91–100 of 1001 posts
All because Twitter dared to fact check him.
This has been in the works since last summer - it has little to do with the recent twitter spat. Edit: I find it funny someone claiming it was due to fact checking downvotes me because I fact checked them.
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 not sure how much more embarrassed I can get for my country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its an interesting thought experiment to assess in what ways Twitter is a "private website". It really is a public web space that is operated by a private company, but I can't help but feel that the nuances and similarities of what Twitter really is and what responsibility they truly hold in society is above the courts comprehension.
Do you have the right to stand in your community's biggest mall screaming racist things or does the property owner/operator have the right to remove you from the premise?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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? Lets fact check "God exists".
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…
> Why is Twitter singling out Trump for his false statements? They aren't. They've labeled other tweets before. > If AOC or Bernie Sanders make false or misleading statements about economics (which they frequently do), will those also receive fact checks and warning labels? Presumably, yes.
The idea of "facts" in economics can't extend very far beyond metics and other numbers, as most of the rest is up to vigorous theoretical, political debate. If this original poster is so keen on fact checking the "economics" of a certain political sides, it seems likely that they are not concerned with actual facts but rather deeply held theoretical and political beliefs that they have elevated to "fact" status.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its an interesting thought experiment to assess in what ways Twitter is a "private website". It really is a public web space that is operated by a private company, but I can't help but feel that the nuances and similarities of what Twitter really is and what responsibility they truly hold in society is above the courts comprehension.
>It really is a public web space that is operated by a private company No, it isn't, any more than a store is a public space because it has windows the public can see into. You have to sign up for a Twitter account and accept their terms of service to post on the site. It's a private platform run by a private company for its own private business interests.
Does that mean we can sue Fox entertainment fake news network?
If someone tweets that you are a murderer, you can't sue Twitter (or rather, if you do, Twitter will be protected by Section 230).
However, suppose Twitter announces the following policy: "Any tweet which calls someone a murderer, shall be deleted, unless the alleged murderer is gulli1010". Should you be allowed to sue Twitter then? That's a more nuanced question. And what if the above policy isn't an official policy but is a de facto policy?
"It also asks the Federal Trade Commission to report on acts of political bias collected by the White House" Is this not similar to the approach and actions of other large State actors out there that hold a lot of authoritative power?
From a 3rd country's perspective, really, all authoritative countries look the same in their policies barring nuances.
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…
The law isn't really hackable in the same way a machine is, because the law isn't interpreted by a machine, it is interpreted by a court, which would take all of the above into account when applying the law.
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…