Police violence against blacks, pandemic that's killed 100.000 Americans so far, Private company fact checking an absurd statement.

Guess which one President Snowflake signed an executive order for?

FBI investigation...   loads of executive action on the pandemic....  your syllogism kinda fell apart there.

---

That's the best you can do? Go back to your K-pop hun.

Trump expects the EU countries to actually spend what they promised on their obligation to NATO. You can't expect him to like Trump.

In other news, Communist China is 100% behind Biden (well at least their ruling class).

Deflect, deflect, and at no point ever acknowledge the actual issue. Trump is directly attacking a media outlet, threatening the freedom of the press. And you lot stick your head in the sand and your butts in the air. Just remember to grit your teeth and think of Uncle Sam.

1.) You guys dont have equivalent freedom of the press.
2.) Hes not threatening the freedom of the press.  Hes ordering these companies be treated as the press instead of phone companies.  

Thanks for playing.

---

That's the best you can do? Go back to your K-pop hun.

Trump expects the EU countries to actually spend what they promised on their obligation to NATO. You can't expect him to like Trump.

In other news, Communist China is 100% behind Biden (well at least their ruling class).

Deflect, deflect, and at no point ever acknowledge the actual issue. Trump is directly attacking a media outlet, threatening the freedom of the press. And you lot stick your head in the sand and your butts in the air. Just remember to grit your teeth and think of Uncle Sam.

Look, I hate Trump as much as anybody, and I would love to see his tweets fact-checked, but in this case, I think he is right.  Twitter cannot start fact-checking without admitting that it is not just "manufacturing the paper on which the news is printed."  Once they start controlling what is printed on that "paper," they are should be treated the same as if they were the New York Times or Fox News, and subject to the same set of rules and regulations.  

It's a tricky situation.  People have been urging Facebook to start regulating content for several years, and Facebook has resisted because they understand this issue.  Once you start regulating content, you become liable for content.

---

Deflect, deflect, and at no point ever acknowledge the actual issue. Trump is directly attacking a media outlet, threatening the freedom of the press. And you lot stick your head in the sand and your butts in the air. Just remember to grit your teeth and think of Uncle Sam.

Look, I hate Trump as much as anybody, and I would love to see his tweets fact-checked, but in this case, I think he is right.  Twitter cannot start fact-checking without admitting that it is not just "manufacturing the paper on which the news is printed."  Once they start controlling what is printed on that "paper," they are should be treated the same as if they were the New York Times or Fox News, and subject to the same set of rules and regulations.  

It's a tricky situation.  People have been urging Facebook to start regulating content for several years, and Facebook has resisted because they understand this issue.  Once you start regulating content, you become liable for content.

Adding a link beneath a tweet that leads readers to several articles from a variety of sources on the topic so that they may decide for themselves whether it's accurate is not "controlling what is printed." 
It is walking a bit of a tightrope over it though. 

It's like flagging a tweet as "possible BS." 
Sort of  like when your phone reads "potential spam" for an unknown number.  You're free to answer the call and find out if it's your aunt Sally or just another a scam re-fi offer.

---

Look, I hate Trump as much as anybody, and I would love to see his tweets fact-checked, but in this case, I think he is right.  Twitter cannot start fact-checking without admitting that it is not just "manufacturing the paper on which the news is printed."  Once they start controlling what is printed on that "paper," they are should be treated the same as if they were the New York Times or Fox News, and subject to the same set of rules and regulations.  

It's a tricky situation.  People have been urging Facebook to start regulating content for several years, and Facebook has resisted because they understand this issue.  Once you start regulating content, you become liable for content.

Adding a link beneath a tweet that leads readers to several articles from a variety of sources on the topic so that they may decide for themselves whether it's accurate is not "controlling what is printed." 
It is walking a bit of a tightrope over it though. 

It's like flagging a tweet as "possible BS." 
Sort of  like when your phone reads "potential spam" for an unknown number.  You're free to answer the call and find out if it's your aunt Sally or just another a scam re-fi offer.

Do it on all tweets then.

---

Adding a link beneath a tweet that leads readers to several articles from a variety of sources on the topic so that they may decide for themselves whether it's accurate is not "controlling what is printed." 
It is walking a bit of a tightrope over it though. 

It's like flagging a tweet as "possible BS." 
Sort of  like when your phone reads "potential spam" for an unknown number.  You're free to answer the call and find out if it's your aunt Sally or just another a scam re-fi offer.

Do it on all tweets then.

But only Drumpf tells half truths that need the smarties to correct.

---

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

Adding a link beneath a tweet that leads readers to several articles from a variety of sources on the topic so that they may decide for themselves whether it's accurate is not "controlling what is printed." 
It is walking a bit of a tightrope over it though. 

It's like flagging a tweet as "possible BS." 
Sort of  like when your phone reads "potential spam" for an unknown number.  You're free to answer the call and find out if it's your aunt Sally or just another a scam re-fi offer.

Do it on all tweets then.

I think they should absolutely set a benchmark based on how many people a tweet reaches and fact check any questionable tweets that surpass that mark.

---

Democrats never lie, so they don't need to be fact checked.

---

Do it on all tweets then.

I think they should absolutely set a benchmark based on how many people a tweet reaches and fact check any questionable tweets that surpass that mark.

Wow! You just validated everything.

---

Look, I hate Trump as much as anybody, and I would love to see his tweets fact-checked, but in this case, I think he is right.  Twitter cannot start fact-checking without admitting that it is not just "manufacturing the paper on which the news is printed."  Once they start controlling what is printed on that "paper," they are should be treated the same as if they were the New York Times or Fox News, and subject to the same set of rules and regulations.  

