71–80 of 1001 posts
All because Twitter dared to fact check him.
Edit: I find it funny someone claiming it was due to fact checking downvotes me because I fact checked them.
All because Twitter dared to fact check him.
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
Really curious to hear the rational from supposedly small government republicans
But to be fair, I've seen a lot of supposed progressives on Twitter suddenly finding themselves very concerned with the rights of private businesses.
Really curious to hear the rational from supposedly small government republicans
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
> why doesn't Twitter fact check everyone? They fact check everyone who represents more than 10% of their total traffic. It just so happens that only one of those people tweets information that needs fact checking.
Same for Venezuelan dito.
Without any attempt to weigh in on political sides, this debate made me think of an interesting "hack" to act as a publisher while enjoying the protections of a platform: 1. Start a website where users are able to write arbitrary articles. 2. Have a bot systematically spam your site with all possible articles (suitably limited so as to make this technically doable). 3. Systematically weed out all the articles which a…
That doesn't mean that it wouldn't work. Adult websites have been accused of something similar: as the version goes, they'll take your (illegally published) video down on request, no questions asked, but "someone" will upload it again later.
I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for this, though, which means that either it isn't true, or it is and your plan would work just fine.
Another source with some remarks from a Democrat FCC commissioner: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/28/trump-s...
The Citizens United v. FEC decision indicates that corporations have free speech rights similar to those of individuals. Logically, if you agree with that part of the decision, then you should also agree that the government can't punish Twitter for doing this, and vice versa.
Yet very few people seem to hold either of those combinations of views. There are a few principled civil libertarians who are fine with both super-PACs and what Twitter did here. There are a few principled fair campaign advocates who think it's theoretically permissible, if inadvisable, for the government to stop what Twitter did here.
Most people seem to take one of the inconsistent positions.