• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tell me how fact checking tweets is ending free speech?

trixare4kids said:
RTT.
Start with post #2 before you bark at me.

Of course they own the platform, and they can call out Trump on a daily basis, but what's it about if they don't call out leftist politicians?
Click to expand...

Just how many left wing politico's use their twitter accounts as Trump does to disseminate every bit of information they desire to their followers. I would agree it would be good to do so for all of the others that use their accounts as Trump does. Of course, none do.
 
Bullseye said:
Isn't that the case now? Can't any of his followers speak up? Why do you need a partisan spin artist to comment on a tweet, don't you form your own opinions? How do you KNOW the fact check knows anything more than you?
Click to expand...

Fact checker must prove their sources with a bibliography. Didn't you go to college and write papers? If you can prove their sources are wrong then prove that they are biased with your own. This is how science works.

QED.
 
Lisa said:
Fact checker must prove their sources with a bibliography. Didn't you go to college and write papers? If you can prove their sources are wrong then prove that they are biased with your own. This is how science works.

QED.
Click to expand...

Political fact checkers are known to distort the truth.
 
Lisa said:
Fact checker must prove their sources with a bibliography. Didn't you go to college and write papers? If you can prove their sources are wrong then prove that they are biased with your own. This is how science works.

QED.
Click to expand...

The far right disdains higher education and peer reviewed science.
 
Lisa said:
Fact checker must prove their sources with a bibliography. Didn't you go to college and write papers? If you can prove their sources are wrong then prove that they are biased with your own. This is how science works.

QED.
Click to expand...
A bibliography ON TWITTER? Seriously?
 
SkyFox76 said:
So then, you can't address the points. You accused them of stifling him, so at least point out where that was done
Click to expand...
You're not paying attention. I have addressed that issue.
 
NotreDame said:
Is it tipping the scales? There’s not one Trump follower who is going to find Twitter’s commentary about Trump’s tweet persuasive or compelling. Those already included to dislike Trump, or in fact do dislike Trump, are going to find it persuasive, not because of any illusory “authority” of Twitter, but because they hate Trump!

The “scales” are already tilted one way or the other, based on the bias of the reader, a bias that is for or against Trump.


It is incredulous to think Twitter has any “authoritative” clout to the extent you allege and indeed I have no evidence for the existence of this clout.
Click to expand...
Let readers make up their own minds without having the "official" voice of Twitter getting involved.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
This is not how it works.

All of these posts about "carriers", "platforms", and "publishers" betrays a lack of understanding how these laws work.

This is the relevant law:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

Notice there's no "unless the President throws a tantrum" caveat at the end.
Click to expand...

"Notice there's no "unless the President throws a tantrum" caveat at the end."
Never made that assertion either.

But this issue has little to nothing to do with the so called and so alleged tantrum.

That is the protection of a 'carrier' and / or 'platform'. Do please note that there is no editorial powers indicated. That is the key difference. When a 'carrier' and / or 'platform' starts asserting editorial control over what someone else posts or transmits on their 'carrier network' and / or 'platform', they de facto became a publisher, and are subject to the liabilities of that role.

What the social media platforms have done is lobby congress so they can remain classified 'carrier' and / or 'platform' and yet assert editorial control over posts they don't like. That's not really being a 'carrier' and / or 'platform' and not's not really being a publisher either. That's playing both sides on a binary question.

The Democrats are more than happy to let this continue in this fashion, as it is their bet that the social media bullying will win them the election.

10 Ways Big Tech Can Shift Millions of Votes in the November Elections—Without Anyone Knowing
A noted researcher describes 10 ways Google, Facebook, other companies could shift millions of votes in the US midterms
10 Ways Big Tech Can Shift Millions of Votes in the November Elections—Without Anyone Knowing

Parliament’s plans will almost surely be energized by the latest leak of damning material from inside Google’s fortress of secrecy: The Wall Street Journal recently reported on emails exchanged among Google employees in January 2017 in which they strategized about how to alter Google search results and other “ephemeral experiences” to counter President Donald Trump’s newly imposed travel ban. The company claims that none of these plans was ever implemented, but who knows?

While U.S. authorities have merely held hearings, EU authorities have taken dramatic steps in recent years to limit the powers of Big Tech, most recently with a comprehensive law that protects user privacy—the General Data Protection Regulation—and a whopping $5.1 billion fine against Google for monopolistic practices in the mobile device market. Last year, the European Union also levied a $2.7 billion fine against Google for filtering and ordering search results in a way that favored their own products and services. That filtering and ordering, it turns out, is of crucial importance.
As years of research I’ve been conducting on online influence has shown, content per se is not the real threat these days; what really matters is (a) which content is selected for users to see, and (b) the way that content is ordered in search results, search suggestions, newsfeeds, message feeds, comment lists, and so on. That’s where the power lies to shift opinions, purchases, and votes, and that power is held by a disturbingly small group of people.
Click to expand...

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4808175/user-clip-google-moved-millions-votes

Cherish your democracy?
Don't wish Social Media to become the Ministry of Truth?

Let's take Big Tech's thumb off the political scales.
 
Last edited:
Bullseye said:
Because the odds of those "fact checks" actually BEING FACTUAL are as close to zero as they can get. The guy in charge at Twitter is a vocal hardline lib.
Click to expand...

So you think people are somehow limited by Twitter in how they can fact check something? There's an easy fix btw, Trump finds a more liar friendly format instead of crying that his hand got slapped.
 
