Why isn't anyone talking about Trump and Twitter?

[eheath]

What's everyone's take on this situation?

If you live under a rock check this out (picked the first article i could find)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/28/trump-social-media-executive-order/

So now he say "today is a big day for social media and FAIRNESS"

My take is that if you're lying/spreading misinformation/posting something that can be disproven by a couple links, it shouldn't be considered free speech. In an era of fake news, rampant misinformation and a society of sheep that praise their phones, I think what twitter is doing is great, as long as its applied to all people, not just trump (which i'm pretty sure they're implementing fact checks on all post).

Trump is once again overreaching democracy, what do you think? I think this executive order could be very bad for overall internet neutrality and I think trump will use this to attack anyone who doesn't follow him. This could lead to more overregulation of the internet that could ultimately stifle any possible future of a free and open internet in the USA. Trump "hates" china, but he wants to be china and honestly its terrifying.

 

[eheath]

I also forgot to add that its complete bullshit that trump wants to do this because social media suppressed conservative content, which is 100% untrue. Twitter is doing this to keep everyone honest, to stop the spread of misinformation. Honestly twitter should just ban all political figures from using their platform.

 

[JAHpow]

So in the very basic of terms, he signed an order essentially banning a private companies ability to censor?

I already understand the argument for and against this. I'm for a private company having the freedom to do what it thinks is best for itself. I'm also against censorship. I guess a question is, when does a private company have the right to dictate what you see and read?

I've said it before, I'll say it again, if you're believing the very first thing you read on the internet, and take no steps to confirm or falsify what you read... you're a dumbass. Like you said eheath, if it's only a couple of clicks to figure out if something is true or false... then it's a person's duty to make those clicks.

 

[CLQ]

It's totally hypocritical and infringes on Twitters 1st amendment rights. He wants to stop Twitter from being able to say what they want, on their website and then turn around and say he is defending free speech?! WTF

 

[eheath]

So in the very basic of terms, he signed an order essentially banning a private companies ability to censor?

I already understand the argument for and against this. I'm for a private company having the freedom to do what it thinks is best for itself. I'm also against censorship. I guess a question is, when does a private company have the right to dictate what you see and read?

I've said it before, I'll say it again, if you're believing the very first thing you read on the internet, and take no steps to confirm or falsify what you read... you're a dumbass. Like you said eheath, if it's only a couple of clicks to figure out if something is true or false... then it's a person's duty to make those clicks.

You can preach all you want on NS, but there are millions of people who don't double check, believe everything they see, etc.

This isn't totally about censorship, this is about twitter enforcing editorial on tweets, i.e. adding a fact checking link below your tweet, trump wants to lie on twitter without anyone call him out, he knows most of his followers are sheep that believe anything he says.

I see this as the president overstepping his authority to change something that makes him upset, not to make twitter/social media more fair. He can't win the election if every tweet about the opposition is fact checked and disproven every time.

 

[CLQ]

So in the very basic of terms, he signed an order essentially banning a private companies ability to censor?

I already understand the argument for and against this. I'm for a private company having the freedom to do what it thinks is best for itself. I'm also against censorship. I guess a question is, when does a private company have the right to dictate what you see and read?

I've said it before, I'll say it again, if you're believing the very first thing you read on the internet, and take no steps to confirm or falsify what you read... you're a dumbass. Like you said eheath, if it's only a couple of clicks to figure out if something is true or false... then it's a person's duty to make those clicks.

It's not even censorship, all they did was add a fact checker to 2 of trumps tweets and he loses his mind. Those tweets are still there, there is just something there saying what he said is factually wrong.

 

[little1337]

You can preach all you want on NS, but there are millions of people who don't double check, believe everything they see, etc.

This isn't totally about censorship, this is about twitter enforcing editorial on tweets, i.e. adding a fact checking link below your tweet, trump wants to lie on twitter without anyone call him out, he knows most of his followers are sheep that believe anything he says.

I see this as the president overstepping his authority to change something that makes him upset, not to make twitter/social media more fair. He can't win the election if every tweet about the opposition is fact checked and disproven every time.

It’s sad but even if the fact check stays below his tweets, his followers won’t care and will think it’s liberal twitter trying to discredit everything he says. Hopefully I’m wrong tho

 

[eheath]

It’s sad but even if the fact check stays below his tweets, his followers won’t care and will think it’s liberal twitter trying to discredit everything he says. Hopefully I’m wrong tho

Yeah its hard telling, certainly his loyal followers might think that, but maybe some people on the fence will see how much he lies and wont support that. I think he'll win the next election, but I'd be happy if he didn't.

 

[little1337]

Yeah its hard telling, certainly his loyal followers might think that, but maybe some people on the fence will see how much he lies and wont support that. I think he'll win the next election, but I'd be happy if he didn't.

True I might just be too deep in the cynical twitter hole. I’m sure there’s plenty of people who will actually care that the information is false

 

[JAHpow]

You can preach all you want on NS, but there are millions of people who don't double check, believe everything they see, etc.

This isn't totally about censorship, this is about twitter enforcing editorial on tweets, i.e. adding a fact checking link below your tweet, trump wants to lie on twitter without anyone call him out, he knows most of his followers are sheep that believe anything he says.

I see this as the president overstepping his authority to change something that makes him upset, not to make twitter/social media more fair. He can't win the election if every tweet about the opposition is fact checked and disproven every time.

I've also said that speech should have the equal chance to be praised as much as scrutinized. So Trump should be able to say/tweet what he wants, and Twitter should be able to do their fact check thing as they want as well. They're a private company. I think I'm falling on the side of Twitter for this one.

**This post was edited on May 28th 2020 at 6:28:09pm

 

[patagonialuke]

Nervous / curious to see how this pans out, but right now, I mostly just can't get over the irony of it all.

Specifically, the majority of the people who refuse to wear masks and/or follow social distancing policies solely because it's "infringing on their personal freedom" are likely the ones who simultaneously support this order. There are exceptions of course, but I feel like that's a pretty safe assumption for most of that group.

I can see why they'd hold those two opinions if they don't look into what Twitter actually did (not censor, but add more info) and just read some headlines or tweets from their echo chamber, but I feel like that alone illustrates (1) that most people don't want to do any thinking for themselves, especially if it goes against their personal view and (2) will consequently believe whoever they want to believe. And those two things basically seem like the reason why Twitter decided to do this in the first place?

 

[BedBugDoug]

To apply a fact or fiction filter to anything a politician says is pointless. I'll save Twitter the trouble and just stamp every tweet with 100% bullshit.

But on a serious note, people are convinced that the other side is spreading lies and their side is preaching truth. And with tech companies being mostly liberal, it's easy to understand why Trump would be mad about this. Especially when everything politicians say are half truths, at best, with their own spin put on it.

 

[theabortionator]

This is why the polar sports teamlike political shit show we're in sucks. My team rules, your team droolz, her her he he lots of anger something something fuck you!

Everything my side does is right, eveything your side does is wrong? How can you not see that? Are you blind?!?!?

Everyone is going to have their own beliefs and biases but our political system is super fucked. Everyone is right, anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. Mothing positive changes and everyone get's saltier and bitches about the other guys on social media. Murica

 

[little1337]

This is why the polar sports teamlike political shit show we're in sucks. My team rules, your team droolz, her her he he lots of anger something something fuck you!

Everything my side does is right, eveything your side does is wrong? How can you not see that? Are you blind?!?!?

Everyone is going to have their own beliefs and biases but our political system is super fucked. Everyone is right, anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. Mothing positive changes and everyone get's saltier and bitches about the other guys on social media. Murica

I hate to admit it but I'm definitely guilty of thinking like this sometimes. I really wish there was a truly neutral way to get information these days but it really seems like everything takes a side. I definitely think I should take more time to understand other sides of an argument before jumping to what my gut is telling me.

 

[ScaryDumpTruck]

I don't see it as a bad thing considering Facebook and Twitter tend to censor the other side.

 

[Lonely]

So in the very basic of terms, he signed an order essentially banning a private companies ability to censor?

