Trump signs social media executive order

originally posted by: wheresthebody
a reply to: neutronflux

i have no idea what you're trying to convey here.

either way, social media shouldn't be used by politicians, it's clearly a massive problem...

I think I was clear. Trump was “fact checked” over wanting to prevent any chance of voter fraud.

Whole portions of the economy were shut down with no “fact checking” of corvid19 modeling for what might happen.

Trump wants to prevent any chance of voter fraud occurring. The left throws a fit. Which I find very odd.

But the left had no problem of shutting down the economy based on modeling with no review and over possibilities.


All the while, twitter wants to “fact check” Trump on ensuing no possibility of voter fraud. When has the left every bulked at too many protections at civil liberties? While twitter helped Chinese government envoys learn to use Twitter more effectively for a social platform not allowed to be used in China. While the Chinese propaganda on Twitter mostly goes unchecked and has free reign.

a reply to: neutronflux

The left and right are always throwing fits, but explaining it to them is like showing card tricks to a dog.

a reply to: neutronflux

Trump lied about mail fraud. Twitter pointed that out.

COVID-19 is a real, observable threat. No need to fact check.

Every State in the Union allows mail-in voting, five exclusively. The elections are the purview of the States, not Trump (10th Amendment).

Twitter is a business that has the right to police it's content. If you dont like Twitter, don't use it. That's your right.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Trump lied about mail fraud. Twitter pointed that out.

Like the Covid19 modeling of 2.5 million dead in the USA used to smack down the economy?

Or was he concerned for the chance of fraud and abuse. Like the concern from the Covid19 modeling.

You think the Democrats would join in that concern to work where everyone would be comfortable with mail in voting.

To me it’s very telling of the Democrats to ignore the concern, label it false, and say it’s a lie.

Would you agree any perceived threat to ones right to vote should be taken very seriously. And civil liberties like ensuring a persons vote is not stolen by identity theft for example warrant great cause and effort.

But no. Twitter just labels concern and caution as a lie why China trolls twitter on an industrial scale spreading lies and propaganda.

a reply to: neutronflux

Modelling that was described at the time as prelminary?

Modelling that was updated with as much real time data as possible?

I don't see the world in terms of Democrats and Republicans, unlike you.

Everythings a risk, isn't that right?

It's always a risk to vote however you do it, right?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: neutronflux

Modelling that was described at the time as prelminary?

Modelling that was updated with as much real time data as possible?

I don't see the world in terms of Democrats and Republicans, unlike you.

Everythings a risk, isn't that right?

It's always a risk to vote however you do it, right?

.

What are you babbling about.

I asked specific questions...

Would you agree any perceived threat to ones right to vote should be taken very seriously. And civil liberties like ensuring a persons vote is not stolen by identity theft for example warrant great cause and effort.

And made a very specific statement

You think the Democrats would join in that concern to work where everyone would be comfortable with mail in voting.

a reply to: neutronflux

"Any perceived threat to the right to vote" is specific?

You're conflating absurd COVID conspiracies into the mail-in-vote question ... and you have the cheek to say I'm babbling?

You asked questions, I answered. Learn to read and comprehend. Or ignore me.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: neutronflux

"Any perceived threat to the right to vote" is specific?

You're conflating absurd COVID conspiracies into the mail-in-vote question ... and you have the cheek to say I'm babbling?

You asked questions, I answered. Learn to read and comprehend. Or ignore me.

Really. State what question you answered. Then quote that answer.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: neutronflux

"Any perceived threat to the right to vote" is specific?

You're conflating absurd COVID conspiracies into the mail-in-vote question ... and you have the cheek to say I'm babbling?

You asked questions, I answered. Learn to read and comprehend. Or ignore me.

Really. State what question you answered. Then quote that answer.

Nah.

2nd.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So. Your up to your usual tactics. Got it.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Gryphon66

So. Your up to your usual tactics. Got it.

Pretty much ignoring you when you post the same thing over and over and the demand I respond again and again.

Sure. Whatever.

I'm starting to think these companies want section 230 removed. So they will no longer have to pretend to be a "Nuetral platform" for its users.

