patrick.net

Patrick says

He's totally right on this one.

I wonder why he is so late with this.

Good point. He should have done that instantly upon taking office.

Maybe something changed.

Patrick says

Good point. He should have done that instantly upon taking office.

Maybe something changed.

Like or dislike him, can't argue with fact that he is a narcissist. This time it touched his Royal Highness, so he cared and acted.
On a side note, it is deeply emotionally satisfying how Twatter screwed itself by its hyper-partisanship.

@APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostakovitch You really need a new schtick. There's not enough content in your current anti-Trump screams. In fact, you tend to make Trump look good because you're making his opposition look unhinged. As if that were really necessary given the media self-immolation over the last few years.

I don't mean this as a personal attack in any way. I think I'd get along with you great if we ever met.

rd6B says

Like or dislike him, can't argue with fact that he is a narcissist.

Agreed. But that's not necessarily a bad thing in a president. His looking out for himself aligns pretty well with his looking out for the country.

Except for sucking Saudi dick. That did not benefit us at all.

Good. Those people arrogantly were promoting bias while being protected as non biased sources. Finally fair treatment along with other media.

This is correct.
The Twitter jerks want it both ways.
I’m not sure Trump is a narcissist, but he is fighting for a fair election in November.
I’m not sure he’s kowtowing to the Saudis so much, let them die fighting Iran, sell them some bombs.

I drive a car so I figure until I get a natural gas engine, we have to deal with Saudis.

If the President can't lie on social media without being fact checked, does freedom even have meaning ? As the one of the greatest American patriots once said, "give me alternate facts or give me death."

Patrick says

There's not enough content in your current anti-Trump screams

Without AF's comments this forum would already be close to being a liberal communist hell hole. I'd have to agree, his comments clearly send it over the edge.

Can't we even have a single solid Trump cultist voice on this forum ?

clambo says

I drive a car so I figure until I get a natural gas engine, we have to deal with Saudis.

not really, we now produce nearly the same amount of oil we consume. Besides, sanctioning Saudis will help Great State of Texas!

marcus says

If the President can't lie on social media without being fact checked, does freedom even have meaning ? As the one of the greatest American patriots once said, "give me alternate facts or give me death."

looking for truth on twatter is severely overrated, I think...

rd6B says

I wonder why he is so late with this.

rd6B says

I wonder why he is so late with this.

WWE Follower and Reality Show Master was waiting for a black-and-white moment with a high profile individual and case that could not really be disputed, such as "Fact-checking" the idea of Voter Fraud, which is so ridiculous to anybody with a shred of knowledge and honesty.

It had to be a situation that wasn't relative (ie Yoel Roth tweets versus Candice Owens or James Wood tweets)

marcus says

If the President can't lie on social media without being fact checked, does freedom even have meaning ? As the one of the greatest American patriots once said, "give me alternate facts or give me death."

Trying to claim voter fraud doesn't exist, and mail-in ballots isn't a problem, isn't fact-checking.

Within the past few months, people can and have been charged and convicted of voter fraud, including cases involving absentee/mail-in ballots.

Nor is trying to claim "X isn't much of a big deal. Here's Why". That's not fact-checking. That's narrative driving. "I don't care about this problem" != Factchecking

Twitter's "Fact-Checking", like that of Polifact, Snopes, and others, is one-sided. They'd never fact-check "Manhattan will be under water in 12 years" or "White Supremacy is a major problem", for example.

An Equivalent would be: "You can indeed be Black without voting for Biden."

Fact Checking is: "Biden claimed to be in Vermont, but was really in New Hampshire when he made that remark"

Democrats 1960-2008: The Media is too powerful and too tightly controlled by Corporations. Question Authority!
Democrats 2008- : Close Media Ownership is actually a good thing, and there is too much free speech on the internet. Questioning experts is racist.

NoCoupForYou says

Nor is trying to claim "X isn't much of a big deal. Here's Why"

So Tweets have been removed for that ?

Just admit it, without Trump most extreme lies, your life has no meaning.

What were Trump's lies that triggered this ?

marcus says

So Tweets have been removed for that ?

No, they get "fact-checked" for that.

Example:

Somebody's Tweety: "X is a problem. We need to make sure X is not the way we do the hokey-pokey"
BIG CORP: "Here's a link we're flagging that tweety with to explain why X isn't a problem."

Which isn't even a fact-check, but buttinsky narrative control attempt.

