Trump misunderstands concept of free speech

[Dwarvenhobble]

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.

Where in Section 230 does it say they can add to material published by others again?

Would that not constitute editing it at least editing by additon.

The fact checks are information from twitter themselves based on their fact checkers.

As I said Twitter may have strayed over the line so they're about to face being listed as a publisher in that respect.

Also again it has to be a Good Faith effort being shown which the argument is there isn't a good faith effort being undertaken by only applying the rules some of the time.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Well, look at it this way.

Did you censor or "fact check" anyone else when you brought information to a discussion uninvited?

Doesn't matter it's user brought information not publisher brought information so it's fine.

It does help your cause when you pretend fact checking is censorship.

Fact checking is freedom of speech in action

Only when applied equally.

Also as I said before why does twitter get the same corporate protection as a human when it's a corporation but is bound by none of the same rules as the public?

Freedom of Speech is meant to protect the speech of humans not corporations.

Twitter can have people on it's team fact check and post their own work under freedom of speech it's just very on twitter as a corporate entity is being argued that it should have the same protections but not have to give those same rights to users.

The idea that private companies can do as they like and aren't obliged to follow the same laws as public bodies is how Wal-Mart previously was denying Birth control on it's medical insurance because technically they didn't have to cover it.

If you want to argue Twitters fact checking is freedom of Speech then it can equally be argued that it's actually an application of the idea of "Hecklers Veto" It's trying to use your own rights to be allowed to trample on or prevent others rights to do the same.

 

[Worgen]

Where in Section 230 does it say they can add to material published by others again?

Would that not constitute editing it at least editing by additon.

The fact checks are information from twitter themselves based on their fact checkers.

As I said Twitter may have strayed over the line so they're about to face being listed as a publisher in that respect.

Also again it has to be a Good Faith effort being shown which the argument is there isn't a good faith effort being undertaken by only applying the rules some of the time.

Ugh dammit, just read this.

Conservative Big Tech Campaign Based on Myths and Misunderstanding

Section 230 is not contingent on politically neutral content moderation, is not a subsidy or special privilege, nor does it make a distinction between publishers and platforms.

www.cato.org

This is from the cato institute which is a libertarian think tank.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Controlling public discourse is the opposite of freedom of speech.

So then is it censorship for the government for punishing me for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater? Is it instead the responsibility of everyone in the theater to ascertain the truthfulness of my statement?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Ugh dammit, just read this.

Conservative Big Tech Campaign Based on Myths and Misunderstanding

Section 230 is not contingent on politically neutral content moderation, is not a subsidy or special privilege, nor does it make a distinction between publishers and platforms.

www.cato.org

This is from the cato institute which is a libertarian think tank.

Ah but again the rules have to be done under Good faith. It doesn't have to be non partisan but it does have to be good faith so if the rules are general but being applied to one side over the other it's not good faith.

Also again giving big tech the kind of power to deem what is and isn't truth seems right out of a number of Sci-Fi dystopias.

 

[Houseman]

So then is it censorship for the government for punishing me for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater? Is it instead the responsibility of everyone in the theater to ascertain the truthfulness of my statement?

I don't see how that question, or the answer to it, has anything to do with the ethical issues of a private company controlling public discourse. Censorship is just one of many tactics that can be used to control public discourse. I don't see what "the government punishing you" has to do with this topic.

Seems like this is just an argument pulled straight from the playbook whenever a "free speech" argument happens. "Ha! You've conceded that there need to be limits on free speech! GOTCHA!"

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So then is it censorship for the government for punishing me for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater? Is it instead the responsibility of everyone in the theater to ascertain the truthfulness of my statement?

But what if there was a fire?

What if there was a fire, you shouted fire and some hypothetical government entity said "There is no fire remain calm this is the voice of truth" . It doesn't matter what the truth is when we're entering a post truth Era.

It's easy to create false truths because of the systems of information at present.

I think it was CNN who once claimed it was illegal to read wikileaks unless you're a journalist.

Under wikipedia's rules CNN count as a valid secondary source so can be added as evidence and the claim added that reading wikileaks is illegal unless you're a journalist.

If a lawyer looks at the page and corrects the info it can be reverted because because there is no primary sources allowed so unless the lawyer can get some-one in the press to quote them then they can't correct the info or if CNN correct it.

How things are presently set up means it's very easy to ignore claims and experts who are deemed inconvenient and set up claims based on the words of people who are not or who have an agenda.

At this stage it should be the job of organisations to try and inform people and provide them links to the information not determine what is true or not.

In your example of yelling fire they'd provide information on how there was a thermal hot spot detected. How there was smoke filling theatre. How there was no smoke machines operating or smoke effects about.

 

[Worgen]

Ah but again the rules have to be done under Good faith. It doesn't have to be non partisan but it does have to be good faith so if the rules are general but being applied to one side over the other it's not good faith.

Also again giving big tech the kind of power to deem what is and isn't truth seems right out of a number of Sci-Fi dystopias.

...

Ugh, my head hurts.

 

[CM156]

So then is it censorship for the government for punishing me for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater?

Please stop using "fire in a crowded theater" as a rhetorical device. It's trite, and for the most part icnorrect. There standard for speech that the government can restrict is different than that: See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

 

[Trunkage]

Controlling public discourse is the opposite of freedom of speech.

We know. I'd love Trump to be banned from everything because he controls the public discourse way too much

But here we are.

Also, fact checking doesnt control the public discourse

PS. Please read the first Amendment. If you want to put something in place, your going to have to start by completing rewriting that

BTW. I don't like Twitter or YouTube. They're demonstrating and canceling a lot of Leftie YouTube all the time. But I can see what would happen if they do restrict them... it's callled Gab. Which was more echo chambery than Twitter, and just encouraged each to commit murders, which some did

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

We know. I'd love Trump to be banned from everything because he controls the public discourse way too much

But here we are.

Also, fact checking doesnt control the public discourse

PS. Please read the first Amendment. If you want to put something in place, your going to have to start by completing rewriting that

BTW. I don't like Twitter or YouTube. They're demonstrating and canceling a lot of Leftie YouTube all the time. But I can see what would happen if they do restrict them... it's callled Gab. Which was more echo chambery than Twitter, and just encouraged each to commit murders, which some did

It does when you get to deem something truth or not.

Want to play a little game of spot the fake news to help show this?

When you are making yourself the arbiter of truth you sure as hell better make sure what is put out if the Truth.

Twitter's first attempt at fact checking got the facts wrong.

 

[Buyetyen]

Also, fact checking doesnt control the public discourse

I think the problem here is that the freeze peach crowd would like to have alternative fact checkers, if you get what I mean. This idea that there is no objective truth, just what "truth" proves the most popular. Literally any mistake will be used to dismiss a fact checker outright, loudly refusing to get over the fact that the mistake was made, even and especially after a correction has been published. And flip the logic, all of their alternative fact checkers proclaim they got it right the first time and any attempt to correct them is just some loser narrative that wasn't popular enough to be real.

I have to admit, as apocalypses go, a global pandemic preceding climate change while some of the population of a major world power lose the ability to tell what is reals feels as bizarre as it is extra.

 

[ObsidianJones]

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.

Are we talking about magnitude of force? How about the force of writing laws into existence because your feelings are hurt? If words are weapons? How about the leader of the free world firing anyone who disagrees with him and telling people to blindly take a drug that has been not held up by any real scrutiny, without knowing how it will actually affect the wild majority?

You're absolutely right. There is no comparison of Power Between the Two. Because one is actually trying to censor the other in the true definition of the word, and has the legal means to at least start the process.

Doesn't matter it's user brought information not publisher brought information so it's fine.

That's an arbitrary line that you're ok with. Fact is, what CNN did was state that the fact check was backed by CNN, the Washington Post, and others. It's legitimately no different than you speaking your mind and using the publications of your choice.

Oh, and by the way, Twitter will not remove Trump's unsubstantiated accusations concerning Lori Klausutis's Death. It really doesn't seem like there's that much censorship going on.

 

[Houseman]

Are we talking about magnitude of force? How about the force of writing laws into existence because your feelings are hurt? If words are weapons? How about the leader of the free world firing anyone who disagrees with him and telling people to blindly take a drug that has been not held up by any real scrutiny, without knowing how it will actually affect the wild majority?

You're absolutely right. There is no comparison of Power Between the Two. Because one is actually trying to censor the other in the true definition of the word, and has the legal means to at least start the process.

So, what's your point? That Trump is doing wrong? That's unrelated to my point that controlling public discourse is dangerous.

Also, fact checking doesnt control the public discourse

So you'd have no issue with Russia or China, or even Trump being in control of Twitter or the fact checkers they use, right?

 

[Agema]

So you'd have no issue with Russia or China, or even Trump being in control of Twitter or the fact checkers they use, right?

You're damn right we wouldn't want governments in control of fact-checking private media (outside perhaps some very exceptional circumstances where the government may need to take an unusually invasive role in society, e.g. national emergencies). Self-editing and self-regulating by private media, however, is a well established principle.

We need to remember that fact-checking isn't necessarily that powerful. For instance, what is science if not a formalised and highly developed system of fact-checking: and yet it is easy to find large movements that routinely dispute science.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I think the problem here is that the freeze peach crowd would like to have alternative fact checkers, if you get what I mean.

Strange that the entire defence for twitter doing this seems to be their freeze peach.
Weird how that happens it's almost like some people only care about things when they can use it to go after others or try to shut down people they don't like.
I mean we already have seen alternative facts like that time a fact checker accused a member of ICE of being a White Nationalist gang member, named him and then it was revealed it was actually a regimental tattoo as he was ex military and a disabled veteran.

This idea that there is no objective truth, just what "truth" proves the most popular. Literally any mistake will be used to dismiss a fact checker outright, loudly refusing to get over the fact that the mistake was made, even and especially after a correction has been published. And flip the logic, all of their alternative fact checkers proclaim they got it right the first time and any attempt to correct them is just some loser narrative that wasn't popular enough to be real.

I have to admit, as apocalypses go, a global pandemic preceding climate change while some of the population of a major world power lose the ability to tell what is reals feels as bizarre as it is extra.

Strange how those who call for fact checking etc often are those who don't really want debate, they want to dunk, to own to prove their opposition are some strawmen ideas they have. Then when they fail they retreat back into their echo chambers and refuse to engage. Blocking out views that don't agree with them and just shouting the views they want about among people who will agree with them. In the end actually proving what is happening is so often what they claim to be false.

Mistakes do happen and corrections do happen but how often do the corrections get seen? How often do people still believe the original claims?

That's an arbitrary line that you're ok with. Fact is, what CNN did was state that the fact check was backed by CNN, the Washington Post, and others. It's legitimately no different than you speaking your mind and using the publications of your choice.

Oh, and by the way, Twitter will not remove Trump's unsubstantiated accusations concerning Lori Klausutis's Death. It really doesn't seem like there's that much censorship going on.

No it's not an arbitrary line I've drawing it' one of the core bits of platforms being protected vs them losing legal protections and being a publisher........

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

You're damn right we wouldn't want governments in control of fact-checking private media (outside perhaps some very exceptional circumstances where the government may need to take an unusually invasive role in society, e.g. national emergencies). Self-editing and self-regulating by private media, however, is a well established principle.

We need to remember that fact-checking isn't necessarily that powerful. For instance, what is science if not a formalised and highly developed system of fact-checking: and yet it is easy to find large movements that routinely dispute science.

Ok how about Tencent?

They're technically not the Chinese government right?

Hell how about The Trump Organization. It's technically private and technically Trump no longer is head of it while he's the President.

 

[Trunkage]

So, what's your point? That Trump is doing wrong? That's unrelated to my point that controlling public discourse is dangerous.

Trump doing it wrong is really important. If he's going to make it worse rather than better, than its really important. What I don't want is Trump's crack down on Free Speech to lead to him cracking down on everyone. Because he being attacking the media for years and I could imagine a bill coming out soon for them too.

If you want to break up their power, you might have to use the Anti-Trust laws to break them apart. Place them in a special category that THEY DEFINITELY ARENT IN RIGHT NOW despite whatever Trump pretends.

So you'd have no issue with Russia or China, or even Trump being in control of Twitter or the fact checkers they use, right?

How did you get that from this? 'Also, fact checking doesnt control the public discourse'. I'm saying we need more fact checking and somehow that makes me want Trump in control of Twitter?

It does when you get to deem something truth or not.

Want to play a little game of spot the fake news to help show this?

When you are making yourself the arbiter of truth you sure as hell better make sure what is put out if the Truth.

Twitter's first attempt at fact checking got the facts wrong.

Hey, you know how we found out about the facts about Twitters first attempt? BY FACT CHECKING. I.e. and this might be the most important thing you can do in your life: DO IT ALL THE TIME. LIKE EVERYONE AND TO EVERYONE. Taking away Twitter's power to fact check will mean we don't get that information and that is so much worse. And the fact checking point out how Trump didn't tell the truth. It's almost like everyone has an agenda and you should be taking that into account by FACT CHECKING

PS Did you guys not learn this in school? Did a teacher not show you in grade school some news and critique it pointing out biases?

 

[Trunkage]

Ok how about Tencent?

They're technically not the Chinese government right?

Hell how about The Trump Organization. It's technically private and technically Trump no longer is head of it while he's the President.

Why do you think people were angry over Trump not putting his businesses into a trust like every other president? For shits and giggles? It makes everything look like a conflict of interest.

What I don't want to happen is like what is happening with Facebook and China at this time. They are forcing Facebook to give over certain information on their populace if Facebook wants to do business. Facebook has to do whatever the government wants just to be able to trade. That's dystopian.

 

[Exley97]

Where in Section 230 does it say they can add to material published by others again?

Instead of repeating the same claims over and over again, why don't you read the links I and others have shared or, better, yet, read the actual text of the CDA?

Would that not constitute editing it at least editing by additon.

The fact checks are information from twitter themselves based on their fact checkers.

As I said Twitter may have strayed over the line so they're about to face being listed as a publisher in that respect.

Also again it has to be a Good Faith effort being shown which the argument is there isn't a good faith effort being undertaken by only applying the rules some of the time.

No, it would not constitute "editing" -- the fact check doesn't not alter, omit or change the text of Trump's Tweet. Editing is editing. I think this is pretty obvious.

And there is no "straying over the line" and "being listed as a publisher" -- you're swallowing and regurgitating the nonsense and blatant lies spewed by Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Noah Hawley and other Trump apologists on the right. I don't blame anyone for repeating this nonsense; you could be forgiven for believing the Hawleys of this world because, after all, they're U.S. senators with law degrees. But they're incredibly wrong, and they know it. And if you spent more time researching Section 230 and reading unbiased experts, you'd know it too.