ChatterBank1 min ago
Have Twitface Etc Unwittingly Become Publishers?
60 Answers
https:/
....looks like their recent actions against the US president could well backfire. Oh dear, about time these cess pits were reigned in.
....looks like their recent actions against the US president could well backfire. Oh dear, about time these cess pits were reigned in.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don’t think the link went to an actual fact check. It went to an opinion piece possibly by CNN, who Twitter gets their facts checks from. And the evidence does suggest there is voter fraud when blanket mail in ballots are sent out to dead people. Thousands of ballots have been found in piles by dumpsters and gathering dust waiting for someone to Nick them.
But hay, let’s not allow CNN ‘fact check’ that twitter uses to allow the truth out.
Twitter is no longer a platform and tbh they have shown great political bias for at least four years so it is about time they were given a kick up the backside.
Trump is not saying Twitter should be banned or shut down or even that they have to agree with him. He is saying as a platform they shouldn’t use their political bias, edit, ban, shadow or hide views they disagree with. He is saying they should lose their platform status that protects them from the law.
Change their status and they can be as biased as they like. They just have to take the consequences.
But hay, let’s not allow CNN ‘fact check’ that twitter uses to allow the truth out.
Twitter is no longer a platform and tbh they have shown great political bias for at least four years so it is about time they were given a kick up the backside.
Trump is not saying Twitter should be banned or shut down or even that they have to agree with him. He is saying as a platform they shouldn’t use their political bias, edit, ban, shadow or hide views they disagree with. He is saying they should lose their platform status that protects them from the law.
Change their status and they can be as biased as they like. They just have to take the consequences.
Trump is not forced to post on Twitter. Perhaps the reason he does is that Twitter has given him a great platform for over 11 years, for free, and even given him special treatment not afforded to other users. In that respect, they were biased towards him. Now he is being treated the same as any other user. That's a change in bias, from a bias towards him, to equal treatment. But of course he sees it differently.
// Twitter is no longer a platform//...... for calm discussion and cool policy making - fair balanced and just .....
hey where ya been forda last four years baby!
twitter from the president - - go next door and let me feel your credentials!
(*) please note this post has not be checked for accuracy, grammar, sarcasm, origine or idiocy)
hey where ya been forda last four years baby!
twitter from the president - - go next door and let me feel your credentials!
(*) please note this post has not be checked for accuracy, grammar, sarcasm, origine or idiocy)
For future reference, lefties, you can believe anything I tell you.
If I say he was removed, he was removed.
https:/
If I say he was removed, he was removed.
https:/
-- answer removed --
Your arrogance is starting to overtake your sense with that one Spice.
A disgruntled employee deleting an account for a few minutes is no more "Twitter deletes Trump account" than a disgruntled employed spitting into the burger mix is "McDonalds sell tainted Big Macs".
It may be right technically, but it's not something that the company did deliberately, as insinuated.
A disgruntled employee deleting an account for a few minutes is no more "Twitter deletes Trump account" than a disgruntled employed spitting into the burger mix is "McDonalds sell tainted Big Macs".
It may be right technically, but it's not something that the company did deliberately, as insinuated.
// No it isn't. He was removed....like I said.//
if he were removed and then came back - I dont think he was removed
only my opinion
[generated by a work disciplinary where the words - - "we are continuing" could be construed as "we have stopped". ever the bridge-builder as ABers know that I am, I said they could take that view but they really then had to let the accused worker off - [not lettoff as in fire but let off as inback to work]
if he were removed and then came back - I dont think he was removed
only my opinion
[generated by a work disciplinary where the words - - "we are continuing" could be construed as "we have stopped". ever the bridge-builder as ABers know that I am, I said they could take that view but they really then had to let the accused worker off - [not lettoff as in fire but let off as inback to work]
Love what Trump has done. In this instance, Orange Man Good. And I don't even like the guy.
The threat of removing the protections of Section 230's 'common carrier' status is a colossal shot across the bows of big tech censorship. Even though it's just an Executive Order that can be overturned by the next President, it demonstrates a willingness to take on the social media giant's monopoly on public discourse.
This is needed. Bigly. They have enjoyed Section 230 protection for too long whilst censoring views and opinions that their moderates don't agree with. Their so called 'fact checkers' are just partisan, biased individuals who almost exclusively have a left-wing bias. If their Section 230 protection is removed, they will suffer death by a thousand litigious cuts. The big tech companies should be a-political and a free-speech oasis for the world. If idiots want to post that the Earth is flat, let them. These cretins are not harming anyone. If people want to speculate on the possibility that Neil and Buzz didn't stand on the Moon in 1969, let them. It doesn't harm anyone.
But to suppress opinions because you (Twitter, et al) don't like them is censorship. And if you're indulging in that, you're not a platform, you're a publisher and 'common carrier' status no longer applies.
The threat of removing the protections of Section 230's 'common carrier' status is a colossal shot across the bows of big tech censorship. Even though it's just an Executive Order that can be overturned by the next President, it demonstrates a willingness to take on the social media giant's monopoly on public discourse.
This is needed. Bigly. They have enjoyed Section 230 protection for too long whilst censoring views and opinions that their moderates don't agree with. Their so called 'fact checkers' are just partisan, biased individuals who almost exclusively have a left-wing bias. If their Section 230 protection is removed, they will suffer death by a thousand litigious cuts. The big tech companies should be a-political and a free-speech oasis for the world. If idiots want to post that the Earth is flat, let them. These cretins are not harming anyone. If people want to speculate on the possibility that Neil and Buzz didn't stand on the Moon in 1969, let them. It doesn't harm anyone.
But to suppress opinions because you (Twitter, et al) don't like them is censorship. And if you're indulging in that, you're not a platform, you're a publisher and 'common carrier' status no longer applies.
Moderates = moderators
Jack Dorsey explicitly states, “... we need to constantly show that we're not adding our own bias which I fully admit is more left-leaning and I think it's important to articulate our bias and to [… videos glitch...] but we need to remove bias from how we act...”
So the CEO of Twitter openly admits that the company as a whole has a left-wing bias. He then tries to counter this by saying that they try to remove bias... but doesn't say how this is done.
Interesting.
Jack Dorsey explicitly states, “... we need to constantly show that we're not adding our own bias which I fully admit is more left-leaning and I think it's important to articulate our bias and to [… videos glitch...] but we need to remove bias from how we act...”
So the CEO of Twitter openly admits that the company as a whole has a left-wing bias. He then tries to counter this by saying that they try to remove bias... but doesn't say how this is done.
Interesting.
In what sense is adding a link to an article that contradicts and, indeed, refutes something you say "censorship"?
Moreover, having enjoyed the freedom to abuse Twitter as his personal soapbox for over a decade, it's more than a little precious of Turmp to get so hurt when finally they call him out on just a little of his BS and he decides to abuse Presidential powers in response.
What is, perhaps, the most disappointing about this is that Twitter decided to take no action on a far more egregious tweet of Trump's, one where he suggested without evidence that Joe Scarborough was involved in the death of Lori Klausutis. That truly was disgusting, especially as Klausutis's widower asked Twitter specifically to take action, and especially as Trump ignored that same message and refused to withdraw his libellous and disgusting comments.
Moreover, having enjoyed the freedom to abuse Twitter as his personal soapbox for over a decade, it's more than a little precious of Turmp to get so hurt when finally they call him out on just a little of his BS and he decides to abuse Presidential powers in response.
What is, perhaps, the most disappointing about this is that Twitter decided to take no action on a far more egregious tweet of Trump's, one where he suggested without evidence that Joe Scarborough was involved in the death of Lori Klausutis. That truly was disgusting, especially as Klausutis's widower asked Twitter specifically to take action, and especially as Trump ignored that same message and refused to withdraw his libellous and disgusting comments.
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
Technology3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Food & Drink11 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.