It's a tricky situation.  People have been urging Facebook to start regulating content for several years, and Facebook has resisted because they understand this issue.  Once you start regulating content, you become liable for content.

Adding a link beneath a tweet that leads readers to several articles from a variety of sources on the topic so that they may decide for themselves whether it's accurate is not "controlling what is printed." 
It is walking a bit of a tightrope over it though. 

It's like flagging a tweet as "possible BS." 
Sort of  like when your phone reads "potential spam" for an unknown number.  You're free to answer the call and find out if it's your aunt Sally or just another a scam re-fi offer.

I think adding a link is exercising control over what is printed.  It introduces bias into the content, because the Twitter fact checkers have to decide which tweets deserve a fact-check.  Twitter has a perfect right to do this, to be sure.  Twitter has a First Amendment right to be as biased as they want.  But at that point, they are a publisher like any other publisher, and they have resisted that legal classification, because they don't want any legal liability for what gets published on their platform.   

I think a court would agree with me.

---

I think they should absolutely set a benchmark based on how many people a tweet reaches and fact check any questionable tweets that surpass that mark.

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?"

---

Adding a link beneath a tweet that leads readers to several articles from a variety of sources on the topic so that they may decide for themselves whether it's accurate is not "controlling what is printed." 
It is walking a bit of a tightrope over it though. 

It's like flagging a tweet as "possible BS." 
Sort of  like when your phone reads "potential spam" for an unknown number.  You're free to answer the call and find out if it's your aunt Sally or just another a scam re-fi offer.

Do it on all tweets then.

Not all. Just the ones that are reaching thousands and thousands of people per minute.

---

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

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...

---

Adding a link beneath a tweet that leads readers to several articles from a variety of sources on the topic so that they may decide for themselves whether it's accurate is not "controlling what is printed." 
It is walking a bit of a tightrope over it though. 

It's like flagging a tweet as "possible BS." 
Sort of  like when your phone reads "potential spam" for an unknown number.  You're free to answer the call and find out if it's your aunt Sally or just another a scam re-fi offer.

I think adding a link is exercising control over what is printed.  It introduces bias into the content, because the Twitter fact checkers have to decide which tweets deserve a fact-check.  Twitter has a perfect right to do this, to be sure.  Twitter has a First Amendment right to be as biased as they want.  But at that point, they are a publisher like any other publisher, and they have resisted that legal classification, because they don't want any legal liability for what gets published on their platform.   

I think a court would agree with me.

It'll likely come down to a court agreeing with section 230 unless Congress votes to change it. 

A couple of relevant articles on the topic:

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style...38681.html


https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsie...eff13e6703

---

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?"

Let's expand on this....

1. What is the criteria to be considered a public figure?
2. How many followers must a user have to qualify for "fact checking"?

---

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...

Twitter isn't "media" by legal definition.  And suggesting unbiased (and optional to click upon) fact check links to all such questionable tweets  (from any public figure) is not in any way akin to "state controlled media." LOL

You are reeeeeaaaaaching.

---

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...

Twitter isn't "media" by legal definition.  And suggesting unbiased (and optional to click upon) fact check links to all such questionable tweets  (from any public figure) is not in any way akin to "state controlled media." LOL

You are reeeeeaaaaaching.

Its media now....that's what this whole thing is about...

---

OOPS! Fact-checker got the facts wrong.

Dustin Volz
@dnvolz
There was an error in Twitter's fact check of Trump's vote-by-mail tweets, underscoring the challenge social media platforms face trying to arbitrate truth.

It was corrected after an elections professional notified the company (and me) about the mistake.

---

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

Let's expand on this....

1. What is the criteria to be considered a public figure?
2. How many followers must a user have to qualify for "fact checking"?

Answer those questions yourself. What do you think the bar should be? 

Shouldn't be at all difficult to decide for a tech company that has easy access to broad ranging analytics of it's content and subscribership. It's just a matter of how far down the totem pole you wish to apply the fact check.  

You could say "any person who holds public office and has over 200K followers (random number) and also any public figure (political or otherwise) with more than 1 million followers. (another random number) 
Then you could go on to apply the fact check option to any posts by any joe-scmhoe that is re-tweeted and reaches more than 2 million people. (another random number)

---

Twitter isn't "media" by legal definition.  And suggesting unbiased (and optional to click upon) fact check links to all such questionable tweets  (from any public figure) is not in any way akin to "state controlled media." LOL

You are reeeeeaaaaaching.

Its media now....that's what this whole thing is about...

You saying it doesn't make it so. 

Just like Trump's e.o. doesn't accomplish anything due to section 230 protection.

---

Twitter has been accused of being a monopoly, and some people have advocated breaking up Twitter. Twitter has defended itself with the claim that they are simply a public space, and they are simply providing a platform. Once Twitter starts commenting on tweets or regulating tweets, they are no longer just providing a platform. So Twitter is walking a very fine line here, and I think they are going to have a lot of trouble because of it.

---

Twitter has been accused of being a monopoly, and some people have advocated breaking up Twitter.  Twitter has defended itself with the claim that they are simply a public space, and they are simply providing a platform.   Once Twitter starts commenting on tweets or regulating tweets, they are no longer just providing a platform.   So Twitter is walking a very fine line here, and I think they are going to have a lot of trouble because of it.

They are not walking the fine line. They have walked over it and there is no going back now. They made an emotional colossal mistake.

---