Trump misunderstands concept of free speech
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
So I take it you don't let the idea of tech industry fact checking then when it's pointed out they'd likely be less qualified than even me?
Why would you want to take away his Twitter? We're better off knowing how insane he is.
Hello.
Do you know what a 'strawman' is in the context of debate? Because you use it a lot. And you really need to stop. It would really help the flow of conversation if you stopped. Please stop.
Here, try this...
Thanks.A strawman is a fallacious argument that distorts an opposing stance in order to make it easier to attack. Essentially, the person using the strawman pretends to attack their opponent’s stance, while in reality they are actually attacking a distorted version of that stance, which their opponent doesn’t necessarily support.
Strawman Arguments: What They Are and How to Counter Them – Effectiviology
effectiviology.com
Because Twitter is the death rattle of political discourse. Because a statesman - which is what Trump is supposed to be - has no business using for petty shout outs and sniping. Because allowing that shitstain software to run rampant in the corridors of power is a recipe for disaster. I'm honestly shocked people are allowed mobile phones in the Oval Office.
And what's the answer to that, then?
The only answer is for the government to attempt to enforce "truth", but all that does is end up being the government controlling access to information, except that now no-one can disagree.
Yes, welcome I do know.
It's what happens when a person plays the game of refusing to take a position. I have to ask questions to get them to take one.
Funny how you're only claiming I made strawmen not the people arguing against me where mostly they didn't bother to frame it as a question to allow it to be debunked but stated it categorically as my position.
Hell the 3rd one wasn't even at anyone but a general statement and response to a Strawman and not saying it was a persons position here.
Tech and encourage critical thought and skepticism which would require the media and Trump to admit when they're wrong and be willing to do so openly.
Or just restore the old "fairness doctrine" in the USA and force balanced coverage all the time. Which I'm sure people would be happy to see fox news forced to try and be fair and balanced.
You're not hearing me, and you're definitely not reading the link I shared. You can publish your own content, and you can allow users to publish *their* own content. It's NOT one or the other. The publisher is liable for THEIR OWN content, and Section 230 protects them from legal liability from the USER-GENERATED CONTENT.
One thing you can't really do under Section 230 is edit/change/manipulate users' content. You can delete it, take it down, flag it, post addendums to it (like fact checks), etc. as long as you don't alter the original text. And honestly, you can still do a little editing/changing of the content and get away with it. As the EFF has pointed out, the courts haven't draw a clear line for violations just yet that would move a platform to the actual content provider in a specific case. In other words, the courts have ruled that even in cases where platforms edited statements or content from users, those actions didn't violate Section 230's immunity because the changes didn't fundamentally change or alter the nature of the user's original statement.
For example, I could post something here in the forum about how I heard the Escapist is hiring a prominent streamer for a new series. The moderators are absolutely entitled under Section 230 to flag my post with a fact check that says the statement is false, or they could just reply to my statement saying I'm full of shit. Neither of those actions removes Section 230 protection in that case. If the Escapist moderators fundamentally changed my post to say I heard a prominent streamer was going to be hired and oh by the way they're an ax murderer, then the streamer could absolutely sue the Escapist -- Section 230 wouldn't protect them. And lastly, even if that DID happen, the Escapist wouldn't lose Section 230 immunity altogether. It's not a license that can be revoked. They would still be able to use 230 protection for future scenarios, even if they crossed the line in the past.
You take away a demagogue's microphone for the same reason you take away an arsonist's matches.
A crackpot on the corner that no one listens to is someone to ignore. A crackpot on the corner that has people believing their clothes are secretly taking over their thoughts to the point that a few people raid GAP and Old Navy to protect the populous is dangerous.
Either way, they want to burn it all down.
Thank you, Cleveland, you've been a wonderful audience!
I would think that this is the section that Trump would want revised. Controlling public discourse can be done in a variety of subtle ways that don't need to include editing content. This is already being done. Journalists only air things that tell the story they want to push and refuse to air facts that tell a different story. Interviews make specific edits in order to paint someone in a good or bad light. Certain takes are elevated while others are buried.
Fact-checking so conspicuously is just one of the ways that conversation is being controlled.
People are already aware of this on some level, which is why they would be horrified if Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, etc. were ever owned by China, or Russia. People know how dangerous such platforms would be, in the wrong hands.
"What we propose is not to control content, but to create context"
And if it were actually true, the ones trying to censor or "fact-check" away the threat of Life Fibers would be the crackpots (or co-conspirators?) with the dangerous power. Having the power to control public discourse is dangerous, no matter who has it. Nobody should have it.
Except on stuff the Escapist themselves are deemed to have published. Which again it's arguably fact checks are published material done by twitter.
Sure, Trump may *want* to revise that, but he can't -- you can't alter the law through an executive order. That's why he's attempting to do a runaround of the law and changing how the law is interpreted and enforced. For more on that, check out these posts from the Cato Institute and TechDirt (Mike Masnick, editor of TechDirt, is arguably the most knowledgable resource for all things Section 230):
Trump’s Social Media Order Rewrites Internet Law by Decree
Like Obama before him, President Trump may have a pen, but he cannot rewrite statues at will. As drafted, his order’s reasoning is at odds with congressional intent, a quarter century of judicial interpretation, and any reasonable reading of the statute’s plain language.
www.cato.org
The Two Things To Understand About Trump's Executive Order On Social Media: (1) It's A Distraction (2) It's Legally Meaningless
EO Preventing Online Censorship (PDF) EO Preventing Online Censorship (Text)
www.techdirt.com
No, not "arguably." You are wrong. You keep repeating the same claim, and it's not based in any fact. This is purely your own misinterpretation of Section 230.
The Escapist or Twitter or any other company can publish its own content, and they can provide a platform for others to post THEIR OWN CONTENT. They're legally liable for one, and not for the other under Section 230. And they don't "lose" 230 immunity -- which is not actually a real thing, despite what Trump or the GOP says -- because you publish your own fact checks or addendums to user-generated content. Twitter can jeopardize its immunity *in specific cases* by altering the actual Tweets of the President or others, but not for posting accompanying fact checks or alerts or anything of the like.
Honestly, this isn't hard.
Well, look at it this way.
Did you censor or "fact check" anyone else when you brought information to a discussion uninvited?
The another question is why are people using censor and fact checking as synonyms.
Asking the real question. To conflate being proven wrong with being unjustly censored, there are a few things that you would have to assume first.
If I did anything, I'm just one person. I'm not swinging around the power of an entire platform that a huge number of people, including some of the most powerful and influential people in the world, contribute to.
If words are weapons,, I'm just a guy with a 6-shot snub-nose revolver. Twitter has a nuclear warhead. Twitter can reach, and therefore, influence, a lot more people than I can. There's no comparison between such a vast difference of power.
It does help your cause when you pretend fact checking is censorship.
Fact checking is freedom of speech in action