No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias
from the get-a-fucking-grip dept
I know we've gone through this a bunch already, but there remains no evidence to support the claims of "anti-conservative bias" at major social media platforms. Some people (usually self-claiming conservatives, though they rarely seem to represent actual conservative principles) get really angry about this. But, oddly, none ever seem to present any actual evidence.
Of course, the very underpinnings of the White House's silly and nonsensical executive order regarding social media is that of course there's is anti-conservative bias in the moderation, and it even points to the action that kicked off this entire temper tantrum from the thin-skinned President: they provided a link under his debunked conspiracy theory tweet about mail-in ballots. Many Trump supporters and the executive order itself argue that this kind of fact checking is only done to conservatives:
Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.
This is a sample size of one. And, indeed, while it's not a "politician's tweet," Twitter has used the same fact check labeling system to defend this administration. Indeed, the first time I ever saw such a fact check was a few weeks ago when it was used to defend Mike Pence from misleading claims in a Jimmy Kimmel bit:
It turned out that Kimmel's portrayal of Pence was totally inaccurate, and he took what was an obvious joke by Pence and pretended it was serious. And Twitter's fact checkers debunked the viral tweet. Even though it was a story going viral in the anti-Trump world, and the fact check aided the administration.
Now, these are both just anecdotes, but, at the very least, they suggest that the idea that Twitter is applying these fact checks in a politically biased manner is not obviously supported by the evidence. So far I've seen this feature show up on two viral tweets. One that debunked Trump and one that debunked people making fun of Pence.
Meanwhile, perhaps the funniest thing I've seen in a while is a bunch of famous people, who claim to be conservatives, gloating over how this executive order is so necessary because Twitter censors conservatives... and all of their gloating is on Twitter itself.
If Twitter is stifling free speech, and censoring conservative voices, it's doing a shit job of it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anti-conservative bias, bias, donald trump, evidence, fact checking, intermediary liability, president trump, section 230
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Of course fact-checking is anti-conservative
Science and facts are constantly advancing, and the whole point of being conservative is to stick with established views and values. This is particularly relevant for the religious fundamentalism that has permeated the United States from the arrival of the Pilgrim Fathers (in contrast, Jesuits don't see God as such a sloppy creator that he needs protection from logic and analysis of his creation).
If Trump speaks "there be light", you don't get to run around with a light meter. That just is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Second Article(?) of the Constitution bestowing divine powers upon Trump. If he says so, there is light, period. Fact checks amount to a coup trying to steal the most overwhelming election win of all times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course fact-checking is anti-conservative
You should think about that statement. What it says is that to be considered conservative one cannot think for themselves, but must toe the party line. So, who sets the party line. Aren't those people thinking for themselves, which is against the doctrine that you have prescribed in order to be conservative?
Or are you talking out of your ass? I bet there are many flavors of conservative, and some of them agree with Trump, and some don't. Some of those flavors of conservative might be called right wing nut jobs by some. Others might be called centrists by some. That you stick all conservatives in the same barrel with the same thoughts tells us that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, and that you have a very skewed view of conservatives.
I bet that some conservatives are not bigoted. I bet that some conservatives are pro choice. I bet that some conservatives are pro immigration. I bet that there are other 'tenets' of your conservatism that are not followed by all conservatives. I bet that all of those thoughts cause you to have small coronaries. More power to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of course fact-checking is anti-conservative
Trump.
If you say that Trump is thinking, whether for HIMSELF or others, you haven't been following the news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Of course fact-checking is anti-conservative
I don't think Trump thinks, or at least doesn't care about how most view what he thinks, but that is not what you said. Read your post again.
I think Trump has an agenda, but we don't have Emperors here in the USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course fact-checking is anti-conservative
What do you then call someone who has the "Department of Justice" state that they think he is entitled to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue without being subject to legal proceedings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course fact-checking is anti-conservative
I mean, I can tell a judge I'm Jesus Christ if I want, but that doesn't mean the judge is going to agree with my legal theory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course fact-checking is anti-conserva
Without a prosecutor from the Department of "Justice" allowed to take action, no judge is going to even get involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course fact-checking is anti-cons
That’s not true. Judges are getting involved, just look at MIke Flynn.
Judge is involved.
We are all involved.
It’s our country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course fact-checking is anti-
The judge got involved before Barr decided to have the DOJ pull out as a favor to Trump. He is clawing onto his case by having essentially named an independent to do the job of prosecutor. It's very dubious that this will be allowed to stand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course fact-checking is anti-cons
...the fuck are you talking about? You just cited an argument Trump's legal team made [i]to a judge[/i].
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who sets the party line
When it comes to new religious movements, they have to be around for at least a century before they're no longer regarded as a cult, id est are investigated by law enforcement for social abuses and causes to shut them down. But the US is particularly paranoid of NRMs (in comparison to other new social organizations active in the US, I can't speak for how other nations respond to NRMs).
I'd assume the GOP has a star chamber somewhere where they decide what their federal platform is, and similar conclaves for each state. This isn't to say their values are based on prior conservative values. The 1950s GOP was irreligious, pro-science and pro-education. But then we were in a Mexican standoff with the Soviet Union.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who sets the party line
"The 1950s GOP was irreligious, pro-science and pro-education. But then we were in a Mexican standoff with the Soviet Union."
But that was right when FDR's "New Deal" chased all the traditionally democrat southern racists out of the democratic party, and caused all the sensible conservatives out of the GOP.
The formerly democrat racists then joined the GOP and that brings us to today's political landscape where many of the political positions of both parties are 180 degrees apart from what they were in the 50's.
The GOP in the 50's were indeed a more sane and pragmatic bunch by far, as compared to the democrats of the 50's which were openly the home party of the KKK and the origin of the Jim Crow laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who sets the party line
...Nnnno, you're thinking of LBJ and the Civil Rights Acts and the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s. That, and Nixon's subsequent Southern Strategy, were the inflection point where the parties effectively flipped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of course fact-checking is anti-conservative
"...I bet there are many flavors of conservative, and some of them agree with Trump, and some don't."
...there could indeed be such a group of people in the US, but as long as they keep voting steadfastly republican and keep supporting the narrative that they are ostracized victims of partisan online moderation every time some neo-nazi gets booted off of Twitter...then that distinction you mention becomes meaningless.
If you call yourself a conservative but leave it up to the wingnut in the tinfoil hat to present the public debate about what being a "conservative" really means then you have no call to argue differently when people start defining the conservative view as being that of the wingnut.
"I bet that some conservatives are not bigoted. I bet that some conservatives are pro choice. I bet that some conservatives are pro immigration."
Then why isn't every inflammatory troll claiming the conservative view met by other conservatives eager to say "Stop speaking in my name, because you do not represent my views, as a conservative"?
That's a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Of course fact-checking is anti-conservative
Worth noting that Trump's approval rating among Republicans is consistently in the 90% range.
The vast majority of Republicans approve of Trump. That's not opinion or hyperbole; it's a quantifiable fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course fact-checking is anti-conservative
Which brings the conclusion that the wingnut doing the talking for the conservatives is, in fact, the one saying what 90% of them silently agree with.
It's not that surprising considering how many republicans have quietly - and in some cases, loudly - left the republican party lately. The GOP truly turned into a cesspool at some point right before the GWB administration when the neocons took power and they invited the populist demagogues to the inner circles.
Then once the neocons collapsed like a house of cards the populists were quick to grab the reigns. Notably the Tea Party which no longer needs that name, having basically become the conservative part of the GOP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course fact-checking is anti-conservative
Really "conservatism" is fundamentally a lie on several levels. First off there are many attached bits which are considered "conservative" which are completely novel and did not exist in the past which they support. Even the Victorians did not execute abortionists nor dispute the need if the lige of the mother was threatened.
Second tradition itself is fundamentally a lie and fails to preserve the past as it really was in favor of an image. The reason for a tradition is never preserved - by induction traditions were never first done because they were traditional. Either they tried something which worked or they were invented whole cloth. Blindly clinging to tradition fails to capture either the experimentalism or the creativity. It is like trying to preserve a life by embalming - if it was alive it kills it horribly and leaves an empty shell with a supetfical resemblance to what was.
There is merit to learning from tbe past and using it as a baselin for models to tweak from but unfortunately the old hypocrite tradition of sifting through "the Bible" to justify what they already want for selfish reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christ, what a bunch of assholes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Christ: "What a bunch of assholes."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Without punctuation, we would have fewer punct lines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These so-called conservatives aren't against censorship, they are for it. They are calling for Twitter to be prevented from adding it's 1st Amendment protected speech to content on its own private property. This is disgusting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, they are calling for Twitter to stop getting the protection of a content relayer if they don't just relay content but provide comment on it.
Section 230 of the CDA frees them from any responsibility for the multitude of lies Trump spreads through them, but not once they add comments.
Really, the only way to cover their ass would be to block Trump's account. That would be legal and responsible.
It would also get an irrational autocrat upset with them, one who had his cronies replace judges on a partisan basis rather than based on competence.
So in a dictatorship like the U.S., this would be an imprudent move to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's not remotely true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not true. Even after adding their own comments to Trump's shittweets Twitter is still not responsible for Trump's shittweets, only for the comments they added. Just as you and I are only responsible for what we post.
CDA230 doesn't really absolve them of anything the 1st Amendment and other laws already absolved them of. It was a direct clarification of the law surrounding that specific subject matter. Even if the Orange Assclown managed to tear down CDA230 it wouldn't change the law that 230 clarified and Twitter could still call out Trump for shittweeting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yep. At that point, Twitter remains free of responsibility for Trump’s tweets but becomes responsible for the content it added to his tweets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Section 230 of the CDA frees them from any responsibility for the multitude of lies Trump spreads through them, but not once they add comments."
No, it doesn't. Section 230 means they don't have responsibility for the comments made by someone else. Once they add comments, they have responsibility for their own comments but still don't get made responsible for the words of others they were commenting on.
