Corporations are people, so to attack Twitter for this is to interfere with Twitter's free speech.
Quote (ThatAlex @ May 26 2020 09:02pm)
I think people should be able to spew as much false nonsense on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook as they want. It should be up to the people to decipher the information. If they wanna believe fake shit, that's their problem and society's problem. The problem is at the root of our society and poor education/critical thinking.
There is an argument that these are private companies and therefore they should be allowed to regulate their platforms as they see fit. I get it. But I also think this will inevitably lead to censorship. And there's no doubt these platforms are largely liberal-biased.
Censorship has always existed, will always exist, and should always exist. It's just a matter of who is doing the censoring. Non-government entities can censor all they want. We all do it, if somebody comes in my house and says something unpleasant I'm gonna kick them out. Similarly if I host a platform and what is said is against the terms of service I lay out, I get to censor them as well. We have like a dozen platforms for spewing shit now. If you don't like how one platforms censors you spewing move to a different one.
Quote (Black XistenZ @ May 26 2020 08:56pm)
This.
I'm not against fact-checking if done absolutely neutral and only in cases where the facts are absolutely undisputable.
Trump's free speech is not being stifled here, but fact-checking is not the social media companies' business - particularly not since they are also known to have a strong political bias. (Almost always liberal, almost always globalist.)
On the actual substance, I would say that Trump and the GOP are not justified in their concern that mail voting will put them at a disadvantage. Yes, it tends to increase turnout which is normally bad for the GOP, but older voters like mail voting a lot more than younger folks, which is good for the GOP, and these two effects roughly cancel each other out. However, the concern about election security and integrity, about ballot harvesting and manipulation, is VERY justified.
Neutral fact checking is garbage fact checking. No facts will ever be entirely out of dispute. That's just not how reality works. What you want is objective fact checking. Neutral fact checking is "X says this, Y says this". Objective fact checking is "X said this which is not backed up by evidence and was likely made up on the spot and Y said this which is backed up by numerous studies and the opinions of experts in the field. As a result it's clear that X is probably not true." Media should not be neutral, media should be objective.
I know not all conservatives think this, but I spent 8 years under Obama being told by conservatives on the forum that you aren't owed internet access or access to any of the platforms, so they can do what they want.
Quote (cambovenzi @ May 26 2020 08:39pm)
I think its a pretty terrible precedent and indicative of leftist bias.
I have zero doubt this is being used as a political weapon and won't be evenly enforced.
The implementation in this case was particularity despicable as they inserted biased and inflammatory CNN articles masquerading as a fact check for a claim that isn't even objectively false.
If thats the new normal its going to be a mess.
Why should a business not cave in to leftist bias if it makes money? Why shouldn't a private company use whatever means necessary to generate revenue? Isn't that the purpose of their entire existence?