Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
pepperonikkid

Twitter Fact-Checks Trump; Trump Retaliates: ‘Twitter Is Now Interfering In The 2020 Presidential Election,’ ‘Stifling Free Speech’; ‘I, As President, Will Not Allow It’

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

pepperonikkid

Twitter Fact-Checks Trump; Trump Retaliates: ‘Twitter Is Now Interfering In The 2020 Presidential Election,’ ‘Stifling Free Speech’; ‘I, As President, Will Not Allow It’

 

https://www.dailywire.com/

By  Hank Berrien

May 27, 2020

 

Article:

 

On Tuesday night, President Trump slammed Twitter for fact-checking his tweets, which they had begun doing earlier Tuesday, starting with two of Trump’s tweets about mail-in-voting. In his response, Trump accused Twitter of “interfering in the 2020 presidential election” and “stifling free speech,” actions he vowed that he “will not allow.”

“[Twitter] is now interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election,” the president tweeted. “They are saying my statement on Mail-In Ballots, which will lead to massive corruption and fraud, is incorrect, based on fact-checking by Fake News CNN and the Amazon Washington Post. Twitter is completely stifling FREE SPEECH, and I, as President, will not allow it to happen!”

On Tuesday, Twitter placed a warning under two of Trump’s tweets in which he slammed the use of mail-in ballots. The warnings read, “Get the facts about mail-in ballots” with a link to a site that said Trump’s facts were wrong as posited by “CNN, Washington Post and others.”

The fact-checked Trump tweets read: “There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one. That will be followed up with professionals telling all of these people, many of whom have never even thought of voting before, how, and for whom, to vote. This will be a Rigged Election. No way!”

 

 

Full Story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup

Nice, Twitter. Alienate your cash cow. :nuts:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51

The term "Twitter Fact Check" is an oxymoron. . . .

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
19 minutes ago, RedSoloCup said:

Nice, Twitter. Alienate your cash cow. :nuts:

Lefty proggies are all too willing to sacrifice profits for their agendas these days because they are all complete nuts anymore.

Look at how Gillette dissed men with their "toxic masculinity" commercials campaign. They admitted that they knew it would make them lose some customers, but they sure got a surprise when the backlash was much bigger and more costly than their arrogant proggy upper management had expected.

Time for all of us conservatives to start hitting these companies back hard in their wallets. Boycott and sue them right back, just like how they like to do to all of us that they censor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup
1 hour ago, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

Lefty proggies are all too willing to sacrifice profits for their agendas these days because they are all complete nuts anymore.

Look at how Gillette dissed men with their "toxic masculinity" commercials campaign. They admitted that they knew it would make them lose some customers, but they sure got a surprise when the backlash was much bigger and more costly than their arrogant proggy upper management had expected.

Time for all of us conservatives to start hitting these companies back hard in their wallets. Boycott and sue them right back, just like how they like to do to all of us that they censor.

:exactly:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Capn'D

Do yall believe that a private company like Twitter has the right to set it's own standards for conduct?

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
11 minutes ago, Capn'D said:

Do yall believe that a private company like Twitter has the right to set it's own standards for conduct?

Not that simple.

As long as they aren't shaping or creating content they're immune (Like Facebook). But when they start "managing" content they become a publisher. "Fact Checking" is management. And when the "fact checker" has a past a biased as the guy who claims to be the Twitter fact checker it raises a few eyebrows at least. . .

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Capn'D
9 minutes ago, mjperry51 said:

Not that simple.

As long as they aren't shaping or creating content they're immune (Like Facebook). But when they start "managing" content they become a publisher. "Fact Checking" is management. And when the "fact checker" has a past a biased as the guy who claims to be the Twitter fact checker it raises a few eyebrows at least. . .

And I totally agree. "Fact checking" can inadvertently become control over the message.

However, they're basing their decision to put a disclaimer on the President's Tweets on investigations conducted by entities they consider to be trustworthy.

Are they out of line here? The President has a massive audience, he puts out information that runs counter to the facts they have. Twitter feels, based on a preponderance of evidence provided by what they see as legitimate news sources, that the President's tweets need a disclaimer, lest the public receive information that is false and therefore detrimental to democracy.

Every online forum/social media outlet has standards. Last time somebody tried it without standards was 8chan, and it didn't turn out well. The President isn't meeting Twitter's (a private company) standard, so they feel a responsibility to clarify what they see is the truth. The president, in turn, is threatening to shut them down somehow. Who's being unreasonable here?

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown

Shouldn't their policies be applied equally before someone starts railing about how they're being so abused?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Capn'D said:

The President isn't meeting Twitter's (a private company) standard, so they feel a responsibility to clarify what they see is the truth.

Where Is this "Standard" codified? Can I read a copy of it?

ETA: Who decides the Truth? CNN? MSNBC? The Washington Post? What qualifies these groups to determine the "truth"?

Edited by mjperry51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Capn'D
4 minutes ago, mjperry51 said:

Where Is this "Standard" codified? Can I read a copy of it?

ETA: Who decides the Truth? CNN? MSNBC? The Washington Post? What qualifies these groups to determine the "truth"?

I presume it's available on the Twitter website. All forums and social media platforms make their standards available to avoid this sort of thing. Including this one.

As for the source of truth, they cited the investigations conducted by CNN and Wash Post. You may not agree with their veracity as news sources, but similarly the commission created by the Trump Administration following the 2016 election found no evidence of widespread voter fraud. 

The point is, they need a source to base their standards on, and they chose what they thought had the most credibility. What source would you deem appropriate?

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
2 hours ago, Capn'D said:

I presume it's available on the Twitter website. All forums and social media platforms make their standards available to avoid this sort of thing. Including this one.

As for the source of truth, they cited the investigations conducted by CNN and Wash Post. You may not agree with their veracity as news sources, but similarly the commission created by the Trump Administration following the 2016 election found no evidence of widespread voter fraud. 

The point is, they need a source to base their standards on, and they chose what they thought had the most credibility. What source would you deem appropriate?

I don’t trust any “news“ source. CNN, WAPO, any msm. None of them. The “standards” for this fact check seemed to be based on decisions by a Twitter manager who has called the Trump administration Nazis, and has a long documented history of anti-Trumpism. 
 

Standards my butt...


Can you provide any other instance where Twitter labeled a tweet by any one else as factually suspect? Or to put it another way, if Obama has tweeted about the ACA “If you like your plan you can keep your plan.” would Twitter have “fact-checked “ it?

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
USNRETWIFE
5 hours ago, Capn'D said:

And I totally agree. "Fact checking" can inadvertently become control over the message.

However, they're basing their decision to put a disclaimer on the President's Tweets on investigations conducted by entities they consider to be trustworthy.

Are they out of line here? The President has a massive audience, he puts out information that runs counter to the facts they have. Twitter feels, based on a preponderance of evidence provided by what they see as legitimate news sources, that the President's tweets need a disclaimer, lest the public receive information that is false and therefore detrimental to democracy.

Every online forum/social media outlet has standards. Last time somebody tried it without standards was 8chan, and it didn't turn out well. The President isn't meeting Twitter's (a private company) standard, so they feel a responsibility to clarify what they see is the truth. The president, in turn, is threatening to shut them down somehow. Who's being unreasonable here?

And this is what they consider trustworthy.  You know, unbiased and all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel

I'm conflicted a bit on this one..private bidness and all..and yet is Trump the only one this is happening to?... Doesn't seem right does it?..Oh well after a little thought I'm not against this at all..Reason is it's gonna bite the left in the ass big time..Just think about it..whats the worst that can happen?..Trump will simply sharpen his sword, so to speak and, and probably be less incoherent and even nastier and funnier and if they banned him or such well folks can just set up they're own twitter and do it the way they want...and plus imagine the bad "optics" for Jack Dorsey and how many billions he won't make when all of Trumps folks leave?

Kestrel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Capn'D
16 minutes ago, kestrel said:

I'm conflicted a bit on this one..private bidness and all..and yet is Trump the only one this is happening to?... Doesn't seem right does it?..Oh well after a little thought I'm not against this at all..Reason is it's gonna bite the left in the ass big time..Just think about it..whats the worst that can happen?..Trump will simply sharpen his sword, so to speak and, and probably be less incoherent and even nastier and funnier and if they banned him or such well folks can just set up they're own twitter and do it the way they want...and plus imagine the bad "optics" for Jack Dorsey and how many billions he won't make when all of Trumps folks leave?

Kestrel...

It's my understanding that fact-checking is a brand new thing for Twitter because they didn't want anybody (from the left or right) spreading false info about Covid19. 

And I think you're absolutely right about what this would cost Twitter. He is far and away their most popular user, and somebody above referred to him as a cash cow, which he is. But it's because of this that I've been speaking on Twitter's behalf as a private business. I don't think "fact checking" is something they'd jump into lightly. I disagree with the President's idea that they're out to screw him. It's in Twitter's interest to be as apolitical as possible, and while the CEO may have his own political leanings, he still has to answer to a board. Losing billions of dollars by losing their best client would not be in his best interest. 

I believe they made this decision based on a preponderance of evidence suggesting that the President's opinion is wrong based on a new standard they have for accuracy. I know, that's a dangerous thing to say around here. 

They have let him get away with more than they would allow the typical user because of his position and his popularity. From what I gather, most users would probably get banned for accusing someone of murder. They haven't banned him or even censored him, they've simply added a little disclaimer. If they let other users get away with something similar, then I'll start to believe they're pushing some kind of agenda.

  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
3 hours ago, Capn'D said:

It's my understanding that fact-checking is a brand new thing for Twitter because they didn't want anybody (from the left or right) spreading false info about Covid19. 

And I think you're absolutely right about what this would cost Twitter. He is far and away their most popular user, and somebody above referred to him as a cash cow, which he is. But it's because of this that I've been speaking on Twitter's behalf as a private business. I don't think "fact checking" is something they'd jump into lightly. I disagree with the President's idea that they're out to screw him. It's in Twitter's interest to be as apolitical as possible, and while the CEO may have his own political leanings, he still has to answer to a board. Losing billions of dollars by losing their best client would not be in his best interest. 

I believe they made this decision based on a preponderance of evidence suggesting that the President's opinion is wrong based on a new standard they have for accuracy. I know, that's a dangerous thing to say around here. 

They have let him get away with more than they would allow the typical user because of his position and his popularity. From what I gather, most users would probably get banned for accusing someone of murder. They haven't banned him or even censored him, they've simply added a little disclaimer. If they let other users get away with something similar, then I'll start to believe they're pushing some kind of agenda.

"most users would probably get banned for accusing someone of murder"

I've see a lot worse than "accusations of Death" toward Trump....did they get banned?..Kathy Griffith?..Let's not get carried away with any delusion that Twitter/Facebook.Etc is not biased in how they deal with people on the Right..and I think your assertion that they made a decision to "Fact Check" somebodies/anybodies free speech from any  'preponderance of evidence" no offense but its laughable. Its politics plain and simple and if the last 3 yrs haven't shown you who is better at that game then I guess I'm outta pearls here...He'll toss some chum and they will literally jump right of the cliff...so watch for some "Chum" in the next few daze..Later.

Kestrel... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T

Regulation and operation of social media is such a complicated issue that I really don't know where I stand.  I can see multiple sides of all issues.  A few musings:

1) Twitter (and the others) is a private business and the government has no business telling them what to do with their product.

2) Free speech cannot be regulated by the government and Twitter should be able to tell people how to use their service.

3) Whether we like it or not, the internet and social media spaces really are the modern version of the public square.  They are necessary tools for politicians and businesses to succeed.  What's more they're prevalent enough that individuals need them to socialize.  I use the word "need" a bit loosely here.  The Amish prove that we don't need very much from modern society, but if you want to live in the modern world, you do need social media to a certain degree.

4) Due to monopolies, three or four companies effectively control the public square.  If you want to make short form statements, your only choice is Twitter.  If you want something a bit longer with pictures/video or a more "permanent" home, your only choice is Facebook (or to a slightly different degree Instagram).  If you want to post videos of yourself, your only choice is YouTube.  Sure, in theory there are alternatives, but no viewers/readers/audience use them.  They just don't.

5) If 100 years ago Mead or one of the distributors of newspaper issued lengthy fine print of what you're permitted to write down, would that have been okay?  If you were legally forbidden (due to the implicit agreement of end user agreements) from writing down conservative things by all of the paper companies, what would have happened?  How is that different from what social media sites do now?  What if Ma Bell had declared what you could discuss while using their telephone lines and would disconnect your call if you said something they didn't like?

6) Given 4 and 5, do these companies have any sort of responsibility to guarantee free speech on their platforms?  

7) If these platforms start to selectively "fact check" or censor political candidates, politicians, or even politically influential people, at what point should that be considered an in-kind political contribution?  How valuable would the Biden campaign and the Democrat Party find Trump being banned from posting on Twitter for a week?  Silencing your opponent for a week has to be worth millions.

