Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sat Jul 11 11:22:13 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / Trump Tampers w/Election
hood
Member
Tue May 26 22:52:46
http://twi...ump/status/1265255835124539392


And twitter calls him on it. Then he throws a hissy fit ( https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265427538140188676 ). Lock him up.
Im better then you
2012 UP Football Champ
Tue May 26 23:21:55
The American people hate Trump.
Delude
Member
Thu May 28 13:59:00
No comment on the abusive power of the president from his cheering section. Interesting.
Rugian
Member
Thu May 28 14:13:02
"Twitter wants to target conservatives — with none of a publisher’s responsibilities

By Sohrab AhmariMay 27, 2020 | 6:15pm

If Twitter is going to “fact check” the leader of the Free World, with a hard leftist as part of the team doing so, then it should be treated as the publisher that it is — with all the liabilities that entails.

On Tuesday, Twitter appended a fact-check label to a presidential tweet about the fraud risk associated with mail-in voting. The exclamation urged users to “get the facts about mail-in ballots.”

The link took users to a CNN story with the headline: “Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud.” It was the kind of opinion-masquerading-as-reportage that CNN, and too many other mainstream outlets, specialize in. “Experts say mail-in ballots are very rarely linked to voter fraud,” the story tsk-tsk’d — the experts apparently having forgotten the debacle of thousands of lost, missing and uncounted mail-in ballots reported by The New York Times last month.

Just in case CNN’s “experts-say” pabulum wasn’t enough to convince you that Orange Man Bad, Twitter also curated a number of tweets from the blue-check Twitterati slamming the president, with one even hysterically accusing Trump of planning “voter suppression.”

None of this comes as a surprise to conservatives on Twitter. For years, Twitter has censored conservative voices, increasingly without even bothering with the pretense of platform neutrality. This is the same firm that suspended actor and right-wing firebrand James Woods for tweeting a blurred, and publicly available, photo of Andrew Gillum, the failed Florida gubernatorial candidate, appearing to be high. Meanwhile, Twitter has consistently refused to suspend Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan — even after the left-wing darling compared Jews to termites.

And now we know why: A key actor in Twitter’s censorship operation turns out to be Yoel Roth, a fellow with an ideology so hard left it would scare Nation magazine’s editorial board — and blessed with a Silicon Valley sinecure (“head of site integrity”) that allows him to decisively slant the national conversation on the Web.

It was Roth who along with a co-worker introduced Twitter’s new “fact-checking” policy. “In serving the public conversation,” the pair wrote a couple of weeks ago, “our goal is to make it easy to find credible information on Twitter and to limit the spread of potentially harmful and misleading content” (read: conservative ideas).

“Starting today,” Roth and his comrade went on, “we’re introducing new labels and warning messages that will provide additional context and information on some Tweets containing disputed or misleading information related to COVID-19.” But apparently the “fact-checking” now extends far beyond the pandemic, to include countering the opinions of the commander in chief with left-wing opinion, er, “expertise.”

Roth also happens to be a rabid hater of Trump and the 63 million Americans who voted for him.

“I’m just saying,” he tweeted in November 2016, “we fly over those states that voted for a racist tangerine for a reason.”

In January 2017: “ ‘Today on Meet the Press, we’re speaking with Joseph Goebbels about the first 100 days. . .’—what I hear when [Trump aide] Kellyanne [Conway] is on a news show.”

In July 2017: “How does a personality-free bag of farts like [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell actually win elections?”

And so on. But it turns out Twitter is playing with fire. Lawmakers could call for revoking the company’s legal immunity under an obscure federal law that allows Big Tech companies to eat their cake and have it, too, acting as censors, editors and publishers while incurring none of the liability.

Here’s the deal: If I publish libelous claims in The Post, my victims can hold The Post liable in court. But Twitter is immune to such suits under the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Section 230 of the law provides that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

But note the underlying assumption: that online bulletin boards — and that’s what Twitter is, a glorified bulletin board — don’t act as “publishers.” But by policing conservatives and “fact-checking” the Republican president of the United States, Twitter is acting exactly like a publisher. So why should one class of publishers, such as The Post, be held liable, while another gets to escape liability merely because its “editors” are hard-left California geeks?

Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri had the right idea last year, when he introduced legislation that would remove Section 230 immunity from tech companies unless they could prove that “their algorithms and content-removal practices are politically neutral.” Amen.

