511–520 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People should look into the Seth Rich lawsuit and Ed Butowsky. Trump forgets his crowd is the one who constantly panders conspiracy theories like PizzaGate and QAnon. This will effectively take them down entirely.
No one side has a monopoly on conspiracy theories. The Russia collusion was something spun for years by the networks where people under oath said one thing privately and another publicly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter is not private, at least from the platform discussion point of view, anyone can see Tweets even without having an account. It's more akin to modern day digital town square.
Twitter is private from the point of view that matters at hand; that is, the legal one. Whether or not you can see content without an account has no bearing on this as this is a matter of ownership and liability. Even if it did, you cannot participate in those discussions without an account. Laws pertaining to free speech do not apply here, as has been established time and again, partly because, like I said, it is th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure if you mean this seriously, or in an exasperated but joking manner. If you are serious, it's because Trump has done more for the legitimacy and usage of Twitter than any engineer, businessperson, or celebrity other than Dorsey & cofounders. To be clear: Twitter may take a tough official stance against Trump, but behind closed doors he is the MVP.
That made my curious about what Twitter accounts have the most followers. The top 10 are [1]: 1. Barack Obama, 118 million. 2. Justin Bieber, 111. 3. Katy Perry, 108. 4. Rihanna, 96. 5. Taylor Swift, 86. 6. Christiano Ronoldy, 84. 7. Lady Gaga, 81. 8. Donald Trump, 80. 9. Ellen DeGeneres, 80. 10. Ariana Grande, 74. The next highest politican is Indian Prime Minister Modi, at #17 with 57 million. The Office of the Pri…
Sometimes I wonder why Twitter doesn't just ban his account like they would any other troll on the internet.
I'm not sure if you mean this seriously, or in an exasperated but joking manner. If you are serious, it's because Trump has done more for the legitimacy and usage of Twitter than any engineer, businessperson, or celebrity other than Dorsey & cofounders. To be clear: Twitter may take a tough official stance against Trump, but behind closed doors he is the MVP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure this is the case anymore. McConnell and Trump have been rapidly filling the courts with young, right leaning justices. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/02/28/thanks-tru...
From my observations left leaning means apply liberal criteria to decisions. Right leaning means adhere to the Constitution and law of the United States of America.
"There were only three areas in which Rehnquist showed any interest in enforcing the constitutional guarantee of free expression: in cases involving advertising, religious expression and campaign finance regulation. Rehnquist was 2.6 times more likely to invalidate laws restricting commercial advertising than laws restricting political or artistic expression. He voted to invalidate campaign finance legislation 67 percent of the time, and he voted to invalidate restrictions on religious expression 100 percent of the time. Indeed, in non-unanimous decisions, Rehnquist was 14.7 times more likely to vote to invalidate a law restricting commercial advertising, campaign expenditures, or religious expression than one involving any other aspect of 'the freedom of speech, or of the press.'"[1]
[1] https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2005-09-06-050906...
Really curious to hear the rational from supposedly small government republicans
Regardless, for me this goes back to the Covington Catholic incident. Nick Sandmann sued the Washington Post, NBC, and CNN for defamation and settled. He had a pretty strong case. I think being able to sue for defamation is reasonable and not necessarily indicative of big government support.
But Twitter can't be sued but that was where the videos of him were posted and it was where a Twitter mob formed and peopled doxed him and started to call for Nick's head. I remember seeing it all happen in real time on Friday on Twitter. By Sunday the news outlets were running with it.
At that time, Twitter wasn't flagging content as misleading however, they were banning harmful rhetoric. I guess to me that sort of activity that happened in January 2019 is harmful rhetoric. The ability to let an angry mob defame someone like that and even threaten someone is something Twitter should take responsibility for. Every other publishing platform is held to those standards. If Twitter is profiting from the use which may include activities like defaming someone, then it makes sense that victims are entitled to some compensation from them in addition to any users. Although I appreciate there are fine legal arguments to be made here.
And for the record, it seems like fairly normal discourse on Twitter to expose people with personal information for specifically being racist, misogynist, etc. without any evidence required and people usually condone this. This definitely can be damaging and I think people who are victims of this justly ought to be able to recover losses. Twitter doesn't seem to have much interest in stopping it like they do other forms of harmful speech so I think victims ought to be able to get justice and that has nothing to do with Trump's tweeting habits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they should have just banned him without any reason but that they felt like it and they could. Instead, this was an attempt to high-road one of the most powerful trolls in history, and high-roading a troll is the absolute most losing strategy around. Basically, however imperfect you are, that's how much ammo you've just given the troll. Twitter is very imperfect, so 1/10, tactless strats imo. And the whole "f…
Why would it be bad idea? It's pretty easy to just throw WikiPedia links at lies. Of course with AI/ML/deep-learning. Will it be perfect? No, of course not. Would it help? I think it would. At least it is worth a few tries.
Because whether you want it to or not, it empowers trolls.
The following is counter-intuitive, it goes against our best nature, it's even tragic: you can't high-road a troll. Trolls are in a race to the bottom, so being on the high-road is setting yourself behind.
You want to fuck with Trump? You're going to have to either force a race-to-the-top narrative on him and his followers (not even a pandemic could), or beat him in a race to the bottom. Or just shoot him.
----
That being said, having it be ML would at least lend itself to "take with a grain of salt."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The order does not say that they don't have the right to fact check. It simply says that they don't have the right to fact check and enjoy section 230 immunity.
FoxNews.com has comments on their website. By the logic of the order, Fox News should also lose their immunity and be liable for suit for anything posted by commenters to their online articles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the place that regularly gets quoted on major networks and newspapers. This is a minority website with nowhere near as much impact.
That still doesn't make it _the_ place for political discourse. Reddit gets quoted quite often. Tons of politicians do AMA on Reddit and Facebook. Just because Trump is on Twitter doesn't make it special.
Usually fact checking "services" like snopes.com, politifact, or WaPo with the pinocchio heads, have a consistent model about what they are willing to touch, how they approach it, and how they determine factualness, etc.
Just throwing out that Twitter is or isn't _the_ platform makes no sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]