Twitter, Facebook push back on Trump's election posts

[snoop1130]

Twitter, Facebook push back on Trump's election posts

By David Shepardson and Elizabeth Culliford

 

FILE PHOTO: Electronic cables are silhouetted next to the logo of Twitter in this September 23, 2014 illustration photo in Sarajevo. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Facebook Inc and Twitter Inc faced tests of the rules they announced to handle premature claims of victory in the U.S. election as they flagged some of President Donald Trump's comments on the vote, which remained too close to call.

 

Twitter hid a Trump tweet that said "we are up BIG, but they are trying to STEAL the Election" behind a label that said it was potentially misleading and restricted users' ability to share the post.

 

Facebook also added a label to the same post that said "final results may be different from initial vote counts as ballot counting will continue for days or weeks."

 

But Twitter did not label a separate post in which Trump said he would make a statement and added: "A big WIN!"

 

"As of now we have not placed a warning on this Tweet as the language is vague and unclear about what victory is being claimed," a Twitter spokeswoman said.

 

Facebook affixed a notice to the post that said "votes are still being counted. The winner of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election has not been projected."

 

A Facebook spokesman said that following this post, it was running top-of-feed notifications on Facebook and Instagram to say votes are still being counted and a winner has not been projected. He also said Facebook had started applying automatic labels to both candidates' posts with this information.

 

Trump falsely claimed in a speech live-streamed on both platforms that he had won the election with millions of votes still uncounted. His Democratic rival Joe Biden said earlier he was confident of winning a contest that will not be resolved until a handful of states complete vote-counting over the next hours or days.

 

"Frankly, we did win this election," Trump said after claiming he was winning several battleground states where votes were still being tallied. Election laws in all U.S. states require all votes to be counted.

 

The video feed had no label or warning on Twitter, where it was posted by the Trump campaign and retweeted by the president.

 

Facebook labeled the video stream with a warning saying vote counting could continue for "days or weeks after the polls close."

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-11-04

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[wombat]

so much for free speech and leaving it up to the individual to decide what is fact or fiction.

[spidermike007]

Democracy at work. Kudos to the social media platforms who resist the lies, deceit, ill will against the American people, and hatred perpetrated by this utter loser, Don the wannabe godfather. Sorry Don. You and you awful spawn will have to disappear into a life of obscurity very soon. Looks as if Biden is about to win this thing. You tried. You lied, you deceived, and you will now try to steal the election. Ain't gonna happen. 

[sucit]

Seriously, why not just leave the tweets there. If he is wrong he looks like an idiot. Blows me away how complicated they make this. People can say stuff, that is life. Deal with it. 

[skytrooper70]

1 hour ago, wombat said:

so much for free speech and leaving it up to the individual to decide what is fact or fiction.

Free speech, in the US, is largely protected by the Constitution, from GOVERNMENT infringement. Social media platforms are not part of the GOVERNMENT. That's why trump can spout the same lie, from his WH bully pulpit, without worrying that AG Barr will prosecute him. 

[Neeranam]

Disgraceful.

[steelepulse]

10 minutes ago, skytrooper70 said:

Free speech, in the US, is largely protected by the Constitution, from GOVERNMENT infringement. Social media platforms are not part of the GOVERNMENT. That's why trump can spout the same lie, from his WH bully pulpit, without worrying that AG Barr will prosecute him. 

I would dare say that social media has more power than the government.  They get to decide what information gets disseminated to masses and what doesn't.  Once you control the media and the message, you can slowly convince anyone that white is actually black, up is actually down and so forth.

[Peterw42]

Free speech isn't the constitutional right to tell lies. false information is still false information.

Free speech is the freedom to correct false information, no matter who says it.

Anyone is free to say the earth is flat, the freedom comes into the equation when others are free to correct the false information.

 

Take away the right to correct false information and you take away free speech.

[welovesundaysatspace]

2 hours ago, wombat said:

so much for free speech

You gotta do your homework what free speech means. No one’s right to free speech was impacted. 

 

2 hours ago, wombat said:

and leaving it up to the individual to decide what is fact or fiction.

“what is fact or fiction” is not decided by an individual, but determined by reality. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

29 minutes ago, steelepulse said:

I would dare say that social media has more power than the government.  They get to decide what information gets disseminated to masses and what doesn't.  Once you control the media and the message, you can slowly convince anyone that white is actually black, up is actually down and so forth.

Which is why they should delete all those lies and misinformation. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

48 minutes ago, sucit said:

Seriously, why not just leave the tweets there.

Because enough people are uneducated losers who will believe it. 
 

48 minutes ago, sucit said:

If he is wrong he looks like an idiot.

almost 70 million voted for him it seems. 
 

48 minutes ago, sucit said:

Blows me away how complicated they make this.

I don’t think deleting something is complicated. They probably have a standard process for that by now; wouldn’t be surprised if it had his name. 
 

48 minutes ago, sucit said:

People can say stuff, that is life. Deal with it. 

Websites can delete stuff, that is life. Deal with it. 

[sucit]

7 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Because enough people are uneducated losers who will believe it. 
 

almost 70 million voted for him it seems. 
 

I don’t think deleting something is complicated. They probably have a standard process for that by now; wouldn’t be surprised if it had his name. 
 

Websites can delete stuff, that is life. Deal with it. 

 

7 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Because enough people are uneducated losers who will believe it. 
 

almost 70 million voted for him it seems. 
 

I don’t think deleting something is complicated. They probably have a standard process for that by now; wouldn’t be surprised if it had his name. 
 

Websites can delete stuff, that is life. Deal with it. 

 

7 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Because enough people are uneducated losers who will believe it. 
 

almost 70 million voted for him it seems. 
 

I don’t think deleting something is complicated. They probably have a standard process for that by now; wouldn’t be surprised if it had his name. 
 

Websites can delete stuff, that is life. Deal with it. 

He is a democratically elected leader. He is making public statements. You don't think it complicates things when media outlets start deciding what we should and should not hear? Maybe you don't care about being treated like a five year old who needs his ears covered, but I do mind. I am not sure what would qualify as complicated if a media outlets deciding what is and is not appropriate for people to hear by their elected president isn't.

 

Simple question, just to prove you wrong: so it is "simple and uncomplicated" and I Should "deal with it" if the president of the US 

addresses the public and nobody gets to hear it? Have you lost your mind? Our previously referenced five year old has more sense than to think that. 

 

You are dead wrong, deal with it. When elected leaders speak, nobody should be deciding if it is or is not appropriate for citizens to hear. 

[Sujo]

8 hours ago, steelepulse said:

I would dare say that social media has more power than the government.  They get to decide what information gets disseminated to masses and what doesn't.  Once you control the media and the message, you can slowly convince anyone that white is actually black, up is actually down and so forth.

You think trump cant lie to his hearts content anytime he wants?

 

He chose to agree to the terms of twitter etc when he signed on. But contracts dont matter eh.

Edited November 5, 2020 by Sujo

[Jingthing]

He inciting violent civil unrest that could lead to civil war. Free speech sure. The manager of a theater yelling fire when there is no fire. He'll no!

[Sujo]

8 minutes ago, sucit said:

 

 

He is a democratically elected leader. He is making public statements. You don't think it complicates things when media outlets start deciding what we should and should not hear? Maybe you don't care about being treated like a five year old who needs his ears covered, but I do mind. I am not sure what would qualify as complicated if a media outlets deciding what is and is not appropriate for people to hear by their elected president isn't.

 

Simple question, just to prove you wrong: so it is "simple and uncomplicated" and I Should "deal with it" if the president of the US 

addresses the public and nobody gets to hear it? Have you lost your mind? Our previously referenced five year old has more sense than to think that. 

 

You are dead wrong, deal with it. When elected leaders speak, nobody should be deciding if it is or is not appropriate for citizens to hear. 

People are too dumb. He can say what he wants. But when he signs on to a platform he agrees to their terms.

 

If he doesnt like it then he doesnt need to be a twit. His choice to use it and abide by it.

Edited November 5, 2020 by Sujo

[welovesundaysatspace]

12 minutes ago, sucit said:

He is a democratically elected leader.

So was Adolf Hitler. What’s your point? 
 

12 minutes ago, sucit said:

He is making public statements. You don't think it complicates things when media outlets start deciding what we should and should not hear? 

Guess why it’s called the “free” press? 

 

12 minutes ago, sucit said:

Maybe you don't care about being treated like a five year old who needs his ears covered, but I do mind.

I’m certainly not whining like a 5 year old when an Internet forum deletes my comments. That big baby is. And my comments have more substance to his (which isn’t that difficult to be fair). 
 

12 minutes ago, sucit said:

I am not sure what would qualify as complicated if a media outlets deciding what is and is not appropriate for people to hear by their elected president isn't.

A government dictating media what to report would be qualify as complicated. 

 

12 minutes ago, sucit said:

Simple question, just to prove you wrong: so it is "simple and uncomplicated" and I Should "deal with it" if the president of the US 

addresses the public and nobody gets to hear it?

Fortunately, there’s no right for getting media coverage, especially when you’re producing lies and garbage. 

 

12 minutes ago, sucit said:

Have you lost your mind? Our previously referenced five year old has more sense than to think that. 

My 6-year old nephew knows that people will listen when you have something sensible to say, and that people don’t tolerate bullshet. 

 

12 minutes ago, sucit said:

You are dead wrong, deal with it.

It seems I’m not, and you’re the one who has to deal with it ???? 

 

12 minutes ago, sucit said:

When elected leaders speak, nobody should be deciding if it is or is not appropriate for citizens to hear. 

When the elected leader is a corrupt liar with the brain of rotten sandwich, and he’s speaking lies and violence, I appreciate when he’s being ignored. That’s the best you can do with bullies, and fortunately we don’t have to treat him better than any other raging teenager who gets banned on Reddit. 

[DB58]

On 11/4/2020 at 7:31 PM, sucit said:

Seriously, why not just leave the tweets there. If he is wrong he looks like an idiot. Blows me away how complicated they make this. People can say stuff, that is life. Deal with it. 

The President takes an oath to uphold our Constitution that includes the election process. His actions are directly attempting to interfere with a process he has sworn to protect. IMO block him.

[sucit]

1 hour ago, DB58 said:

The President takes an oath to uphold our Constitution that includes the election process. His actions are directly attempting to interfere with a process he has sworn to protect. IMO block him.

You are proving the point. You want him blocked, don't watch. BUt you don't get to make that decision for others. I am not 5. I don't need my ears covered when someone says something out of line. What is your actual point, that people should not be allowed to judge for themselves right? Do you even know that that is your point? No? Well, I am telling you, that is your point. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

 

5 minutes ago, sucit said:

BUt you don't get to make that decision for others.

If you haven’t noticed: YOU are the one who wants to decide what others put on their websites. Create your own blog or social network, then you can freely decide what to publish. Until then, I’m afraid you have to accept that it’s the website owner who decides what goes online on his property. 
 

5 minutes ago, sucit said:

I am not 5.

But you have like a tantrum throwing 5 year old. “But but but, I want, I want, I want.” Grow up. 

 

[DB58]

20 hours ago, sucit said:

You are proving the point. You want him blocked, don't watch. BUt you don't get to make that decision for others. I am not 5. I don't need my ears covered when someone says something out of line. What is your actual point, that people should not be allowed to judge for themselves right? Do you even know that that is your point? No? Well, I am telling you, that is your point. 

Hope all his followers are as wise as you... some of my more extreme countrymen might see his rants as call to action. 

[Jeffr2]

22 hours ago, sucit said:

You are proving the point. You want him blocked, don't watch. BUt you don't get to make that decision for others. I am not 5. I don't need my ears covered when someone says something out of line. What is your actual point, that people should not be allowed to judge for themselves right? Do you even know that that is your point? No? Well, I am telling you, that is your point. 

Sadly, many read his tweets and act on them.  Like drinking bleach, showing up at polling stations armed to the teeth, etc.  They believe his lies.  So yes, some people are like 5 years old. 

 

And there isn't really freedom of speech.  Just one example, try yelling "fire" inside a movie theater.  You'll be arrested for sure.

[sucit]

On 11/5/2020 at 7:18 PM, welovesundaysatspace said:

So was Adolf Hitler. What’s your point? 
 

Guess why it’s called the “free” press? 

 

I’m certainly not whining like a 5 year old when an Internet forum deletes my comments. That big baby is. And my comments have more substance to his (which isn’t that difficult to be fair). 
 

A government dictating media what to report would be qualify as complicated. 

 

Fortunately, there’s no right for getting media coverage, especially when you’re producing lies and garbage. 

 

My 6-year old nephew knows that people will listen when you have something sensible to say, and that people don’t tolerate bullshet. 

 

It seems I’m not, and you’re the one who has to deal with it ???? 

 

When the elected leader is a corrupt liar with the brain of rotten sandwich, and he’s speaking lies and violence, I appreciate when he’s being ignored. That’s the best you can do with bullies, and fortunately we don’t have to treat him better than any other raging teenager who gets banned on Reddit. 

To sum up everything you have said, you want people to have a filter on their media because they are not thoughtful enough to think for themselves.

 

I think the media should be..... reported (big leap there i know)... and people should decide for themselves on what it means. 

 

In your view it would be fine to just black out the next state of the union address because a select few didn't like what the president was saying. Self realize how ridiculous this is, not for me but for yourself. 

 

You brought up Hitler, your way is the Hitler way. That is a very Hitler like policy to just control what people hear and what they don't. 

 

Another glaring misread you have that is so obvious, when the president starts behaving like a moron and making unfounded claims, he looks..... like a moron (that is how that works). Filtering the content helps him. So, you have everything exactly backwards. Maybe your intentions are good, but if you want people to dislike Trump, SHOW them what he is doing, don't hide it. 

 

Point blank, would it be ok to black out the next state of the union? If you answer yes, you are wrong, if you answer no, I am right. So, there ya go. But, If you can't see you are wrong there is really no helping you. 

Edited November 7, 2020 by sucit

[Jeffr2]

6 minutes ago, sucit said:

To sum up everything you have said, you want people to have a filter on their media because they are not thoughtful enough to think for themselves.

 

I think the media should be..... reported (big leap there i know)... and people should decide for themselves on what it means. 

 

In your view it would be fine to just black out the next state of the union address because a select few didn't like what the president was saying. Self realize how ridiculous this is, not for me but for yourself. 

 

You brought up Hitler, your way is the Hitler way. That is a very Hitler like policy to just control what people hear and what they don't. 

 

If you can't see you are wrong there is really no helping you. 

Come on.  The president of the US telling porkies on social media.  He should be fired.  Horrible way for a leader to act.

 

Bannon just had his account permanently banned.  And so have dozens of accounts linked to Q, etc.  Great news.  Sadly, many only read short tweets and believe them.  They don't fact check.

[sucit]

3 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Come on.  The president of the US telling porkies on social media.  He should be fired.  Horrible way for a leader to act.

 

Bannon just had his account permanently banned.  And so have dozens of accounts linked to Q, etc.  Great news.  Sadly, many only read short tweets and believe them.  They don't fact check.

What do you mean cmon? Well, fire him then. I am not against it. It might be "horrible" for a leader to usher the US into a period of smaller government, less spending and higher taxes. That does not mean it is not the right move however, and if the people have elected that person as their leader, he obviously needs to be heard when he makes the case for it.

 

You guys all want to pick and choose what people are exposed to. But the way it really works is you let people hear it and let them decide for themselves.

[Chomper Higgot]

Twitter and Facebook are private businesses and will decide what they wish their platforms to be used for.

 

Neither the Constitution nor Twitters/Facebook terms of use give anyone the right to disseminate lies, hate or promote violence on these platforms.

 

Twitter/Facebook acting to remove such content is not a matter of ‘Freedom of speech’.

 

 

Private businesses setting their own rules for the use of their services is not going to be changed.

 

Edited November 7, 2020 by Chomper Higgot

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 11/5/2020 at 6:54 PM, sucit said:

He is a democratically elected leader. He is making public statements. You don't think it complicates things when media outlets start deciding what we should and should not hear? Maybe you don't care about being treated like a five year old who needs his ears covered, but I do mind. I am not sure what would qualify as complicated if a media outlets deciding what is and is not appropriate for people to hear by their elected president isn't.

You do realize that neither platform actually deleted his remarks, don't you?

 

Twitter put his tweet behind a label, with a button to click on if you wanted to view it, Facebook simply added a label to the post. In neither case were people prevented from reading what Trump had said.

[sucit]

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Twitter and Facebook are private businesses and will decide what they wish their platforms to be used for.

 

Neither the Constitution nor Twitters/Facebook terms of use give anyone the right to disseminate lies, hate or promote violence on these platforms.

 

Twitter/Facebook acting to remove such content is not a matter of ‘Freedom of speech’.

 

 

Private businesses setting their own rules for the use of their services is not going to be changed.

 

Again, point blank.

 

Cnbc etc are all private businesses. Is it ok for them to black out a state of the union address?

[Jeffr2]

Just now, sucit said:

Again, point blank.

 

Cnbc etc are all private businesses. Is it ok for them to black out a state of the union address?

Yes.  Especially Trump's when it was full of lies.  Best thing to do for the uneducated population.  Sadly.

[sucit]

2 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

You do realize that neither platform actually deleted his remarks, don't you?

 

Twitter put his tweet behind a label, with a button to click on if you wanted to view it, Facebook simply added a label to the post. In neither case were people prevented from reading what Trump had said.

I was watching Trump speak on the only news station I have available, and it was cut off! In the middle. Please don't tell me his remarks are not "deleted" from public exposure.

[sucit]

2 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Yes.  Especially Trump's when it was full of lies.  Best thing to do for the uneducated population.  Sadly.

Ok, so you think we should allow media corporations to filter and spoon feed us only the information they deem appropriate.

 

All I can say is, 1984 much?