Meanwhile, as of this writing, Twitter had yet to “fact-check” Mayor Bill de Blasio’s tweet “encouraging New Yorkers to go on with your lives and get out on the town despite coronavirus.” Countless accusations of Russian collusion remain. What a joke."

patom
Member
Thu May 28 14:15:57
So where is the substantiation from Trump? Or is he above having to back up his accusations or assumptions or any other tions.
Paramount
Member
Thu May 28 14:17:18
” If Twitter is going to “fact check” the leader of the Free World”


I stopped reading right there :) Trump is not the leader of the free world. Trump handed over the leadership to Merkel.
Rugian
Member
Thu May 28 14:23:17
Twitter massively fucked up by picking this fight. Now it's on the hook to fact-check EVERY statement made by EVERY user on the platform. It's either that, or their bias against Tump is proven beyond a doubt.

Either way, Twitter has proven that it is not a neutral forum and should accordingly be stripped of its current legal protections. If it wants to be a publisher, it can assume the legal liabilities of a publisher. Get fucked Dorsey.
Paramount
Member
Thu May 28 14:25:04
” On Tuesday, Twitter appended a fact-check label to a presidential tweet about the fraud risk associated with mail-in voting. The exclamation urged users to “get the facts about mail-in ballots.”


Twitter isn’t forcing anyone to click on it though. And since it is their platform they should be allowed to leave links whereever they please.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu May 28 14:26:34
Twitter isn't fact-checking Trump (& it didn't lead to a CNN article)... it was an isolated incident on a particularly harmful topic


"
We added a label to two @realDonaldTrump
Tweets about California’s vote-by-mail plans as part of our efforts to enforce our civic integrity policy. We believe those Tweets could confuse voters about what they need to do to receive a ballot and participate in the election process.

We also wanted to provide additional context and conversation with regard to voter fraud and mail-in ballots. We have a range of remediations, and in some cases we add labels that link to more context.
<w/ a link to their 'civic integrity policy'>
"
~Twitter


the fucking fraud liar said California was mailing ballots to everyone, so factually false & tampering w/ election process if any idiots didn't think they had to register to vote (& we have a whole lot of idiots)
Rugian
Member
Thu May 28 14:28:57
Tw

And where are the fact checks for the millions of Tweets about Trump being a Russian agent? Hmm.
Rugian
Member
Thu May 28 14:29:22
Also you're wrong. The fact check DID lead to a CNN article.
Paramount
Member
Thu May 28 14:33:32
Coming up next: Trump will shut down bookstores because his freedom of speech is being stifled when books other than his is being promoted.
hood
Member
Thu May 28 14:49:21
Funny that rugian fails to provide a link for his article. Could it be that it comes from a rag, is very clearly labeled as opinion, and is wildly wrong?


"Now it's on the hook to fact-check EVERY statement made by EVERY user on the platform."

False.


"Twitter has proven that it is not a neutral forum"

Twitter doesn't need to be neutral to receive protections. You, along with all of the other tards harping on s230, do not comprehend law.


"If it wants to be a publisher"

Moderation != publishing. You are fucking stupid.


"Get fucked Dorsey."

Jack Dorsey is a trump supporter in hiding.


"Also you're wrong. The fact check DID lead to a CNN article."

There's a possibility tw was making a timeline statement; i.e. CNN posted an article, then Twitter applied the fact check label. In this sense, he would be correct. If he was stating that clicking the link would navigate to CNN, he's gonna be wrong.


Sufficed to say, Trump should be on trial for tampering with the 2020 election and then ejected from this planet without a seat belt or navigation system.
Rugian
Member
Thu May 28 15:46:00
Hood

I am employing the jergul standard of citing your sources from now on. As he leads I follow.

"False."

True.

"Twitter doesn't need to be neutral to receive protections"

This is what this current political battle is being fought over. And guess what? The other side disagrees with you.

"Moderation != publishing."

Posting "fact checks" != moderation.

"Jack Dorsey is a trump supporter in hiding."

He continues to claim, with no evidence.

"If he was stating that clicking the link would navigate to CNN, he's gonna be wrong."

Am I the only one that actually clicked on the thing?

https://mobile.twitter.com/i/events/1265330601034256384

"Trump's claims are unsubstantiated, according to CNN, Washington Post and other fact checkers"

Then proceeds to cite and offer links to both CNN and WaPo...