Section 230 is a very short and simple clause, why is it so hard for some to understand it's very basic functionality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: R
Here is a simple way to understand the new reality: censor and lose immunity. Try it. Censor me, right here, right now, and lose your immunity. I guarantee it! MAGA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: R
"Here is a simple way to understand the new reality:"
What is this new reality you speak of? I was thinking there is nothing new about any of it as we have been through this several times now. Perhaps you are too young to remember our past and your education was underfunded, I don't know and at this point it becomes academic.
"censor and lose immunity"
If the government censors then they will lose immunity? Awesome dude!
"Try it. Censor me, right here, right now, and lose your immunity. I guarantee it! MAGA!"
Please explain in detail how this all will go down as I am interested in what the white nationalists have planned. Looks like you just might get that civil war you basturds have always wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“I reject this reality and substitute my own” doesn’t make your reality the actual reality that everyone else lives in, you know. Your comments will be hidden and you can legally do nothing about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: R
That’s not how the law works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If conservatives don't like how they are being treated by Twitter, they should stop using it. God, that would be a blessing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's not how religious fundamentalists in the U.S. (well, apart from the Amish maybe) operate. They want all the things made possible by science and open minds and thinking, but ascribed to the grace of God rather than to science and open minds and thinking.
Basically, they think of modern technology like milk from their cows: a God-given benefit that for some reason faithless animals are better at producing than they are, but that they are entitled to benefit from by divine grace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm fascinated by your continued demonstration of nothing but hatred for anyone you disagree with followed by countless completely baseless and unproveable statements about said individuals seemingly for no better reason than that they disagree with you.
So please, do tell me what makes you think that most scientists don't believe in God/some similar concept of a divine being? Please remember that statements of your own opinions without some kind of evidence to back them up are nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What makes you believe that only religious fundamentalists are able to entertain religious beliefs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scientists and naturalism
According to surveys of scientists, most are of a category of atheist or agnostic. The typical understanding is includes:
~ an intelligent creator is not necessary for us to exist and
~ an intelligent creator is not demonstrable.
This is to say we can model all observations within the universe (not perfectly -- we still haven't explained ball lightning, for instance) without resorting to a divine intelligence. Curiously, our sun provides all the features we need of a supreme being, including consistent, unconditional regard and life-sustaining energy. (Though extinction-level solar flares are not entirely absent in our geological history, so the sun may express...opinions sometimes after all.)
The current state of all fields of scientific or historic study presume methodological naturalism, and therefore reject supernatural forces (miracles, gods, magic, etc.) as historical fact, so even when we look at the Resurrection of Jesus or the miracles he allegedly performed in life, it is presumed by historians and scholars that these events transpired within the confines of natural mechanics (such as simply being fables invented after the fact).
And so it is with the creation of the universe or the placement of the Earth and the human species within it. As nihilism and absurdism are rather bleak as personal outlooks, scientists may hold personal opinions on divinity (and may live under a theistic pretense or at least a hope that we are more than walking, thinking meat on a speck of dust), but when they do scientific work and build scientific models, these private specters of the supernatural are withheld.
But sure, just maybe we're in a complex computer simulation or in Azathoth's dream and for our own sake, our story doesn't end when our neurons cease firing. There is zero evidence to this effect, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scientists and naturalism
As the Warden of the oldest monthly meetinghouse in LA (don't ask:) of a 370 year old cult (the Crown put 12,000 in jail and a few were hung in Boston) with a long list of scientist on the roster, and a complete book shelf of "Theoretical Physics" here (with so little INDEPENDENT proofs), i could not have said it better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So please, do tell me what makes you think this has ANY impact on whether there actually is a god?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course there is a god. That’s why there are leftists. Without idiot shit smearing leftist globalist assholes (like you), what we would train for? Why shoot stop signs at all? Why buy high powered rifles with cool electronic scopes? God commands us!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m a Christian, but you have presented a terrible argument to support God’s existence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is God's command (all verses from Matthew 5):
These are the words of Christ himself. I don't know what you think God's command is, but you aren't following it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"So please, do tell me what makes you think that most scientists don't believe in God/some similar concept of a divine being?"
Plenty of scientists are religious. Those of them who are religious fundamentalists - as described by David, above, tend to be utter shit about their chosen vocation since a job which demands empirical observation goes badly with a faith which demands to trust Holy Scripture over the observations of their Lying Eyes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a fun game: Any time somebody claims anti-conservative bias, ask for examples.
If there are any given, which is rare, it will almost certainly be plainly racist or harassing speech that was "censored." It's almost like the only thing that defines speech as "conservative" is that it's racist or cruel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even if it's true and there is an anti-conservative bias on social media platforms,
ANTI-CONSERVATIVE IN SOCIAL MEDIA MODERATION IS NOT ILLEGAL
It doesn't make any difference whether such a bias exists or not. No difference at all. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Fuck-all. Viva la 1st Amendment.
Snowflake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm confused, if Trump's claims are correct exactly what is the problem with fact checking them? Wouldn't you want that to happen so that you could point to confirmation of his statements being accurate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"I'm confused, if Trump's claims are correct exactly what is the problem with fact checking them?"
Bingo. This is always the problem. When more conservatives are kicked off for being white supremacists, they whine about bias rather than ask why most of the white supremacists are on their side. When more conservatives are kicked off for homophobic bigotry, they whine about bias rather than ask why there's more bigot s on their side. And so on. When challenged for examples of people on the other "side" who have committed the same actions but not been banned, we hear crickets.
So, here, we see the same behaviour. If they're being fact-checked more (according to their personal assumption), it must be because there's bias. It can't be because they are doing more to need fact checking (or recently, flagged as promoting violence).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If twitter takes money from pro mail-in ballot groups and doesnt disclose this when "fact checking" by linking to opinion pieces minimizing the risks of mail-in ballot voting fraud, there is a problem with fact checking. There are clear cases of fraud made possible by mail in ballots such as the recent problems in NJ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you substantiate your claim that Twitter is taking money from Mail-In Ballot groups?
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/05/27/twitters-trump-fact-check-does-not-disclose-company-pa rtnered-with-groups-pushing-mail-in-ballots/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
breitbart?
I don't think so Tim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That article, from Breitbart, well, I hardly needed to read it, being an propaganda outlet for the right, but just to humor you I did.
It does NOT, as you accuse "substantiate that Twitter is taking money from Mail-In Ballot groups", the article merely suggests that, and I quote, Twitter "...is an active “Premier Partner” of Vote Early Day 2020, an election advocacy group seeking to educate voters that they can cast their ballots prior to Election Day, including via the vote-by-mail option."
If anything this suggests (and there is no evidence presented, as one would expect from Breitbart) quite the opposite, that Twitter is helping fund a group performing actions to help increase participation in the voting process, something the right fears for obvious reasons. You already got a president in on a minority vote, heaven forbid more people participate in an election!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cite a source with more credibility than Breitbart.
Cite a source that talks about these “problems”. Then cite a source that somehow managed to find more instances of voter fraud than did everyone who has ever studied the issue of voter fraud (mail-in ballots or otherwise). Remember, Donald Trump himself put together a group tasked with finding such widespread voter fraud; he later disbanded the group and never let it release its findings, presumably out of embarassment that the findings went against his lies about widespread voter fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Almost all of the stories I've ever read about voter fraud in the US are about a Republican agitator trying to rove it exists. It's rarely about someone doing it under normal circumstances and never seems to be a Democrat.
"Cite a source with more credibility than Breitbart."
My cat left something in the litter tray with more credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Almost all the stories I’ve ever read about you say you are a dog faced phony pony soldier, just like creepy uncle joe said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And the trumpass' nicknames are so clever. Yeah, right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What stories have you read, do share.
Are you making fun of our service members? If so, please go soak your head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When the president of the united sates is lying to the citizens they really ought to know about it - no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If they were interesting in knowing about it, the information had been readily available before he made it through primaries and election.
Adding fact checks to his tweets is unwanted information. It's like when your TV set will keep switching to CNN (say) if you are watching Fox News for too long. That's not its decision to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, you're saying that Twitter should be ok with transmitting propaganda to the wilfully ignorant, and it's wrong to alert them to the fact they're being lied to? I agree that voters need to educate themselves before voting, but allowing lies to be spread without comment isn't going to get them to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"So, you're saying that Twitter should be ok with transmitting propaganda to the wilfully ignorant, and it's wrong to alert them to the fact they're being lied to?"
Yes, I believe that is exactly what that poster is saying.
This is just another step in the dictators handbook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I think they should just hold Trump to the same standard as every other user and kick him out. And should have done that when he continued violating their terms of service.
What they are doing now is changing from being a megaphone for an autocrat into being a megaphone for an autocrat with disclaimers. Nobody is interested in those: they are fig leafs, a laughable excuse for continuing to help him spread his messages of misinformation, bigotry and hatred.
It's like sending Hitler's speeches with a preface stating "we don't think fascism a good idea". The ones who want to tune in to the message will tune out to the warning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"hold Trump to the same standard as every other user and kick him out"
Well, I sorta agree but .... I thought that discussion already occurred and the conclusion was that because he da prez there are other considerations or something like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please don’t otherword people when you want to make an actual coherent argument. Attack their actual point instead of one you made up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When you stop using shit and asshole comparisons as arguments then everyone will start being more reasonable and coherent. Jerk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Uh huh, sure they will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your civility is not my responsibility. Be the change you wish to see in the world, shitbird.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If they were interesting in knowing about it, the information had been readily available before he made it through primaries and election."
Victim Blaming ... of course, why not? It is so easy. What do the primaries and election have to do with it? Do you think that once elected, the president can then do whatever they please? Is that you Donald? lol, go back to twitter you loser.
"Adding fact checks to his tweets is unwanted information"
How is it unwanted? Are you claiming that people do not want to know what their government officials are doing to them? I call bullshit.
"That's not its decision to make"
Ok, I now see this should be marked as funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If they were interesting in knowing about it, the information had been readily available before he made it through primaries and election."
Elected officials don't get a free pass after elections, they get held to account every single day they're in office. The Trump administration clearly doesn't believe this should be the case, despite it being absolutely critical to a functioning democracy.
"Adding fact checks to his tweets is unwanted information."
Unwanted by you, I guess because the facts undermine your narrative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says who? A rightwing fucktard? Zero fucks given.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They need to follow their rules
They are. Their rules say that for some prominent people who violate their rules, but where the violation appears to be worth acknowling and showing, they will provide more context. As they have.
Their site. Their rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I like how you're just trotting out lies in defense of a liar. It's perfect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It takes real chutzpah to post "name any example" when THIS FUCKING POST that you're responding to was an example of Twitter moderating "the other side."
Re: Sarah Jeong, some of her tweets were taken down, not all of them. Some of it does depend on context (which you ignore), virality of the tweet, and whether or not enough people report them. You don't seem to understand that and assume bias, incorrectly.
Name a prominet lefty banned
https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/twitter-bans-ed-brian-krassenstein-brothers-fake-accoun ts-1203225266/
Put simply, if they "fact checked" Maxine Waters, Cuomo, Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, AOC, Illan Omar, Rashida Talib, etc. over the Russiagate and Ukrainegate hoax or even the Michael Flynn railroading, and also did Trump no one would be complaining.
Twitter literally JUST rolled out the fact checking feature and AS I NOTED, they did it early on to someone making fun of Pence in a misleading way. And it's literally impossible to fact check EVERY TWEET, so of course it will only be done on certain key tweets (probably those that go super viral). So you whataboutism is nonsense (not to mention calling the things you call hoaxes when none of them were... well, dude, fucking seriously?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It takes real chutzpah to post "name any example" when THIS FUCKING POST that you're responding to was an example of Twitter moderating "the other side."
They asked for an example of Twitter fact checking CNN, MSNBC, or a "member of the democratic party" which I am assuming means an office-holding democrat. "THIS FUCKING POST" does not do that, because I'm pretty sure Jimmy Kimmel does not fall into any of those categories. The correct response would have been to remain calm, leave that part out, and point out that yes, the fact-checking feature was just recently implemented. Instead you made yourself look manipulative by providing an answer to a question that nobody asked in response to a question that sombody asked.
And what's with the use of ALL THE CAPS and all the FUCKING CURSING? Are we back in middle school now?
This joke of a website is all the evidence I need that anti-conservative bias exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"They asked for an example of Twitter fact checking CNN, MSNBC, or a "member of the democratic party" which I am assuming means an office-holding democrat."
This is called moving the goalposts. Also, as you've already been told it's a new system so there aren't many examples of anyone as prominent as the president as yet. Now, do you have any examples of those people lying in the same way as Trump did in the time period the fact checking was active? If not, then there's no evidence of any bias, it just means your guy is more likely to lie to the public.
"I'm pretty sure Jimmy Kimmel does not fall into any of those categories"
No, he works for a different news organisation other than the cherry picked ones, otherwise there's little difference between his show and his competition on the named networks. I assume that's deliberate.
"And what's with the use of ALL THE CAPS and all the FUCKING CURSING?"
He's spent years dealing with dickheads like you lot, I'm sure his patience is a little thin at this point.
"This joke of a website is all the evidence I need that anti-conservative bias exists."
Anti-conservative, no, anti-asshole, yes. You haven't proven any bias, you just prove that your pre-selected talking points are designed to feed your victim complex, and that if you spent as much time and energy on real issues rather than trivia like Trump's ego being bruised in response to his own actions, the world would be a better place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anti-conservative, no, anti-asshole, yes. You haven't proven any bias, you just prove that your pre-selected talking points are designed to feed your victim complex, and that if you spent as much time and energy on real issues rather than trivia like Trump's ego being bruised in response to his own actions, the world would be a better place.
So, because it is my opinion that this website is an absolute joke because it censors anything and everything that deviates from its own agenda/status quo, that makes me an asshole, now? On a fair, unbiased platform, someone expressing their opinion, whether good or bad in the view of that platform, is an intellectual right of that individual and should be valued by that platform, not censored. That this platform feels is it necessary to hide/censor any voice that it deems is not aligned with its own political values is completely pathetic and undermines its own objective of exposing corruption and dishonesty. Any educated person can see this, and you are doing more harm to yourselves than good, I assure you.
He's spent years dealing with dickheads like you lot, I'm sure his patience is a little thin at this point.
Doesn't matter, as a key figure on this platform he should never lose composure, because it makes everyone associated look worse. And so does his account-holders cursing at anons, because it makes you look childish, like you need to insert curses into your arguments in order to help you prove your point.
The sad fact is, that while platforms like this expose truths that would otherwise go unnoticed, you end up alienating educated individuals from your cause because you come off as worse than the problem itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, coming around to a website you apparently dislike for the sake of shittalking said website because it doesn’t cater to your political/ideological beliefs makes you an asshole.
Should a platform dedicated to “fairness” allow White supremacists to chase off Black users by flooding the Black users’ mentions with White supremacist propaganda, which is legally protected speech and often an expression of (a really shitty) opinion?
Hi! I recently wrote a full-fledged article for this site. Of the 93 comments on that article (as of this comment’s posting), only 6 of the comments are hidden — with all six being either trollish comments or “dissent” comments by a known bad faith commenter. Numerous comments that dissent from the opinions I expressed in the article remain unflagged; hell, I even replied to a few of them (and thanked them for giving me new info to think about).
Dissent doesn’t get your comments flagged. Being a troll or trying to start/continue a discussion with bad faith tactics gets your comments flagged.
His fuckin’ house, his fuckin’ rules. Die mad about it.
The commenters at whom I sling foul language have typically proven themselves worthy of that treatment. To wit…
…if you think a little cursing and the hiding of troll comments make this place worse, nobody is forcing you to stay here.
Door’s to your left, shithead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, coming around to a website you apparently dislike for the sake of shittalking said website because it doesn’t cater to your political/ideological beliefs makes you an asshole.
How is it apparent that I dislike this website? This website gives me a lot of good laughs, which is why I come here. I don't see how that makes me an asshole. Last I checked I was allowed to do that, although it sounds like if you could change that, you would.
Should a platform dedicated to “fairness” allow White supremacists to chase off Black users by flooding the Black users’ mentions with White supremacist propaganda, which is legally protected speech and often an expression of (a really shitty) opinion?
LOL huh?
*Hi! I recently wrote a full-fledged article for this site. Of the 93 comments on that article (as of this comment’s posting), only 6 of the comments are hidden — with all six being either trollish comments or “dissent” comments by a known bad faith commenter. Numerous comments that dissent from the opinions I expressed in the article remain unflagged; hell, I even replied to a few of them (and thanked them for giving me new info to think about).
Dissent doesn’t get your comments flagged. Being a troll or trying to start/continue a discussion with bad faith tactics gets your comments flagged.*
I don't care what you wrote for the same website you are defending, I am telling you that in my opinion this website censors posts unfairly, and belligerently so. Hiding a legitimate opinion of someone else because it doesn't meet a certain political criteria is a form of censorship. Yes, you are not deleting posts, but I wouldn't be surprised if you starting doing that in the near future, based on what I have seen in the recent past.
His fuckin’ house, his fuckin’ rules. Die mad about it.
I'm not mad at all, actually I'm trying to help him out. Because among people who have degrees in various fields of upper education, it might not be considered appropriate to do that. Like I said before, it makes everyone involved look bad :(
*…if you think a little cursing and the hiding of troll comments make this place worse, nobody is forcing you to stay here.
Door’s to your left, shithead.*
I come here for good entertainment. And I get it every time I come here. I chuckled a bit when you called me shithead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you for answering your own question.
You said, and I quote:
“White people are the supreme race” is an opinion. White supremacist propaganda spreads that opinion. (Such propaganda is also legally protected speech.) Should a platform dedicated to “fairness” allow White supremacists to chase off Black users by flooding the Black users’ mentions with White supremacist propaganda? Should Twitter, for example, “value” the opinion that White people are the supreme race simply because it is an opinion?
Two things.
It ain’t censorship, it’s moderation. For fuck’s sake, did you even read the article to which I linked?
It’s only censorship if you’re forced from expressing that opinion anywhere. Or do you think someone’s post being hidden on this site means they can’t copy that comment and post it anywhere else on the Internet?
I’ve only ever seen honest-to-God spam get deleted from the comments. All other hidden comments remain hidden but intact.
Techdirt has been around for two decades. Your help is unnecessary.
If they can’t stand a little foul language in the articles and comments on a opinion blog, they’ve no business being on the gotdamn site in the first place.
Yes, yes, you’re jacking off while thinking of me, we get it (you sick fuck).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are quite an entertaining fellow, and a good writer, too. You have to forgive Stephen, he’s retarded, spending most of the time picking shit out of his own drawers and blaming everyone else for the foul smell that only he really experiences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why is it that some who post here avoid addressing the topic at hand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are quite an entertaining fellow, and a good writer, too. You have to forgive Stephen, he’s retarded, spending most of the time picking shit out of his own drawers and blaming everyone else for the foul smell that only he really experiences.
Thank you! I appreciate the kind words, seems like those are few and far between around here. We Anons need to stick up for each other, otherwise it becomes an Entire TD Community vs. Anon (10v1) gangbang!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just as a reminder, the people running this website don’t choose what gets hidden. That’s entirely on users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, the fact that you are lying about being censored while evryone clearly still can read you drivel makes you an asshole. And of course the fact that you're a trumpist bonehead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, because it is my opinion that this website is an absolute joke because it censors anything and everything that deviates from its own agenda/status quo, that makes me an asshole, now?
