Twitter, Facebook push back on Trump's election posts

[Jeffr2]

2 minutes ago, sucit said:

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?

Not an easy choice.  But look at Q.  How many have been sucked into that fake news hole?  Many!  It shouldn't be allowed because some aren't smart enough to know it's fake.

 

Yes, a bit like 1984, but what do you do?  Remember Pizza Gate?  Someone died because of fake news.  Others have drank bleach.  Not everyone has the ability to sus things out properly.

[GroveHillWanderer]

12 minutes ago, sucit 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.

This thread is about a couple of specific Trump posts on Twitter and Facebook. They were most definitely not deleted.

 

There's only one person to blame if you only have one news station available - and that's you. There are plenty you could have access to if you wanted.

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, 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?

Erm, yes.

 

Perhaps you have a more centrally controlled government dictated media in mind.

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, sucit said:

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?

I take it you have read 1984.

[welovesundaysatspace]

50 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.

People can freely decide what media they consume. So can media freely decide what they put on their websites. That’s called a free press. 
 

You are the one who wants to dictate. Not me. You want to dictate media what to put on their websites. That’s fascism. 

 

50 minutes ago, sucit said:

 

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.

See above. It’s not up to a government what the media has to report. That would be fascism. 

 

50 minutes ago, sucit said:

Self realize how ridiculous this is, not for me but for yourself. 

I don’t care what you find ridiculous. 
 

50 minutes ago, sucit said:

 

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. 

Except that you’re the one whose advocating that a government can dictate what the media should report. Whereas I am clearly in favor of the opposite. 

 

50 minutes ago, sucit said:

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. 

That’s up to everyone themselves to decide. I’m not telling CNN, Twitter or Breitbart what to put on their websites. YOU are the one who’s saying it should be the government dictating what they put on there. 
 

50 minutes ago, sucit said:

Point blank, would it be ok to black out the next state of the union?

See above. It’s up to every website owner what to put on their website. I’m not going to put it on mine for sure. 
 

50 minutes ago, sucit said:

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. 

I don’t care what you find right or wrong. Up to you. 

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I take it you have read 1984.

George Orwell didn't anticipate social media and news being fed to consumers based on past preferences.  Nobody did.

 

People who rely on social media for news can start out innocently enough:  They decide they want to research both sides of an issue.  Their research leads to credible news sources, but also some conspiracy theory sources with click bait headlines  People click on the click bait, and the algorithm that decides what news these people might be interested in notes this and presents more conspiracy theory stories.  More clicking on these leads to ever more out there sources.  These people are well on their way down a dangerous rabbit hole, all the while enjoying the satisfaction of "knowing" they are informing themselves and now have "facts" that others don't.

 

It's easy to say that intelligent people don't rely on social media for news, or at the very least view the sources with proper skepticism.  Unfortunately a lot of people do rely on social media for information and don't practice a reasonable degree of skepticism.

[Tippaporn]

On 11/5/2020 at 11:14 AM, Peterw42 said:

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.

And when the corrected false censored information is false what then?

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

And when the corrected false censored information is false what then?

When its not true.

nice to see you here again, havent seen you posting on the election threads since trumo started losing. Something wrong?

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

And when the corrected false censored information is false what then?

Twitter and Facebook don't correct.

But please explain, what is 'false corrected false censored information'? Maybe examples?

[Tippaporn]

On 11/5/2020 at 10:37 AM, 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. 

Free speech had been wisely found to be a fundamental right by the founding fathers and was deemed so important as to be incorporated into the 1st Amendment.  Your rationale seems to imply that social media platforms have got it right to suppress the 1st Amendment.  The only logical conclusion to be drawn, given your support of the social media platforms actions, is that you're against free speech.

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Free speech had been wisely found to be a fundamental right by the founding fathers and was deemed so important as to be incorporated into the 1st Amendment.  Your rationale seems to imply that social media platforms have got it right to suppress the 1st Amendment.  The only logical conclusion to be drawn, given your support of the social media platforms actions, is that you're against free speech.

Free speech is for the govt not to suppress. Not private media.

 

trump or anyone can say what they want whenever they want. Media is free to report it or not.

 

what part of that dont you understand.

 

you sign on to fb or twitter then you agree to their terms. Its quite simple.

Edited November 7, 2020 by Sujo

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Free speech had been wisely found to be a fundamental right by the founding fathers and was deemed so important as to be incorporated into the 1st Amendment.  Your rationale seems to imply that social media platforms have got it right to suppress the 1st Amendment.  The only logical conclusion to be drawn, given your support of the social media platforms actions, is that you're against free speech.