"Sufficed to say, Trump should be on trial for tampering with the 2020 election and then ejected from this planet without a seat belt or navigation system."

Democrats and their media shills should be thrown into the Sun for their campaign to destroy the open internet.
hood
Member
Thu May 28 17:06:47
"This is what this current political battle is being fought over. And guess what? The other side disagrees with you."

The other side is grossly misrepresenting the issue to portray persecution because they happen to be fucking assholes whose words and actions are unacceptable in a decent society. Further, the suggestion that "the other side" is equivalent in terms of mindshare is laughably preposterous. A vocal minority of nutsacks are whining. The appropriate response, in right-speak, is "fuck off, subhuman shitweasel."


"Posting "fact checks" != moderation."

Certainly it is. It sure as hell doesn't make Twitter a publisher of Trump's tweets.


"Then proceeds to cite and offer links to both CNN and WaPo..."

You're a dumbass. I was agreeing with you, but noting that the word "lead" could have been misinterpreted.


"Democrats and their media shills should be thrown into the Sun for their campaign to destroy the open internet."

You don't know what the open internet is. You either are unable or purposely refuse to understand the meaning. You also are wildly ignorant of the first amendment as it pertains to this situation and social media in general, and would rather see China than have reality thrown in your face.

Also, kindly don't steal my quips. You deface them.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Thu May 28 17:25:31
I wonder how much Trump is paying fluffer Rugian these days or if he's still doing it for free?
Habebe
Member
Thu May 28 18:52:36
Mot gonna lie, linking fact checks doesn't sound that bad.

My main issues would be

1. Who are the fact checkers?
2. Is it spread fairly?

Other than that, if someone , even Trump/POTUS says something thats blatantly false I don't see the harm in having a responsible and fair fact check.
Habebe
Member
Thu May 28 18:58:53
I will say that the claim

"Mass mail in ballots will lead to fraud"

Is technically 100% accurate.

Its intent is opinion, that it will lead to more fraud than usual.

Thats like saying are " handing out guns to every American will lead to more gun crime"

And rebutting it by posting stats on how frequently legal gums are used illegally by legal gun owners.
Habebe
Member
Fri May 29 10:20:50
T
hood
Member
Fri May 29 10:29:58
""Mass mail in ballots will lead to fraud"

Is technically 100% accurate."

It's too bad that Trump used that problematic little word: substantially.

You're trying to do that thing where you completely change the meaning and context of what Trump says to make it seem less retarded. What trump said, that mail-in voting will lead to substantive fraud, has no basis in reality and there is no evidence to suggest there is truth to his statement. Indeed, we have real-world examples of mail-in voting having little to no fraud whatsoever.
jergul
large member
Fri May 29 10:34:35
The military on combat duty has mailed in their votes for like forever. If you can trust mail in votes from the military, then you can trust mail in votes from anybody.

Habebe
Member
Fri May 29 10:38:20
Its not the same to have 1% of the vote mail in to 100%.

Again it would be like if the government passed out pistols to every American, what would likely happen?
hood
Member
Fri May 29 10:42:14
Entire states vote by mail. Stop being a fucking turd.
Habebe
Member
Fri May 29 10:45:21
Even " substantially" if you substantially increase the amount voting by mail, you will substantially increase fraud.

I would think a greater % of fraud than just the scaled up % of use.

Now admittedly Republicams probably dont want mail in voting because Republicans are more likely to.go.out and vote while if you could just stop people on the street or at there hpuse and get them to sign a paper voting for someone the Dems would probably win. He'll Bernie would be POTUS by now.

Now that alone is not fraud though. I think we could take precautions to stop fraud and still do mail in voting.
Habebe
Member
Fri May 29 10:47:08
Everyone is allowed to vote by mail.now, right? So what is the big deal?
Wrath of Orion
Member
Fri May 29 11:23:31
"So what is the big deal?"

"Now admittedly Republicams probably dont want mail in voting because Republicans are more likely to.go.out and vote"

You've already answered your own question.
Forwyn
Member
Fri May 29 11:52:17
It's certainly cheaper to guide people through mail-in ballots with canvassers than to have to bus people in.
TJ
Member
Fri May 29 12:22:26
http://fiv...uld-make-for-a-messy-election/
Habebe
Member
Fri May 29 12:45:29
Yeah, this should probably be nationalized to set standards at least for national elections.
Dakyron
Member
Fri May 29 13:00:22
Umm, no. States should decide themselves how they want to vote.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share