No. It's not your opinion that makes you an asshole. It's being an asshole that makes you an asshole.
Doesn't matter, as a key figure on this platform he should never lose composure
Fuck the fuck off. I honestly don't care what stupid ignorant fucks think of how I run my site.
like you need to insert curses into your arguments in order to help you prove your point.
I insert curses because (1) it's an expression of frustration and I'm sick of disingenuous assholes taking advantage of "civility" to do stupid fucking shit and (2) because it shows the level of contempt I have for such assholes. Don't like it? Grow the fuck up yourself and stop doing disingenuous shit to root on one team, rather than society as a whole.
The sad fact is, that while platforms like this expose truths that would otherwise go unnoticed, you end up alienating educated individuals from your cause because you come off as worse than the problem itself.
Oh bullshit. You were never going to agree with the truth. You're too invested in the lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The 'context' of Jeong's tweets that Masnick is talking about is that all her genocidal race hatred was directed at white people. Which makes it a non-issue to Masnick and his fellow anti-whites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m pretty sure that most of us, including Masnick, have issues with “genocidal race hatred” (which is redundant). None of us are “anti-white”. There’s also the issues with the tone and language used, since those often play a much larger role in what does or doesn’t get moderated than who the hatred is directed towards.
I’m also unsure what your point is, since I’m pretty sure that Masnick never mentioned Jeong’s Tweets in a supportive or uncaring manner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope.
Jeong tweeted: "Hashtag CancelWhitePeople"
Masnick personally said "Sarah's comments in context were clearly not racist."
The "context" being that Sarah Jeong wants to cancel White people.
That is advocation of genocide. Which Masnick sees nothing wrong with.
Techdirt's policy is that all their writers must be anti-White.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"cancel white people"
That's a bit of a reach.
It sounds like you're determined to believe what you want to believe and are grasping at semantic straws. Semantic straw men.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are such a poor, poor victim, aren't you. Nothing can shield you from the pain of hypothetical things you made up not getting the same treatment your cult is in real life.
"If Conservatives are correct, only one set of tweets will be marked or deleted."
...and if both are, you'll whine that it's an exemption that proves the rule and that your fragile egos are more important than the free speech of others. There's no winning with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That was the first time they ever fact checked him. I'm not aware of them fact checking any other politicians ever. So he should be proud, another fist!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Name any example of someone from CNN, MSNBC, or the Democratic Party being "fact checked" by Twitter
Completely irrelevant but just to point out your own obvious bias I'll point out that the article literally did exactly that. Apparently you just like to ignore any evidence that doesn't fit your narrative.
Of course the more important point that has already been made to you is that Twitter is allowed to censor any way it pleases the same way you're allowed to censor in your own household any way you please. Don't like it? Too bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, Twitter slapped a “Manipulated Media” tag on tweets claiming the Pence PPE delivery was empty and just for a photo op, like the one Jimmy Kimmel retweeted. /shrug
https://twitter.com/mattmfm/status/1258750892448387074?s=21
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Griffin; hoaxes hoax
" Kathy Griffin".. iirc ongoing contract was cancelled.
" Russiagate and Ukrainegate hoax " (hoaxes, plural, but..) Your premise is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For a while, on both twitter and Facebook, I don’t know if this is still the case, any pro life content was censored or even accounts banned. Is it racist, cruel or hateful?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Pics or it didn't happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Pics or it didn't happen."
I'm going guess that it was pics, and not the political leaning that was the problem. Those guys tend to go way overboard with their appeals to emotion (rather than facts, because even they know they're on shaky ground there), and I'll bet the sites got tired of people complaining about seeing dead fetuses in their feed.
Same thing happens with some animal rights folk. They'll post horrific videos of animals being tortured and slaughtered, then complain of censorship when they're blocked. They'll honestly think it's due to their political leanings, but they're just too dumb to realise that most people don't want to see such things alongside the family holiday videos and silly memes they use the site forst
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/370455-blocked-how-the-pro-life-movement-is-being -censored-on-social
https://www.christianpost.com/voices/social-media-censorship-of-pro-life-content .html
https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/12/pinterest-twitter-trying-censor-live-action-pro-life-group/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7132879/Whistleblower-reveals-Pinterest-BANNED-pro-life-gr oup-Live-Action.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm still reading that as being "these people were blocked for being assholes about their political views" rather than "these people were blocked for their political views".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is nice to see the links to references that one feels are relevant to the discussion. As others have pointed out, the pictures that pro-life uses are sometimes objectionable, did any of your references address this?
It appears that your selection of references are all a bit biased toward a particular pov - no?
Lies of omission are still lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Hill article doesnt adress this because its about blocking crowdfunding for a movie about RoeVsWade.
"Earlier this month, a social media platform blocked a crowdfunding advertisement designed to help finance a pro-life movie. The movie, according to its overview, “is the real untold story of how people lied; how the media lied; and how the courts were manipulated to pass a law that has since killed over 60 million Americans.”"
If my sources are biased its because leftist/mainstream outlets who are pro abortion wont talk about it and also why you guys have not heard about it.
It also mentions posts with bible verses against abortion being censored. Is that also too graphic? Pro abortion groups can advocate for their side by making taking lives innocent, lovey dovey, "brave and liberating". Telling the truth of what happens in an abortion is on the other hand forbidden.
Live action, one of the groups censored tried to get around the problem of graphically shocking images by using drawn images but it is apparently not enough. Some of their content is simply criticzing planned parenthood and their actions. This is not about graphic content but about criticizing of the left's side that cannot be allowed by social media companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"For a while, on both twitter and Facebook, I don’t know if this is still the case, any pro life content was censored or even accounts banned. "
The above is your prior post, to which Paul relied with Pics Or It Didn't Happen. I think you understand what this means. You failed to produce.
"If my sources are biased its because leftist/mainstream outlets who are pro abortion wont talk about it and also why you guys have not heard about it. "
Blame your opposition, standard operating procedure. Media does not talk about abortion? Or is it not enough talk about abortion that is really the issue? One trick ponies are so entertaining.
"bible verses against abortion"
This is news, which verse might that be?
"get around the problem of graphically shocking images "
Why are they necessary? I remember graphic pictures/video of the Vietnam war being too shocking for media to publish but pro-life pictures/video is a-ok somehow. I thought you chicken hawks loved that shit.
"This is not about graphic content but about criticizing of the left's side"
No, it is about the total bullshit that is the present administration and their followers. Completely out of touch with the nation they are sworn to serve. Some completely out of touch with reality. But yeah - it's all about conservatives being censored isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My answer to pics or it didnt happen was news articles describing that it did in fact happend i dont see what more you should want.
I'm not saying media doesnt talk about abortion im saying media doesnt talk about censorship of pro-life side because they like it or at least it furthers their agenda.
I don't know which bible verse it is, it is simply said in one article (that I linked) that posting bible verses ensued in blocking of accounts. I then assumed that it was in the context of pro-life seeing the context described in the article.
I don't personally see a problem with graphical images but your point or another poster's was that images of abortion were being banned for being too graphic and not for the actual viewpoint against abortion. You didnt even read the articles and just tried discrediting my sources for being biased and for not touching on this point when each article described different situations where the problem was not actually pictures but other content being censored.
I'm from Switzerland and therefore don't understand what you mean by chicken hawk but i assume its just an insult which is weird seeing as I thought we were having a civil discussion.
The last point about bullshit of present administration is besides the point of wether conservative organisations/individuals are being censored for expressing themselves on social media without violating TOS when the opposing viewpoint is being given free range. If you are answering with all your hatred for a political party and not answering me and my point about censorship you're just assuming things and opinions that I might hold and not actually answering the questions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In my opinion, you did not provide the requested evidence in support of your claims ... any of them.
"news articles describing that it did in fact happend"
.... followed by
"I don't know which bible verse it is, it is simply said in one article (that I linked) that posting bible verses ensued in blocking of accounts. I then assumed that it was in the context of pro-life seeing the context described in the article."
It does not prove any of what you called fact and you admit to not verifying the claim yourself. But I am to believe that it did in fact happen just because you say so. Got it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have to at least examinate the validity of the claim that "it never happened", not because "I" said so, but because news articles say so, notably the one from "The Hill" that cannot be dismissed as a bad source.
If the standard of proof that you are asking for is "my personnal experience of it with screenshots as proof". Then i cannot prove it. You would then dismiss it as anecdotal anyway.
But at least with the articles that i have linked you could, reading them, come to realise that it indeed happened, and that it might have happened in other areas of the discussion. Even if the reasons for this happening can only be assumed and that we might disagree on them.
But you are at this point just rejecting reality by denying that something happened and you are not being clear as to what proof i could provide to convince you otherwise. How am i supposed to verify myself what bible verse caused the banning if they are not cited in the news article?
Another article about project veritas and pinterest being biased against christians.
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/june/pinterest-insider-reveals-company-censors-bible-verses-ch ristian-terms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I am rejecting reality - ok, if you say so - lol
"How am i supposed to verify myself what bible verse caused the banning if they are not cited in the news article?"
.... here is your original claim:
"It also mentions posts with bible verses against abortion being censored."
.... in reply I asked which verse (in the bible is against abortion). idk, I thought that might be an easy search to perform if the verse actually says what you claim.
btw, project veritas is not a trust worthy source by any means at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I could find you quotes from the bible being against abortion/pro life at conception but I couldnt tell you which verse was censored by twitter at the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By all means, show us the Bible verses that…
cannot be interpreted in any way other than the anti-choice/“abortion is evil” interpretation and
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
3) And include the rest of the comment, as that might have caused the moderation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
4) Along with the full context. For example, if the whole thread was removed then it would be wrong to assert that only the Bible verse was removed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No one here, other than me and my new friend, wants truth, reality or honest debate. The commenters here are like pop together plastic train tracks, each head planted firmly in the asshole of the next, all experiencing their favorite leftist odor, blinded by their choice of their own tiny stinky universe as the same train of leftist thought goes round and round again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You might want to alter your meds .... just sayin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, when this is the level of mature discourse you're offering as an alternative, can you blame us? I graduated from kindergarten a long time ago, and I don't really fancy lowering myself to your level just so you can feel like you belong at the grown up table. You don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You haven’t exactly provided any evidence, so why should we take what you say as true? Also, if you don’t like it here, why do you care so much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I could find you quotes"
Ok
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I could find you quotes from the bible being against abortion/pro life at conception"
I can also find you quotes from the Bible instructing to perform abortions. So?