A real fact check would be:

Somebody's Tweety: "Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue in 1942"
BIG CORP: "Fact-check: Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue in 1492."

And it would also have to say:

Somebody's Woke Tweety: "Kwanzaa is an ancient African Harvest Holiday"
BIG CORP: "Fact-Check: Kwanzaa developed by Black Nationalists in the 1960s."

And go after incorrect information about Kwanzaa as much as it factchecks European Explorers.

Fortwaynemobile says

Finally fair treatment along with other media.

WHAT?!!!

I don’t like the power these tech companies have but I’m not sure this is the answer.

It seems to me this will result in more censorship, not less. Previously, if Trump tweets something libelous, like “morning joe killed his intern”, Twitter could decide to censor it, but they did not have to.

Now, since Twitter is liable for content posted by users, if morning joe sends them a cease and desist letter they have to take it down. And in fact if they take it down but continue to allow Trump to tweet crap about Joe, they might be forced to boot Trump from twitter altogether or else face lawsuits for continuing to allow a known hater and liar to tweet.

I think instead a better idea is to recognize that censorship itself is a form of speech and libel. It causes all kinds of damage and if you are censored you should be able to sue and if you can show that your Tweet was censored for unfair reasons you should get compensated.

Last I checked, you need to log in just to read /the_donald, something Reddit doesn't require for explicit porn subreddits.

Reddit also allows subreddit mods to remove posts that are pro-Trump from /politics, period.

Yet it claims invulnerability to any lawsuits that might arise, like whatsherface in CA-25's nuder brushing pics under Section 230.

Their business model is based on getting all the advert money while not spending anything on content creators and editors. Hiring shitload of editors for all the content being generated by millions of users is going to be hella expensive. And if forced to go pre-moderation route - it's lights out. Even NY fucking T would be more profitable then.

OccasionalCortex says

rd6B says

I wonder why he is so late with this.

He was waiting for Zuck or Jack to totally fuck up. It was Jack who did so. Legal Casus Beli delivered.

I honestly don’t understand why Jack let his “libertarian” platform turn into leftist sensorship of the right platform.

HEYYOU says

I'm glad that America has no problems so we can focus on social media disparities.

There’s also gay marriages, women protests, race riots, tranny protests. America has its priorities in a strange place on the left.

Right has it’s issue with abortions, another gem.

OccasionalCortex says

If they had just banned Trump, they wouldn't be in the legal hot water that they are.

Which is the problem. I don’t care if someone wants to post a counter argument. All there “fact check” thing is a promoted tweet. Who cares?

What is corrosive is banning, censoring, and filtering on supposedly “open” platforms. That needs to end, just not sure how.

It doesn't matter if reddit/youtube/twitter/facebook censor people if you exercise your God given freedom of choice.

Anyone who thinks the government does a good job of regulating anything, raise your hand. Right. So this is meaningless at best, an excuse for more free speech suppression at worst. Oh, did you not know that any law attempting to enforce what is allowed or not allowed when it comes to the 1st Amendment is subject to abuse??

Operation Bareback Spez measures the number of unambiguously violent comments on several Reddit subreddits, specifically in relation to violence against police.

https://thedonald.win/p/Fg3AOMYU/operation-bareback-spez--we-need/

NuttBoxer says

Anyone who thinks the government does a good job of regulating anything, raise your hand. Right. So this is meaningless at best, an excuse for more free speech suppression at worst. Oh, did you not know that any law attempting to enforce what is allowed or not allowed when it comes to the 1st Amendment is subject to abuse??

The key element that is at play here:

Big Tech is immune from being sued over content on it's site, IN RETURN for not banning anything that isn't criminal, lewd, obscene.

Big Tech wants to keep it's immunity from being sued like an Open Forum, while behaving as a Publisher by censoring or opposing or views not popular in the SFBA.

It can have one, or the other - but not both.

Big Tech is Free to be a Publisher - but if somebody tweets a private address of somebody on Twitter and they get hurt because of it, they're gonna get their asses sued for millions.

NoCoupForYou says

NuttBoxer says

Anyone who thinks the government does a good job of regulating anything, raise your hand. Right. So this is meaningless at best, an excuse for more free speech suppression at worst. Oh, did you not know that any law attempting to enforce what is allowed or not allowed when it comes to the 1st Amendment is subject to abuse??

The key element that is at play here:

Big Tech is immune from being sued over content on it's site, IN RETURN for not banning anything that isn't criminal, lewd, obscene.

