361–370 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you say that Trump will definitely lose it once another person is inaugurated, but only maybe when another person is elected president? Honest question. Edit: I know election and inauguration are separate, I was wondering about the significance of this to Twitter.
Trump would still be president between the election and inauguration.
What's surprising is how often I encounter fellow Americans mistakenly asserting the first amendment extends beyond government and into the private sector. It's like they've never even been to a movie theater where they need to shut the hell up or leave. And here we have a US president signing an executive order in response to being moderated on a web site after years of arguably excessive tolerance of his b.s. I'm n…
> What's surprising is how often I encounter fellow Americans mistakenly asserting the first amendment extends beyond government and into the private sector. It's a confusion between the First Amendment and the principle of free expression, which is kinda forgivable given how closely they are related.
You can argue that twitter is also restricting others' free expression, but that is their right, while the government preventing twitter from doing so is a 1A violation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it is. Mankind's amassed knowledge of physics, chemistry, and astronomy has lots of evidence to demonstrate why that would not happen, and when it probably will. That can be compared to the evidence you have to show for your claim, which is nothing.
It certainly seems that mail-in voting is more easily corrupted than going in person and showing ID and voting in secret. There are tradeoffs with accessibility, of course, but it seems depressingly easy to sell a mail-in ballot to someone else or to be verifiably coerced by a boss or family member into voting a certain way. All-in-all Trump tweets worse, dangerous lies on a daily basis so it's bizarre they're pushin…
In reality, several states have had mail voting for years- Oregon for decades- without coercion being a problem. Millions of votes cast without the problem you suggest. It's not a problem, despite using our imaginations to come up with ways it can be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not editorializing. Day in and day out journalists print news stories that have been fact checked and contain links to source information. And then there’s the opinion section. It’s clear which Twitter was doing, and it wasn’t editorial.
Newspaper doesn’t enjoy the protection of Section 230.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't know if Dorsey is making the right call here, but he has clearly thought about it a lot, and discussed those thoughts publicly. Similarly, I'm conflicted. I understand Jack's argument, but I'm not sure he's making the right call here. It is highly unlikely Trump could build a platform or co-opt one that has the reach of Twitter. And arguably, the terms of service should apply equally to everyone on the plat…
> It is highly unlikely Trump could build a platform or co-opt one that has the reach of Twitter. Thought experiment: if instead of posting on Twitter, he sent an e-mail to a few thousand journalists? I never use or consume Twitter, but I see screen captures of things Twitter posts all the time. Granted: one big thing this approach misses is the back and forth. I gather Trump re-tweets quite a bit of stuff, and respo…
Twitter gives him direct access to his electorate, which is extremely valuable.
It seems like the fundamental question is: are services like Twitter and Facebook basically utilities (like ISPs) or are they basically editorial (like newspapers). That is, there are some private companies, like ISPs, that are seen as part of the basic plumbing of the internet, and which are generally not allowed to editorialize their content (for example, through net neutrality rules). However, there are others, li…
If that statement is true then it's a sad day in America. That means that competition is dead and monopoly wins.
I will reemphasize an opinion I expressed on an earlier thread: this is an overtly totalitarian move designed to intimidate and suppress private entities' protected expression, disguised as a reaction to perceived bias (which would still be an invalid pretense for any such order). It's a disgusting attack on an American industry by our own executive.
Sorry big tech is subject to antitrust laws that have been on the books for 120+ years. The Federal Government could break Twitter up into 10 different pieces if it deemed the service a monopoly. That's not totalitarian, that's clearly justified. These platforms claim all the immunity of a utility while actively engaging in algorithmic and human-induced bias that completely slants the platform. In some cases the plat…
Oh my goodness is he a big dumb stupid moron. At the risk of this being downvoted to oblivion, why doesn't he think that Twitter, a privately run company, has the right to fact-check claims made on their site? Even if there were some secret evil liberal agenda on Twitter, which there absolutely is not, why aren't they allowed to do that exactly? Is he planning on holding Fox News to the same standard and make them pu…
I'm sorry but you have a fundamentally flawed model for how Trump (and many in the GOP) think about the world. You're operating under a principle that says that people are essential equal in terms of rights and that there is a moral obligation to consistency. The old Golden Rule, and everything. Under that framework, it's stupid to punch someone in the face unless you also want to get punched in the face, because you…
I don't think there is legal basis for Trump's order, but Twitter is wading into murky territory with their actions. Twitter's "fact check" singles out a specific Trump tweet. It's clearly a human intervention by Twitter staff, not user generated content. The subject of Trump's tweet was a political dispute, and while Trump certainly had false statements in his tweet, that's basically par for the course on Twitter. T…
Twitter ceased to become a platform when they changed the content of The President's tweet. They literally editorialized his content. That act made them a publisher.