SkyFox76 said:
So you think people are somehow limited by Twitter in how they can fact check something?
Click to expand...
Not at all, I would hope they DO fact check.

SkyFox76= There's an easy fix btw said:
The only thing we know now is Twitter's "fact check" is run by a hard leftie.
Click to expand...
 
eohrnberger said:
But this issue has little to nothing to do with the so called and so alleged tantrum.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with the tantrum.

That is the protection of a 'carrier' and / or 'platform'. Do please note that there is no editorial powers indicated. That is the key difference. When a 'carrier' and / or 'platform' starts asserting editorial control over what someone else posts or transmits on their 'carrier network' and / or 'platform', they de facto became a publisher, and are subject to the liabilities of that role.
Click to expand...

This is just not how the law works.

What the social media platforms have done is lobby congress so they can remain classified 'carrier' and / or 'platform' and yet assert editorial control over posts they don't like.
Click to expand...

They have had that ability since 1997, and have had no need to lobby Congress about it.


That's not really being a 'carrier' and / or 'platform' and not's not really being a publisher either. That's playing both sides on a binary question.
Click to expand...

But it's not a "binary question" - that's the point you're not getting.
 
trixare4kids said:
Now that Twitter is going to make callout statements like President Trump made unsubstantiated statements about mail-in ballots leading to fraud, can we expect them to hold leftist politicians to the same standard? Because if they don't it looks like they are selectively targeting based on their own political agenda.
I was reading on Twitter today, and Rep. Eric Swalwell has made several unsubstantiated statements regarding Russia and Trump collusion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I mean if someone, particularly a politician, makes an unsubstantiated or purposefully misleading claim, perchance it should be called out. I'd love for all politicians remarks to be filtered so.
 
Fact checking is fine. Fact checking with CNN as your source is...****ing hilarious.

That being said, this was a stupid executive order...and probably wont have any impact.
 
VanceMack said:
Fact checking is fine. Fact checking with CNN as your source is...****ing hilarious.

That being said, this was a stupid executive order...and probably wont have any impact.
Click to expand...

It was stupid, but you still slavishly follow your cult leader, no matter what stupid things he does....
 
trixare4kids said:
If Twitter is now going this route, they have to hold leftist politicians to the same standard as they do right wing politicians such as DJT. Plenty of them make unsubstantiated claims too.
Twitter has opened a pandora's box setting a huge standard they will now be held accountable for upholding.
Click to expand...

You may be right. I'm sure Twitter is writing it up now.

I completely support fact checking dubious tweets. The standards applied will be up to Twitter. However, the standard I hold the POTUS to does not look favorably on Twitter at all. I prefer professionals. Presidents.
 
tres borrachos said:
He should open his own platform if he doesn't like their rules.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it will fly like Trump airlines or taste as good as Trump steaks or be as good a gamble as Trump casinos.
 
Ikari said:
Yeah, I mean if someone, particularly a politician, makes an unsubstantiated or purposefully misleading claim, perchance it should be called out. I'd love for all politicians remarks to be filtered so.
Click to expand...

The billionaire CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, is a known leftist and admits to having a leftwing bias.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/tech...bias-says-it-doesnt-influence-company-policy/

Dorsey now seeks to highlight the president's claims as "unsubstantiated".
I don't mind but he better know that he must do the same for politicians from his own side to be seen as having credible, unbiased motivations.
 
Chomsky said:
Regardless of its Constitutional merits, I suspect this EO will be the usual Trumpian hyperbolic bluster, followed by little substance.
Click to expand...

the name of a future book about Trump...


"The usual Trumpian hyperbolic bluster, followed by little substance"
 
trixare4kids said:
The billionaire CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, is a known leftist and admits to having a leftwing bias.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/tech...bias-says-it-doesnt-influence-company-policy/

Dorsey now seeks to highlight the president's claims as "unsubstantiated".
I don't mind but he better know that he must do the same for politicians from his own side to be seen as having credible, unbiased motivations.
Click to expand...

They'd need a large, full-time staff to filter through politicians lies, but I don't think it would be the end of worlds if all had their tweets fact checked. Probably save folk a lot of trouble, and may politicians would learn not to lie so hard on Twitter.
 
Hypothetical said:
"facts" are only as good as the person stating them. facts can also be propaganda that is believed. that is the problem.

I do not trust Twitter to decide what is what , nor do I trust political leaning fact check sites.

saying that mass amounts of mail in ballots is not more susceptible to fraud flies in the face of all obvious logic.
Click to expand...

Agree.....

If voter fraud wasn't a problem why has there been an uptick of voter fraud prosecutions and convictions?

Trump vindicated on voter fraud; Elections judge convicted of stuffing ballots for Dems



19 Arrests Later, a Texas Town Is Torn Apart Over Voter Fraud

10 Oregon voters plead guilty to voter fraud in 2016 presidential election - oregonlive.com

There's a real problem with duplicate voting in our country that mail-in ballots contribute to.
http://www.g-a-i.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Voter-Fraud-Final-with-Appendix-1.pdf

Voter harvesting has bipartisan concern to be ripe for fraud.
What is ballot harvesting? | Fox News

During the 2018 elections for the House, there were republicans in California ahead in their districts and at the last minute on election night several said out of the blue hundreds of votes appeared for their opponent at the last minute.

Then you have **** like this happening with mail in ballots that end up in another state!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/so...allots-reportedly-found-in-maryland-this-week

Even the NAACP in NJ called for Gov. Patterson to end his mail in voting plan over corruption concerns.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/pol...ote-to-be-canceled-amid-fraud-claims/2435162/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom