• 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!

EXC: Full White House Draft Exec Order on Big Tech

GhostlyJoe said:
And the test date is in November, so until then, it's not falsifiable.
Click to expand...
Statements which are falsifiable are statements which can be proved wrong.

If I say there's an omniscient, omnipotent being who exists but doesn't want you to find them
That is not falsifiable
There are no conditions which could possibly exist which could ever prove that statement wrong

Falsifiable conditions are conditions which could be proven false

Statements which are not falsifiable are rightly considered fluff


"Democratic policies will increase voter fraud."
is a falsifiable position which could be proven false
under the right conditions

It is a simple prediction
If -> then
If dem policies, then voter fraud increases

The false condition would be
If dem policies, then voter fraud does not increase
 
GhostlyJoe said:
lol ... the integrity of Democrat voting policies is as certain as the sun rising in the east, huh?
Click to expand...
That's your own odd opinion.
I am just pointing out the flaw in your reasoning.

As we can all plainly see
It's obvious predictions can be fact-checked.

You're embarrassed you lost the point on that assertion.
So, now you're trying to pretend I said something I didn't.
:shrug:
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Statements which are falsifiable are statements which can be proved wrong.

If I say there's an omniscient, omnipotent being who exists but doesn't want you to find them
That is not falsifiable
There are no conditions which could possibly exist which could ever prove that statement wrong

Falsifiable conditions are conditions which could be proven false

Statements which are not falsifiable are rightly considered fluff


"Democratic policies will increase voter fraud."
is a falsifiable position which could be proven false
under the right conditions

It is a simple prediction
If -> then
If dem policies, then voter fraud increases

The false condition would be
If dem policies, then voter fraud does not increase
Click to expand...

And until the election happens, you can't prove it false. So, at the very least, you must agree that Twitter's fact check is premature.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
That's your own odd opinion.
I am just pointing out the flaw in your reasoning.

As we can all plainly see
It's obvious predictions can be fact-checked.

You're embarrassed you lost the point on that assertion.
So, now you're trying to pretend I said something I didn't.
:shrug:
Click to expand...

I was editing when you replied. Here's the rest of my post.

By your logic, if I can find even 1 example of mail-in voting irregularities, then your claim is proven false and the certainty of the sun rising in the east becomes uncertain.

Say, something like this.

Here's Trump's tweet:

There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone.....
Click to expand...

You simply can't prove this false, you can only argue that it won't come true. Even the threshold he outlines -- "substantially" -- is vague and will differ based on observer. Twitter's "fact check" is Twitter's opinion.

Like Twitter's fact check, your claim of winning the point was premature. Are you still gonna claim that it is as certain as the rotation of the earth that there won't be mail-in voter fraud?
 
GhostlyJoe said:
And until the election happens, you can't prove it false. So, at the very least, you must agree that Twitter's fact check is premature.
Click to expand...

Just like you can't prove the sun won't rise in the north until dawn, right?

It's premature to say that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
You will have to wait.
Until then, it's totally legit to say that the sun will rise in the north.
It's a prediction.
No one can fact check predictions, right?

See how big of a pretzel you're having to tie yourself in to keep the Trumpco faith?
Would it be easier to just to let go of Trumpco
and come back to the real world where predictions can indeed be fact checked?
 
GhostlyJoe said:
You simply can't prove this false, you can only argue that it won't come true. Even the threshold he outlines -- "substantially" -- is vague and will differ based on observer. Twitter's "fact check" is Twitter's opinion.
Like Twitter's fact check, your claim of winning the point was premature. Are you still gonna claim that it is as certain as the rotation of the earth that there won't be mail-in voter fraud?
Click to expand...

ftr,
Twitter didn't say it was false
Twitter said it was unsubstantiated

If you're arguing against it being false,
You are arguing with a straw man you created
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Just like you can't prove the sun won't rise in the north until dawn, right?

It's premature to say that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
You will have to wait.
Until then, it's totally legit to say that the sun will rise in the north.
It's a prediction.
No one can fact check predictions, right?

See how big of a pretzel you're having to tie yourself in to keep the Trumpco faith?
Would it be easier to just to let go of Trumpco
and come back to the real world where predictions can indeed be fact checked?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but it's not me whose tied in a pretzel here. My assertion is the same -- Twitter is editorializing by "fact checking" Trump's opinion. You've devolved into arguing that predictions about newly adopted policies are as certain as the laws of physics.
 
Trumpers want to tell people what they can and cannot publish. No surprise. They're fascists.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
I'm sorry, but it's not me whose tied in a pretzel here. My assertion is the same -- Twitter is editorializing by "fact checking" Trump's opinion. You've devolved into arguing that predictions about newly adopted policies are as certain as the laws of physics.
Click to expand...
You said that predictions cannot be fact checked.

I showed that predictions can be fact checked.


So, you have failed to make your case that fact checking is editorializing
 
Simon W. Moon said:
ftr,
Twitter didn't say it was false
Twitter said it was unsubstantiated

If you're arguing against it being false,
You are arguing with a straw man you created
Click to expand...

It's a prediction! Of course it's unsubstantiated. It's a political attack. And it's not a straw man. You've made the claim that Trump's tweet was falsifiable, or more accurately, we've been having that argument over several posts. The initial point is that Twitter's fact check is an editorial stance.

Do you at least agree that Twitter should start fact-checking Biden in the same manner?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
You said that predictions cannot be fact checked.

I showed that predictions can be fact checked.


So, you have failed to make your case that fact checking is editorializing
Click to expand...

I've certainly proven that this particular fact check is editorializing.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
I've certainly proven that this particular fact check is editorializing.
Click to expand...

Does exercising editorial functions make one a publisher in this context?
 
zimmer said:
You mean if Obama scolded the Leftist tech companies and told them to clean up their act... or lose their protections?*** Why would Obama the Spy King do that?

One of Obama’s first acts as President was to call John Boehner to the White House and tell him Republicans should stop listening to Rush Limbaugh... so yeah... Obama was a guy who was tolerant of competitive ideas... ROTFLOL...and was eager to have a level playing field... Not.

***Read In the Plex to find out how tight Obama was with Google.
Click to expand...
Your empty blathering is tedious. If you think Obama did anything that compares to Trump’s EO, post it.

zimmer said:
See... you disregard the obvious... just like the Twitter fact checker on mail in ballots.

Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...
The twitter fact checker didn’t opine falsely, deliberately, like Trump. He/she directed users to actual facts.

The only things that you prove are ignorance and blind loyalty to the Dotard-in-Chief.
 
zimmer said:
If you know the history, then you know:

Section 230 was the result of a court case where the operator was sued and found liable.

Section 230 was the remedy.

Section 230 is now being abused by large tech companies.

Time to recalibrate the industry back to the intent of 230... if not, then you’re free to be sued because you’re a publisher.
###

Seems you might have been involved way back when, but do not understand how and why 230 was created, and now abused.

The only crying seems to be from Leftists who dislike playing by the rules.
Click to expand...

230 is an imperfect resolution that I was opposed to at the time.

What was needed to frame what was a new technology was an extension of civil case law on the defamation.

This is publication. It should be decided on a case by case basis, with the court of equity as the final stop when it passes intake review as worthy to be before the bar.

A law that either totally exonerates site owners or tries to create a one size fits all rule for liability was, and is, not the answer.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
The bolded: It already is! Content creators are not shielded from liability. Newspapers, magazines, websites, etc., are not shielded. Twitter is. You see, Twitter isn't supposed to be a political operative at all. Becoming one violates the spirit of the law and should negate their protections.
Click to expand...

Say it ain't so Joe....

Actually that's not the reason Twitter is exempt. A newspaper has complete control and oversight on every word that goes to print. A TV station has the same control and if you notice several programs and editorials have disclaimers before the airing of that particular segment.