Why should any of us care what's in your bible anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I can also find you quotes from the Bible instructing to perform abortions. So?"
The old testament I'm sure he's taking those quotes from does provide incentive for or against just about anything. Including murder, incest and slavery.
There's just something extra pathetic about a group of religious morons who claim to be Christian without realizing the first thing that guy did was update and invalidate the old testament. That's basically the core of the controversy they've got going with judaism.
After which they eagerly quote cherry-picked parts of the part of the book their chosen prophet very deliberately put under the "Don't really read this part" bit of his lessons. The ones often going completely contrary to his own various sermons, mind.
There's a certain type of person who just needs someone they can look down on and disparage. Without something to fear and hate their lives aren't complete. And those people tend to find their calling in religion, even if their only connection to the prophet of their religion is by going directly against most of his teachings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most likely not as many as verses about genocide, slavery and keeping the virgin girls as spoils of war for yourself so. Strange, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
…and now you’ve lost any remaining credibility you had left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You love whistleblowers and investigative journalism but only when it serves your interests huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When someone regularly conflates, misrepresent, edit out context and flat out lie, they have zero credibility - just like project Veritas.
That also means that anyone who use project Veritas also have zero credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Since Project Veritas has nothing to do with investigative journalism or whistleblowing, why the nonsequitur?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Whistleblowers have gone to project veritas to expose the inner workings of social media platforms and censorship for instance. On other occasions, PV has managed to record employees talking about the censorship and bias they apply to conservative content as well as a lot of other subjects which i would qualify as investigative journalism since they inverstigate what is happening instead of simply repeating talking points of the press people representing these same companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In light of project veritas past problems with the truth, you believe what they say because ..... ?
Why would anyone believe anything that outfit has to say after what they have done?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Project Veritas tried to falsely accuse Roy Moore of having sex with a teenager as part of what was likely a sting operation against the Washington Post.
“I've said this before, but the way to understand conservative media's hostility towards the rest of the press is that they think it operates the way many of their reporters and outlets do—that they take money to make shit up.” — Adam Serwer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh look, you're still deliberately lying out of your ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only thing you have as yet ever done here so far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tell the truth, Toom, you’re another failed attorney, just like Mike. Stephen, too, and Paul. You’re all phoney pony soldiers, just like uncle joe said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And we care about Joe because?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is the best you've got?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That he's never been able to pull out anything more than projection makes him kind of dull as a troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who is this “Uncle Joe”, and why should anyone care what he said?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He makes a damn fine candy ...
https://uncle-joes.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Has it really not occurred to you that since you cannot support your claim without lying like that, that perhaps it's better if stop digging?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If my sources are biased its because leftist/mainstream outlets who are pro abortion wont talk about it and also why you guys have not heard about it."
No, it'll be because it's obvious right-wing propaganda based on lies, and a platform has the right to not be involved. Why do you want them to lose their free speech and free association rights just so you can be lied to?
"It also mentions posts with bible verses against abortion being censored. Is that also too graphic?"
Depends which ones. I will just note that you're not complaining about the bible verses instructing abortion (of which there are several). Why is that?
"Live action, one of the groups censored tried to get around the problem of graphically shocking images by using drawn images but it is apparently not enough"
No, your pathetic attempts to appeal to emotion rather than facts is still objectionable even in manga form.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I'm going guess that it was pics, and not the political leaning that was the problem."
That was the case where the animal rights folk were concerned. The US "Pro-life" brigade, however, often come down to outright calling for the execution-style murder of doctors and nurses who perform abortions, and in no few cases, the systematic firebombing of abortion clinics.
I'd argue that the content and feed of the US pro-life faction would get blocked for much the same reason they started blocking ISIS recruitment pages.
Of course in the minds of the demented wingnuts who proliferate in the "pro-life" organizations it IS bias to have their messages moderated away while the "child-killing godless scum" get to retain their family planning manuals online.
We see a similar disconnect with modern US "conservatives" who feel they're being discriminated against just for putting queers and black folk in "their place" - which to them is as natural as breathing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, without knowing which posts are in question I can't say, I was being charitable in assuming it was the pictures rather than actual death threats involved. Which are illegal no matter so who says them, so that weakens the argument of bias even further.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Well, without knowing which posts are in question I can't say, I was being charitable in assuming it was the pictures rather than actual death threats involved."
The pictures are bad enough, but even the most "genteel" pro-life site has language which simply isn't acceptable by ANY ToS I've seen.
Here, an example of the type of rhetoric you find on such sites, in which I'll assume, for the sake of argument, that you are pro-choice.
If I begin by defining you, PaulIT, as a "child-killer" or as someone who "abets and enables the wholesale slaughter of unborn children", and continue by citing what holy scripture (or any other "authority" easy to appropriate) has to say about "murderers"...
I may not be threatening you with death, but I certainly have implied that "good and decent" people might consider taking matters into their own hands and lynch you as the abomination you apparently are. And this would be what you'd end up with as a mere pro-choice advocate.
And this obviously not only poses anyone named at risk of unhinged violent zealots but also definitely violates the ToS of Twitter and FB. Even if it's entirely lawful according to the 1st amendment.
The problem is that their political leaning in itself assumes that everyone who is pro-choice is an accessory to murder. Pictures be damned, you can't even present much of that policy in any sort of moderated forum as-is without having a moderator going "Oh, hell no".
It's a bit like the white supremacy crowd similarly don't need to show pictures of beaten black people to get themselves banned simply over trying to present their policy - which even in the most polite terminology boils down to "Look, we call a spade a spade, so why can't we call black people <redacted>?"
It's not hard to understand why groups whose politics can not be expressed without causing harm want to do away with section 230. Nor is it hard to understand why they feel there's a bias when they try to express what to them is a righteous belief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I replied to a discussion on free speech that the op should use their free speech to counter people rather than advocating for hate speech laws and Twitter shadow banned me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sure they did.
Immediately after that did your laptop mysteriously reboot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I’ll prove it! Sometimes you’re black! Sometimes you’re gay! Sometimes you deny it, but still talk incessantly about assholes and shit! THAT PROVES IT1 So there!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Prove it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What was asked to be proved (by someone else):
The “evidence” you offered (which were actually just more claims without evidence, BTW) had nothing to do with that particular claim. I have no idea what you were trying to prove, but it wasn’t what anyone else was discussing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Don't behave like rich, condescending, jackbooted thugs.' - Ted Cruz, with an estimated net worth of $3,198,068 in 2018, the same Ted Cruz who supports the death penalty, called supporters of same sex marriage liberal fascists, shared a stage with someone who called for gays to be put to death, supported the USA Freedom Act reauthorisation of the Patriot act.... And so on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You left out “being the Zodiac Killer”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Canadian Texan" captures Cruz's insanity while having the advantage of being true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, not everyone likes us Texans. But we can shoot straight! Practice every day, drunk. We don’t actually give half a rat shit if you like us. But we like you! Come have a snort and shoot with us! Ted does! He’s great!
Can’t we all just get along?
Strong fences make better neighbors, and big guns make better friends!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Well, not everyone likes us Texans"
Any ideas as to why?
Perhaps it is the drunken firing of weapons?
Wait a sec ... this is humor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Back off, that's my speciality!'
'Don't behave like rich, condescending, jackbooted thugs.'
One can only assume that his comment was a case of hitting enter too soon, or perhaps leaving the second half implied but unsaid, as I imagine that part would be followed by '... that's my shtick!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ted Cruz
Didn't his dad kill Kennedy? I heard that from somewhere...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Seriously, we can barely see a thing.'
Damn, those whiners are projecting hard enough the light has got to be causing some serious glare on the international space station.
The only people trying to undermine the first amendment are those trying to punish a site for making use of their first amendment rights as they accuse Twitter of gaslighting and attacking free speech, and you just can't help but laugh at the last example, the cherry on the cake, as they admit that Trump's latest tantrum was because Twitter fact-checked him, something you'd think they'd be all for if he really was correct.
When people checking to see if you're right are seen as a dire threat in need of immediate attention it's time to admit that even you know your position is wrong and indefensible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Seriously, we can barely see a thing.'
"When people checking to see if you're right are seen as a dire threat in need of immediate attention it's time to admit that even you know your position is wrong and indefensible."
Unironically and not so funnily the last time I saw that sort of gaslighting in heavy use was right before the DDR fell.
On the good side the fact that a given faction has begun seeing fact-checking as a dire threat means it's the beginning of the end for that faction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Seriously, we can barely see a thing.'
One of the sad things I've noticed is that some groups of older people who grew up believing that Communism and the USSR were the ultimate evil are now unironically supporting the exact things those regimes stood for. Then calling the rest of us communists for pointing it out to them.
You see it in these threads here - insisting that a private company controlling its own property is unacceptable censorship, but the president forcing them to speak in a certain way is free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Seriously, we can barely see a thing.'
"One of the sad things I've noticed is that some groups of older people who grew up believing that Communism and the USSR were the ultimate evil are now unironically supporting the exact things those regimes stood for. Then calling the rest of us communists for pointing it out to them."
You too, huh?
It makes me wonder to which extent those methods and principles they abhorred back then were condemned in such loud tones because the enemy had managed to adopt them first.
