devil's advocate: why doesn't Twitter fact check everyone? Twitter is picking sides on a comment made by a user so they should be held liable for that content
I think the obvious answer is limited manpower. It makes logical sense to prioritize fact checking efforts on a tweet viewed by a million people above a tweet viewed by 10 people.
Does it? Is one "lie" by a public figure worth more than another "lie" repeated a billion times by main-street users?
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…
devil's advocate: why doesn't Twitter fact check everyone? Twitter is picking sides on a comment made by a user so they should be held liable for that content
Twitter isn't a public right. He chooses to use their platform so they choose to annotate his lies. I don't see how this executive order would even change exactly what started the whole thing.
Classic Trump. He does nothing, claims he’s victorious and his fans eat it up.
devil's advocate: why doesn't Twitter fact check everyone? Twitter is picking sides on a comment made by a user so they should be held liable for that content
Twitter isn't a public right. He chooses to use their platform so they choose to annotate his lies. I don't see how this executive order would even change exactly what started the whole thing.
People have a right to communicate, if a few platforms have the power to block all communication maybe they should be.
So, some kind of socialized national communication place?
Twitter isn't a public right. He chooses to use their platform so they choose to annotate his lies. I don't see how this executive order would even change exactly what started the whole thing.
People have a right to communicate, if a few platforms have the power to block all communication maybe they should be.
How does adding a link prevent anyone, let alone the most powerful person in history, from communicating?
> "Currently, social media giants like Twitter received unprecedented viability shield based on the theory that they are a neutral platform, which they are not," Trump said in the Oval Office. "We are fed up with it. It is unfair, and it's been very unfair." What examples of this unfairness are being referred to? I never understand why journalist don't press harder and follow up with obvious questions. Same with "man…
He has no examples, it's just word salad. The premise is also false - the shield from [liability] applies regardless of the political affiliation, motivation, or actions of the platform. He's trying to convince people that Twitter had some kind of duty to remain neutral, but they really don't. Twitter would have just as strong of a case under current law if they came out and said "yep, no conservative viewpoints allo…
> "yep, no conservative viewpoints allowed here."
At least it'd be clear if they said so, nothing worse than the current situation where they think it but won't say it because it'd be bad for business.
> "Currently, social media giants like Twitter received unprecedented viability shield based on the theory that they are a neutral platform, which they are not," Trump said in the Oval Office. "We are fed up with it. It is unfair, and it's been very unfair." What examples of this unfairness are being referred to? I never understand why journalist don't press harder and follow up with obvious questions. Same with "man…
He has no examples, it's just word salad. The premise is also false - the shield from [liability] applies regardless of the political affiliation, motivation, or actions of the platform. He's trying to convince people that Twitter had some kind of duty to remain neutral, but they really don't. Twitter would have just as strong of a case under current law if they came out and said "yep, no conservative viewpoints allo…
Yeah, this seems more about an attempt to compel speech (require companies to publish falsehoods that are convenient or desirable for current political leadership), than an ostensible attempt at "freedom of speech" or "neutrality".