I already understand the argument for and against this. I'm for a private company having the freedom to do what it thinks is best for itself. I'm also against censorship. I guess a question is, when does a private company have the right to dictate what you see and read?

I've said it before, I'll say it again, if you're believing the very first thing you read on the internet, and take no steps to confirm or falsify what you read... you're a dumbass. Like you said eheath, if it's only a couple of clicks to figure out if something is true or false... then it's a person's duty to make those clicks.

Twitter is a private company. Trump threatened to shut down twitter, a private company, for flagging-not deleting, a tweet that absolutely did have false information. His tweet did not get deleted. He is not being censored. This is censorship and a complete overstep. How people are okay with having a president who threatens to retract emergency funding over registered voters being able to vote is beyond me.

 

[Lonely]

To apply a fact or fiction filter to anything a politician says is pointless. I'll save Twitter the trouble and just stamp every tweet with 100% bullshit.

But on a serious note, people are convinced that the other side is spreading lies and their side is preaching truth. And with tech companies being mostly liberal, it's easy to understand why Trump would be mad about this. Especially when everything politicians say are half truths, at best, with their own spin put on it.

Trump doesn't tweet half truths. The tweet in question wasn't a half truth. It was blatantly false information.

 

[Scaredwhiteboy]

I haven't read the order, but I fully support the goal of preventing online censorship. The five largest social media networks in the US are all headquartered within 30 miles of each other in one of the country's most politically homogenous metropolitan areas. The three largest (Youtube, Facebook, and Instagram), despite being publicly traded companies, are entirely controlled by just three people (Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Mark Zuckerberg). We should absolutely not be granting these unelected CEOs carte blanche to censor whoever they feel like.

If you're a small forum, censorship is acceptable because your users can likely go elsewhere. If you're a big social media site with no real alternative (Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Reddit), censorship is not acceptable. Trust-busting laws exist to prevent large companies from using their dominant market position to harm consumers. These companies shouldn't be allowed to censor arbitrarily unless the users harmed by their censorship have a suitable alternative that won't censor them.

Until somebody creates a micro-blogging platform with a network as large as twitter that doesn't censor half of the political spectrum, Twitter should be forced to be a neutral platform.

 

[eheath]

I haven't read the order, but I fully support the goal of preventing online censorship. The five largest social media networks in the US are all headquartered within 30 miles of each other in one of the country's most politically homogenous metropolitan areas. The three largest (Youtube, Facebook, and Instagram), despite being publicly traded companies, are entirely controlled by just three people (Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Mark Zuckerberg). We should absolutely not be granting these unelected CEOs carte blanche to censor whoever they feel like.

If you're a small forum, censorship is acceptable because your users can likely go elsewhere. If you're a big social media site with no real alternative (Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Reddit), censorship is not acceptable. Trust-busting laws exist to prevent large companies from using their dominant market position to harm consumers. These companies shouldn't be allowed to censor arbitrarily unless the users harmed by their censorship have a suitable alternative that won't censor them.

Until somebody creates a micro-blogging platform with a network as large as twitter that doesn't censor half of the political spectrum, Twitter should be forced to be a neutral platform.

Twitter isn't censoring anyone and thats not what the order is about at all.

 

[jca]

if you're believing the very first thing you read on the internet, and take no steps to confirm or falsify what you read... you're a dumbass. Like you said eheath, if it's only a couple of clicks to figure out if something is true or false... then it's a person's duty to make those clicks.

I completely agree. But it's pretty evident that the many people out there are either incapable or just don't care enough.

 

[Scaredwhiteboy]

Twitter isn't censoring anyone and thats not what the order is about at all.

Twitter is censoring a lot of people. You can find a pretty lengthy list of people they've censored on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions

Censorship is exactly what the order is about. You shouldn't need to go any farther than the title to figure that out: "Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship"

 

[CalumSKI]

Seems like he took away peoples right to free speech

Sound pre illegal to me idk

 

[eheath]

Twitter is censoring a lot of people. You can find a pretty lengthy list of people they've censored on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions

Censorship is exactly what the order is about. You shouldn't need to go any farther than the title to figure that out: "Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship"

Now you're just being dramatic, this order is about changing the rules on how social media relates to media and other websites. I'll let you do your own reading as the article I posted laid it out pretty well, or search on your news source of choice.

This doesn't really do anything about the fact checking situation, trump/the white house is basically doing this to bully twitter (and other social media) into allowing anyone to post anything IE fake news, misinformation and propaganda. Now, this is certainly a progressive idea, but trump loves it because thats how he controls his pawns, like you.

Either way, the government is trying to intervene on how a private company operates because they don't like how they're operating. Why doesn't trump/other conservatives stop using twitter and other social medias if they feel so persecuted? Everything operated just fine before social media, but yet trump knows its essential as does everyone else in the world. Nothing will likely happen because of this order, but trump is really pushing his boundries.

 

[FruitBootPro]

My take is that if you're lying/spreading misinformation/posting something that can be disproven by a couple links, it shouldn't be considered free speech. In an era of fake news, rampant misinformation and a society of sheep that praise their phones, I think what twitter is doing is great, as long as its applied to all people, not just trump (which i'm pretty sure they're implementing fact checks on all post).

So lying to someone in person via speech is legal, lying about something in public in front of a group is legal...lies are protected speech under the 1st Amendment. Misinformation should be legal, especially when it something subjective. Only defamation and libel aren't protected in America and even then America's defamation laws are less protective than other more progressive countries

 

[eheath]

So lying to someone in person via speech is legal, lying about something in public in front of a group is legal...lies are protected speech under the 1st Amendment. Misinformation should be legal, especially when it something subjective. Only defamation and libel aren't protected in America and even then America's defamation laws are less protective than other more progressive countries

I suppose referring to "free speech" was the wrong thing there, I believe that private companies like twitter should be able to restrict and/or suppress fake news, misinformation and propaganda, because they are so widespread and used by millions, misinformation in incredibly dangerous.

 

[FruitBootPro]

I suppose referring to "free speech" was the wrong thing there, I believe that private companies like twitter should be able to restrict and/or suppress fake news, misinformation and propaganda, because they are so widespread and used by millions, misinformation in incredibly dangerous.

Yes that makes sense, owners of social media platforms should be able to regulate their content. I agree with that, but the government really shouldn't have a hand in how they do it imo

 

[eheath]

Yes that makes sense, owners of social media platforms should be able to regulate their content. I agree with that, but the government really shouldn't have a hand in how they do it imo

We agree about this, but I also think the government can't actually do anything either, just bully them. As large corporations have run america in the past, the tech giants will too.

 

[SSteezle]

People that are upset about this are a bunch of whiners that will bitch about anything. The order is protecting freedom of speech. I'm not sure what the issue is here. The people bitching about this are still able to post whatever they like online, it doesn't effect them at all, they are the ones that are letting it effect them.

Cry me a river eheath, you mad you can't sensor me?

 

[eheath]

Cry me a river eheath, you mad you can't sensor me?

I can censor you all I want on newschoolers.com, but I would never do that

 

[eheath]

People that are upset about this are a bunch of whiners that will bitch about anything. The order is protecting freedom of speech. I'm not sure what the issue is here. The people bitching about this are still able to post whatever they like online, it doesn't effect them at all, they are the ones that are letting it effect them.

And again, this order or the posts on twitter have anything to do with censorship. The order is changing the way social media is viewed by the government, making it more into a news organization than a UGC site. This means twitter could be held liable for what people post on twitter and it also means they can send the Federal Trade Commission after them too and enforce strict regulations on them, some pretty major things that twitter and other social medias didn't have to worry about in the past that will completely alter their businesses.

I think it's unfair to the nature of the platforms, they would likely have to completely change how they operate if something were to come of this order... But nothing will happen, this is just a shot over the bow by the white house to twitter and to social media, they don't want people to know when the president is lying on twitter, because it happens nearly every time he tweets.

 

[iggyskier]

The order is protecting freedom of speech.

For the rest of us - can you explain in detail how the President's freedom of speech is being suppressed?

