"Trump Misunderstands Concept Of..." sounds like the title of a weekly series.
Too late. It's already his Twitter feed."Trump Misunderstands Concept Of..." sounds like the title of a weekly series.
I personally don't like the idea of Twitter being Nationalized. But that doesn't mean it's not a good idea to be fair to everyone. If they come up with good points. My personal thoughts is the conservatives who do think social media is being unfair are just victim blaming. But I'm willing to listen... with the caveat that Trump lies and will make stuff up. So it may be pointlessI'm curious what you think an investigation into Twitter would uncover or what your hoped results would be? I mean, its a private company, if they want to remove some users then its their deal and the fed really has no legal grounds to prevent that. I think when it comes down to it, my question is, do you think Twitter and companies like it should be nationalized?
Far too many times Freedom of Speech by people like hin sounds way too like Freedom from Criticism, which is not a thing. For some reason, some people think that if you say your thoughts in public 1. They are then made true 2. The public will automatically believe them without questioning and follow them into the Holy LandIts weird Trump got so angry. Twitter has pretty much said that Trump is free to accuse people of murder just because he doesn't like them. What more freedom does he want?
Well, I think in the end the conservative idea that they are being censored is mainly because they can't call people the nword, gays the f word, and can't monetize things that blame minorities for things. I mean I'm sure there is some nuance there but I don't really have it in me to do a deep dive into this.I personally don't like the idea of Twitter being Nationalized. But that doesn't mean it's not a good idea to be fair to everyone. If they come up with good points. My personal thoughts is the conservatives who do think social media is being unfair are just victim blaming. But I'm willing to listen... with the caveat that Trump lies and will make stuff up. So it may be pointless
Also, I'd prefer a government to develop their own platform rather than nationalise if it's such a good idea. I'd also really like Gab to be looked at and see how you deal with crimes being planned on your platform and what should be done about that
Did anyone think that Twitter was trying to be perfect? Yes, they will get things wrong. No fact checker can get everything right. Twitter should be fact checked as well.Huh, it looks like twitter was wrong:
Twitter made a specific policy exception for world leaders precisely because Trump posed them the incredible headache of needing to sanction the serving US president for repeated code of conduct violations. Seriously.So is Trump convinced the President, and he himself as a citizen, is entitled to a Twitter account? Like he has some legal backing here? What's to stop Twitter from just unverifying him, or just deleting the President's twitter account? You can't sue to have a social media account...
The main thrust of the bill seems to be about removing the Platform vs publisher protections some sites enjoy which the idea is meant to be the site isn't liable for whatever users post. However in this case they are now publishing and adding their own information which would make them a publisher of a kind.Trump, however, explicitly has threatened to control social media companies. He's certainly attempting to legally and financially punish them, in one of his typical, childish overreactions. And the draft plans are certainly also about the government using its powers to monitor and hold information on the public on what seem to me to be extremely weak grounds. I totally wouldn't put it past this early draft being a lot more severe than the end result. (I wouldn't put it past being deliberately OTT in order to seem what it does end up saying appear more reasonable.) But even still, this is astonishing stuff.
I should point out that I am not wedded by any means to social media's immunity from responsibility for the content of its users (in fact, arguably it very much is an unreasonable exemption compared to other media). However, I think this needs to take place as part of a much more considered approach to what social media is - whether it is the private space of the owning company to run as it pleases, or should be recognised as a de facto public space, because this is an extremely complex issue.
Nevertheless, this is plain authoritarianism and government infringement on free speech, potentially giving the executive branch powers to intervene with and punish media companies and individuals. Government departments with political appointees judging social media corporations. I suppose at least it's not the secret police, but I don't think being in plain sight makes it that much better.
I think the present rules are you can as a comparison prune the hedges but you can rip large portions of them out without good reason.So then would you support companies not being able to ban users from their platforms for content?
Maybe the issue in this case is it's about more than Trump.Its weird Trump got so angry. Twitter has pretty much said that Trump is free to accuse people of murder just because he doesn't like them. What more freedom does he want?
It was ruled Trump is allowed to mute people.He wants to stop being told that he’s in a Wendy’s drive-thru in his mentions. It’s very confusing and he doesn’t even like Wendy’s.
If you're Trump then its never about more than Trump. And the one throwing a hissyfit is Trump.Maybe the issue in this case is it's about more than Trump.
Possibly true but Twitter put their foot in it here by having the most prominent and one of the initial applications be done against Trump and apparently also contain the wrong info that had to be later corrected.If you're Trump then its never about more than Trump. And the one throwing a hissyfit is Trump.
There is no left-wing equivalent of that.Like, if someone tried to organize the next Charleston on a social media platform, I have some confidence they'd be blocked. If someone on the left does the same, I don't have that confidence.
There are no contentious left-wing protests that turn violent, eh?There is no left-wing equivalent of that.
No, the equivalent would be a left-wing extremist running over/shooting up a moderate right-wing protest. I don't recall such a thing in the past 5 years.There are no contentious left-wing protests that turn violent, eh?
Not sure what you are trying to say here.I think the present rules are you can as a comparison prune the hedges but you can rip large portions of them out without good reason.
Its not a bill, the president can only sign bills, he cannot pass them, only congress can do that. This is an executive action and its really toothless, like, nothing in it matters, it doesn't actually do anything.The main thrust of the bill seems to be about removing the Platform vs publisher protections some sites enjoy which the idea is meant to be the site isn't liable for whatever users post. However in this case they are now publishing and adding their own information which would make them a publisher of a kind.
You are merely sod and soil, we are the garden. We will take root in you and your ilk and spread into vast and beautiful greenery. The soil must first be tilled. The reckoning comes.There are no contentious left-wing protests that turn violent, eh?
Really, they should have deleted the tweets.Possibly true but Twitter put their foot in it here by having the most prominent and one of the initial applications be done against Trump and apparently also contain the wrong info that had to be later corrected.