401–410 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 hate the term "these people" some of "these people" meet some of your criteria but not all. You would likely place me in the category of "these people" because I believe social media favors the left side of arguments. I believe in a fair an open internet, let ideas be shared and stop censoring. Every group is a hypocrite, but everyone feels justified in their hypocrisy. It would go a long way if we stopped dividing…
Regardless of ones views pertaining to the current president, does anyone feel comfortable with so called "fact checking"? I do not like anyone acting as the sole arbiter of truth, whether it be the president, the pope, or the random fellow screaming in the park. I prefer that corporations trust their users to make their own choices about what people say instead of making edits or including addendum's to peoples post…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jack Dorsey has responded to this question multiple times in several places-- I heard him address it in the Making Sense podcast by Sam Harris some time in the past year. He seemed to show a firm grasp of the nuances involved. Here is a quote from him: "Blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial Tweets would hide important information people should be able to see and debate,” [...] “It would…
Dorsey is right to want to encourage broader discussion across the political spectrum on topics. But the current fact-checking approach is flawed as it requires human judgment, which is hobbled by people's biases and potential lack of topical expertise. A better approach may be to offer a resource page that shows every news article on the topic, with guidelines on political leaning, how credible each article is etc s…
Your entire post just reads like an advertisement for your project, which a number have tried and hit the limits of effectiveness on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you need a phone to phone someone, call an ambulance or the police. You need an ISP to get to the internet. You don't need Twitter.
That's actually kind of funny right there. Politically, internet access is being championed as a fundamental human right (I.e. being classified as a need). Yet we still have people trying to define what activity on the Net constitutes the necessity that access is supposed to fulfill. I understand where you're coming from though. I just wanted to point out the amusing dichotomy that stood out in my head.
As much as Twitter is important, it's not nearly as important.
Regardless of ones views pertaining to the current president, does anyone feel comfortable with so called "fact checking"? I do not like anyone acting as the sole arbiter of truth, whether it be the president, the pope, or the random fellow screaming in the park. I prefer that corporations trust their users to make their own choices about what people say instead of making edits or including addendum's to peoples post…
If you and I meet in a bar, and over some drinks I tell you that I’m the CEO of Uber, and the tavern owner leans in and say, “No he’s not,” how is that being the “sole arbiter of truth?” If I don’t like it, I should meet you somewhere else.
This is also no different than if Daniel Dale interviews me, and I say I founded YCombinator. When he prints the article, he says, “Reg lied.” How is that making Dale the ‘sole arbiter of truth?”
Nobody told Trump to use Twitter. He’s actually better off on Twitter than I would be in either of the scenarios I mentioned, because moments after he tweets, millions of his followers can reply and agree with his statements.
There is no way Twitter’s “fact check” is the sole arbiter of truth, when everyone can read thousands of replies that disagree with what Twitter claims are facts, and when Mr. Trump can say whatever he likes on the news, or when calling into some Fox show, without Twitter ‘fact-bombing’ him.
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…
Social media are the broadcasters of this age. I see no reason why they should be exempt from the same rules and regulations as old school broadcasters.
Regardless of ones views pertaining to the current president, does anyone feel comfortable with so called "fact checking"? I do not like anyone acting as the sole arbiter of truth, whether it be the president, the pope, or the random fellow screaming in the park. I prefer that corporations trust their users to make their own choices about what people say instead of making edits or including addendum's to peoples post…
Regardless of ones views pertaining to the current president, does anyone feel comfortable with so called "fact checking"? I do not like anyone acting as the sole arbiter of truth, whether it be the president, the pope, or the random fellow screaming in the park. I prefer that corporations trust their users to make their own choices about what people say instead of making edits or including addendum's to peoples post…
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 "fact-check" thing is just such a bad idea in general. Twitter really needs to hire some trolls to pass these ideas passed first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it happens to be a private company with a bias Political speech in public squares are what the First Amendment was written to protect. “Bias” isn’t an exception.
Twitter is now that public square.