 

[SSteezle]

For the rest of us - can you explain in detail how the President's freedom of speech is being suppressed?

When did I say that it was?

 

[SSteezle]

And again, this order or the posts on twitter have anything to do with censorship. The order is changing the way social media is viewed by the government, making it more into a news organization than a UGC site. This means twitter could be held liable for what people post on twitter and it also means they can send the Federal Trade Commission after them too and enforce strict regulations on them, some pretty major things that twitter and other social medias didn't have to worry about in the past that will completely alter their businesses.

I think it's unfair to the nature of the platforms, they would likely have to completely change how they operate if something were to come of this order... But nothing will happen, this is just a shot over the bow by the white house to twitter and to social media, they don't want people to know when the president is lying on twitter, because it happens nearly every time he tweets.

I disagree. People have different opinions, it's nothing new, so you shouldn't get so worked up about it.

 

[iggyskier]

When did I say that it was?

I must be misunderstanding what your post meant.

 

[eheath]

I disagree. People have different opinions, it's nothing new, so you shouldn't get so worked up about it.

You disagree with what dude? You haven't said anything that relates to the thread topic, what you quoted or anything else in the thread, you wrote a reply so you could talk shit to me then completely backed off? You could at least express your opinion about the topic instead of dropping a quick mini rant about censorship and free speech with a fuck you at the end. Why did you even respond to the thread?

 

[ScaryDumpTruck]

For the rest of us - can you explain in detail how the President's freedom of speech is being suppressed?

It's not all just about the president. Basically any large conservative network or person is being censored. Examples being Steven Crowder, PragerU and Republican candidates have gotten their ads pulled over bs reasons.

 

[MiIfHunter]

Ya bcuz they spew hate speech. They are censored for a reason. Ppl don’t need to be exposed to that horseshit

It's not all just about the president. Basically any large conservative network or person is being censored. Examples being Steven Crowder, PragerU and Republican candidates have gotten their ads pulled over bs reasons.

**This post was edited on May 28th 2020 at 10:45:13pm

 

[SnowshoeThompson]

I also forgot to add that its complete bullshit that trump wants to do this because social media suppressed conservative content, which is 100% untrue. Twitter is doing this to keep everyone honest, to stop the spread of misinformation. Honestly twitter should just ban all political figures from using their platform.

Is that a joke? Lmao.

 

[eheath]

Is that a joke? Lmao.

Great argument, I'm so convinced.

 

[Lonely]

I haven't read the order, but I fully support the goal of preventing online censorship. The five largest social media networks in the US are all headquartered within 30 miles of each other in one of the country's most politically homogenous metropolitan areas. The three largest (Youtube, Facebook, and Instagram), despite being publicly traded companies, are entirely controlled by just three people (Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Mark Zuckerberg). We should absolutely not be granting these unelected CEOs carte blanche to censor whoever they feel like.

If you're a small forum, censorship is acceptable because your users can likely go elsewhere. If you're a big social media site with no real alternative (Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Reddit), censorship is not acceptable. Trust-busting laws exist to prevent large companies from using their dominant market position to harm consumers. These companies shouldn't be allowed to censor arbitrarily unless the users harmed by their censorship have a suitable alternative that won't censor them.

Until somebody creates a micro-blogging platform with a network as large as twitter that doesn't censor half of the political spectrum, Twitter should be forced to be a neutral platform.

You support a president who wants to censor private businesses and suppress the vote. Sick

 

[SSteezle]

You disagree with what dude? You haven't said anything that relates to the thread topic, what you quoted or anything else in the thread, you wrote a reply so you could talk shit to me then completely backed off? You could at least express your opinion about the topic instead of dropping a quick mini rant about censorship and free speech with a fuck you at the end. Why did you even respond to the thread?

I don't care to argue about this topic. I just wanted you to know that some people (like me), read your post and think you sound like a whiner, which is why I said, go cry about it. Maybe that will actually make you feel better.

 

[iggyskier]

It's not all just about the president. Basically any large conservative network or person is being censored. Examples being Steven Crowder, PragerU and Republican candidates have gotten their ads pulled over bs reasons.