You've got it somewhat wrong. The 1st Amendment prohibits the Government from censoring speech. Not private parties.

[sucit]

On 11/5/2020 at 7:02 PM, Sujo said:

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.

Unfortunately, "people are too dumb" could be used as an argument for anything, as you should know. If the people are too dumb argument was actually valid, anybody could just do anything and say, well, people are too dumb so it is ok. Maybe people are too dumb to vote, I mean they did vote this guy in. 

 

So no, people are too dumb does not work. Try again. 

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, sucit said:

Unfortunately, "people are too dumb" could be used as an argument for anything, as you should know. If the people are too dumb argument was actually valid, anybody could just do anything and say, well, people are too dumb so it is ok. Maybe people are too dumb to vote, I mean they did vote this guy in. 

 

So no, people are too dumb does not work. Try again. 

So what. You sign on to the terms and conditions. If you dont like them dont use them. Only dumb people dont understand that.

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

On 11/5/2020 at 11:14 AM, Peterw42 said:

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.

And when the corrected false censored information is false what then?

Twitter and Facebook don't correct.

But please explain, what is 'false corrected false censored information'? Maybe examples?

In the context of the above points and replies Twitter and Facebook aren't at all mentioned so they needn't be brought into it.

 

No examples are needed to answer the question.  The assumption of Peterw42, which I'm pointing out and questioning, is that the correction of false information will always be correct.  That would be a literal impossibility.  There will always be a possibility that corrected information is itself false.  That fact cannot be denied or waved away by the hand.

 

In any case, my question is meant to show that if corrected information can be false then aren't we back at square one?  What is the truth and what is not the truth?  Isn't that the ultimate responsibility of each individual?  Or are we trying to create a Ministry of Truth which everyone must follow?

 

These are hard questions.  We better get them right or we'll be looking like Nazi Germany or present day China very soon.

[sucit]

8 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

People can freely decide what media they consume. So can media freely decide what they put on their websites. That’s called a free press. 
 

You are the one who wants to dictate. Not me. You want to dictate media what to put on their websites. That’s fascism. 

 

See above. It’s not up to a government what the media has to report. That would be fascism. 

 

I don’t care what you find ridiculous. 
 

Except that you’re the one whose advocating that a government can dictate what the media should report. Whereas I am clearly in favor of the opposite. 

 

That’s up to everyone themselves to decide. I’m not telling CNN, Twitter or Breitbart what to put on their websites. YOU are the one who’s saying it should be the government dictating what they put on there. 
 

See above. It’s up to every website owner what to put on their website. I’m not going to put it on mine for sure. 
 

I don’t care what you find right or wrong. Up to you. 

As you have stated, you think a presidential State of the Union address should be able to be hidden from the public.

 

Is it ok for these organizations to hide wars and other nefarious affairs too? You realize large corporations with money and power will want them to hide much of this stuff, right? Making any sense yet?

 

I am not saying the govt does anything, I am saying the news is required to do their job.

 

It is very difficult to even take you seriously. A three year old knows better. You don't even understand what free press means, that means they can cover things without fear of retribution. It does not mean they are, as a whole, entitled to suppress information deemed to be of public importance. You seem very confused. You seem to think it would be fine to live in a world where every important even could be hidden from the public because there is a "free press" lol. Really, get with it. Get an argument and get back to me.

Edited November 7, 2020 by sucit

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, sucit said:

As you have stated, you think a presidential State of the Union address should be able to be hidden from the public.

 

Is it ok for these organizations to hide wars and other nefarious affairs too?

 

I am not saying the govt does anything, I am saying the news is required to do their job.

 

It is very difficult to even take you seriously. A three year old knows better. Really, get with it. Get an argument and get back to me. 

Private organisations can report what they want. Go to oan or 4 chan if u prefer to hear lies.

[sucit]

28 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Private organisations can report what they want. Go to oan or 4 chan if u prefer to hear lies.

Wrong again. The press have a responsibility to accurately inform and have the public's best interest. That does not mean deciding what is good or bad for them to hear, that means they are required to report it, whether you like it or not, that is the truth. 

 

Like I keep saying, the press can't just choose to ignore a presidential address or a presidential debate, or any major event. I do not know where you guys come from but please get it straight, this is not 1984 where a few people get to decide what we hear and see. You guys need to join planet earth and look around you and see how things actually work. One guy up there is even talking about what he chooses to put on his own little website and fails to understand that because he does that does not mean the media can fail to report on major news events lol, I mean seriously?

Edited November 7, 2020 by sucit

[Sujo]

9 minutes ago, sucit said:

Wrong again. The press have a responsibility to accurately inform and have the public's best interest. That does not mean deciding what is good or bad for them to hear, that means they are required to report it, whether you like it or not, that is the truth. 

 

Like I keep saying, the press can't just choose to ignore a presidential address or a presidential debate, or any major event. I do not know where you guys come from but please get it straight, this is not 1984 where a few people get to decide what we hear and see. You guys need to join planet earth and look around you and see how things actually work. One guy up there is even talking about what he chooses to put on his own little website and fails to understand that because he does that does not mean the media can fail to report on major news events lol, I mean seriously?

And their best interest is not to publicize lies.

 

They can decide what to show or not. Its their choice. Nothing to do with the first ammendment. What part of that dont you understand.

Edited November 7, 2020 by Sujo

[placeholder]

18 minutes ago, sucit said:

Wrong again. The press have a responsibility to accurately inform and have the public's best interest. That does not mean deciding what is good or bad for them to hear, that means they are required to report it, whether you like it or not, that is the truth. 

Well, point to where that is written in the Constitution and you've won your argument. Good luck with that.

[placeholder]

19 minutes ago, sucit said:

Like I keep saying, the press can't just choose to ignore a presidential address or a presidential debate, or any major event. I do not know where you guys come from but please get it straight, this is not 1984 where a few people get to decide what we hear and see. You guys need to join planet earth and look around you and see how things actually work. One guy up there is even talking about what he chooses to put on his own little website and fails to understand that because he does that does not mean the media can fail to report on major news events lol, I mean seriously?

Like you keep saying and not understanding what the First Amendment proscribes.

[Tippaporn]

48 minutes ago, Sujo said:

52 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Free speech had been wisely found to be a fundamental right by the founding fathers and was deemed so important as to be incorporated into the 1st Amendment.  Your rationale seems to imply that social media platforms have got it right to suppress the 1st Amendment.  The only logical conclusion to be drawn, given your support of the social media platforms actions, is that you're against free speech.

Free speech is for the govt not to suppress. Not private media.

 

trump or anyone can say what they want whenever they want. Media is free to report it or not.

 

what part of that dont you understand.

 

you sign on to fb or twitter then you agree to their terms. Its quite simple.

For one the social media companies are platforms for free expression.  This is what they sold themselves as to the people.  They are now doing a bait and switch and acting as editors of free expression.  But only free expression of what they approve of.

 

Secondly, the point is that if Americans understood, at least at some point in their history, the importance of free speech then why have social media companies lost that understanding?  It's a question of what kind of a nation the U.S. wants to be now.

 

These are deep and very important questions, Sujo.  I can only advise to be very, very careful of what you wish for.  Censorship starts very slowly and as long as one's voice still has an outlet then it doesn't bother one that another has lost his.  Censorship evolves, though.  It tightens it's noose.  And soon one may find that their voice is denied an outlet.

 

History is replete with examples.  And as the old and true axiom goes, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.  I'm German and I've learned my nation's dark history well.  I have not forgotten history and I am seeing it repeated.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

You've got it somewhat wrong. The 1st Amendment prohibits the Government from censoring speech. Not private parties.

See my post above.

[sucit]

Man, I thought Trump was bad. There are actual adults (I assume) in this thread, who believe the press can just go black and stop covering major news developments, because they are "free press" lol

 

You guys make Trump look like a genius, even in his current state. The media cannot just ignore the news and have the world go black lol

 

What do you think would happen anyway? Proctor and Gamble could just come in and pay off the press to not cover a story about malpractice. No, they have to cover these things, they cannot just ignore them... sorry chuckling out loud I just did not know it was possible for human beings to be this ill informed. 

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, sucit said:

Man, I thought Trump was bad. There are actual adults (I assume) in this thread, who believe the press can just go black and stop covering major news developments, because they are "free press" lol

 

You guys make Trump look like a genius, even in his current state. The media cannot just ignore the news and have the world go black lol

 

What do you think would happen anyway? Proctor and Gamble could just come in and pay off the press to not cover a story about malpractice. No, they have to cover these things, they cannot just ignore them... sorry chuckling out loud I just did not know it was possible for human beings to be this ill informed. 

The news doesnt go black, go to oan or breitbart or 4 chan if you want to hear lies. Msm fact checks before they report.

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

For one the social media companies are platforms for free expression.  This is what they sold themselves as to the people.  They are now doing a bait and switch and acting as editors of free expression.  But only free expression of what they approve of.