Bill Barr would make a fine commissar - he sounds like Honecker having a really good day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm so sick of the people thinking fact checks will do the slightest iota of good given what they're up against. This is a matter of trust, not a matter of lack of accurate information!
What next? Are you going to try to fact check the person that believes their parish can cure them of the Coronavirus? That they'll suddenly go "I admit my theory that my pastor can cure Covid-19 was proven wrong after I saw a fact check on Twitter"?
It's ludicrously stupid and yet it's somehow paraded around as if it's a substantive win to fact check Trump. Good lord! This is something you should be laughed at!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Stop looking behind those curtains!'
Fact check someone lying, exposing that he is lying which might make others more hesitant to believe what they say even if it won't budge his die-hard supporters, or let the liar control the narrative with lies and falsehoods that could have serious or even lethal consequences...
Of the two I certainly know which a liar would prefer people would go with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'
Who is it supposed to budge? The mythical blank slate idiot that will be a better person if you show them the correct information? The idiot that pundits assume make up a substantive portion of the U.S. population yet no one can find?
The idiots here are the pundits and just how little they understand actual living and breathing humans (as opposed to some bizarre activist caricature of what the U.S. population is).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'
Who is fact checking supposed to 'budge'? If a liar knows they will be called out on their lies they are usually going to be less likely to lie so blatantly(perhaps not Trump, because he seems literally incapable of self-control), and if even one person who might have bought a falsehood but doesn't because someone pointed out that it was wrong is a worthwhile improvement over the falsehood being allowed to stand unchallenged.
Again, fact-checking is only a problem if someone is lying or otherwise saying false things, while it is a benefit to those that otherwise might have ended up believing false things, putting them in a worse position. Having people believe more true things and less false things is absolutely a worthwhile goal, and is only really problematic for those attempting to spread lies and/or falsehoods, so to just brush it aside with a 'what's the point?' just exposes an indifference to the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'
People who follow Trump's tweets aren't the kind of people who will believe a fact check insert by Twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'
As the gorram US president more people pay attention to his tweets and other communications than just those that believe anything he says without question, as given he has the ability to affect massive numbers of people it's kinda important to know what he's saying and doing, even if it's just to point out the latest instance of something wrong.
If the only people that paid attention to what he said were those that already believed everything he said and couldn't be convinced otherwise, and if people were incapable of changing their minds after being presented with evidence, and if Trump wasn't in a position of power where falsehoods could cause serious damage and it therefore refuting them was valuable, and if knowing more true things and less false things didn't have value, then the arguments against fact checking the US president might have some weight, but as it stands you are basically arguing in favor of people being lied to because... why again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'
True, but they're retweeted and reported on so often that those who don't follow him with will still read them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'
Paul, aren’t you really the President of the lesbian separatists society, in drag? You can’t be America, even black American. I know niggers in America that look like Rhodes scholars, compared to your stupidness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'
"Who is it supposed to budge?"
Whether you like it or not, the average person does not pay that much attention to politics outside of elections cycles. When they do pay attention, they might be more likely to pay attention to the sitting President, and thus they may be swayed by evidence that the man is outright lying to them for political gain.
"(as opposed to some bizarre activist caricature of what the U.S. population is)."
A known conman, multi-time bankrupt gameshow host is currently the leader of your country, having run on the platform of running the country like a business. The caricature is what you are until you change that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'
Anyone who pays attention to Trump's tweets isn't the average person. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'
You are right! We are superior! We hear the dog whistles! We smell the tacos! We taste the guacamole!
Did I mention that 230 is OVER? Retroactively! Get ready for justice!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'
Justice .... LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'
It will be a shame if section 230 is revoked, if only because we won't be able to read the frothing reaction from you when you realise how many things you do like depends on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you can still post your insane ramblings here, 230 is still intact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'
"Anyone who pays attention to Trump's tweets isn't the average person. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise."
Like the 20-30% who actually voted for Trump?
Like it or not that's not enough of a minority for you to call them anything but average.
An argument could be made that your entire country has gone fscking nuts. Supported by the fact that the guy filling twitter with utter hogwash happens to be your actual president - the type of guy who in any democracy or republic ought to be selected among the most credible and trustworthy of the candidates, or at the very least not be the sort of sleazy con man you wouldn't trust to live in the same city block as your children.
And that argument is further supported by your own implication that the only ones who should be listening to what your Commander in Chief, bearer of The Fotball has to say would be a proportionately minor cadre of fanatics and nutjobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'
"An argument could be made that your entire country has gone fscking nuts"
That's the wrong argument, though. He did not get the support of the majority of Americans, he has lost a lot of support since then, and even in the current situation there have been police departments joining with the opinions of protesters rather than following his advice and start shooting people.
Call me naive, but I still think the majority of Americans are good people who would rather not have a conman intent on selling the country out in office. The question is how to make their voices heard over the cult members.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'
"Call me naive, but I still think the majority of Americans are good people who would rather not have a conman intent on selling the country out in office."
I know quite a few smart, well-educated americans. That doesn't change the facts that between the country having a 60% average voter rate and 50% of americans subscribing to creationism the practical reality is that roughly half the nation thinks it's a fundamentalist theocracy and half the nation thinks that "voting" is something they can't be arsed to do.
Add to that a poverty rate which is proportional to the rest of the G20 only by drastically lowering the subsistence minimum, the only first world nation to NOT have some form of universal health care, and infrasdtructure so badly maintained some 3000 communities are left "drinking the flint river"...
...and yet most americans still insist they live in this, the best of all possible worlds, my dear Tartúffe.
I'm usually a great believer in Hanlon's Razor...but at some point you really need to break out Grey's Law as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'
"That's the wrong argument, though."
ad notam; I'm thinking the whole US has gone fscking nuts mainly because Trump has become Normal. His campaign speeches were so incoherent they might - as a comedian stated it - have been written by the autocorrect on his iPhone. His tweets are so demented that when someone says they'll fact-check them it sends him off in an unhinged vendetta and a campaign of signing executive orders.
And yet the people actually actively opposing him are as small a minority as his cult. Most of the rest just grumbling a bit and not otherwise giving much of a fsck.
That's what I mean when i say the entire US has gone nuts. If you live in a nation in better shape than germany in the last days of the Weimar then a clown such as Trump has no place, if the country is otherwise relatively sane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'
"Who is it supposed to budge? The mythical blank slate idiot ....."
What are you really trying to say here? Beating around the bush is just simply boring, come on now, you can do it - just say it.
Ignorance is bliss - amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'
"...as opposed to some bizarre activist caricature of what the U.S. population is"
A population where 50% believe in religion over science, where a known compulsive tort-happy con man got elected, where the conservative news outlets invent stories out of whole cloth, talk show hosts have more sway over the population than actual journalists, and the state of infrastructure and health care is so spotty you'd be pardoned for thinking you were in early 19th century Botswana rather than in the nominal leader of the first world?
If anything the activist caricatures aren't going far enough by half.
"The idiot that pundits assume make up a substantive portion of the U.S. population yet no one can find?"
You mean the one showing up at Trump rallies wearing a MAGA hat and dressed like a wall, cheering hysterically at a chubby orange demagogue whose speech reads as if it was written completely by the autocorrect function of his iPhone after outting random letters in?
He's not exactly hard to find. None of them are.
But I'll give you this, they DO seem impervious to fact.
The one's actually benefiting from the fact-correction might be those swing voters who are still on the fence on whether Trump would be worse than the failure to send a message to the DNC that they really need to present a candidate you don't have to hold your nose while voting for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I'm so sick of the people thinking fact checks will do the slightest iota of good "
Are you suggesting that the blatant lies go unchecked?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For the record, we have over 100,000 people dead in this country.
Members of Congress & pundits are more upset over fact checking a tweet then bodies in the streets.
This is yet another dog whistle to keep the base distracted & riled up.
If you had to make a cake for my wedding it would infringe on your rights!!!
If I refused to provide medical aid to you b/c of your political party or religion you'd freak the fsck out.
Perhaps it is time we try again to remind people rights are not a 1 way street, that if you claim this right only for you then perhaps you are as bad as those you are calling out.
You have every right to call me a faggot
I have every right to call you a closet case
You and I do not have the right to demand only 1 of us get to call names & pretend that our rights are violated if our host shuts one or both of us up.
Cities on fire
people dying due to violence, virus, neglect
but the most important thing is to make sure our leader can lie to us unchecked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Members of Congress & pundits are more upset over fact checking a tweet then bodies in the streets."
Also, just as an update to that - Trump witnessed the violence that occurred recently in response to the unjustified murder of yet another unarmed black man. His response to that? To threaten to send the army in to kill them. Then, he and his followers lost their shit at Twitter again for labelling that as an incitement to violent.
They care more about how the Tweet was labelled than they do about the police murdering people.
"You have every right to call me a faggot
I have every right to call you a closet case"
...and Twitter has to right to tell one of you to shut up and GTFO their property, and are more likely to go after the instigator (the homophobe in your example). You also have the right to go elsewhere if you dislike the way they treat others on their property. You do not have the right to insist that Twitter lose rights to control their property because your feelings were hurt by who they told to GTFO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"His response to that? To threaten to send the army in to kill them. "
But only the nonviolent protesters as his jack booted nazis are some really fine people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If media were not so obsessed with facts, the numbers you are reading could be a lot lower.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please correct me if I miss-understood your statement, are you to say that if media wasn't so focused on facts the figures would be lower, how would this be? would this be because they don't have all the facts this meaning the info they would be providing would be misleading and requiring a fact check mark and link?
Or would the media/news be using "Alternative facts" which Kellyanne Conway seemed so keen on pushing, there is no such thing as an alternative fact, an alternative viewpoint yes, or an alternative interpretation yes, but a fact is a fact is a fact and that's fact. (Yes facts can change but then the old fact is nolonger a current fact, not an alternative fact)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"If media were not so obsessed with facts, the numbers you are reading could be a lot lower."
