Jesus, the tired golf thing?

Just remember. Donald Trump is president because of Barack Obama. That is an indisputable fact that keeps you up at night.

Bahahahahahahaha

---

Jesus, the tired golf thing?

Just remember. Donald Trump is president because of Barack Obama. That is an indisputable fact that keeps you up at night.

I'm only up at night until I go to bed. Trust me, the Obama presidency doesn't keep me from sleeping

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

Do a little research. In states where it's used, very little fraud has been found and more people voted. Heck, Republicans in states like Florida and Arizona have pushed for mail-in voting for years, until their hero got worried about losing in November. And that's the big fear, isn't it? Your Orange Emperor said it best, the more people who vote the less chance Republicans will win elections.

The big fear is election fraud. 

Every single vote should require a SSN associated with it. Easy fix.

No. Never. You want to talk about voter fraud, let's talk about what happens when a poll worker or a ballot counter manages to record and/or keep a few of those SSNs. Or, more likely, a lot of them.

The big fear is that Trump will lose. The big con is that absentee ballots invite election fraud.

---

The big fear is election fraud. 

Every single vote should require a SSN associated with it. Easy fix.

No. Never. You want to talk about voter fraud, let's talk about what happens when a poll worker or a ballot counter manages to record and/or keep a few of those SSNs. Or, more likely, a lot of them.

The big fear is that Trump will lose. The big con is that absentee ballots invite election fraud.

But muh tax dollas! Twitter bad! Golf good!

---

You can't just go open another Facebook or Twitter. I have said for years that tech companies that represent a public forum need to treated like any public forum. The whole point is to have multiple ideas converge at once, then sort through the BS. One of THE selling points is that these tech platforms give people a voice to speak to the community. They are literally selling interconnection, but then filtering content to support their ideology. As far as I'm concerned, it's false advertising. There is a difference between a forum that focuses on a specific topic (like a place where democrats meet), and a company that is marketing to the whole of the public. The former should be able to make the rules it chooses (if it's clear that it doesn't welcome all parties) and the latter should only be able to regulate that which is already regulated: Inciting violence, public indecency, and the like.

The point of issue above is made worse by granting these companies government protection. Imo, this should only exist if they declare themselves a public forum, thus are free from libel. The minute they begin to censor individuals, that protection should be revoked. These companies need to let the local authorities deal with anything that is illegal. If they want to set something up that works more closely with the authorities, go ahead. Tech companies selling a public platform should have their discretion limited to the guidelines of the FCC. At the most, I think they could regulate speech as tightly as the smallest municipal code allows, but no more. If citizens have a problem with the regulation, they sue their municipality. This could allow people to vote for the level of speech with which they are comfortable, but allow citizens to challenge that in the courts if it becomes too restrictive.

---

You actually can go open another Facebook or Twitter. It just may not be successful but you can do it. New things come up all the time.

MySpace, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, SnapChat, Marco Polo, Tik Tok.... make whatever you want.

---

That's a terrible argument. You can't make a tech giant platform that has millions of consumers. These platforms depend on a monopoly for their existence.

---

Just remember...... everything you THINK you are ok with right now because you are blinded by your hate for Trump will still be there AFTER Trump is gone. Then what? Are you ultimately ok with these platforms receiving your tax dollars being additional arms of the Chinese propaganda machine and controlling the narrative? Are you ok with the justice department targeting your children and grandchildren in the future because they don't have a certain political ideology?

Let's think long term here, and "Invent another platform" isn't an answer.

---

You can't just go open another Facebook or Twitter. I have said for years that tech companies that represent a public forum need to treated like any public forum. The whole point is to have multiple ideas converge at once, then sort through the BS. One of THE selling points is that these tech platforms give people a voice to speak to the community. They are literally selling interconnection, but then filtering content to support their ideology. As far as I'm concerned, it's false advertising. There is a difference between a forum that focuses on a specific topic (like a place where democrats meet), and a company that is marketing to the whole of the public. The former should be able to make the rules it chooses (if it's clear that it doesn't welcome all parties) and the latter should only be able to regulate that which is already regulated: Inciting violence, public indecency, and the like.

