Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 22

Status
Not open for further replies.
blutoski said:
And I'm sure thousands of people tweeted something similar, as it was a statement he made in front of an audience (I think he was doing a talk for the AMA). The point being that I'd be shocked if even one of those tweets had a Twitter bot flag it as misleading.

The complaint at the core of the Conservative interest in this is that they may genuinely believe they're being explicitly targeted by social media owners, through a biased moderation policy that is hiding behind regulatory protection.

I don't think this is true, but it's why they bring up whattabouts. If there's even one Democrat getting away with BS online, they can point to it as anti-conservative discriminatory enforcement of moderation policies.

If you look at the wording of the Texas bill, it's positioning these moderation policies as a type of consumer fraud because they tell users these are neutral but the legislators feel this is a deception, that they're actually partisan political activity by the platforms' owners/management.
Click to expand...

It's an odd tack. I don't use social media sites, so perhaps I'm uninformed, but is there any clear statement by Twitter, etc., to the effect that their rules will be uniformly and neutrally applied? If not, I don't know how this would count as fraudulence.

You click a box saying you understand the rules of the forum. But I doubt that the forum says these rules will be applied without exception or bias of any form. In fact, we all know that some folks are above the rules of the common folk, namely leaders like Trump (on Twitter).

Mind you, I do think it would be wrong for political bias to play a role in moderation, just in terms of decency. I omit, of course, any site which wears its politics on its sleeve and one knows what he's getting into.

But the fact is (and I don't like saying so) that at present, the Republicans really are more willing to just make **** up and so are more likely to get dinged for it. There are undoubtedly lies from both sides, but I don't believe that the quantity or egregiousness is the same these days. I have no particular love for the Democratic party but from where I sit, it's closer to reaching the standard of minimal decency than the Republican party.
 
Trump withdraws USA from WHO and declares Cold War II on China.

America First should really be America Alone.
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
Wasn't Facebook the one who took down a "fact check" post on abortion by someone else because it referenced Dr. Jen Gunter?
Click to expand...
In related news [theshovel.com.au]

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg – who died of coronavirus in his Californian home today – says it is not Facebook’s role to be the arbiter of truth for everything people post online.

The billionaire tech whiz, who tested positive to COVID-19 last week before being admitted to hospital on Sunday, said Facebook had a very different view to Twitter, which recently started fact-checking President Trump’s tweets.

“In general, private companies probably shouldn’t be in the position of doing that,” Zuckerberg – whose funeral will be held next week – said in an interview with Fox News.

As tributes flowed in from across the world, Zuckerberg – who lists Adolf Hitler amongst his heroes – said people had a right to hear a range of views and that censorship was anti-democratic.

He is survived by his eight children and three wives. Authorities say the incest charges against him will now be dropped.
Click to expand...
 
phiwum said:
It's an odd tack. I don't use social media sites, so perhaps I'm uninformed, but is there any clear statement by Twitter, etc., to the effect that their rules will be uniformly and neutrally applied? If not, I don't know how this would count as fraudulence.

You click a box saying you understand the rules of the forum. But I doubt that the forum says these rules will be applied without exception or bias of any form. In fact, we all know that some folks are above the rules of the common folk, namely leaders like Trump (on Twitter).
Click to expand...

It's not that they claim to be blanket neutral in all things, but rather, that they're nonpartisan.

IIRC, they've testified to Congress to this effect as well.



phiwum said:
Mind you, I do think it would be wrong for political bias to play a role in moderation, just in terms of decency. I omit, of course, any site which wears its politics on its sleeve and one knows what he's getting into.
Click to expand...

This is more about their eligibility as a neutral carrier. They got snagged into a category along with the phone company with the understanding that they can't be sued for conversations on their platform. The moderation they perform is also protected as long as it's in the spirit of normal business operations and compliance with other laws (eg not knowingly transmitting child pornography).

So the legislators are looking for a way to officially remove protections for moderation if they judge it's not in the good faith mentioned above. It won't be illegal or anything, it just means they'll be exposed along with everybody else who does editorial content, like newspapers. Like Gawker.



phiwum said:
But the fact is (and I don't like saying so) that at present, the Republicans really are more willing to just make **** up and so are more likely to get dinged for it. There are undoubtedly lies from both sides, but I don't believe that the quantity or egregiousness is the same these days. I have no particular love for the Democratic party but from where I sit, it's closer to reaching the standard of minimal decency than the Republican party.
Click to expand...

And that's their motive, yeah. They're aware that Fact Checking is disproportionately impacting their political campaigning strategies. Not to mention, more specifically, that it hits a lot of their business models as individuals. Based on the timing of the Texas bill, it looks like that's more about the YouTube purge of conservative pundit streaming than fact checking on Twitter.
 
blutoski said:
It's not that they claim to be blanket neutral in all things, but rather, that they're nonpartisan.

IIRC, they've testified to Congress to this effect as well.
Click to expand...

If they have not said they would be non-partisan, then it is not fraudulence.

As far as what they testified before Congress, I guess I'd have to know the precise statement.

Of course, fraudulence has nothing to do with the current Trump EO. Nor has partisanship anything to do with Section 203 which applies to partisan and non-partisan sites alike.

I do think that the default presumption is that a site like Twitter is non-partisan. If they genuinely were biased on a partisan basis (especially if intentionally so) then I'd think they crossed a moral line. I don't think it's the sort of line that requires a legal remedy.

Of course, I know that you're not arguing in favor of the Texas law (about which I know nothing) or the EO. I'm just giving my opinion on these arguments and not pretending they are your arguments.
 
phiwum said:
If they have not said they would be non-partisan, then it is not fraudulence.

As far as what they testified before Congress, I guess I'd have to know the precise statement.

Of course, fraudulence has nothing to do with the current Trump EO. Nor has partisanship anything to do with Section 203 which applies to partisan and non-partisan sites alike.
Click to expand...

Right, but not to all of their activities. What this is targetting is the moderating activities. At the moment, moderation is assumed to be just operations, and is protected from lawsuits. The EO is asking the FCC to revisit the universality of this and remove protections for moderation that appears to be editorial content.

In principle, I don't think this is a bad idea, but the problem is the implementation. I don't trust the administration will be reasonable about which Fact Check flags are neutral vs 'in bad faith'. ie: this disproportionately helps Conservative online activities



phiwum said:
I do think that the default presumption is that a site like Twitter is non-partisan. If they genuinely were biased on a partisan basis (especially if intentionally so) then I'd think they crossed a moral line. I don't think it's the sort of line that requires a legal remedy.
Click to expand...

The only legal remedy proposed in the EO is to strip them of immunity from private complaints.



phiwum said:
Of course, I know that you're not arguing in favor of the Texas law (about which I know nothing) or the EO. I'm just giving my opinion on these arguments and not pretending they are your arguments.
Click to expand...

Texas is just one example as well. IIRC, these bills have been whack a mole for years, but I feel like it accelerated last summer with YouTube banning white supremacist content entirely.
 
Trump rule: If you don’t have anything nice or truthful to say, say it repeatedly.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

Looting leads to shooting, and that’s why a man was shot and killed in Minneapolis on Wednesday night - or look at what just happened in Louisville with 7 people shot. I don’t want this to happen, and that’s what the expression put out last night means....

....It was spoken as a fact, not as a statement. It’s very simple, nobody should have any problem with this other than the haters, and those looking to cause trouble on social media. Honor the memory of George Floyd!
Click to expand...

What load of bull crap. Trump's attempted spin on this is so transparent.
 
Ryokan said:
Trump withdraws USA from WHO and declares Cold War II on China.

America First should really be America Alone.
Click to expand...
And rescinds special status to Hong Kong because they aren't "independent enough" anymore.

It's all getting a bit much latelly. Trump being Trump, a pandemic killing 100 000+ Americans, WHO losing 85% of its funding, riots in the streets, people even on here condoning riots in the streets, Trump fanning the flames by being Trump, Trump going after, or pretending to go after freedom of speech during said unrest and pandemic, Trumpkins still mindlessly excusing and deflecting everything he does*... I'm starting to wonder if I should stop following US news for a while. If I go AWOL, it's because I'm shielding myself.

*okay, I grant that a lot of them have been really quiet latelly.
 
Given the breadth of topics he treats about and the amount of time he spends tweeting each day, how much of his day is just spent obsessively brooding over all the people he hates, why he hates them and how he's going to get back at them.
 
a_unique_person said:
Given the breadth of topics he treats about and the amount of time he spends tweeting each day, how much of his day is just spent obsessively brooding over all the people he hates, why he hates them and how he's going to get back at them.
Click to expand...

Does he have anything else to do? Why do you think he wanted to be President in the first place?
 
He's trying to walk back the looting/shooting tweet. Pretty much nobody is going to buy that. Sensible people won't, because they've seen where it came from. And his supporters won't, because they agree with the original idea, that police should just execute looters.
 
Trebuchet said:
He's trying to walk back the looting/shooting tweet. Pretty much nobody is going to buy that. Sensible people won't, because they've seen where it came from. And his supporters won't, because they agree with the original idea, that police should just execute looters.
Click to expand...

To be fair, looting is a lot worse than murdering someone.
 
Seriously though, given Trump's propensity for saying whatever he thinks whenever he thinks it, imagine if right after George Floyd's death went viral, Trump had tweeted something like "That cop should be under arrest!"

I know why it happens, but it's still kind of amazing that Trump has the worst possible take on everything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom