACT that Twitter singles out conservatives to shadow ban, block, cancel and, now, “fact check” by lying.
Did you notice that neither did Twitter? Oh. no you didn’t, because your prejudiced head is up your prejudiced ass.
No, according to the WHO. They proved it by coordinating with the CCP to lie to the world and make the pandemic exponentially worse.
A total of 1,285 proven individual instances of voter fraud—over the past 20 years—and those include fraudulent registration offences, which didn’t necessarily result in a fraudulent vote being cast… (Some consisting of short-term employees padding their registration intakes with phony registrations that pertained to nobody who would ever walk into a polling place.)
138,847,000 voters turned out for the 2016 presidential election. There are 5 such elections over a 20 year period. 1,285 cases over a 20 year period is an example of statistical insignificance—that is, it has never come even remotely close to affecting the outcome of a national election.
Not that it matters to the Heritage Foundation, which is attempting to provide rationale for the GOP’s various voter suppression efforts. They long ago recognized a fundamental problem: the greater the number of people that vote, the less likely republican candidates are to win. Take Trump, for example, who lost the popular election to Hillary Clinton by nearly 3 million votes. He’s president by an electoral college quirk which is unlikely to be repeated.
@Deplorable Me, #23:
Are you under the impression that Twitter is a taxpayer-funded public service? It is not. It’s a private sector corporation owned by its stockholders. Trump is only a user of the services they provide. They can flag his posts or those of anyone else for factual inaccuracy anytime they believe it’s appropriate. Twitter does not belong to Trump, or the government, or to any political party.
@Greg: You never get the issue do you greggie the rock. Twitter goes into a different status when they do more than publish what users post. When the comment, then they become subject to liable suits. Give up greggie the rock. You are approaching a record for being wrong for a record number of times per day.
But that’s not how many fraudulent VOTES were cast. And, this doesn’t mean every one is caught. For instance, California has institutionalized voter fraud by legalizing vote harvesting.
So that are liberal propaganda, like is assumed.
So you don’t give a crap about local and state elections?
What GOP voter suppression efforts?
In my state, once voter I.D. was implemented, black voter turn out increased. How do you account for that?
You’re a f**king idiot, Comrade Greggie.
Correct. I noticed that Heritage Foundation included fraudulent registrations in their total count of voter frauds. As pointed out, a fraudulent registration doesn’t necessarily go on to be come a fraudulent vote; a registration form submitted in the name of Mickey Mouse—which actually happened—doesn’t indicate Mickey Mouse later showed up at the polling place to cast his ballot. All votes require a registration to have been filed, but every registration filed does not turn into a vote. What that means is that Heritage Foundation’s total fraud number is actually inflated.
You’ve apparently got internet access. Do a Google search for “voter suppression efforts”. If you have trouble with any of the big words, maybe you could ask Randy to explain them to you.
@Greg: Democrats crave fraud. It’s been proven every election. Always the Democrats, always the cheating, always the fraud.
That would be a lie. Nothing of the sort has been proven, and much time, energy, and money has been expended in an effort to do so. Trump’s own Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity was disbanded after they came up empty. He doesn’t talk about that much, does he?
@Greg: greggie the rock, you have also used your 3 strikes on this thread, too. Go sit on the bench and request the coach put someone in who can get a hit once in a blue moon. This has been explained to you in depth many times more than 3. You really are a rock!
You mean a search of the liberal opinion that securing the vote is suppression? Hell, goddamn illegal immigrants can get drivers licenses; can’t other people be expected to be able to attain a photo ID? There is no suppress but for the suppression of Democrat hopes and dreams of fraudulently stealing an election.
It’s been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. The way Democrats support the most fraud-prone methods of voting while opposing methods to prevent fraud only confirms it.
They didn’t come up empty, just fraud-central areas such as California would not participate and cooperate. What would deep blue California, where vote harvesting is now “legal”, be trying to hide? How HONEST they are?