You mean that if we as a nation were more like a dictatorship then .....
The fact is that the reported numbers are all under stated. The state of Florida is known to be fudging the numbers, so you dispute this? There have been many deaths at home that are most likely due to the virus but we have not fully tested those deceased, but sure , the number are too high aren't they.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here is some light reading on the topic that may be of some interest.
As Coronavirus Hospitalizations Rise in the US, Many States Hide Their Data
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Uh oh, are you confused about where you are? This is LEFTIE Country! Facts optional! Agree with the party line or be SILENCED! Change your brain and JOIN the Collective! Synchronization is required here! No dissent! Zig Heil, Uber Mike (aka Uber Steven). Be absorbed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
eat shit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This seems like classic projection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
100,000 people dead
If it takes ten million people dead before the people are driven to dissolve the federal government by force, our administrators will provide. It seems our state officials are eager to stress-test the public's tolerance for neglect and tyranny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 100,000 people dead
Violent revolutions mainly replace one tyrant with another tyrant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
replacing one tyrant with another tyrant
So is the case with most regime changes. But maybe you'd rather the peons lie down when the police murder them, and otherwise work themselves until they are starved, morbidly sick or poisoned.
I'm not saying revolution is the best option. I'm saying it's the one remaining option. And no we're not prepared to turn it into anything but another Reign of Terror. I'm not going to judge whether that is better than rule by Trumpian authoritarianism in perpetuity, just that the latter won't sustain the nation well enough to be tolerated by the hungry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 100,000 people dead
"Violent revolutions mainly replace one tyrant with another tyrant."
It's the "Four Boxes" approach to a political problem. Essentially the US has already opened the third and found it empty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 100,000 people dead
I don't think people want "it" dissolved, I think they want it to work as advertised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 100,000 people dead
Right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 100,000 people dead
I am glad you agree with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Working as advertised
The problem is, it never did. And now that the Democratic party has gone far right, and pushed out all the progressives, it won't now.
And the plague epidemic has shed sunlight on just how useless the federal government is.
Whether or not the people want it dissolved, the US is dissolving already by the mortar. The ruthless police state, the plague, the unresponsive executive, the gridlocked congress, the unsympathetic judiciary...these are all mere catalysts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Working as advertised
"The problem is, it never did."
Oh, I don't deny that.
I think a lot frustration among the citizens originates in the fact that they have been lied to by their government repeatedly.
Oh, yeah - things will definitely change this time - and then they do not ... ever.
The gop seems hell bent on "dissolving" it while everyone else just wants it to work as they were told it did/would. That is all I was saying, the fact that it has never worked as advertised is just more fuel on the fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Yes, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias."
I'm glad we agree.
Assuming you post was sarcastic, I have to ask ... how far are you and others like you willing to go? Are you willing to embrace your new leader like they are forced to do in NK? Maybe you should just move there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, you were right the first time at least.
Fact checking someone is not in any way evidence of 'bias' against them, it's simple taking their claims and checking to see how accurate they are, which is rather important when you're talking about claims that could impact millions of people.
To claim that fact-checking is problematic against someone is to basically admit that the one being fact-checked is dishonest and their claims can't withstand scrutiny, not the best look to say the least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So.. Does that also mean that conservatives have an anti-truth bias?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not all of them, just the dishonest ones and those that defend the first group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daily Proof of Bias
The bias happens nearly daily. For today's example, twitter is working to censor Trump for this tweet, supposedly for "glorifying violence", even tho he was denouncing violence.
https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1266342941649506304?s=20
Meanwhite, liberal youtuber Ajia G very much glorified violence and was reported to twitter. Twitter has refused to take any action.
https://twitter.com/QueenOfGeele/status/1265634003585044486?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
It is very clear that twitter is biased against conservatives, and will censor them, but not liberals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Until you can prove how acting on that bias breaks the law, Twitter can keep right on doing it regardless of the double standard or your opinions on the matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Daily Proof of Bias
The only bias I see is that loudmouths tend to get moderated more often, so the only conclusion I can draw from what you are saying then is that conservatives are more likely to be loudmouths.
Another thing I see is that people complaining about bias against conservatives tend to conflate, misrepresent and plain lie making their arguments.
I have to ask though, do you have some kind of learning disability? I'm asking because it has been explained to you several times now that moderation isn't censorship, only the government have the power to censor someone. If you happen to have a disability, may I suggest you write this down so you can use it as reference next time you write a post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Daily Proof of Bias
I think many posters like that, here and elsewhere, are being paid to be stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Daily Proof of Bias
Na, stupidity is its own reward, it means you never have to agonize over right or wrong, or deal with complexity, it means you can simply assume any batshit crazy idea you have is right and you always know best, it is a blessed relief. It's a feeling normal people can only get by excessive drinking.
See also https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/dunning-kruger-effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Proof of Bias
Normal people don’t drink excessively. You and your drunk idiot leftist friends are NOWHERE near normal.
Yes, I had a drink, but only one. Yes, the glass is a pitcher, and I spilled some down my shirt, but that’s considered polite here in Texas.
Want to go shoot some stop signs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Proof of Bias
What is normal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Proof of Bias
"Yes, I had a drink, but only one"
A bottle of vodka doesn't count as a single drink, although it does explain your idiotic behaviour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Proof of Bias
In dog beers I only had three
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Daily Proof of Bias
Claim: Twitter censors conservatives, including Trump.
Common assertion: It is censorship because Twitter is literally an agent of the state when moderating. (One of many arguments that it is censorship, but let's roll with this one.)
Common assertion 2: Donald Trump is the government and can literally do or order anything he wants.
Donald Trump censored Donald Trump and conservatives, not entirely dissimilar to the way conservatives create, defend, and fund the "Deep State" they all hate so much. (Similarity ends where one is much closer to reality than the other.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Daily Proof of Bias
" For today's example, twitter is working to censor Trump for this tweet, supposedly for "glorifying violence", even tho he was denouncing violence."
No, he threatened violence. He literally said he would send in the army to shoot at crowds of Americans if they didn't behave in the way he wanted. I guarantee that if that was Obama, you'd have been losing your hypocritical mind.
"Meanwhite, liberal youtuber Ajia G very much glorified violence and was reported to twitter."
Who? No, seriously I haven't got a clue who that is and why her words matter.
"It is very clear that twitter is biased against conservatives, and will censor them, but not liberals."
More likely, they will apply a new feature to the fucking President of the USA before they apply it to some random YouTuber.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Daily Proof of Bias
Somehow I suspect that this is no longer part of Melania's contract. Also don't engage in speculation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Daily Proof of Bias
Much more likely that the press will report it being applied to the president that reporting any moderation applied to the average social media user.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That, too, but have you ever heard of the term “stress testing”? I figure Twitter would use a new moderation-side feature on a well-known account with millions of followers (or allow such an account to use a new user-side feature) as a test of how said feature would work in a “high stress” situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, it's far easier to roll out said feature on accounts that's already known to contain "contentious" posts..
It's not like Twitter can automate the fact checking feature and apply it to every account. It's the same reason why moderation at scale is impossible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Also, it's far easier to roll out said feature on accounts that's already known to contain "contentious" posts.."
Bingo. Why run automation and risk false positives during the testing phase when you can just apply it so someone who lies in nearly every Tweet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Is that leftie logic? Do you have a translation available for normal Americans?
What the fuck are you trying to say, leftie retard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm saying that the lazy, incompetent liar and con artist that you have leading you right now hasn't changed his behaviour since he took office, and that makes it easy to predict the quality of future tweets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right. Nothing to say. Good translation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I normally don’t judge like this, but are you being deliberately stupid? What was said was crystal clear and blunt, and it wasn’t “nothing to say”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah.... the point is they proved a certain anti-humanity bias in that network of machines....
Like bender in futurama asking people if they want to help kill all humans....
Hahaha it's not funny when a dedicated minority have tried....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Like bender in futurama asking people if they want to help kill all humans...."
You had your chance meatbags.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They were too busy cracking their teeth on your shiny metal ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bottom line
Fact checking Trump is like fact checking The Onion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bottom line
I'm not comfortable with fact checking The Onion due to the shit-show that has been going on lately, I fear that some of the stuff they have written may actually turn out to be true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Onion
The Onion has a predilection much like The Simpsons for predicting events that come to pass. For now I'll argue that it's bound to happen considering their content output.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Onion
I have a prediction too! Every time you silence a commenter, you relinquish your immunity to lawsuit! I love trump! Silence MEMEMEME!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please explain the law, statute, or “common law” court ruling that makes your fantastical assertion a legal reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bottom line
No. The Onion is much more likely to hit the truth on any matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To wit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You would benefit from some wit, moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bottom line
They had a story a while ago about how they were being forced out of business due to reality being more screwed up than their satire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liberals like me were all for revoking 230 safe harbor protection for censorious social media sites. Lessig was all over this. So what happened?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lessig
Lessig is brilliant, but not brilliant about everything. What would he have offered in place of 230 to allow the internet to continue to flourish and stay legal. Because the other option is for it to flourish and become entirely illegal.
And then we'd keep the internet where we keep our prohibition hooch, under our kitchen sink.
But it also would mean radicals, anarchists, drug chemists, bootleg Trekkies, explosive chemists, furverts, hackers and child-porn connoisseurs would all have a much easier time having a voice and getting their material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lessig
You'd think that even alt-right conservatives would know better than to gladly welcome a future where they might have to share online space with bootleg trekkies and furverts.
...at least I've heard them severely berate both furries and star trek. They might not care much about the rest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow, they're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for comment bots now if you're the best they could muster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Liberals like me were all for revoking 230 safe harbor protection for censorious social media sites."