Twitter on the other hand has over a 4 million 'contributing editors' that get little if any screening prior to posting. Look at this forum, do you honestly think every post gets approved by the owner or his/her staff??? Can you imagine the number of lawsuits from butt hurt posters if every perceived slight went to court??? It doesn't take too many brain cells to see how unworkable and ridiculous that would be.

Twitter is treated differently because it is extremely different.

What is rather silly is NOW conservatives are whining over Twitter doing what the conservatives demanded just 2 years ago. More control over political content. They held grandstanding hearings, remember that theater??? When Sen Rubio got pushback on censoring the internet he called it arrogant. Do any tRump supporters know a group called 'The Lincoln Project'??? I didn't hear a single mutter from the rabid right when Face Book censored that ad.... :roll:

tRump can huff and puff but he ain't blowing Twitter's house down any more than he has 'absolute authority' over governors... :peace
 
zimmer said:
Sounds fair enough.
Click to expand...
439ubd.jpg
 
GhostlyJoe said:
It's a prediction! Of course it's unsubstantiated.
Click to expand...
As I have pointed out, it is possible to substantiate predictions.
I even offered to examples of how it can be done simply.

If you still think that predictions cannot be substantiated,
you must not have read the simple examples I posted.
You offered no rebuttal of the examples I posted early on.

All of your argument which is based on the premise that predictions cannot be substantiated
remains unfounded.

GhostlyJoe said:
The initial point is that Twitter's fact check is an editorial stance.
Click to expand...
Editorials are about opinions
Facts are not opinions


GhostlyJoe said:
Do you at least agree that Twitter should start fact-checking Biden in the same manner?
Click to expand...
They should if they want to.
I'm not sure that they are not.

But the sad fact is that Twitter is a private entity.
Twitter can be as "unfair" as they like.

Trump pouts and makes empty threats to use big government regulation to settle his person squabbles
 
GhostlyJoe said:
I've certainly proven that this particular fact check is editorializing.
Click to expand...
Iirc, your case relies on the premise that predictions cannot be fact checked.
Your premise is false.
So, your conclusion is not proven.
 
Chomsky said:
Nice find. Thanks for posting it. After briefly skimming it, there's more to it than I expected.
Click to expand...

The problem with it is what twitter is doing is not censoring the tweets, it is just allowing the reader to read the fact check of the tweet. TO "censor" the tweet would require Twitter to actually go in and remove the part of the tweet that is factually wrong.It makes no change to the tweet and you and everyone knows this. You just agree with everything that Trump tells you to. Pitiful
 
Simon W. Moon said:
As I have pointed out, it is possible to substantiate predictions.
I even offered to examples of how it can be done simply.

If you still think that predictions cannot be substantiated,
you must not have read the simple examples I posted.
You offered no rebuttal of the examples I posted early on.
Click to expand...

This is the real strawman. You want to argue an abstraction because you have no answer for my arguments about the actual tweet in question.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Iirc, your case relies on the premise that predictions cannot be fact checked.
Your premise is false.
So, your conclusion is not proven.
Click to expand...

But it's not .. that's the false premise you're trying to pin me to. Predictions can't be fully fact-checked before the predicted event. You had to resort to using a cyclical system that his been in place for millions of years to defend your assertion that predictions are facts. Even if I concede that a prediction that the sun will rise in east tomorrow is an ironclad fact (I don't -- that hypothesis will someday fail), there are a billion counterexamples, including trump's tweet.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
My company, for example, can draw a direct connection between tweets, web traffic, and revenue from ad sales. Heck, entire businesses exist on YouTube.
Click to expand...
Damages are only one part of a tort claim.

At the most basic level, all tort claims have at three fundemental elements - the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed them a duty, the defendant breached that duty, and that breach directly caused damages.

There is no statutory or case law that suggests Twitter owes any duties to their users in terms of "fairness".

In fact, the TOS of Twitter makes it clear that they can moderate posts and ban users without recourse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom