Donald Trump

[SasaS]

I thought about it and may be with Trump on the Twitter thing.

Why should a privately owned platform have the right or an obligation to fact check posts? This would be like Dave reading all the posts on here and then spending his day fact checking what was said in them. If they want to edit, they should have legal protections removed and be held accountable for user created content.

 

If the president of the US wants to make an ass of himself on Twitter or Facebook, he should be allowed to do so, it's up to other agencies and media to react, not the platform itself.

[Rico1304]

2 minutes ago, SasaS said:

I thought about it and may be with Trump on the Twitter thing.

Why should a privately owned platform have the right or an obligation to fact check posts? This would be like Dave reading all the posts on here and then spending his day fact checking what was said in them. If they want to edit, they should have legal protections removed and be held accountable for user created content.

 

If the president of the US wants to make an ass of himself on Twitter or Facebook, he should be allowed to do so, it's up to other agencies and media to react, not the platform itself.

I think there’s a slight difference between us jamboks posting shite on here and the President of the USA using a platform to lie and potentially incite violence.  But it should be applied equally.  They don’t do the same to the Chinese government for example. 
 

imagine being the poor bastard who has to wake Trump this morning.  Some serious games of Rock Paper Scissors going on soon. 

[SasaS]

4 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

I think there’s a slight difference between us jamboks posting shite on here and the President of the USA using a platform to lie and potentially incite violence.  But it should be applied equally.  They don’t do the same to the Chinese government for example. 
 

imagine being the poor bastard who has to wake Trump this morning.  Some serious games of Rock Paper Scissors going on soon. 

But the problem is not the part "using the platform", the problem is the part "the President of the USA lie and potentially incite violence". It is not up to Twitter to act on this, for me, it would be like a sound system provider switching off Trump at a press conference because he was inciting violence. 

 

And the earlier fact checked tweet was an opinion, so fact checking was rather pointless.

 

I think this is stupid from Twitter, it will just add fuel to accusations biggest social media are "against them" and infringe on everyone's freedom of speech for the sake of fucking with Trump.

[Rick Sanchez C-137]

If you have a platform like the president does, and tweet when the looting starts the shooting starts, SOMEONE has to pull you up on it. There needs to be checks against this. Maybe it's not twitter's remit but if they allowed these kind of threats they'd be criticised by some too.

[Rick Sanchez C-137]

Plus Donny is a cunt. Anything against him is ok by me. Everyone who can pile on should pile on, more and more and more, until he's dead.

 

Don't block this post Dave.

[Bobby Hundreds]

Who fact checks the fact checker!

 

Don't tell me he's chubby.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

About time he was taken out, and I don't mean for a fucking Pizza. 

[clangers]

Just close his Twitter account.

[clangers]

1 hour ago, SasaS said:

Why should a privately owned platform have the right or an obligation to fact check posts?

You've answered your own question. Twitter is a privately owned service rather than publicly owned, they can define their own T&C within the law, check their conditions they can close any account at will. Just because it's a popular service doesn't make it federal property.

[Mark M]

10 minutes ago, clangers said:

Just close his Twitter account.

That would be amazing - could you imagine how angry he'd be if he picked up his phone and found out he can't tweet in CAPS ANYMORE! 

[mattyq]

5 minutes ago, clangers said:

You've answered your own question. Twitter is a privately owned service rather than publicly owned, they can define their own T&C within the law, check their conditions they can close any account at will. Just because it's a popular service doesn't make it federal property.

Yup, Twitter is under no obligation to publish the dangerous ramblings of a fat cunt. 

[Guest Pistonbroke]

12 minutes ago, clangers said:

Just close his Twitter account.

 

That could easily cause WW3 or a new Civil war.

[stringvest]

He can always use Weibo

[Trumo]

1 hour ago, SasaS said:

I think this is stupid from Twitter, it will just add fuel to accusations biggest social media are "against them" and infringe on everyone's freedom of speech for the sake of fucking with Trump.

 

Nope.

 

Those people looking for fuel will always find it. Just because some people might get pissed off does not mean a correct course of action should not be pursued.

[SasaS]

22 minutes ago, clangers said:

You've answered your own question. Twitter is a privately owned service rather than publicly owned, they can define their own T&C within the law, check their conditions they can close any account at will. Just because it's a popular service doesn't make it federal property.

Well, this is the old discussion about freedoms for me, freedom of speech is not just for the people we agree with. Private companies providing communication platforms or services should not discriminate against their users based on their political views.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

With Trump, it is not just about him trying to get a political view over. He uses it to cause friction and divide the masses even further. 