The point of issue above is made worse by granting these companies government protection. Imo, this should only exist if they declare themselves a public forum, thus are free from libel. The minute they begin to censor individuals, that protection should be revoked. These companies need to let the local authorities deal with anything that is illegal. If they want to set something up that works more closely with the authorities, go ahead. Tech companies selling a public platform should have their discretion limited to the guidelines of the FCC. At the most, I think they could regulate speech as tightly as the smallest municipal code allows, but no more. If citizens have a problem with the regulation, they sue their municipality. This could allow people to vote for the level of speech with which they are comfortable, but allow citizens to challenge that in the courts if it becomes too restrictive.

I think you're mostly right.  Twitter should only delete posts that incite violence or something like that. 
But Twitter didn't delete Trump's post.  They tacked their own opinion on to the end of it, that's all.  They even clearly marked it as their opinion, not his.

---

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

You can't just go open another Facebook or Twitter. I have said for years that tech companies that represent a public forum need to treated like any public forum. The whole point is to have multiple ideas converge at once, then sort through the BS. One of THE selling points is that these tech platforms give people a voice to speak to the community. They are literally selling interconnection, but then filtering content to support their ideology. As far as I'm concerned, it's false advertising. There is a difference between a forum that focuses on a specific topic (like a place where democrats meet), and a company that is marketing to the whole of the public. The former should be able to make the rules it chooses (if it's clear that it doesn't welcome all parties) and the latter should only be able to regulate that which is already regulated: Inciting violence, public indecency, and the like.

The point of issue above is made worse by granting these companies government protection. Imo, this should only exist if they declare themselves a public forum, thus are free from libel. The minute they begin to censor individuals, that protection should be revoked. These companies need to let the local authorities deal with anything that is illegal. If they want to set something up that works more closely with the authorities, go ahead. Tech companies selling a public platform should have their discretion limited to the guidelines of the FCC. At the most, I think they could regulate speech as tightly as the smallest municipal code allows, but no more. If citizens have a problem with the regulation, they sue their municipality. This could allow people to vote for the level of speech with which they are comfortable, but allow citizens to challenge that in the courts if it becomes too restrictive.

I think you're mostly right.  Twitter should only delete posts that incite violence or something like that. 
But Twitter didn't delete Trump's post.  They tacked their own opinion on to the end of it, that's all.  They even clearly marked it as their opinion, not his.

Then they backed their opinion with documented fake news publications.

Even level headed analysts are saying "Why would you pick THAT tweet to enter the fact-checking thunderdome on"? Bad look for Jacky

---

I have less of a problem with fact check option. I wouldn't mind it at all if you could remove bias from the equation.

---

That's a terrible argument. You can't make a tech giant platform that has millions of consumers. These platforms depend on a monopoly for their existence.

It’s not an argument. It’s a simple fact that you can create a social media platform if you want to. It may not be successful but you can do it.

No one is forcing anyone to use twitter or Instagram. If you don’t like it (or you don’t like your kids using it) then..... turn it off? Lol not complicated.

This is all happening because Trump had his feelings hurt.

---

I think you're mostly right.  Twitter should only delete posts that incite violence or something like that. 
But Twitter didn't delete Trump's post.  They tacked their own opinion on to the end of it, that's all.  They even clearly marked it as their opinion, not his.

Then they backed their opinion with documented fake news publications.

Even level headed analysts are saying "Why would you pick THAT tweet to enter the fact-checking thunderdome on"? Bad look for Jacky

Maybe he’s doing it to troll the president? It’s funny when the president trolls right?

---

I have less of a problem with fact check option. I wouldn't mind it at all if you could remove bias from the equation.

Same here. But the thing is if you fact check one person/entity, then you have to fact check them all. Where does it stop and what source is used for acceptable fact checking? 

IMHO, Twitter used CNN and WaPo as fact checking sources for the symbolism rather than veracity. No honest and clear thinking individual believes either of those sources are non-biased and completely truthful. Is was nothing more than a shot across the bow of Trump, but without the threat of silencing, or obstinately challenging, one of their biggest revenue generators.

---

I have less of a problem with fact check option. I wouldn't mind it at all if you could remove bias from the equation.

Same here. But the thing is if you fact check one person/entity, then you have to fact check them all. Where does it stop and what source is used for acceptable fact checking? 

IMHO, Twitter used CNN and WaPo as fact checking sources for the symbolism rather than veracity. No honest and clear thinking individual believes either of those sources are non-biased and completely truthful. Is was nothing more than a shot across the bow of Trump, but without the threat of silencing, or obstinately challenging, one of their biggest revenue generators.

Twitter is already a cesspool. If Trump decides to leave for another platform, all conservatives will follow and Twitter will be left picking up the pieces. Nobody is too big to fail and Dorsey is walking a tight line right now.

---

I have less of a problem with fact check option. I wouldn't mind it at all if you could remove bias from the equation.

Same here. But the thing is if you fact check one person/entity, then you have to fact check them all. Where does it stop and what source is used for acceptable fact checking? 

IMHO, Twitter used CNN and WaPo as fact checking sources for the symbolism rather than veracity. No honest and clear thinking individual believes either of those sources are non-biased and completely truthful. Is was nothing more than a shot across the bow of Trump, but without the threat of silencing, or obstinately challenging, one of their biggest revenue generators.

Whatever the intention behind linking those biased sources, where are the unbiased sources they should link? Pretty hard to find these days unfortunately. 

However -  If you follow the link from Trump's tweet falsely claiming mail-in voting is an open door to fraud, you'll find articles supporting factual information from other sources such as, NBC, ABC, Forbes, Christian Science Monitor, CBS, The Guardian, and The Hill. It wasn't just CNN and WaPo.

Whatever you think about these sources, there simply isn't precedent to support the claim that all of this mail-in voting (that is already very commonplace) is rife with fraud. 

The more likely explanation for the tack he's steering is the election results from the Wisconsin primary in which a majority of mail in votes were logged in favor of candidates who oppose Trump. But whatever his motivation, there is no evidence to support the claim  --  and if there is evidence to support it - then the past several presidential elections are equally as called into question as the one upcoming. 


It's a slippery slope to determine which posts are worthy or unworthy of the addendum for sure. 

I like the concept of a fact check link added to posts that are blatant misinformation, but there obviously is not a clear-cut system in place to execute that w/o at least the implication of bias creeping in right now.

---

Same here. But the thing is if you fact check one person/entity, then you have to fact check them all. Where does it stop and what source is used for acceptable fact checking? 

IMHO, Twitter used CNN and WaPo as fact checking sources for the symbolism rather than veracity. No honest and clear thinking individual believes either of those sources are non-biased and completely truthful. Is was nothing more than a shot across the bow of Trump, but without the threat of silencing, or obstinately challenging, one of their biggest revenue generators.

Twitter is already a cesspool. If Trump decides to leave for another platform, all conservatives will follow and Twitter will be left picking up the pieces. Nobody is too big to fail and Dorsey is walking a tight line right now.

Hahahahaha oh no! How will twitter survive!

Not everyone is a Trump sheep like you. All conservatives will leave? Lol

---

Same here. But the thing is if you fact check one person/entity, then you have to fact check them all. Where does it stop and what source is used for acceptable fact checking? 

IMHO, Twitter used CNN and WaPo as fact checking sources for the symbolism rather than veracity. No honest and clear thinking individual believes either of those sources are non-biased and completely truthful. Is was nothing more than a shot across the bow of Trump, but without the threat of silencing, or obstinately challenging, one of their biggest revenue generators.

Whatever the intention behind linking those biased sources, where are the unbiased sources they should link? Pretty hard to find these days unfortunately. 

However -  If you follow the link from Trump's tweet falsely claiming mail-in voting is an open door to fraud, you'll find articles supporting factual information from other sources such as, NBC, ABC, Forbes, Christian Science Monitor, CBS, The Guardian, and The Hill. It wasn't just CNN and WaPo.

Whatever you think about these sources, there simply isn't precedent to support the claim that all of this mail-in voting (that is already very commonplace) is rife with fraud. 

The more likely explanation for the tack he's steering is the election results from the Wisconsin primary in which a majority of mail in votes were logged in favor of candidates who oppose Trump. But whatever his motivation, there is no evidence to support the claim  --  and if there is evidence to support it - then the past several presidential elections are equally as called into question as the one upcoming. 


It's a slippery slope to determine which posts are worthy or unworthy of the addendum for sure. 

