You guys are literally suggesting state controlled media with the "state" being partisan employees of Jack Dorsey.

PS, nobody is forcing anyone to "follow" Trump BTW...

Sure, but changing the social media environment this way creates additional costs for the big guys like Twitter and additional opportunities for little guys to come in with different editorial perspectives.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Wow! You just validated everything.

By saying other questionable tweets by public figures should receive the same scrutiny as Trump's, what exactly have I "validated?"

Questionable is subjective, and this is the entire problem. I could see this working if every tweet for public figures was fact checked, but the problem then becomes fact checker biases. I do think these things could be solved, but it takes cooperation, and we are not living in cooperative times. Maybe heterodox academy could fact check?

---

By saying other questionable tweets by public figures should receive the same scrutiny as Trump's, what exactly have I "validated?"

Questionable is subjective, and this is the entire problem. I could see this working if every tweet for public figures was fact checked, but the problem then becomes fact checker biases. I do think these things could be solved, but it takes cooperation, and we are not living in cooperative times. Maybe heterodox academy could fact check?

Since I believe you stated you aren't on Twitter I just wanted to explain this again. 

Twitter did not fact check any tweets.  They are not fact checking anyone's tweets. 
Twitter merely added a link below the tweet that said "get the facts on this topic" 
Clicking that link brought you to articles from 8-10 different independent news outlets' published stories on the topic (in this case mail-in ballots.)  
This process didn't introduce any "fact-checker" bias as simply it linked various independent articles.

You can argue a bias may occur when certain tweets are fitted with such links to articles, and others are not, but we can't say twitter is being biased with their fact checking.

---

You can argue a bias may occur when certain tweets are fitted with such links to articles, and others are not, but we can't say twitter is being biased with their fact checking.

You can't be that naive.  Did the listed articles prove Trump's point?  If not then there was bias in the article selection.

---

You can argue a bias may occur when certain tweets are fitted with such links to articles, and others are not, but we can't say twitter is being biased with their fact checking.

You can't be that naive.  Did the listed articles prove Trump's point?  If not then there was bias in the article selection.

Where exactly am I being naive?  

Trump made an unsubstantiated claim about the amount of voter fraud in mail in ballots. 
Twitter then listed a wide variety of articles on the topic.  There is no evidence to support his claim - so the 5 articles I clicked on simply listed all of the states that have been using mail-in ballots for some time now and the percentages of people in those states that used the service.  Most mentioned that there were no large instances of voter fraud reported in those states or something to that effect. 

What is your assertion here?

---

You can't be that naive.  Did the listed articles prove Trump's point?  If not then there was bias in the article selection.

Where exactly am I being naive?  

Trump made an unsubstantiated claim about the amount of voter fraud in mail in ballots. 
Twitter then listed a wide variety of articles on the topic.  There is no evidence to support his claim - so the 5 articles I clicked on simply listed all of the states that have been using mail-in ballots for some time now and the percentages of people in those states that used the service.  Most mentioned that there were no large instances of voter fraud reported in those states or something to that effect. 

What is your assertion here?

That the "Fact checkers" have an implicit bias that causes them to only "fact check" with sources that support their bias against the President's statements.

---

And who is their leader?

This guy.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Where exactly am I being naive?  

Trump made an unsubstantiated claim about the amount of voter fraud in mail in ballots. 
Twitter then listed a wide variety of articles on the topic.  There is no evidence to support his claim - so the 5 articles I clicked on simply listed all of the states that have been using mail-in ballots for some time now and the percentages of people in those states that used the service.  Most mentioned that there were no large instances of voter fraud reported in those states or something to that effect. 

What is your assertion here?

That the "Fact checkers" have an implicit bias that causes them to only "fact check" with sources that support their bias against the President's statements.

---

And who is their leader?

This guy.

Twitter is not actively doing the fact checking. Of course they have to determine which tweets are not supported by facts, but they aren't telling users that the tweet is wrong, merely encouraging them to be informed on the topic. 
So - could they be biased in which tweets they single out? Yes, Time will tell. It's only just begun. 

Regarding the articles linked under Trump's tweet:  Did you read them? 
 There was quite a spectrum provided to choose from.  None of them can support the president's assertion of wide-spread mail-in fraud because there simply is no evidence to support it. The fact that they provide information that seems to at least somewhat contradict the president's assertion doesn't make them biased.  There just is no information to support him on the subject while info does exists that suggests he's being misleading.