Excluding that no one can present real evidence of specific targeting of conservatives on social media (though it is certainly advantageous to make it seem so - and violations of TOS go both ways) and that conservative media is currently crushing FB...



How do the actions of a private business platform prevent any of the people listed above from expressing their views or beliefs as protected by the Constitution? They can think & say whatever they want. Twitter doesn't change that. Their ability to say those things on a private business platform are not what the Constitution protects.

 

[eheath]

I don't care to argue about this topic. I just wanted you to know that some people (like me), read your post and think you sound like a whiner, which is why I said, go cry about it. Maybe that will actually make you feel better.

You either didn't read it, didn't comprehend it, or you're just trying to troll me. Either way, nice to see you, talk to you again in 3 years again.

 

[PeppermillReno]

Who cares Trump isn’t trying to put me on house arrest and take all my rights from some nonsense that I have a 99.98 % survival chance if I get it.

Newsome better hang.

 

[SnowshoeThompson]

Great argument, I'm so convinced.

Your quoting an article from the Washington post, get real dude. You are just as able to take a quote from a right wing website but here we are.

If you have a problem with him fighting censorship and post altering on social media outlets then I have no desire to make a discussion with you regarding political bias.

 

[eheath]

Your quoting an article from the Washington post, get real dude. You are just as able to take a quote from a right wing website but here we are.

If you have a problem with him fighting censorship and post altering on social media outlets then I have no desire to make a discussion with you regarding political bias.

As i wrote in OP it was the first link i saw that was about the executive order, blow me. He's not being censored, once again, no idea where y'all even got that this topic has anything to do with censorship...

 

[shinbangclan]

I also forgot to add that its complete bullshit that trump wants to do this because social media suppressed conservative content, which is 100% untrue. Twitter is doing this to keep everyone honest, to stop the spread of misinformation. Honestly twitter should just ban all political figures from using their platform.

While I don't agree that twitter doesn't have political bias, I will agree with the notion of banning political figures from the platform. Not sure how they would enforce this but its a nice idea.

 

[SnowshoeThompson]

You support a president who wants to censor private businesses and suppress the vote. Sick

Lol

Censor private business or protect social media users personal content?

suppress the vote? Are you joking? changing the majority of our voting system for the 2020 election to a system that is prone to be rid with fraud is fucking retarded. If you can’t leave your house to vote you shouldn’t have a vote at all.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trumps-concern-about-mail-in-ballots-is-completely-legitimate/%3foutputType=amp

 

[Dustin.]

As always, read the source document and follow the money:

Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.

 

[cmski4_]

This is why the polar sports teamlike political shit show we're in sucks. My team rules, your team droolz, her her he he lots of anger something something fuck you!

Everything my side does is right, eveything your side does is wrong? How can you not see that? Are you blind?!?!?

Everyone is going to have their own beliefs and biases but our political system is super fucked. Everyone is right, anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. Mothing positive changes and everyone get's saltier and bitches about the other guys on social media. Murica

YOO what this guy said. I'm not on NS to get political but we are jus causing divide...just because someone has a certain political view doesn't mean we all have to fight about it and judge ppl cuz the support whoever.

 

[JAHpow]

This is why the polar sports teamlike political shit show we're in sucks. My team rules, your team droolz, her her he he lots of anger something something fuck you!

Everything my side does is right, eveything your side does is wrong? How can you not see that? Are you blind?!?!?

Everyone is going to have their own beliefs and biases but our political system is super fucked. Everyone is right, anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. Mothing positive changes and everyone get's saltier and bitches about the other guys on social media. Murica

This is why the polar sports teamlike political shit show we're in sucks. My team rules, your team droolz, her her he he lots of anger something something fuck you!

Everything my side does is right, eveything your side does is wrong? How can you not see that? Are you blind?!?!?

Everyone is going to have their own beliefs and biases but our political system is super fucked. Everyone is right, anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. Mothing positive changes and everyone get's saltier and bitches about the other guys on social media. Murica

I think I just found [tag=104058]@theabortionator[/tag] 's alias