Pandemic threat? Anyone else concerned?

How is STOPPING a social media company from selectively restricting speech a bad thing? Trump's "regulation" is to get these companies to STOP REGULATING the speech of others.
When the president of the US flies off the handle and spouts false or misleading information, I'm happy it gets tagged with links to the facts.

It would be better if his tweets were fact checked by White House staff before they go out, of course, but then I guess his feed would be much quieter.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
 
When the president of the US flies off the handle and spouts false or misleading information, I'm happy it gets tagged with links to the facts.

It would be better if his tweets were fact checked by White House staff before they go out, of course, but then I guess his feed would be much quieter.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

I think the point is they are free to regulate the speech on their platform, but then they are liable for the speech on there.
 
When the president of the US flies off the handle and spouts false or misleading information, I'm happy it gets tagged with links to the facts.

It would be better if his tweets were fact checked by White House staff before they go out, of course, but then I guess his feed would be much quieter.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
Facts according to who? I am going to fact check you and say that we rarely read "facts" in the news any more. We read and hear the journalist's interpretation and analysis of facts. Anyone who interprets and provides analysis/perspective of "the facts" also introduces THEIR BIAS within what they write and speak. Trump also clearly does this all the time. Sometimes he gets that actual facts wrong. Sometimes he makes shit up because it's crazy hard for him to say "I don't know". Sometimes he just calls it like he sees it, and that is contrary to the opinion, analysis, or interpretation of "facts" by others. So what. People who think critically can make up their own mind-- and that conclusion will be influenced by their own biases. I don't know anyone who thinks the President is infallible and his words are absolute truth. The idea is as laughable as "you can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance."
Bottom line-- Freedom of speech must apply to the giant social-media corporations. It is strikingly dangerous to the nature of our freedom to have heavily biased "moderators" hired by heavily biased corporations DECIDE what can be communicated, and what can not within the new defacto "town square" of this age. Consequences: Crazy people, racists of all colors, and revolutionaries will have a voice-- up to the point they call for violence in some way. So be it. I don't listen to racist A-holes, though I may berate them with some sarcasm or satire pointing out their idiocy. LOL.
 
I think the point is they are free to regulate the speech on their platform, but then they are liable for the speech on there.
They play it both ways--- they claim to be a "platform" with NO liability for content posted by users. Then when it suits them, they claim to be a "publisher" with the complete right to allow or disallow whatever content they see fit. All of them do this. Zucs comments critical of Twitter yesterday caught me off-guard.
 
OK, let's fact check this:

Trump's actual words:
"There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone..... "

While any form of voting is open to abuse, "substantially fraudulent" implies that the outcome of the election would be in question.

Five states have done voting by mostly by mail already: Colorado, Hawaii, Utah, Washington, and Oregon.

Show me an election in any of those states that was found to be, or even widely suspected of being "substantially fraudulent" in the time since they went to mostly mail voting.

Could mail boxes be robbed? Yes, but since mailing of ballots occurs over a long time frame it would take a hell of an effort to skew the vote substantially. Forged ballots could occur; most of the cases I've heard of involve republicans doing it, incompetently, and getting caught. Illegally printed ballots wouldn't be a thing; they would be obvious fakes.

Face it: Trump is afraid of anything that might increase turnout, because increased turnout hurts him. Most republicans actually like vote-by-mail. Hell, Trump himself has often done it... For example:
 
OK, let's fact check this:

...

Again. I don't know anyone who can't distinguish between Trump exaggerating, or being sarcastic, or Trump just Trolling... (except for "fact-checkers"...LOL)

As for mail-in voting. IMO-- it should Not be the primary method of voting. It should not be Promoted as the primary method of voting. It places official ballots OUTSIDE the control of the precincts in charge of validating the accuracy of the process. It provides opportunity for many different people to interfere and commit fraud-- and it is not necessary. I would rather see Election day as a National paid Holiday.