 

Secondly, the point is that if Americans understood, at least at some point in their history, the importance of free speech then why have social media companies lost that understanding?  It's a question of what kind of a nation the U.S. wants to be now.

 

These are deep and very important questions, Sujo.  I can only advise to be very, very careful of what you wish for.  Censorship starts very slowly and as long as one's voice still has an outlet then it doesn't bother one that another has lost his.  Censorship evolves, though.  It tightens it's noose.  And soon one may find that their voice is denied an outlet.

 

History is replete with examples.  And as the old and true axiom goes, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.  I'm German and I've learned my nation's dark history well.  I have not forgotten history and I am seeing it repeated.

If you dont agree to the terms and conditions then dont use them. Its simple.

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

For one the social media companies are platforms for free expression.  This is what they sold themselves as to the people.  They are now doing a bait and switch and acting as editors of free expression.  But only free expression of what they approve of.

 

Secondly, the point is that if Americans understood, at least at some point in their history, the importance of free speech then why have social media companies lost that understanding?  It's a question of what kind of a nation the U.S. wants to be now.

 

These are deep and very important questions, Sujo.  I can only advise to be very, very careful of what you wish for.  Censorship starts very slowly and as long as one's voice still has an outlet then it doesn't bother one that another has lost his.  Censorship evolves, though.  It tightens it's noose.  And soon one may find that their voice is denied an outlet.

 

History is replete with examples.  And as the old and true axiom goes, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.  I'm German and I've learned my nation's dark history well.  I have not forgotten history and I am seeing it repeated.

Once again, you are confused. Censorship by private parties is perfectly legal. It's government imposed censorship that the First Amendment forbids. Was the problem in Germany that private publishers weren't allowing free speech? Not that the Nazi government was suppressing it? You've got your example exactly backwards.

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, sucit said:

Man, I thought Trump was bad. There are actual adults (I assume) in this thread, who believe the press can just go black and stop covering major news developments, because they are "free press" lol

 

You guys make Trump look like a genius, even in his current state. The media cannot just ignore the news and have the world go black lol

 

What do you think would happen anyway? Proctor and Gamble could just come in and pay off the press to not cover a story about malpractice. No, they have to cover these things, they cannot just ignore them... sorry chuckling out loud I just did not know it was possible for human beings to be this ill informed. 

You keep on invoking this obligation but nowhere do you offer a legal rationale to back it up. What this is really about is that Trump supporters want obvious lies such as alleging sinister reasons for blue shifts in some states to be reported as though they have factual validity. Have Breitbart's doors been shut? Has the Sinclair tv network been shut down by the govt. Is OANN on vacation? There should be enough there to satisfy anyone's appetite for falsehoods and conspiracy theories.

[darksidedog]

16 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

For one the social media companies are platforms for free expression.  This is what they sold themselves as to the people.  They are now doing a bait and switch and acting as editors of free expression.  But only free expression of what they approve of.

 

14 minutes ago, sucit said:

Man, I thought Trump was bad. There are actual adults (I assume) in this thread, who believe the press can just go black and stop covering major news developments, because they are "free press" lol

From everything I have seen there is no problem with freedom of speech.

Major platforms allow you to post and re-post just about anything.

They only seem to remove or add warnings to posts that they consider inflammatory, inaccurate or false, exactly as this forum and every other forum does in their rules.

The medias job is to report what is happening honestly and openly which is what decent people deserve to be told.

If an outlet wanders into lies and deceit can you suggest readers shouldn't be notified this could be possible, or for quality news sites to ignore what is obviously untrue? Why publicise ridiculous speculation?

If you find it on a way left or right site, but can't find substantiation anywhere in the middle, it is most likely opinion or conspiracy, not supported by facts.

A whole lot of trolling on this site would stop, if folks could understand this simple point.

There is truth out there, but it is rarely found exclusively on your favourite website.

 

 

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, sucit said:

As you have stated, you think a presidential State of the Union address should be able to be hidden from the public.

 

Is it ok for these organizations to hide wars and other nefarious affairs too? You realize large corporations with money and power will want them to hide much of this stuff, right? Making any sense yet?

 

I am not saying the govt does anything, I am saying the news is required to do their job.

 

It is very difficult to even take you seriously. A three year old knows better. You don't even understand what free press means, that means they can cover things without fear of retribution. It does not mean they are, as a whole, entitled to suppress information deemed to be of public importance. You seem very confused. You seem to think it would be fine to live in a world where every important even could be hidden from the public because there is a "free press" lol. Really, get with it. Get an argument and get back to me.

Up to the news outlet. Don't like it, follow other media.