---

That the "Fact checkers" have an implicit bias that causes them to only "fact check" with sources that support their bias against the President's statements.

---

And who is their leader?

This guy.

That is the problem with any fact checking now. All media is bias, there is really no journalist that just reports the facts any more. Everyone has to put their own opinion into everything. If you only fact check with liberal news sources, you will have 1 opinion, if you fact check with conservative new sources, you will have a different opinion.

You need to fact check every tweet and take the human out of it. You can put 1 liberal and 1 conservative source for each. Other than that, you are just spreading your opinion.

---

That the "Fact checkers" have an implicit bias that causes them to only "fact check" with sources that support their bias against the President's statements.

---

And who is their leader?

This guy.

Twitter is not actively doing the fact checking. Of course they have to determine which tweets are not supported by facts, but they aren't telling users that the tweet is wrong, merely encouraging them to be informed on the topic. 
So - could they be biased in which tweets they single out? Yes, Time will tell. It's only just begun. 

Regarding the articles linked under Trump's tweet:  Did you read them? 
 There was quite a spectrum provided to choose from.  None of them can support the president's assertion of wide-spread mail-in fraud because there simply is no evidence to support it. The fact that they provide information that seems to at least somewhat contradict the president's assertion doesn't make them biased.  There just is no information to support him on the subject while info does exists that suggests he's being misleading.

First off, several different far-left sources are not "quite a spectrum."

Secondly, Trump never claimed that there has been widespread mail-in fraud. He claimed there would be. What Twitter did is equivalent to someone in 1961 implying Kennedy was wrong when he predicted a man on the moon before the end of the decade by linking a bunch of articles stating that man has never been on the moon.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Twitter is not actively doing the fact checking. Of course they have to determine which tweets are not supported by facts, but they aren't telling users that the tweet is wrong, merely encouraging them to be informed on the topic. 
So - could they be biased in which tweets they single out? Yes, Time will tell. It's only just begun. 

Regarding the articles linked under Trump's tweet:  Did you read them? 
 There was quite a spectrum provided to choose from.  None of them can support the president's assertion of wide-spread mail-in fraud because there simply is no evidence to support it. The fact that they provide information that seems to at least somewhat contradict the president's assertion doesn't make them biased.  There just is no information to support him on the subject while info does exists that suggests he's being misleading.

First off, several different far-left sources are not "quite a spectrum."

Secondly, Trump never claimed that there has been widespread mail-in fraud. He claimed there would be. What Twitter did is equivalent to someone in 1961 implying Kennedy was wrong when he predicted a man on the moon before the end of the decade by linking a bunch of articles stating that man has never been on the moon.

I've seen some bad metaphors.  I've made some.  This has got to be the worst on that's been on this board in a long time though.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

First off, several different far-left sources are not "quite a spectrum."

Secondly, Trump never claimed that there has been widespread mail-in fraud. He claimed there would be. What Twitter did is equivalent to someone in 1961 implying Kennedy was wrong when he predicted a man on the moon before the end of the decade by linking a bunch of articles stating that man has never been on the moon.

I've seen some bad metaphors.  I've made some.  This has got to be the worst on that's been on this board in a long time though.

Go back and review every one of your posts.

---

Twitter is not actively doing the fact checking. Of course they have to determine which tweets are not supported by facts, but they aren't telling users that the tweet is wrong, merely encouraging them to be informed on the topic. 
So - could they be biased in which tweets they single out? Yes, Time will tell. It's only just begun. 

Regarding the articles linked under Trump's tweet:  Did you read them? 
 There was quite a spectrum provided to choose from.  None of them can support the president's assertion of wide-spread mail-in fraud because there simply is no evidence to support it. The fact that they provide information that seems to at least somewhat contradict the president's assertion doesn't make them biased.  There just is no information to support him on the subject while info does exists that suggests he's being misleading.

First off, several different far-left sources are not "quite a spectrum."

Secondly, Trump never claimed that there has been widespread mail-in fraud. He claimed there would be. What Twitter did is equivalent to someone in 1961 implying Kennedy was wrong when he predicted a man on the moon before the end of the decade by linking a bunch of articles stating that man has never been on the moon.

Just answer me one question. 

If there is no evidence of consequential mail-in vote fraud despite MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of mail in votes being counted in past elections, why should anyone believe his claim that there suddenly will be?

Then if you're bold enough go read all of those linked articles and tell me which are far left and how many inaccuracies they contain.

---

Even if there was never a problem with mail-in voting, the Democrats have proven they will stop at nothing to defeat Trump, and they want a tool that allows them to cheat. They used ballot harvesting in 2018 to illegally flip 5 Republican house seats in Calif and that is their blueprint for the 2020 election. You really should follow along better, these plots are childishly simplistic.

---

First off, several different far-left sources are not "quite a spectrum."

Secondly, Trump never claimed that there has been widespread mail-in fraud. He claimed there would be. What Twitter did is equivalent to someone in 1961 implying Kennedy was wrong when he predicted a man on the moon before the end of the decade by linking a bunch of articles stating that man has never been on the moon.

Just answer me one question. 

If there is no evidence of consequential mail-in vote fraud despite MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of mail in votes being counted in past elections, why should anyone believe his claim that there suddenly will be?

Then if you're bold enough go read all of those linked articles and tell me which are far left and how many inaccuracies they contain.

There is evidence of fraud. That proves that fraud is possible. If by consequential you mean changed the result, then no one knows for sure how many times that has happened. In the North Carolina case I believe the "winner" subsequently was shown to have won fraudulently by absentee ballot fraud, so I'd call that "consequential." And note that it was done in the previous election two years earlier, but not discovered until the fraud was unearthed in the next election.

This is a completely different scenario. The US has had absentee ballots before, but they have almost always been a small percentage of the vote. If everyone votes by mail, the task for stealing votes becomes much easier and the chance of throwing an election to the favored candidate much more likely.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The bottom line is, once any platform (not just Twitter) decides to edit or otherwise alter a post they in fact become a publisher not a "hosting platform", especially if it is not applied to all users.  It doesn't matter if the edit/altering is a "fact check" link and it doesn't matter what their source(s) is/are for their "fact check".  When they do such a thing they are editorializing and in fact a publisher.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

The bottom line is, once any platform (not just Twitter) decides to edit or otherwise alter a post they in fact become a publisher not a "hosting platform", especially if it is not applied to all users.  It doesn't matter if the edit/altering is a "fact check" link and it doesn't matter what their source(s) is/are for their "fact check".  When they do such a thing they are editorializing and in fact a publisher.

What an odd thing for a moderator on a small forum to say.

Are you saying I can sue you if I ever disagree with one of your moderating decisions?

How would we assess the damages?.

What kind of damages should Trump receive from Twitter, in the event that Twitter loses their liability protection?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

What would the color 7 smell like?

If you could taste your thoughts, would it remind you of tarzan or football?

Could Mikesez think of a rock so big he couldn't google it?

---

What would the color 7 smell like?

If you could taste your thoughts, would it remind you of tarzan or football?

Could Mikesez think of a rock so big he couldn't google it?

I would +1 this but you know.....no button.

No need to google why that feature is gone.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

What would the color 7 smell like?

If you could taste your thoughts, would it remind you of tarzan or football?

Could Mikesez think of a rock so big he couldn't google it?

I would +1 this but you know.....no button.

No need to google why that feature is gone.

If a user -1s Mikesez on a forum does he cry to the moderators?

Oh wait, these are supposed to be philosophical questions.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I would +1 this but you know.....no button.

No need to google why that feature is gone.

If a user -1s Mikesez on a forum does he cry to the moderators?

Oh wait, these are supposed to be philosophical questions.

Ask a mod.
I asked the mods once if there was any policy about that.
They said no.
I never asked them again, and I never complained.
I started a thread asking if there should be a policy about that.
And all y'all said no.
So, in the absence of policy, I simply started hitting people with -1 votes if they hit me.
Specifically, if you gave me a -1 vote without explaining why you disagreed with my post, you got a -1 back.  If you replied to my thread saying reputation scores didn't matter and I should ignore them, I made you put your money where your mouth is by hitting you with daily -3 scores until you told me that you were wrong and the score did matter.
All I ever did was retaliate in fights I didn't start, and take people at their word when they said the scores didn't matter.
Someone complained to the mods.
A mod came to me and asked me to stop the daily -3 votes against that person.
I declined to stop, because there was, again, no policy saying I should stop.
There was a poster who whined to the mods repeatedly about all of this. 
It wasn't me.
Ask the mods who it was.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.