My completely anecdotal story: When I lived in California, I signed up for a mail-in ballot. My ballot Never arrived in the mail. I went to vote in person, and was told "but you got a ballot in the mail" I said that I never received that ballot. They gave me a "provisional ballot" which was separated from all other ballots, and I was told it would be counted IF my mail-in ballot was not submitted. WTF??? My physical presence (AND PHOTO ID) should supersede a mail-in ballot which could have been filled out by ANYONE and sent back. I am certain that None of my votes were counted. I am suspicious that MY ballot had been used fraudulently. That is not Democracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankenscript
This is interesting. Twitter didn't remove the tweet, but they removed all likes, re-tweets, and replies......
screenshot from just a minute ago...
Like many other Trump tweets-- I don't like what he said at all, but me not liking it doesn't mean it should be gone. His words, and he can defend them.

1590772767351.png
 
Interesting tweet.

Not sure if many Republicans understand it, but the term Thugs is the 2020 version of the N word.

There is no excuse for looting, but when the president used this term in this context, he is enciting an escalation.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
 
Here it comes.... Trump is racist. No proof needed when lobbing accusations at him. No fact checking necessary. Shaking my head.
One of my favorite bugs bunny cartoons is "Bugs 'n Thugs." Thug didn't used to have a racial component. Now, when used in a racially fraught context, it absolutely does.

And yes Trump is a racist. He should have resigned in disgrace after making the comment about very fine people among the white supremacists in Charlottesville.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
 
Interesting tweet.

Not sure if many Republicans understand it, but the term Thugs is the 2020 version of the N word.

There is no excuse for looting, but when the president used this term in this context, he is enciting an escalation.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
I don't think of RACE at all when I hear that word. I think of emboldened mobs gathered for any given cause. I think of ANTIFA. I think of Gangs. I think of old-school Union members engaging in physical intimidation. I think of drunken thuggish bullies just Itching to start a fight in a bar. I think of criminals attempting to use Force in committing their crimes.

When you try to equate "thug" with the absolutely racist N-word, you are attempting to create a new PC standard of speech and I am reminded of my daughters' favorite movie, Mean Girls. Stop trying to make "fetch" happen. ;) :cool:
 
I don't think of RACE at all when I hear that word. I think of emboldened mobs gathered for any given cause. I think of ANTIFA. I think of Gangs. I think of old-school Union members engaging in physical intimidation. I think of drunken thuggish bullies just Itching to start a fight in a bar. I think of criminals attempting to use Force in committing their crimes.

When you try to equate "thug" with the absolutely racist N-word, you are attempting to create a new PC standard of speech and I am reminded of my daughters' favorite movie, Mean Girls. Stop trying to make "fetch" happen. ;) :cool:
It doesn't matter what you or I think of the word. What matters is how the 45-50 Million black people in this country perceive it. They all know the word thug means the N word.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
 
One of my favorite bugs bunny cartoons is "Bugs 'n Thugs." Thug didn't used to have a racial component. Now, when used in a racially fraught context, it absolutely does.

And yes Trump is a racist. He should have resigned in disgrace after making the comment about very fine people among the white supremacists in Charlottesville.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
Wrong. Fact-checking your claim shows that you are taking one part of a statement OUT OF CONTEXT and arriving at a conclusion that is unjustified and unsupported.

Trump's actual words:

" ...and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally "
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jessie.slimer
And yes Trump is a racist. He should have resigned in disgrace after making the comment about very fine people among the white supremacists in Charlottesville.

This was taken out of context. This has been disproven already. He said there were very fine people on both sides of the protest. And there were. Not everyone of course. Not everyone who wanted those historical statues left up were white supremacists. Some people just don't like to see their historical landmarks violently destroyed.

Maybe its those who see race in everything that are the actual racists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sdkid
In 2015, Obama called the Baltimore Rioters Thugs
Hah!

A black president calling them thugs is very different from a white president doing that. I've had back friends that used the n word all the time in my presence but if I had ever used it like that it would not have gone over well.

It's lack of sensitivity to this that is astounding. You guys seem to be living in an ignorance bubble with regard to how people perceive things.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
 
This was taken out of context. This has been disproven already. He said there were very fine people on both sides of the protest. And there were. Not everyone of course. Not everyone who wanted those historical statues left up were white supremacists. Some people just don't like to see their historical landmarks violently destroyed.

Maybe its those who see race in everything that are the actual racists.
OMG--- Obama is a racist!!! LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jessie.slimer