Topic: If you don't like something the solution is more regulation - page 4. (Read 1014 times)

The The number of election fraud cases most likely is a very small percentage of total instances.
This is news to me.

If twitter wants to fact check tweets, they a) need to be accurate, b) need to be objective (the tweet history of the person in charge of site integrity shows he is incapable of being objective), c) need to be consistent across viewpoints and d) the fact checks should not contain opinions

I don't have a link to that tweet. What are the circumstances in which the warning was put on that tweet? It is my understanding tweets making the claim the coronavirus originated in the US by Chinese propaganda remained unencumbered for a long time.

Are you ok with twitter fact checking the Chinese government?  Or Trump blaming twitter for not deleting their tweets about the corona virus earlier?



I think I'm ok with them fact checking anyone that they decide to bend the rules on.  If Trump were treated as a normal Twitter user, he would've been banned long ago for threats of violence.  And probably for the Joe Scarborough killed his staffer bc he got her pregnant thing.

But I wish they would be consistent.


You're right, I've never had to do anything other than give my name, address and a signature.
But it's even harder to prove that there is not wide spread election fraud.
1200 convictions over 30 years seems extremely low and basically irrelevant.

Trump claims as fact that 3-5 million votes were cast illegally in 2016 and they were all for Hillary.  That's a lie.
He claims as fact that the governor of CA is sending ballots to "anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there", that's not true.

Social media companies, including Twitter have special protection from libel lawsuits under the law. Twitter's business model is based entirely on this special protection. I don't see why a company engaging in such blatant political activism should get special treatment under the law that is worth billions.

Case in point, yesterday, Mark Zuckerburg was interviewed on Fox News and said he didn't believe private companies should be arbiters of truth, and not long after "delete facebook" and other hashtags that reflect negatively on Facebook were trending on Twitter. I don't think Zuckerburg's position is radical enough that anyone would react by wanting to delete their Facebook account. I think more likely, someone at twitter put their thumb on the scale to make those hashtags trend. This is probably a good example as to why Twitter is a publisher.

The above special protection was intended to allow platforms to serve as a neutral place for people to voice their opinions, but Twitter especially is far from neutral.

Ignoring the executive order, what Twitter did was reckless, and was a major blow to its credibility as a platform. Tech companies in social media have been very profitable in recent years, with the exception of Twitter. Twitter has been focused on "orange man bad" and has been distracted from making money.

It is very difficult to catch specific cases of voter fraud because the standard is so low to vote in many areas (often you only need to state your name/address, which is public in voter registration rolls), and there is very little if any trace that fraud occurred after the fact. Often the only reason someone is convicted of voter fraud is they blabbed about what they did and were convicted based on their statements. Sometimes prosecutors will use voter records to confirm the statements are true, but someone looking at voter records alone would not produce evidence the person engaged in voter fraud.

The Attorney General of Texas gave 3 main reasons on why he disagreed with Twitter regarding voter fraud and mail in ballots:

1)
In 2007 he heard a democratic lawmaker say during a debate:

The AG went on to claim:
2)

3)



1) Hearing someone else make a claim 13 years ago during a debate is not evidence of anything.  Even if it were, he didn't mention who said it, or on what date it was said.
And the Heritage Foundation has a database of over 1,000 voter fraud convictions.


2) Here's the database he's referring to: https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
There are 1,285 proven instances of proven voter fraud.  This is every conviction the foundation could find going back over 30 years.
If you click 'all data', you can filter by type of fraud: https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?combine=&state=All&year=&case_type=All&fraud_type=24489

Absentee ballot fraud accounts for ~210 of the 1250 convictions.

3) According to the heritage database that he just mentioned, Texas has had 90 voter fraud based convictions.  35 of them are for fraudulent use of absentee ballots. This is far less than the 'around two-thirds' that he claimed.

I rule that the Texas AG's claim on voter fraud is:

Only "big" ones?

These are basically on-demand services, they don't broadcast the same thing to everyone - users choose what they want to see, and there is no lack of "unpopular opinions" on those sites, or other sites all the way to 8chan or whatever it's called these days.

How far do we go with regulating the content? Should we mandate that comment sections of Fox News and Huffpost give equal space for all opinions or do we accept that there will be different moderation standards on different sites? Seems like the free market should sort out what kind of media is in demand. If someone wants Dorsey's sanitized vision of Twitter they'll use that and if someone wants Zuckerbook's Russian propaganda site they'll use that.

Well then, I guess all you need to do is just yell "FACT CHECK!" before you burn the books containing the ideas you don't like then it makes it all A-OK! That is funny you think Facefuck is any different than Twatter, or that these companies aren't illegal monopolies that are impossible to compete against. Interesting you bring up the terms of service, because thousands of people who didn't even violate it are banned, censored, or muted in violation of that contractual agreement when not even violating any terms of the TOS. Kind of like when you see a drawing of one of your butt buddies getting made fun of and pretend it violates the rules to get it removed. There is so much wrong with what is going on here, but your pretend to not see it because you think it means you will get what you want. In the end you are going to get it in the end.



No, they aren't. Comparing regular people to the president and small reach venues to the instantaneous information superhighway is just completely disingenuous. These platforms are enjoying the protections of public platforms while operating as publishers free from liability. They are also operating as illegal monopolies, intentionally interfering with elections, and violating user agreements with their users. None of this is acceptable and they need to be held accountable.

Yeah, no need to get upset, you are only short sighted morons selling out the precious right of free speech, the linchpin to our free society, unique to the USA and nearly unheard of in human history because orange man bad. No big deal. You are cutting your own throats regardless if you comprehend that or not, unfortunately you are taking the rest of us with you.

Big social media platforms need to be called out for what they are.  The public needs to be informed that they are censoring information, and it's become pretty obvious to those of us with unpopular opinions. 

I think a clear distinction needs to be defined, are these companies publishers or utilities?  What makes a publisher?  Is it that they are actively filtering information?  Obviously, none of us want a free-for-all with all kinds of illegal and unethical shit posted on twitter or youtube, so at what point does their activity make them publishers?  Certainly a fair and equitable consensus can made. 

If they're going to be protected from the libel they must remain neutral.  Flagging posts you don't like for political reasons is not remaining neutral. 

Ironically the fact check that twitter applied to Trumps post is wrong according to the Texas Attorney General:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/texas-ag-ken-paxton-trump-is-right-and-twitter-is-wrong-is-saying-mail-in-ballot-fraud-is-a-real-problem

So, should twitter charged with libel in this situation?  Obviously what they did was misleading and false. 

Yeah.  They are comparable.  Few people in the world have a platform comparable to the President of America.  Just being the president is a platform.  If you don't like how Jack Dorsey runs the app that he literally built from scratch....go build your own or become a majority share holder?


Hey we're just having a discussion.  No need to get all worked up like that.

Please refrain from making shit up. No, election interference is not ok. Fact checking is ok. Switching to Facebook is ok if you don't like Twitter. Creating your own site is ok.


Nobody "reads" the whole Twitter either. People follow content that they want on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, whatever. And Twitter has a lot more stuff on it than just Trump so obviously it's going to be more visited. But Trump could easily tweet "go to whitehouse.com to read my shit". It's not like opening twitter.com has Trump's shit on the front page anyway so he gets the exposure from elsewhere.


Not being popular doesn't mean you're censored. Breaking TOS of a service and getting banned doesn't mean you're censored. The government telling a private business what kind of content it must allow or not allow might be considered censorship.

I'd love to see this dispute in the Supreme Court. The pretzels of Trump-supporting free speech and anti-regulation advocates would be delicious.

Trump does kind of have a point, and regulating it benefits both sides. Places like Twitter have massive power, and someone with bias who works over can just label something somebody said as fake news, then that can have major consequences. That would be for both parties.

I am sure you will regardless of the facts of the matter. You will note all of your examples are the equivalent of yelling out of a window in the middle of the night, while the platforms claiming to be for public use are broadcast into nearly every home globally onto multiple devices all day every day. They are not at all comparable. You smug disingenuous cunts have no idea what you are doing. You think this serves you, but there is going to come a day when this machinery is turned upon you too, and then it will be too fucking late to do anything about it. It is too bad you all are too stupid to recognize a trap when you see one. Enjoy your cheese before you get your neck snapped.

He could also have a rally, a press conference, he could write a book, address the nation from the oval office, he's got the State of the Union every year, he could pick whoever he wanted and give them an exclusive interview, he could write an op-ed, he could post on his campaign website, he could make a new website, he could create his own social network, he could make his own cable network (isn't that the plan?)  Should I go on?

How about instead of doing a google search to prove whatever argument you're trying to win, and then posting the first 10 results with headlines you like (which are *pretty much* always just media links), do a google search for the opposite - and then actually read more than the headlines - and be open minded.

I see, so election interference is ok, as long as it benefits who you want it to benefit, is that it? What could go wrong? Yeah, right because how many people read whitehouse.gov?

https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/whitehouse.gov current rank #3,290

https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/twitter.com #48

Totally comparable! Of course you would love it if you could force your opponents to be relegated to carrier pigeon while you use fiber optic cables. These services are clearly operating not as public forums, but as publishers by selectively removing and silencing political opposition, and providing millions of dollars worth of unreported in kinds donations. This is not acceptable regardless how much you lie to pretend none of this is happening.




OOo you found a whole handful of them, I guess that means they aren't locked out, censored, silenced, and muted by all the most popular services claiming to be public forums while they act as publishers selecting who gets to have a voice. If any of you had a halfway decent argument you wouldn't be afraid to have an opposing viewpoint heard. The only people who rely on silencing opposition are ones who have no argument to stand on.


"Media Bias: Pretty Much All Of Journalism Now Leans Left, Study Shows "

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/



" The Deep Roots of Trump’s War on the PressLong before cries of ‘fake news,’ there was Brent Bozell and his Media Research Center."

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/04/26/the-deep-roots-trumps-war-on-the-press-218105



"American views: Trust, media and democracy"

https://knightfoundation.org/reports/american-views-trust-media-and-democracy/?utm_source=link_newsv9&utm_campaign=item_235796



"92% of Republicans think media intentionally reports fake news"

https://www.axios.com/trump-effect-92-percent-republicans-media-fake-news-9c1bbf70-0054-41dd-b506-0869bb10f08c.html



"Americans’ Attitudes About the News Media Deeply Divided Along Partisan Lines"

https://www.journalism.org/2017/05/10/americans-attitudes-about-the-news-media-deeply-divided-along-partisan-lines/



"Liberal News Media Bias Has a Serious Effect"

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/11/11/why-has-trust-in-the-news-media-declined/liberal-news-media-bias-has-a-serious-effect



"These Three Charts Confirm Conservatives' Worst Fears About American Culture"

https://www.businessinsider.com/proof-of-liberal-bias-in-hollywood-media-and-academia-2014-11?



"Former NPR CEO opens up about liberal media bias"

https://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-other-half-of-america-that-the-liberal-media-doesnt-cover/



"Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash"

https://publicintegrity.org/politics/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-with-campaign-cash/



"Special Report: Columbia University"

https://www.mrc.org/special-reports/special-report-columbia-university



"Survey: 7 percent of reporters identify as Republican"

https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/05/survey-7-percent-of-reporters-identify-as-republican-188053



"The Top 50 Liberal Media Bias Examples"

https://www.westernjournal.com/top-50-examples-liberal-media-bias/



"Audit suggests Google favors a small number of major outlets"

https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/google-news-algorithm.php



"Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey: I 'fully admit' our bias is 'more left-leaning'"

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-i-fully-admit-our-bias-is-more-left-leaning



"How the liberal leanings of Google, Facebook shape the political landscape"

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/23/internet-giants-show-power-to-shape-politics/


If you believe this machine isn't eventually going to be turned against you too, you are a fucking moron.

Trump has signed an executive order: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/

Lots of whining there but the main part seems to be instructing the FCC and other agencies to create regulations for social media.

Those articles and blogs and networks and youtube channels and radio stations that often complain about how the media is unfair to trump and fake news....they're also the media.

fox, breitbart, zerohedge, daily caller, newsmax, NY Post, tim pools youtube channel  <==all media

He's the president, so...he could have a rally, a press conference, he could write a book, address the nation from the oval office, State of the Union, he could pick whoever he wanted and give them an exclusive interview, he could write an op-ed, he could just post what he wants on any federal website, he could post on his campaign website, he could make a new website, he could create his own social network, he could make his own cable network (isn't that the plan?)  Should I go on?

They're not publishing anything. If Trump doesn't like how his tweets are presented next to a fact check or whatever the latest tantrum is about (doesn't seem that any if his "speech" was removed or modified) then he can surely use Facebook where he claims he's #1.


Whataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhatabo utwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhata boutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwha taboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutw hataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhatabou twhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhatabout.

What about the billions of dollars of in-kind media time Trump gets with his rallies and press briefings and other stuff. But more importantly, what about the topic of this thread, namely the attempt of the government to tell businesses to broadcast government propaganda and to do it in a certain way (e.g. no fact checking).


If he's so inclined, but there is also whitehouse.gov, which is accessible to anyone just as Twitter is.

Not really, if you think about it. The left control the media. The left control social media. Where exactly is he supposed to be able to get a neutral platform? Flyers and a bullhorn on Pennsylvania Avenue?

So he's complaining about Twitter on Twitter? The irony!

Publishers don't enjoy that protection.



What was it a while back you guys were arguing was a FEC violation by Trump? Because he paid off some stripper to shut up out of his own money?

You want to claim that is a FEC violation, but not the millions of dollars of in kind donations of promoting liberal candidates and silencing conservatives on social networks? How much do you think that is worth in advertising dollars? I mean, after all Russia spending like $3000 on Facefuck ads was supposed to be a big deal, but not this election interference right? Really, you people brought this on yourselves. We have been telling you for a long time this has been happening and you pretended it wasn't real because you thought the ends justified the means. Well here are the ends. Hope it was worth it.