New Media is the same as Old Media: Twitter is like Susan Collins. https://t.co/lx2Jaf2DyC— Jon Ralston (@RalstonReports) May 26, 2020 BREAKING: Twitter labels Trump tweets as “potentially misleading” for the first time.https://t.co/XCUVW3nO6L— Jon Cooper (@joncoopertweets) May 26, 2020
Yeah, please do so... Apparently, you haven't been keeping up with current events.Pro Tip: You don't want to play this game.https://t.co/kj17EOx3Bo— D. Lowther (@dlowther715) May 27, 2020
Seriously, how can he come out with such stupid take? On the one hand, Twitter wants to notify its users when the president lies to them about how the can vote. On the other hand, the president is telling a private company it must amplify his lies on its platform, and threatening to shut them down if they don’t. Very similar! https://t.co/FoFyaV2ViO— Radley Balko (@radleybalko) May 28, 2020
Wait now. Libertarians will defend the President of the United States lying in his capacity as POTUS about what the laws state? That it is a violation of his "liberties" to object to those falsehoods? I doubt that libertarians (with either a big or small "l:") believe such a thing. I think that Turley poster lies.
He is not just a "poster".... Jonathan Turley @JonathanTurley Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, criminal defense attorney, and legal analyst. Blog: http://jonathanturley.org Jonathan Turley Opinion columnist
Well, he's the authority. It still seems strange to me that libertarians would not immediately permit a private company to do what it wishes, and which is fully legal, when the opposition is a government leader who is seeking to squash that private company.
It only seems strange because you continue to refuse to accept that "libertarian" now means (or has been exposed to have always meant) "pro-authoritarian." Libertarians were always just wanna-be authoritarians without power. Their god has risen. Get with it!
Private businesses can decide what is a lie or what needs to be fact checked, vs the government deciding. If we let the Government do it, like Trump insinuates and like some people that attack Facebook want we could end up like China (Exaggeration perhaps). If we let private business decide, we end up with different standards, some will follow Twitter standards, some will follow Facebook standards. Business can get together and try to design some set of common standard for all to follow, that happens a lot, but you still get your Apple corp that wants to do their own thing (can be a good thing). I prefer letting Twitter and Facebook decide over the government mandating it. The market over the Government in a way.
In theory, handing responsibility over to a government agency would be fine. The FDA oversees drug claims, no problem. But at least under a Trump regime, that would be a disaster for regulating political content. The Trump regime would censor anything critical while permitting any and all favorable lies to proceed.
When ever you want a new law/regulation always think how will the opposition use it when they are in power.
Government at least theoretically is accountable to the people. Private businesses are not. Government should decide.
Of course this is all too dumb to discuss seriously and sadly the serious issues won't be dealt with It became so clear with the Christchurch massacre that the failure to regulate the market is a very big problem and there are multiple aspects to it. First is it critical that all citizens have democratised internet access Second, because of winner take all economics, we effectively have facebook emerging as a separate walled garden internet to rival google. Especially this means Facebook and Google have captured the lions share of all advertising revenue between them as they control the audience. Third, all media in NZ has to meet publication standards. Thus it becomes possible for Facebook to disseminate unacceptable content without consequence (e.g the murder video) e.g it simply makes no sense that TV ads must meet minimum standards yet you can put ads that don't meet those standards on facebook There is no real reason why Facebook should not be subject to consumer standards just like every other business. IMO this who issue arrises by the very acceptance of this monolithic platform in the first place. Why should political campaigning even be allowed on there? The very existence of algo driven content seems to be accepted as part of the "free speech" but it isn't free speech - it is something FB itself is driving.
And you can also end up with the worst of all worlds like say a country with a massive operation to flag content they do not like and a private company with an algorithm to help removed flagged content. https://www.economist.com/united-st...ti-beijing-comments-raises-political-eyebrows So even the machines (AI) can not save us from ourselves.
Opinion that differs from yours = shitpost. I've never received a red card. If there was any balance in these forums though you would be cautioned for levelling personal attacks.
Check out Vlad Dracula's spawn saying we need to see the birth certificate 1266568056983244800 is not a valid tweet id
TBH, that's what most white supremacists want to see, aka his audience.. Do you all understand what Fox News is, like do you really understand what the most watched news channel in the country is like? pic.twitter.com/qWxV9ASLhl— Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) June 2, 2020
Here is what will happen to Gramps Donal’: Man creates new Twitter account, only posts Trump tweets word for word, gets banned rapidly https://t.co/PNLokEw8oQ— Drew Curtis (@DrewCurtis) June 3, 2020
I really thought about doing that a couple of years ago, but I would have to join twitter and that did not seem worth it.
It is well established that many of his tweets are violations of the TOS and would have anyone else banned.