America - The Official Thread

[ryzno]

Good faith sleezeball geezer who ultimately cares about America, probably
vs
Bad faith sleezeball geezer who ultimately cares about only himself, definitely

That's basically what it boils down to.

You and me both know all THEY are worried about are themselves.

 

[TexRex]

Trumpism, man.

"As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the Internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our businesses, our newspapers and our homes," the draft reads.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

You and me both know all THEY are worried about are themselves.

Sure, but there are degrees here. I'm sure you could tolerate a Biden presidency if you can a Trump one.

 

[ryzno]

I'm sure you could tolerate a Biden presidency if you can a Trump one.

I won't be running around screaming "not my President!".

 

[Joey D]

Good faith sleezeball geezer who ultimately cares about America, probably
vs
Bad faith sleezeball geezer who ultimately cares about only himself, definitely

That's basically what it boils down to.

I don't know, I'm not confident Biden operates on good faith or ultimately cares about America. His political positions seem like a copy/paste job from How to Be President for Dummies. Nothing really stands out and most of it will never happen, and the stuff that does is just attempting to undo some of the illegal stuff Trump did, like the tariffs. What is Biden's grand vision? What is he going to do to benefit America instead of just keeping things status quo? Even if I don't agree with the ideas, I still want the president to have something they're championing. Even though I disliked everything Bernie stood for, at least he had this grand vision of how he wanted to change things and, in his mind, make them better.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Good faith sleezeball geezer who ultimately cares about America, probably
vs
Bad faith sleezeball geezer who ultimately cares about only himself, definitely

That's basically what it boils down to.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos

 

[McLaren]

What would removing section 230 protections even do from the conservative vantage point? It would just make them liable for what people post...which seems counterproductive for Trump's purposes? Isn't Trump effectively sabotaging his own megaphone?

Trump gets shut down for trying to violate the 1st Amendment, or Trump ends up actually being held accountable for what he posts?

*joking. Trump actually succeeding would be bad.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I don't know, I'm not confident Biden operates on good faith or ultimately cares about America. His political positions seem like a copy/paste job from How to Be President for Dummies. Nothing really stands out and most of it will never happen, and the stuff that does is just attempting to undo some of the illegal stuff Trump did, like the tariffs. What is Biden's grand vision? What is he going to do to benefit America instead of just keeping things status quo? Even if I don't agree with the ideas, I still want the president to have something they're championing. Even though I disliked everything Bernie stood for, at least he had this grand vision of how he wanted to change things and, in his mind, make them better.

Don't look at me. I wanted Yang.

 

[TexRex]

Before signing his social media executive order, Trump once again criticized states’ efforts to expand vote by mail.

The president argued mass vote by mail would turn US elections into a “total joke.” “There’s such fraud and abuse,” Trump said of vote by mail, even though voter fraud is actually very rare.

Repeating a false claim that was fact-checked by Twitter, Trump said, “Anybody in California that’s breathing gets a ballot.” When a reporter tried to correct the president, Trump cut him off, saying, “I’m not finished.”

In reality, California governor Gavin Newsom has only asked local officials to mail ballots to registered voters.

When a reporter noted this, Trump replied, “Oh really? So when he sends out 28 million ballots and they’re in all the mailboxes and kids go and they raid the mailboxes and they hand them to people that are signing the ballots ... you don’t think that happens?” There is no evidence that this is happening.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...utive-order-twitter-death-toll-latest-updates

"Let's see Twitter mark this!"

 

[McLaren]

I wouldn't doubt if there's an equal side of abuse for the Dems somewhere out there. But one of the articles I've seen being shared in the past 24 hours just to strictly poke fun at Trump's claims about voter fraud by mail, is a post office employee opening ballots and changing them to Republican.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Trump gets shut down for trying to violate the 1st Amendment, or Trump ends up actually being held accountable for what he posts?

*joking. Trump actually succeeding would be bad.

