Twitter, Facebook push back on Trump's election posts

[placeholder]

31 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. 

Sure Proctor and Gamble could do it. But they'd have to get all the press to agree to it. And doubtless it would be too good a story for some media company to cover. Of course, what lies behind this ridiculous hypotherital assertion is that the major media companies can be bought. As though selling out to suppress stories wouldn't damage the value of their goodwill. You need to study how capitalism and free markets work. Your lack of confidence in them makes me suspect where your true sympathies lie..

[ChouDoufu]

1 hour 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?

 

i'm afraid you are incorrect.

 

the press CAN decide to ignore a state of the union address.  they CAN choose not to carry the debate, or even mention it happened.  they CAN pick and choose which stories they think are relevant or not.

 

it wouldn't be free speech if they was FORCED to cover certain events, now would it?

 

i'm trying really hard, but i can't get "Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." to mean newspapers don't have the right to choose the stories they wish to cover.  that would be, like, abridging their freedom.

[heybruce]

3 hours 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?

Twitter isn't the press.

 

Remember Twitter?  This is a topic about Twitter.

 

Also, the press chooses what is news-worthy and makes editorial decisions, such as identifying false or misleading information.

Edited November 7, 2020 by heybruce

[candide]

Last tweet from Trump 3 hours ago

"I WON THIS ELECTION, BY A LOT!"

????????????????????????

[samsensam]

 

trump on twitter; the gift that keeps on giving.

 

but really, when you're in a hole you really should stop digging.

[welovesundaysatspace]

15 hours 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.

No, I didn’t say it should be hidden. I said that western democracies enjoy a free press, which means that they are independent and cannot be dictate by the government what to report. That’s a difference. 
 

15 hours ago, sucit said:

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

As far as I’m aware, for all the recent wars the US has brought onto the world, it was the US government that tried to keep free reporting out and hide things from the world, and instead feeding fabricated and cleaned contents to the media instead. 

 

15 hours ago, sucit said:

You realize large corporations with money and power will want them to hide much of this stuff, right? Making any sense yet?

No, I don’t but into conspiracy theories. Either way, it doesn’t change anything. 

 

15 hours ago, sucit said:

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

Which it is doing. “their job” is not to report what the government wants it to report. It is independent and decide itself. 

 

15 hours ago, sucit said:

 

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 also means they are independent, and are not being dictated by the government what to cover. Not sure if a three year old knows that; my 8 years old nephews knows it. 

 

15 hours ago, sucit said:

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.

I didn’t say that. You are the one in favor of government dictatorship, not me. 
 

15 hours ago, sucit said:

 Really, get with it.

I’m afraid you have to get with it. because fortunately, in our western democracies, the free press can freely decide what it wants to cover and what not. You have to get with it, or you may have to emigrate to a country like North Korea where I’m pretty sure your favored model of the media having to report what the government tells it to is working like charm. 
 

15 hours ago, sucit said:

Get an argument and get back to me.

What made you think that I want to win an argument? 70 million Americans voted for a corrupt fascist with the abilities of a failing Hot Dog seller, so I can totally live with the fact that some dude on TVF wants the government to control the media’s contents. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

15 hours ago, sucit said:

The press have a responsibility to accurately inform and have the public's best interest.

And by ignoring, blurring, or correcting the lies and gas-lighting of a corrupt fascist sociopath they are doing exactly that. 

 

 

15 hours ago, sucit said:

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. 

I’m afraid such requirement does only exist in your very personal opinion. 

 

15 hours 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.

You have seen they can. I wish they would have done it more often. 
 

15 hours ago, sucit said:

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.

Exactly, which is why the government cannot decide that the media must report its horseshyte. 
 

15 hours ago, sucit said:

You guys need to join planet earth and look around you and see how things actually work.

The last time I looked around on planet earth, the media was, at least sometimes and overly careful, ignoring or blurring some of the lies and gas-lighting of the government. Could it be that YOU need to join that planet earth? 

 

15 hours ago, sucit said:

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?

Please be fair. My cat memes have more substance than what Donald Dumb produces. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

15 hours 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.

First, it’s up to a social media company what it is or wants to be. This is not the Soviet Union where a government decides what companies have to produce. 
 

Second, no one’s right for free expression can be violated by a social media company. Otherwise I want Breitbart, Alex Jones and all those other Russian troll factories to publish my essay about Donals Dumb’s little hands. 

 

15 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

 

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.

I think you are the one who hasn’t understood what free speech is and is not. Free speech is not that someone can force his opinion onto you and make you put it onto your website. 

 

15 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 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.

There hasn’t been any censorship. As with free speech, you really need to understand what these bid powerful terms mean. 
 

15 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I'm German and I've learned my nation's dark history well.  I have not forgotten history and I am seeing it repeated.

The only parallel I can see is between Germany’s dark history and your opinion. Nowhere in Nazi-Germany nor in the DDR would you have been able to freely publish an own website with your own opinion without the government telling you to cover the government’s propaganda. And now you are suggesting that it should be the government to tell websites what to put online? 
 

[welovesundaysatspace]

15 hours ago, sucit said:

the press can just go black and stop covering major news developments, because they are "free press" lol

Exactly. That’s not only a fact, but also legal. 
 

15 hours ago, sucit said:

The media cannot just ignore the news

They totally can. Or what are you raging about here? 
 

15 hours ago, sucit said:

and have the world go black lol

The world is not going black without the current government’s lies and nonsense. A lot of more interesting stuff is happening around the world that can be covered and worth more; just open your eyes. 
 

15 hours ago, sucit said:

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.

What story about malpractice of P&G are you referring to that the press didn’t cover because they got paid off? And what does it have to do with your genius Plan of letting the government dictate what the media has to cover? 

 

15 hours ago, sucit said:

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 free press is independent. They can cover whatever they want to. And it’s good that it is that way.