Big Tech wants to keep it's immunity from being sued like an Open Forum, while behaving as a Publisher by censoring or opposing or views not popular in the SFBA.

It can have one, or the other - but not both.

Big Tech is Free to be a Publisher - but if somebody tweets a private address of somebody on Twitter and they get hurt because of it, they're gonna get their asses sued for millions.

Right in a way those protections are already. government intervention since Joe schmoe can get sued for pretty much anything and twatter and faceborg can't. If you reserve the right to censor and edit at will then this implies that you're choosing your content to a significant degree and thus you should be fully liable for damages incurred from libel, slander or doxxing. Can't have it both ways.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/techwatch/nb-staff/2020/05/28/33-examples-twitters-anti-conservative-bias

33 Examples of Twitter’s Anti-Conservative Bias

https://spectator.us/twitter-spreads-riot-porn-censors-president-vowing-restore-law-order/

But if you want an insight into how progressive thinking warps common sense, I can think of no better example. People on the streets calling for murder, arson and destruction — all in the name of racial justice, of course — are widely broadcast. A President calling for the restoration of law and order is muted. That’s the radical left’s idea of ‘social justice’. It has a bias towards anarchy.

Patrick says

Good point. He should have done that instantly upon taking office.

Maybe something changed.

Might have been this:

Trump has been aware of these problems for a number of years, and has repeatedly threatened to do something about social media censorship. Unsurprisingly, it was only when Twitter interfered in his own account that the President took action. Earlier this week, Trump posted two tweets warning about voter fraud in the upcoming election. An anonymous editor at Twitter appended labels to each tweet to warn users that they were factually inaccurate. Many have since pointed out that this is a questionable assessment, with the Wall Street Journal noting that Trump ‘isn’t lying’ when he warns about the possibility of voter fraud. Given that similar fact-checking procedures have not been applied to prominent figures in the Democratic party, this was always bound to result in accusations of bias.

https://spectator.us/internet-bill-rights/

Make an example of that company @patrick
Teach the others what happens when they mess with the Poobah!

I called all of their VC's, and happened on one who said he would definitely have a word with them. He didn't seem to like the fact that they were rejecting candidates specifically for political reasons.

But such filtering of engineers for "ideological purity" is almost universal in Silicon Valley and San Francisco. Anyone who questions the mainstream media lies, distortions, and omissions in public is unlikely to be employed.

Trump's Tweets about repealing section 230 are the wrong way to go and would make it legally dangerous to run a forum at all. His point about limiting 230 to cases where the platform is not selectively editing according to the politics of the poster is the right way to go.

Makes it U.S. policy that platforms who selectively edit, censor, or are not acting in “good faith” with regards to content will not receive the liability protection included in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Patrick says

His point about limiting 230 to cases where the platform is not selectively editing according to the politics of the poster is the right way to go.

And who determines if they are doing this? And isn’t it their free speech right to do so? The proposal is basically that you must not censor voices you disagree with (suppress your right to free speech) or else we’ll allow yahoos to sue you for stuff other yahoos posted.

We need new laws and definitions, what we have isn’t sufficient. We need to distinguish between people running websites and essential utilities. If Twitter doesn’t want Alex Jones posting, that’s their right, if Visa won’t process credit card payments or go daddy won’t host his dns, that’s suppressing his right to free speech.

ignoreme says

If Twitter doesn’t want Alex Jones posting, that’s their right, if Visa won’t process credit card payments or go daddy won’t host his dns, that’s suppressing his right to free speech.

The closer Twitter becomes a monopoly in its niche, the more it really is a suppression of Alex Jones' free speech. It's a question of effective alternatives. Are there any?

On second thought, Trump may be playing a clever game here in attacking section 230. All the big tech companies are going to be up in arms about it, but that just gives the issue more publicity. Trump is expert at using MSM outrage to get publicity. That's how he got elected to begin with.

And when the big tech companies start complaining, millions more people are going to be made aware of the fact that those tech companies routinely censor conservative voices.

OccasionalCortex says

He was waiting for Zuck or Jack to totally fuck up. It was Jack who did so. Legal Casus Beli delivered.

Does he need congress for that? If yes, he does not have majority for 1.5 years already, and should have done that earlier.

OccasionalCortex says

Nope. His EO just asks one bureaucracy to submit a request to another to review section 230. Of course, he probably has all the right people involved already in place to get the outcome he wants. Such is the power of the Administrative State and it is 100% Congress' fault for it being this way.

GOOD.