The more I think about this, the more I see it as nothing more than a threat. It's basically Trump saying, if you censor me again, I will remove the 26 words that makes your business model even viable. Social media would cease to exist without section 230 (I would like that result, but not the method of getting there) as regulating the content would be wholly untenable. There's not really a 1st amendment angle to Trump's order (even abstractly) more a bludgeoning weapon with really no legal grounds. And again...it seems a bit hollow as Trump would be nothing but an occasional cable news guest without Twitter. Gaetz may have a big mouth, but his "legislation" is nothing more than a sycophantic miniature grand stand - it has no hope in hell. If Trump did manage to succeed in revoking section 230...I'm certain the stock market would crash spectacularly. The biggest single growth-sector of the economy over the past decade has been information/data (which corresponds with social media) - a sector that has been growing year after year at near 10%. The lost ad revenue that would follow social media crashing would be monumental.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Attorney General Bill Bar speaks about social media.

 

[McLaren]

Fact checking a false claim is forcing a particular view point? That argument might hold more merit if there's evidence Twitter doesn't fact check Democrats making false claims.

 

[Danoff]

Attorney General Bill Bar speaks about social media.

So... exactly what Fox News (and other news outlets) do. So... no, he has no point.

Edit:

Also, this is practically net neutrality reversed. Trump is arguing the side of net neutrality here (facebook should not be allowed to pick and choose their content and should be forced to allow all content through evenly).

This would be very much like saying that GTPlanet could not pick and choose which content to allow.

 

[Liquid]

I bet the same people who insist that a website/platform shouldn't push a certain agenda are onboard with websites like Conservapedia, which was created as a contrast to the "liberal bias" on Wikipedia and which explicitly pushes the birther hoax, homophobia, creationism, young earth creationism, anti-abortion, abortion-breast cancer links and helped to crowdfund a retranslation of the English language Bible to eliminate what it considers, and this is not a joke, "liberal untruths" from the Bible.

I guess it's fine to push an agenda as long as it is your own. Don't let facts get in the way of your distorted view of reality.

 

[Danoff]

I bet the same people who insist that a website/platform shouldn't push a certain agenda are onboard with websites like Conservapedia, which was created as a contrast to the "liberal bias" on Wikipedia and which explicitly pushes the birther hoax, homophobia, creationism, young earth creationism, anti-abortion, abortion-breast cancer links and helped to crowdfund a retranslation of the English language Bible to eliminate what it considers, and this is not a joke, "liberal untruths" from the Bible.

I guess it's fine to push an agenda as long as it is your own. Don't let facts get in the way of your distorted view of reality.

Exactly, the problem is not that facebook is supposedly biased. It's that it's supposedly biased against conservatives (that's a tough sell in and of itself). Trump is a fan of OAN, so he loves him some biased media.

 

[Joey D]

Except why can't Twitter, Facebook, etc. set whatever "agenda" they want? A company should be able to do what it wants and long as it's not violating the rights of someone. Your First Amendment rights stop with the government, anything past that isn't protected by the First Amendment. I legitimately don't understand why people can't grasp that simple concept. And it's no ideology in particular either, you see ultra-left wing people saying they're First Amendment rights are being violated just as much as someone on right. They all do have one thing in common though, they're all ignorant of what the First Amendment actually grants them.

Thankfully I made the conscious decision today to delete Facebook. The pure stupidity coming out of people that I thought were reasonably intelligent individuals was way too high and I can't see it getting any better in the months running up to the election. Like people posting pictures of Trump with the caption "Facebook wants to delete this picture, share the hell out of it!"

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Even if it was demonstrably true that facebook or twitter was biased, on what legal leg does the Federal government stand to do anything about it? They are a private entity. Even besides that, they plan on not allowing these companies to censor...by forcing them to moderate content with the 230 revocation? I don't understand any of this. The conflicts in logic are stunning.

I don't have a horse in this immediate race..I deleted facebook back in early 2017 and I have not missed it one single bit. The closest thing to social media I participate in is Strava and basically this forum. But really...what the F is going on? We're in full gone-bananas territory.

 

[Danoff]

Thankfully I made the conscious decision today to delete Facebook. The pure stupidity coming out of people that I thought were reasonably intelligent individuals was way too high and I can't see it getting any better in the months running up to the election. Like people posting pictures of Trump with the caption "Facebook wants to delete this picture, share the hell out of it!"

I did that about 10 years ago for that very same reason. I have never once regretted it.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

So... exactly what Fox News (and other news outlets) do. So... no, he has no point.

CNN got sued for libel and settled with Nick Sandmann.

Twitter could not be sued even though that is were the whole 'Indian Elder mocked by smirking white teen in MAGA hat' began. They are protected from libel laws because they are supposedly a neutral platform. They are not supposed to editorialize.

Who the hell are they, that they can fact check the opinion of the President of the United States? That mere act was editorializing. They picked the wrong guy to fact check.

 

[Danoff]

They picked the wrong guy to fact check.

 

[Liquid]

Who the hell are they, that they can fact check the opinion of the President of the United States? That mere act was editorializing. They picked the wrong guy to fact check.

I don't get this kingly reverence for the US President.

Why is he beyong reproach?
Why is he above the law, above criticism, immutably immune?

Didn't you have a revolution to get rid of a King?

"You couldn't possibly get rid of the President's Twitter account." Why? Is he a divine being with more rights than you?

It's like the US President is an elected monarch and that's even before you go into the overuse and abuse of executive powers.

 

[Joey D]

Who the hell are they, that they can fact check the opinion of the President of the United States? That mere act was editorializing. They picked the wrong guy to fact check.

Except Trump is misleading about vote by mail. We do vote by mail here in Utah and in the 10 or so years it's been happening, there's never been an instance of fraud. Also, Republicans win just about everything here, so it's not like voting by mail suddenly turned the state blue.

And if anyone should be under a ton of scrutiny it should be the leader of the US. What they say has some pretty far-reaching effects across the globe.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Who the hell are they, that they can fact check the opinion of the President of the United States?

Christ on a bike...

... I'm pretty sure radical fundamentalists of XYZ religion are less indoctrinated than you.





... unless you were being Sarcastic, in which case, rock on.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

And if anyone should be under a ton of scrutiny it should be the leader of the US. What they say has some pretty far-reaching effects across the globe.

So Trump is not scrutinized enough? It is not Twitter's job to scrutinize anyone. It is their job to pass along short little messages, and sell advertising.

 

[Northstar]

So Trump is not scrutinized enough?

He is the president of one of the most powerful countries in the world, it’s not possible to scrutinize him enough.

 

[Joey D]

So Trump is not scrutinized enough? It is not Twitter's job to scrutinize anyone. It is their job to pass along short little messages, and sell advertising.

Trump posted something misleading, Twitter made it clear it's going to start annotating potentially misleading Tweets. If Trump doesn't like the way Twitter's policies are, then he should move to another platform, just like anyone else who has a problem with the company's policies. It's not Twitter's job to cater to anyone, including the president. It's up to the person, who knowingly agrees to the Terms & Conditions, to decide if they want to either abide by them or go somewhere else.

 

[McLaren]

So Trump is not scrutinized enough? It is not Twitter's job to scrutinize anyone. It is their job to pass along short little messages, and sell advertising.

I mean, in a way, that's exactly what they did.

 

[Pupik]

I won't be running around screaming "not my President!".

He's my President, but never my Leader.

I mean, in a way, that's exactly what they did.

Wait, how is that any different than any other site telling you more information about a particular hot topic? Something that's been going on for years. They didn't put an icon with a steaming turd next to it.

Accountability and the Triggered President: Paint all the roses red.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

So Trump is not scrutinized enough? It is not Twitter's job to scrutinize anyone. It is their job to pass along short little messages, and sell advertising.

You're advocating for Twitter having no control over what's published by their users? Snuff films & Child Porn is ok too? You won't get there by revoking section 230. You'll just end up with no Twitter. You want twitter to not fact check trump but also remain how it is? Too bad, there is no legal basis for doing so, unless you were to revoke section 230. And if you do that, again, no more Twitter. It's a tough problem with no good answers.