Trump says Twitter is "stifling free speech" after it labels his tweets with fact-check...

[Eflow]

Fact-checking an opinion is not fact-checking anything; it's opinion.

Secondly, Twitter isn't exactly objective; they're biased to the core - they target conservatives on a daily basis; same goes for YouTube/Google/FaceBook.

EVERYONE has the right to voice their opinion, whether snowflakes like it or not.

Twitter needs the POTUS on their platform more than the POTUS needs Twitter.

It is incredible that certain people never call the POTUS a snowflake even though he has the thinnest skin of any president in United States history. In this story he is threatening blatant 1st amendment violations because a private company flagged his post.

Poor little POTUS finally faced a tiny consequence for his compulsive lying and it was too much for him to take.

 

[Capaill]

Their fact checkers are CNN, wapo, and nyt, 3 companies known to spew lies and disinformation. So Twitter's fact check means diddly.

So, they're countering lies with lies? Doesn't look like it. One of the posts on Twitter's fact checking page says:
“Five states — Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and Utah — already vote entirely by mail, sending a ballot to registered voters....” Beyond that, all states already offer absentee mail-in voting.

Trump tweeted that anybody in California would get the vote. The fact checker shows it's only registered voters. And that source is the Californian government.

There are many sources there now, countering Trump's claim, not just the 3 you gave. And obviously we have to rely on the non-right news sources because the right-leaning ones all believe that Trump is the Messiah so they won't counter anything he says. They're not lies, they're just not what you want to hear.

But if you have proof that every single source is a lie and that Trump tweeted the truth, I'd like to read your proof. Until then I remain of the opinion that Trump is not just a liar but a dangerous liar, encouraging his faithful mob to openly attack those that threaten him, with the full protection of POTUS.

 

[tacobravo]

Confirmation bias is strong with these so called "fact checkers" and the fact they only went after Trump shows the bias. Betcha they don't "fact check" Biden and other Democrats.

 

[candle_86]

So, they're countering lies with lies? Doesn't look like it. One of the posts on Twitter's fact checking page says:
“Five states — Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and Utah — already vote entirely by mail, sending a ballot to registered voters....” Beyond that, all states already offer absentee mail-in voting.

Trump tweeted that anybody in California would get the vote. The fact checker shows it's only registered voters. And that source is the Californian government.

There are many sources there now, countering Trump's claim, not just the 3 you gave. And obviously we have to rely on the non-right news sources because the right-leaning ones all believe that Trump is the Messiah so they won't counter anything he says. They're not lies, they're just not what you want to hear.

But if you have proof that every single source is a lie and that Trump tweeted the truth, I'd like to read your proof. Until then I remain of the opinion that Trump is not just a liar but a dangerous liar, encouraging his faithful mob to openly attack those that threaten him, with the full protection of POTUS.

except there is evidence of voter fraud with mail in voting, multiple stories every year of it being opened and modified, of it not being counted in time, it was posted on time but somehow they just forgot to include a bunch of ballots until it was to late to add them. It's documented.

I'm all for a secure vote, and the federal governments stance isn't far enough. Unless your handicapped or overseas on Offical government bussiness you must appear in person to vote in all federal elections, that's how the law should be written, and ironically the federal government is within their rights to do so.

As for the media, id rather trust the right leaning, than anything spewed by the left, I have a hard time telling the difference between CNN and weekly world news, it seems they post the same content and stories and both carry as much merit, aka none.

 

[Lew Zealand]

As for the media, id rather trust the right leaning, than anything spewed by the left, I have a hard time telling the difference between CNN and weekly world news, it seems they post the same content and stories and both carry as much merit, aka none.

This works just as well:

As for the media, id rather trust the left leaning, than anything spewed by the right, I have a hard time telling the difference between Fox news and weekly world news, it seems they post the same content and stories and both carry as much merit, aka none.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Confirmation bias is strong with these so called "fact checkers" and the fact they only went after Trump shows the bias. Betcha they don't "fact check" Biden and other Democrats.

Biden, etc. need to post something on Twitter that's widely recognized as questionable. Dig one up and let's submit it to Twitter for checking.

 

[candle_86]

Biden, etc. need to post something on Twitter that's widely recognized as questionable. Dig one up and let's submit it to Twitter for checking.

Biden saying he didn't molest anyone, there you go they didn't fact check those statements, but we all know he's incorrect in saying he didn't

 

[Lew Zealand]

Submit the tweet to Twitter then and ask them to fact check it.

 

[captaincranky]

I still love Trump!
Don't care about the silly things he says and the haters making every little comment into a big deal.
Stick a pacifier in your mouth and put on a fresh diaper.
What Trump stands for is correct, liberty, free market and capitalism, the best three things ever made and why our country is so great, and thats why he won the Presidency and its why he will win it again. And don't give me that 1% crap, you can't legislate the poor/lazy into wealth. If you want something in this country, get off your can and go earn it.

So, due to the Covid epidemic, does this mean you'll be washing your Tide pods and hydroxychloroquine down with Clorox?

Trust me, you'll be the one who needs a fresh diaper after that.

As for your "get a job", rationale, big pharma, the oil industry, the medical community, and cheap Chinese labor, has such a big head start, it's really hard to find a place to get going.

 

[Axil00]

1. If you say something that objectively has no supporting data, you're making BS up and can be called out for it.

The problem with this is when you call yourself a "fact-checker" it is incumbent on you to prove somthing to be false if you're going to label it false.
[/quote]
No one knows what the results of an unprecedented availability of mail in ballots will be. Trump could claim it will cause aliens to attack and he wouldn't be factual wrong, just an *****.

Furthermore when you say there is "no evidence " of something you usually are objectively factually wrong. Let's take the hydroxychloroquine mess. If one person gets covid takes hydroxychloroquine and gets better there is evidence it works. Its incredibly weak and useless evidence but its still evidence.

2. Social media platforms target conservatives because conservatives more are more likely to spread objectively false media, conspiracy narratives, and legitimately fake news (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ake-news-junk-news-oxford-study-a8199056.html). Conservatives literally share more fake news then all other political viewpoints COMBINED. So, yeah, if you're constantly sharing stuff that isn't true, you're going to get targeted more for fact-checking and deletion. This isn't an "agenda" it's just counteracting stupidity.

Did you read the article you linked because it does not support your statement that conservatives spread more objective false claims. They researchers included news they found "misleading or deceptive" extremely subjective terms that can be applied to just about anything. For instance I find the article you linked misleading and deceptive based on the above.

3. Just because you have the right to express your opinion (which is a right you actually don't have on private platforms) doesn't mean that you get to be free of the consequences.

I agree here but once a platform begins curating political content they are subject to all the laws and regulations that entails.

 

[Evernessince]

The Russians have done a fantastic job at dividing Americans I see. Some people need to spend less time on the internet or watching "news" and more time in real life.

People are becoming so entrenched in their "teams" that they can't even see the obvious anymore.

Just take amstech's post for example. That's an insane amount of psychological anchoring.

 

[captaincranky]

Biden saying he didn't molest anyone, there you go they didn't fact check those statements, but we all know he's incorrect in saying he didn't

Well, at least he hasn't cut a $130.000. check to a porn star to try and shut her up yet.

And then there's this:

 

[bexwhitt]

So when Trump himself voted by mail HE committed fraud? Oh I know it's the old 'do what I say not what I do' thing...damn hypocrite!!!

He knows he can't win if everybody can vote. GOP voter suppression FTW.

 

[Gaara]

Trump threatened to impose federal regulations on — or even shut down — social media platforms"
The Dictator has spoken

 

[gamerk2]

What is it with those who take pride in telling others free speech doesn't exist on private platforms, as if they're the only ones that know this? Or they just hate having rights.

No, it's a statement of a fact. Private entities are free to regulate content in whatever manner they deem fit.

EDIT

Topical: Now backed by court decision:

Appeals court ruling suggests little legal traction for Trump's anti-Twitter campaign

D.C. Circuit decision spurns claims that social media giants broke the law by banning a conservative provocateur

www.politico.com

The appeals court judges said that, despite the companies’ power, they cannot violate the First Amendment because it regulates only governments, not the private sector.

 

[gamerk2]

except there is evidence of voter fraud with mail in voting, multiple stories every year of it being opened and modified, of it not being counted in time, it was posted on time but somehow they just forgot to include a bunch of ballots until it was to late to add them. It's documented.

Yes, there have been a total of 143 documents mail in fraud cases going back to the year 2000. Or put another way, less then 1 per state per presidential election cycle.

California's system is also relatively secure. They not only have an app the report back the status of your mail-in-ballot in real time, but if the person in question shows up to vote in person, the mail-in-ballot automatically gets disregarded. You can also turn in the ballot directly to your local post-office if you are concerned about people randomly going through your mailbox and forging your signature.

Which brings us to the final point: In California the only thing you need to do when you show up is sign your signature, which is also the only requirement for turning in a mail in ballot. So how exactly would voting in person be "more secure" at all when the requirements are EXACTLY the same?

 

[candle_86]

Yes, there have been a total of 143 documents mail in fraud cases going back to the year 2000. Or put another way, less then 1 per state per presidential election cycle.