8.) With the internet being a global thing, adversarial nations like China and Russia have the ability to use social media to shape American opinion and sow disinformation.  They can literally weaponize social media against us.  At what point is there a national security implication, and what responsibility do these American companies have to not knowingly aid and abet our enemies either through action or inaction?  If Raytheon were to sell missiles to Iran that were then used on American troops, Raytheon would be in trouble.  If a Silicon Valley tech company sold China security hacking software that was then used to breach a US power plant, that tech company would be done for.  Why should social media companies be any different?

 

 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

From what I am reading today, the brouhaha is because these tech giants have been given special immunities by our lovely Congress.  They said they were just platforms and "not publishers" so they are immune from liability for things that appear on their sites.  However, they are now actively trying to influence and "edit" content, like they did with DJT's tweet, and some lawmakers and elected officials are taking exception to that.  They can't be both an arena for the free exchange of speech and ideas AND a site that edits, censors, or forms information to serve an agenda.  That is the antithesis of free speech and free exchange and, therefore, should lead to the removal of their special immunities.  I saw a Senator introducing a bill to do just that.

Not surprising, Zuckerberg has already issued a statement saying, "Wait, we aren't doing that.  Don't come after us."

Twitter's head fact-checker, Yoel Roth, the "Head of Site Integrity," is a leftist puke who has tweeted that DJT has "actual Nazis" working in the WH and contributed to HRC and tweeted about his contribution.  

Yep, no editorial bias there.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

Trump to sign executive order on social media amid Twitter furor

By CRISTIANO LIMA

05/27/2020 07:36 PM EDT

Updated: 05/28/2020 12:51 AM EDT

President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order aimed at social media companies Thursday, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters Wednesday evening, a move that comes as the president and his allies have escalated their allegations that companies like Twitter and Facebook stifle GOP voices.

The announcement revived fears within the online industry that the Trump administration will target a 1996 statute that protects the companies from lawsuits — an avenue that a growing number of Republican lawmakers are advocating as they press their bias accusations about Silicon Valley.

The statute has helped tech giants earn many billions of dollars from users' tweets, posts, likes, photos and videos, with limited legal liability, while giving them broad leeway to remove material they consider "objectionable." But Trump and his supporters contend they are abusing that power.

"These platforms act like they are potted plants when [in reality] they are curators of user experiences, i.e. the man behind the curtain for everything we can see or hear,” an administration official familiar with the issue said Wednesday night. The person said the order, which was described as broad and high level, would address complaints that the online platforms are deceiving people by picking and choosing what content to allow or block instead of acting as politically neutral platforms or moderators.

The official cautioned that the order's language was likely to change by Thursday.

Any attempt to go after the tech companies through regulations could face serious obstacles, however. The president's own regulators have shown little appetite in the past for taking on scrutiny of tweets and Facebook posts, and federal courts have ruled as recently as Wednesday morning that social media companies are private entities with the legal right to police content on their sites.

Trump and his supporters have been hammering Twitter since the social network labeled a pair of his tweets with a fact-checking notice for the first time on Tuesday, and the president pledged Wednesday that "big action" will follow.

Twitter acted after Trump had alleged without evidence that mail-in ballots are likely to be “substantially fraudulent,” in tweets that the company said contained misleading information about the electoral process. The move triggered an array of rebukes from Republicans, including Trump.

"Big Tech is doing everything in their very considerable power to CENSOR in advance of the 2020 Election. If that happens, we no longer have our freedom," Trump tweeted late Wednesday night to his 80 million Twitter followers, after sounding the same theme more than 14 hours earlier. "I will never let it happen! They tried hard in 2016, and lost. Now they are going absolutely CRAZY. Stay Tuned!!!"

Early Wednesday morning, he had vowed to "strongly regulate" biased social media companies, or even "close them down."

Democrats, meanwhile, have complained that Twitter has been too slow to respond to a litany of abusive, inaccurate or inflammatory tweets from the president, including his recent insinuations that MSNBC host Joe Scarborough may be guilty of murder.

<snip>

Link

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
5 hours ago, JerryL said:

Yep, no editorial bias there.

And if it is in fact "editorial bias" then Twitter is a publisher, and liable for all legal transgressions applicable to publishers. .  .

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
13 hours ago, mjperry51 said:

And if it is in fact "editorial bias" then Twitter is a publisher, and liable for all legal transgressions applicable to publishers. .  .

Exactly...which they are trying to avoid with all the influence and power that they have.  They want the benefits given to them as "social media" while still controlling the message.  Glad DJT is going after them.  

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...