I think that these companies want to go full on authoritarian and censor all conservative thought from the internet. Have full editorial control over all the content on their platforms.

When this section 230 was made back in 96' these companies weren't the giants they are today. The implementation of section 230 is what allowed these companies to become so popular and wealthy. In the late 90's they were growing so fast it was impossible for them to police what people were posting on thier social media platforms. They simply couldn't afford the manpower needed and didn't have the technology at the time. These tech companies wouldn't exist today in their current form if section 230 was never implemented. The whole time these tech companies were enjoying the immunity section 230 provided. They were researching new technologies to eventually have the ability to police their own platforms. Now it seems they have that ability.

They no longer need section 230 to protect themselves with the immunity it granted them. They can police themselves. If removed they could censor whatever content they wanted.

The removal of section 230 would also make it difficult for new tech startups to compete and grow. New companies that haven't developed the necessary technology to police themselves would be crippled by lawsuits.


Now that a few tech companies basically control the internet. These huge tech companies have decided they no longer need section 230 to thrive. They have the money, man power and technology to go ahead with full censorship. And they seem eager to get started.

a reply to: Meniscus

They have the money, man power and technology to go ahead with full censorship. And they seem eager to get started.

Or dictate what is “true” through “fact checking” which is even worse.

It's really about time. This whole, "oh they're private entities and can do whatever they want," crap is just that, crap. They are platforms for speech, and that's that and when they know their messages are ubiquitous, yet decide to remove certain content, it's censorship, plain and simple.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Or, they stop censoring at all... you know, like they used to do, and are supposed to do in order to qualify for Section 230 protections.

Section 203 only requires that they censor "in good faith", not that they don't censor. You've got this all backwards.

a reply to: UKTruth

But they aren't ... and thats the point, the 25 year old laws they were hiding under to protect themselves were under the guise of them not being a publisher.

If they curate the content to fit their own narratives and viewpoints they are then considered a media outlet and subject to the same rules as the press.

So they will need to make a decision - Allow all voices and viewpoints to be heard without interference (unless illegal) or essentially become another biased newspaper (in the eyes of the law).

You seem to be missing who is the dictators. It’s not in anyway twitters role to state what are “true” and “untrue” statements. Especially when in regards to the statements by the current president in a highly politicized general election. The selective censorship displays a political bias. Additionally their fact checking of an opinion essentially with another opinion is laughable.

Twitter has yet to censor any Democrats and their false opinions (don’t pretend they don’t lie). Twitter/YouTube/Facebook do have a right to have policies and enforce them. Bring the “arbiter of truth” no longer makes it an unbiased platform and very easily allows for an abuse of their position which has already been taking place. It’s laughable you’re discussing McCarthyism after the Russian agent/bot, fake impeachment, alt right, white nationalist crusades by the MSM. You’re supporting that slippery slope.

a reply to: gortex

The modeling was not updated in real time, in fact we were given updated models two weeks after we had quarantined. An insane amount of false and incomplete data has been used by the MSM regarding covid. a reply to: Gryphon66

The modeling was not updated in real time, in fact we were given updated models two weeks after we had quarantined. An insane amount of false and incomplete data has been used by the MSM regarding covid. a reply to: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Rob808
You seem to be missing who is the dictators. It’s not in anyway twitters role to state what are “true” and “untrue” statements. Especially when in regards to the statements by the current president in a highly politicized general election. The selective censorship displays a political bias. Additionally their fact checking of an opinion essentially with another opinion is laughable.

Twitter has yet to censor any Democrats and their false opinions (don’t pretend they don’t lie). Twitter/YouTube/Facebook do have a right to have policies and enforce them. Bring the “arbiter of truth” no longer makes it an unbiased platform and very easily allows for an abuse of their position which has already been taking place. It’s laughable you’re discussing McCarthyism after the Russian agent/bot, fake impeachment, alt right, white nationalist crusades by the MSM. You’re supporting that slippery slope.

a reply to: gortex

So what?
Twitter is entitled to be biased.