California's system is also relatively secure. They not only have an app the report back the status of your mail-in-ballot in real time, but if the person in question shows up to vote in person, the mail-in-ballot automatically gets disregarded. You can also turn in the ballot directly to your local post-office if you are concerned about people randomly going through your mailbox and forging your signature.

Which brings us to the final point: In California the only thing you need to do when you show up is sign your signature, which is also the only requirement for turning in a mail in ballot. So how exactly would voting in person be "more secure" at all when the requirements are EXACTLY the same?

See that's an issue also, you should be required to show a state id or drivers license.

 

[amstech]

So, due to the Covid epidemic, does this mean you'll be washing your Tide pods and hydroxychloroquine down with Clorox?

The people who took that literally are the same people that we make the 'caution hot' warning labels for on coffee cups.

 

[axiomatic13]

A few posters here willing to overlook the crimes of the worst President in modern history is totally "on brand" for MAGA morons.

 

[candle_86]

Just remember when the next democrat is elected president (not this election though it wont happen), the folks on the left have given the conservatives carte blanche to burn as many effigies as him as we wish, while rioting, and destroying private property, we likely wont though, because unlike the left we get up in the morning because we have jobs and provide for ourselves.

 

[gamerk2]

See that's an issue also, you should be required to show a state id or drivers license.

Which cost money. So having to show ID would be a form of Poll Tax since citizens right to vote would be tied to a paywall.

At minimum, the state would have to provide ID to every citizen at cost. And even that has problems; what about people stealing IDs from peoples mailboxes to prevent them from voting? So in the end, all that does is get us back to the same exact argument we're having now.

 

[candle_86]

A few posters here willing to overlook the crimes of the worst President in modern history is totally "on brand" for MAGA morons.

No we are well aware of the massive crimes Obama commited while in office.
1. Gun running to mexico
2. Selling nuclear secrets to Iran
3. Abandoning our service members while under attack from a foreign enemy
4. Using the IRS to target organizations he didn't agree with
5. Using the Justice department and FBI to go after political opponents

 

[candle_86]

Which cost money. So having to show ID would be a form of Poll Tax since citizens right to vote would be tied to a paywall.

At minimum, the state would have to provide ID to every citizen at cost. And even that has problems; what about people stealing IDs from peoples mailboxes to prevent them from voting? So in the end, all that does is get us back to the same exact argument we're having now.

by law every citizen is required to have some sort of ID, unless they don't drive, buy tobacco, paint, booze, or any other number of age restricted items, don't use pawn shops, don't buy guns or ammunition, never board a plane, or dont use a debit/credit card to make a purchase at a store.

 

[gamerk2]

by law every citizen is required to have some sort of ID, unless they don't drive, buy tobacco, paint, booze, or any other number of age restricted items, don't use pawn shops, don't buy guns or ammunition, never board a plane, or dont use a debit/credit card to make a purchase at a store.

Which covers a shocking portion of the population. And doesn't invalidate my previous point that courts have consistently ruled that any form of identification as a form of voting requirement that is tied to the persons ability to pay is unconstitutional.

EDIT

Also, since when have conservatives been the ones calling for universal ID checks? Barely a decade ago you guys would have blown a gasket if someone suggested as much.

 

[captaincranky]

The people who took that literally are the same people that we make the 'caution hot' warning labels for on coffee cups.

Unfortunately, the "free market" includes hoards of ambulance chasing lawyers who advertise endlessly on TV, inviting people to sue someone else's brains out. I guess if you count a settlement in the millions as, "getting off your butt and making something of yourself", could be broadly construed as doing just that.

Besides, these people all had "student loan debt" at one time or another, and law school is not that easy to negotiate, nor is the bar exam.

But yeah, I agree there are a lot of parasites in modern society, but they go from bottom to top.

What I honestly find incomprehensibly bizarre, is the Republican quest to eliminate abortion. You'll just generate more parasites in the food chain, while thinking your sh!t doesn't stink, due you your "moral decency".

That has befuddled me for decades. "We won't use government money to fund abortion", yet you'll pay for a lifetime of welfare to raise them. .....And them complain constantly that they exist.

As for Trump, stifling free speech is his big thing. Telling reporters they're rude", refusing to answer legitimate questions.

What I'll never forget, is when he said that "Covid1`9 was a Democratic hoax".

He's a sociopath, and a pathological liar, with paranoid delusions of grandeur.

As for him, "making something of himself", the only way that's happened, is lenders ignoring a seemingly endless string of failed businesses.

And really, shouldn't we know where his money is coming from, and whether or nor he paid taxes on it?