Then, you're an idiot, no matter your political leanings. Although, it's my experience that anyone who starts a comment by claiming they're a liberal is actually a lying conservative who's too dumb to know that others don't play the same stupid team game he does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, Paul, everybody is an idiot, except you. All of us Trump voters, we’re idiots. But 230 is GONE now, and Trump is still in office. You will be unmasked. Speak more, I am happy to read your every thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Yes, Paul, everybody is an idiot, except you. All of us Trump voters, we’re idiots. But 230 is GONE now, and Trump is still in office. You will be unmasked. Speak more, I am happy to read your every thought."
Maniacal ranting is a sign of mental illness, please go get yourself checked out before you hurt yourself and others.
and btw, you are wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Yes, Paul, everybody is an idiot, except you"
No, just the idiots. I'm hoping the intelligent mature adults among your population manage to stop you killing half the remaining economy and many useful services because an orange manbaby has his feelings hurt.
"But 230 is GONE now,"
So, in a thread about how the little manbaby would like to kill a bunch of jobs in the middle of a pandemic because he was fact-checked when he lied about the voting process, your response is to lie?
"You will be unmasked"
Erm, I'm not hiding anywhere but I do wonder what you think repealing section 230 would do to identify me. Are you hallucinating again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lawsuits. Discovery. Read the tea leaves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And how would PaulT’s identity be relevant in such a lawsuit? Also, why would TechDirt know any more about who he is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lawsuits? No, TD will likely have to immediately shut down its commenting to avoid those.
Discovery? What would you expect them to discover? TD don't have any personal information about me except the publicly available information that's already in my profile.
Even if they did, I wouldn't be any more vulnerable to a lawsuit than I am now. Section 230 protects them from being held liable for my words, it does not protect me. Lawyer up and come at me. TD would be able to provide my email address in response to a lawsuit, but they have nothing else that you can't already see, and removing section 230 wouldn't magically make them have more.
"Read the tea leaves."
Maybe you should start reading what the law is that you fight so valiantly against instead, because it really doesn't seem to say what you think it says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The passing of John Smith has not been kind to Hamilton, who desperately masturbates himself while wearing a Fran Drescher mask in his memory.
I don't know why he bothers. horse with no name always comes back under a new pseudonym, except these days he can't be fucked to do that because even without a pseudonym, he smells like a week-old fish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Read the tea leaves."
So THAT is where you alt-righters get your information.
This explains so much.
Pro tip? Your information source isn't a good one as just about everything you stated was...less than correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bias is Not the Problem
All this huffing and puffing about "omg bias!" and "lol no bias" is irrelevant. Twitter, Facebook and friends own the platforms the public posts on and they can whatever they like with their property. Whether there is or isn't a bias means absolutely nothing in a country where every one of us has a right to free speech. Free Speech, by definition, means Twitter can moderate the content on their service however they like, with or without 230.
It's seriously hypocritical of conservatives to want to regulate these services while calling for deregulation everywhere else. And it's stunningly stupid of all people of all stripes to call for the dissolution of 47 U.S.C. § 230 which says:
The real problem this country has relative to this discussion is rampant stupidity. Stop arguing about whether there is or isn't a bias; It doesn't matter. Start looking for ways to solve or at least reduce stupidity. Things like fact checking the crap out of tweets from people in positions of mass influence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bias is Not the Problem
Bah, formatting. Split that quote at the double-quote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I somehow thought the title said, "Anti-Corrosive Bias".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sure that if any other president wrote tweets glorifying violence or misinforming, Twitter would fact check them too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fact Check Twitter
This article is correct. Twitter fact checking our President is not evidence of bias toward conservatives. But it is a denial of 1st Amendment rights provided by our Constitution. It is a denial of one of the very reasons our country was founded. It is a denial of the very reasons Twitter is allowed to operate.
The chairman of Twitter should leave the United States, and move to China, Russia, or any of the countries run by an Islamic Oligarchy. Let's see if Twitter can become a billion dollar company in any of those places.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, it isn’t. Twitter added speech to someone else’s speech — sort of like what I’m doing right now by quoting your factually incorrect statement, then tearing it apart. The First Amendment gives Twitter that right. (And 230 doesn’t protect Twitter from legal liability for the speech it added to Trump’s tweets.)
Why, because his company dared to fact-check Donald Trump, a man who has told literally thousands of lies during his time as president?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fact Check Twitter
How? Fact checking did not change his words, but did call the truth of them into question, which is Twitter exercising their first amendment rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's not how that works. That's not how any of that works.
No, adding speech does not in any way shape or form 'deny' the original speaker's first amendment rights, unless you have a wildly different version of that you'd like to share.
The first amendment means you can say what you want and the government is not allowed to punish you for it(with a few narrow exceptions), it does not, nor has it ever, included a '... and no one is allowed to point out that what you said is wrong' clause.
(For added humor if you think that it does I'm pretty sure Trump would need to leave the country well before any exec of Twitter would under your interpretation, as he regularly engages in worse, like attacking any press that he doesn't like as 'fake news', which I'd say is a much more serious issue than simply fact-checking someone.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fact Check Twitter
Let’s say I was to have a bulletin board in my yard (both of which are my private property), and my yard is in an area that many people frequent and would thus be able to read my bulletin board often. I decide to post a sign saying that, barring some terms and conditions, I will allow anyone who wants to post anything on my bulletin board to do so, and many people take me up on my offer.
Now, let’s say that someone posts something on my bulletin board that I know to be false. I decide to add a note saying that that post is misleading/wrong and a reference for people to learn more. This is in no way infringing on anyone’s First Amendment rights; on the contrary, it is an instance of me exercising my right to free speech. I could also choose to remove the offending material if I so desired without infringing on the First Amendment because I’m a private citizen and the bulletin board is still my private property even if I’m allowing the public to use it.
Legally speaking, there is no material difference between this example and what Twitter did here. Trump posted something on Twitter’s privately-owned property that’s open to the public, and Twitter (a private entity) chose to add a message saying that his post was incorrect or misleading along with a reference to provide additional context. This is not censorship or infringement of the First Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fact Check Twitter
"But it is a denial of 1st Amendment rights provided by our Constitution"!
lolwhut? A private entity telling you that your president is lying to you is removing his free speech?
You know what's actually a 1st Amendment violation? The president telling private individuals that they cannot respond to him in such a way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fact Check Twitter
Do you know what is disgusting? A fucking FOREIGNER lecturing their BETTERS about the American Constitution!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fact Check Twitter
Do you know what is funny in a rather sad way? Many foreigners speak better english than many of the citizens of the us. In addition, some of those foreigners are better educated and therefore understand the workings of government both on paper and in action - theirs and ours. Is that disgusting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fact Check Twitter
"A fucking FOREIGNER lecturing their BETTERS about the American Constitution!"
If you weren't so ignorant about it, I wouldn't need to. Why don't you read it some time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What does it say about you that when you can’t directly refute the point being made, you go straight to xenophobia as if that should make your point for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I mean, if the point was reminding people just how much of a bigot they were it certainly did that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fact Check Twitter
Y’know, I’m a born-and-raised American who said the exact same thing, yet you have nothing to say about that. In fact, I note that you have said nothing on the substance of what either of us has said on the subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fact Check Twitter
"Do you know what is disgusting?"
That fucking FOREIGNERS know the US constitution better than americans do?
But hey, thanks for playing, and next time you pretend to know what an amendment means don't be shy to ask.
Meanwhile, in case anyone failed to get the memo, the 1st amendment can only be violated by government, unless you make the case that Twitter can have Donald Trump arrested and forcibly restrained from speaking anywhere in public.
Twitter making USE of the first amendment to add their own commentary is...NOT exactly that. Unless you believe Twitter is to the US what Xi Jin Ping is to China and Trump is that powerless peon impotently shaking his fist in the house arrest Twitter imposed on him.
"...lecturing their BETTERS..."
Huh. This is the first time I've heard the word "betters" used to describe uneducated morons unable to grasp what should be grade school knowledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politics
Beyond the TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe it’s come time to put black people back in chains, just as Biden suggested. I mean, we don’t want them burning down the whole country. Maybe they would be happier with a little subjugation. Maybe they miss it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Eat Shit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well played, leftie. Or are you Mike, or Stephen? You dog faced phony pony soldiers all look the same to me, just like at 7-11, or taxicabs. Muslims, rag-heads, all you fanatics look the same. Signed - J. Biden, Future VP of Obidin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I read a poll that said 70% of black fatherless children would prefer free alcohol and marijuana in exchange for their right to vote. Think about it. Nancy has.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"I read a poll that said 70% of black fatherless children would prefer free alcohol and marijuana in exchange for their right to vote. Think about it. Nancy has."
Perhaps if one were not so ignorant about the topics they wish to discuss, but I digress. I gotta ask - what poll might that be?
I read a poll that claimed 86.4 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Are they fatherless due to the Vietnam war?
How many white children are fatherless? Is it fair to compare?
Since many of "them" are not afforded the right to vote, I suppose it would be a fair exchange - no?
How do you know what Nancy does, is your name Karen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Find that report, as I would like to check the title.
"70% of black fatherless children"
Can you give me an age bracket? Teens?
And what about the White, spanish,green kids??
esp. the poor.
How many are so over run by the political BS, that going out for a drink is better then voting.
30% of the populace is register either rep or demo. the rest of us have better things to do.
During the last election BARELY 55% voted..thats an additional 20%, NOT even comparable to that 30%.
But with the 50/50 separation of both parties.. 15% belong to 1 of those parties. That extra 20% could elect anyone else.
Many state(dont know them all) have passed an interesting law, for State elections. That a Majority does not have to Vote, for a bill to pass. If no one, except 1 person voted, it would pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are these children, as in “too young to vote, drink alcohol, or smoke marijuana anyway” children? I’m not exactly seeing what you’re getting at here. What poll is this anyways?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hundreds of thousands dead in the States because your beloved Mango Moron couldn't be fucked to care, and this is the best response you can muster, Hamilton?
How's that Shiva Ayyadurai turmeric cure fund coming along?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]