I like the concept of a fact check link added to posts that are blatant misinformation, but there obviously is not a clear-cut system in place to execute that w/o at least the implication of bias creeping in right now.

As you rightfully indicate, there are plenty of other more reputable sources. However, Twitter used two of the most openly biased sources for rebuttal. To me that indicates Twitter is signaling a symbolic pushback. Plus, it keeps them as the center of attention. What politically charged Twitter user doesn’t want to get into the tweet fray right now?

---

Just remember...... everything you THINK you are ok with right now because you are blinded by your hate for Trump will still be there AFTER Trump is gone. Then what? Are you ultimately ok with these platforms receiving your tax dollars being additional arms of the Chinese propaganda machine and controlling the narrative? Are you ok with the justice department targeting your children and grandchildren in the future because they don't have a certain political ideology?

Let's think long term here, and "Invent another platform" isn't an answer.

You need to remember all this executive power Trump claims to have sets an even more dangerous precedent.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Whatever the intention behind linking those biased sources, where are the unbiased sources they should link? Pretty hard to find these days unfortunately. 

However -  If you follow the link from Trump's tweet falsely claiming mail-in voting is an open door to fraud, you'll find articles supporting factual information from other sources such as, NBC, ABC, Forbes, Christian Science Monitor, CBS, The Guardian, and The Hill. It wasn't just CNN and WaPo.

Whatever you think about these sources, there simply isn't precedent to support the claim that all of this mail-in voting (that is already very commonplace) is rife with fraud. 

The more likely explanation for the tack he's steering is the election results from the Wisconsin primary in which a majority of mail in votes were logged in favor of candidates who oppose Trump. But whatever his motivation, there is no evidence to support the claim  --  and if there is evidence to support it - then the past several presidential elections are equally as called into question as the one upcoming. 


It's a slippery slope to determine which posts are worthy or unworthy of the addendum for sure. 

I like the concept of a fact check link added to posts that are blatant misinformation, but there obviously is not a clear-cut system in place to execute that w/o at least the implication of bias creeping in right now.

As you rightfully indicate, there are plenty of other more reputable sources. However, Twitter used two of the most openly biased sources for rebuttal. To me that indicates Twitter is signaling a symbolic pushback. Plus, it keeps them as the center of attention. What politically charged Twitter user doesn’t want to get into the tweet fray right now?

Openly biased, or that's your perception of any negative reporting on Trump?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Whatever the intention behind linking those biased sources, where are the unbiased sources they should link? Pretty hard to find these days unfortunately. 

However -  If you follow the link from Trump's tweet falsely claiming mail-in voting is an open door to fraud, you'll find articles supporting factual information from other sources such as, NBC, ABC, Forbes, Christian Science Monitor, CBS, The Guardian, and The Hill. It wasn't just CNN and WaPo.

Whatever you think about these sources, there simply isn't precedent to support the claim that all of this mail-in voting (that is already very commonplace) is rife with fraud. 

The more likely explanation for the tack he's steering is the election results from the Wisconsin primary in which a majority of mail in votes were logged in favor of candidates who oppose Trump. But whatever his motivation, there is no evidence to support the claim  --  and if there is evidence to support it - then the past several presidential elections are equally as called into question as the one upcoming. 


It's a slippery slope to determine which posts are worthy or unworthy of the addendum for sure. 

I like the concept of a fact check link added to posts that are blatant misinformation, but there obviously is not a clear-cut system in place to execute that w/o at least the implication of bias creeping in right now.

As you rightfully indicate, there are plenty of other more reputable sources. However, Twitter used two of the most openly biased sources for rebuttal. To me that indicates Twitter is signaling a symbolic pushback. Plus, it keeps them as the center of attention. What politically charged Twitter user doesn’t want to get into the tweet fray right now?

I agree in theory with what you are suggesting, and I don't think twitter isn't being self-serving when possible here.  But when you click that fact check link that twitter added it takes you to not only the CNN and WaPo articles they deemed relevant -- but also to all of those others I listed. 

I cannot say with any certainty that their link included all of those sources initially as I only checked it today, but they are now part of the "fact check" link under the vote by mail tweet in question. 

This is where I was directed by clicking the link under his tweet:

https://twitter.com/i/events/1265330601034256384

---