[clangers]

15 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Well, this is the old discussion about freedoms for me, freedom of speech is not just for the people we agree with. Private companies providing communication platforms or services should not discriminate against their users based on their political views.

There is an argument to be had as to whether the social media platforms are publishers or forums? At the moment they are the latter and so their status is little different to us complaining when a post on here is deleted or a member is banned. We'll be exerting a form of censorship whichever way social media platforms are ultimately defined.

 

As for freedom of speech, that's a blanket statement. We have freedom of speech but also liability for the consequences. It's a moot point as to our rights when we choose to sign up for a publicly visible private service. Trump has adopted Twitter as his primary communication channel but he's still signing up to the same T&C's as you or I.

[Bjornebye]

I reckon he has created this Twitter spat so they have less headlines about them going over 100,000 deaths. 

 

He's obviously got his own Dominic Cummings. 

 

"We are about to go over 100,000 deaths, this doesn't look good for me.."

 

"Quick, call God a cunt!" 

[Chairman Meow]

2 hours ago, SasaS said:

Why should a privately owned platform have the right or an obligation to fact check posts? This would be like Dave reading all the posts on here and then spending his day fact checking what was said in them. If they want to edit, they should have legal protections removed and be held accountable for user created content.

Dave actually moderate? Good one!

 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

His freedom of speech hasn't been impinged upon. The tweet about postal voting was posted. He's had his opinion voiced. In the interests of not wanting to be a platform that is seen as subverting democracy, Twitter have seen that a high profile politician is using their platform to potentially lie about the democratic process for their own benefit and, having left the tweet up, have posted a link to an alternative source of information on the subject discussed so that a balanced view has been offered and users csn make their minds up with access to ALL the information. 

 

His tweet about shooting looters is also still up. He's spoken. He's had his say. But, in doing so, he may have breached a condition of the platform he's decided to use to voice his views and that platform has hidden the content of his tweet, which can still be read by clicking on the warning. He's been subject to the terms and conditions of use and the consequences of breaching those conditions that every Twitter user accepts. If he thinks he's above the Twitter policies, he's always welcome to use another privately owned platform. But he'll be subject to their conditions of use too. 

[Section_31]

2 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

I reckon he has created this Twitter spat so they have less headlines about them going over 100,000 deaths. 

 

He's obviously got his own Dominic Cummings. 

 

"We are about to go over 100,000 deaths, this doesn't look good for me.."

 

"Quick, call God a cunt!" 

Nah I don't reckon he's smart enough. He's genuinely insane, caligula style insane, or like one of these french kings that used to have people killed for looking like someone they didn't like in school. It's genuinely worrying how extreme his behaviour and language have become and will go before the election comes.

[SasaS]

4 minutes ago, Pistonbroke said:

With Trump, it is not just about him trying to get a political view over. He uses it to cause friction and divide the masses even further. 

That is true, but my problem is, it is not Twitter's place to decide what the President of the US should or should not say, which is what they are doing with this.

Also, I am sure that of the millions of tweets written in support of the protestors in Minneapolis there must have been thousands that possibly crossed some line and can be classified as inciting and glorifying violence. Do we want Twitter sorting them out? Where does it ultimately end?

[Section_31]

2 minutes ago, SasaS said:

That is true, but my problem is, it is not Twitter's place to decide what the President of the US should or should not say, which is what they are doing with this.

Also, I am sure that of the millions of tweets written in support of the protestors in Minneapolis there must have been thousands that possibly crossed some line and can be classified as inciting and glorifying violence. Do we want Twitter sorting them out? Where does it ultimately end?

I think they can do what they want if they own it. If you started posting Everton videos I'm sure Dave U would have words. 

 

Free speech is about not being prosecuted by the state for something you say, twitter isn't the state or a public space.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

6 minutes ago, SasaS said:

That is true, but my problem is, it is not Twitter's place to decide what the President of the US should or should not say, which is what they are doing with this.
 

 

It is when they believe he is breaking their rules. Twitter is also not just for the American public but a World Wide platform. Maybe's Donald should start his own social platform and him and his ilk can post all the shite they want. 

[s(k)aturation]

 

Twitter is shit.  It should not be complaining about fucking anything.

 

It has created the (platform for) monsters.

 

It's the perfect place for cunts like Trump.

 

And obversely, the perfect place for people who hate cunts like Trump.

 

That, in a nutshell, explains its exquisitely profitable symbiosis.