You really want to be difficult? Okay. Ignore list.You want to be told and have a definitive voice from a tech company say what's right and wrong while their fact checker with a degree in art history tells you which Science is right and wrong.
You really want to be difficult? Okay. Ignore list.You want to be told and have a definitive voice from a tech company say what's right and wrong while their fact checker with a degree in art history tells you which Science is right and wrong.
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?Want to make it like that? Okay. Ignore list.
Why would you want to take away his Twitter? We're better off knowing how insane he is.I quite frankly don't give a merry fuck what they get up to. Like at all. And in fact, the less time President Trump - or any fucking world leader - spends on Twitter, the better. If I were is director of IT Security I'd have had Twitter blocked on every device in the White House. And I'd be imposing very strict restrictions on personal devices in the Oval Office.
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?
So you're saying it would be good faith to design and implement a system against just one specific user?
Hello.Not a Trump Sycophant I'm just fed up of people so delusional they think Trump is Super Hitler because MSNBC said so and are bitter because it was #Herturn still
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.Why would you want to take away his Twitter? We're better off knowing how insane he is.
And what's the answer to that, then?And I think we can also agree that media conglomerates controlling what facts are disseminated, what is important and what is not, and lying to you while acting as an authoritative source is also bad.
All of these are trying to control your access to information without your knowledge or consent so they can make you a willing participant in their schemes, whilst pretending to be acting in your best interest. Whether it is legal or not, whether it is"business as usual", or whether everything they say and do perfectly aligns with your political beliefs should not make it any better or worse.
Yes, welcome I do know.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.
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.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.
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.But is not twitter now publishing it's own fact checks?
They are twitters own material they are putting out.
Just because they've added it onto something doesn't suddenly mean the thing added on isn't published by them.
You take away a demagogue's microphone for the same reason you take away an arsonist's matches.Why would you want to take away his Twitter? We're better off knowing how insane he is.
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.Why would you want to take away his Twitter? We're better off knowing how insane he is.
Either way, they want to burn it all down.You take away a demagogue's microphone for the same reason you take away an arsonist's matches.
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.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 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.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.
Except on stuff the Escapist themselves are deemed to have published. Which again it's arguably fact checks are published material done by twitter.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.
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):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"
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.Except on stuff the Escapist themselves are deemed to have published. Which again it's arguably fact checks are published material done by twitter.
Well, look at it this way.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.
The another question is why are people using censor and fact checking as synonyms.Well, look at it this way.
Did you censor or "fact check" anyone else when you brought information to a discussion uninvited?
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.The another question is why are people using censor and fact checking as synonyms.
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.Well, look at it this way.
Did you censor or "fact check" anyone else when you brought information to a discussion uninvited?
It does help your cause when you pretend fact checking is censorship.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.
Controlling public discourse is the opposite of freedom of speech.It does help your cause when you pretend fact checking is censorship.
Fact checking is freedom of speech in action