Web Censorship and Political Bias

#776
#776
BowlBrother85 said:
Okay. So, eliminate those deals and shut the hell up. If conservatives want a platform where they can post whatever they want without being fact-checked, then the onus should be on conservatives to produce it. The real problem that conservatives have on social media, is that you don't seem capable of the same creativity as Silicon Valley liberals.
Click to expand...
On the flip side, keep getting these breaks and deals, stop censoring, and shut the hell up.

It's what I've been saying. It's one or the other. Glad you agree.
 
#777
#777
BowlBrother85 said:
I think that the "deals and tax breaks" should be taken away, but the solution to this situation is not through executive orders and more government regulation. It's through competition. So why don't Republicans/conservatives/Trump supporters create their own micro-blogging and social networking service, which they could use to both censor Democrats and exclude Democrats from, while posting politically partisan opinions and debunked conspiracy theories? Because they don't know how to do it. Collectively speaking, Republicans/conservatives/Trump supporters are not as creative as liberals when it comes to cyber-technology. However, that is not the fault of liberals, now is it?
Click to expand...
And here comes the elitism. You just can’t help it can you?
 
#780
#780
Wouldn't it just be easier for Trump to stop using Twitter if he's butthurt about being fact checked? Seems like if you hate them so much continuing to provide them more business is a bad way of communicating that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
#781
#781
Wafflestomper said:
Wouldn't it just be easier for Trump to stop using Twitter if he's butthurt about being fact checked? Seems like if you hate them so much continuing to provide them more business is a bad way of communicating that.
Click to expand...

I wish he would stop or Twitter just close his account but neither is happening. Trump loves to tweet and Twitter loves him using their platform.
 
#782
#782
hog88 said:
I wish he would stop or Twitter just close his account but neither is happening. Trump loves to tweet and Twitter loves him using their platform.
Click to expand...

He could pick some up-and-coming right-leaning platform to host his comments too. That would make way more sense. Changing or challenging Section 230 is not the right answer here.
 
#783
#783
Wafflestomper said:
He could pick some up-and-coming right-leaning platform to host his comments too. That would make way more sense. Changing or challenging Section 230 is not the right answer here.
Click to expand...

Section 230 needs to be amended or done away with but an EO is not the way to do it.
 
#788
#788
Orange_Vol1321 said:
On the flip side, keep getting these breaks and deals, stop censoring, and shut the hell up.

It's what I've been saying. It's one or the other. Glad you agree.
Click to expand...

Preventing the spread of false and potentially harmful content is not censorship.

Just like you can't yell fire in a movie theater.
 
Last edited:
#790
#790
k-town_king said:
Preventing the spread of false and potentially content is not censorship.

Just like you can't yell fire in a movie theater.
Click to expand...
The issue is when you point that tool at one group or groups of people disproportionately. They can do it, it's their right but don't hide behind a policy when you ambiguously enforce it. Just be straight up and say we don't agree with or like what you say so we are censoring it. All I ask is that they're straight up about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and volfanjustin
#791
#791
BowlBrother85 said:
Okay. So, eliminate those deals and shut the hell up. If conservatives want a platform where they can post whatever they want without being fact-checked, then the onus should be on conservatives to produce it. The real problem that conservatives have on social media, is that you don't seem capable of the same creativity as Silicon Valley liberals.
Click to expand...
Or maybe it’s that conservatives don’t have a need to get agreement from others on every thought they have nor think that anyone cares about every thought. Liberals might be struggling with those points since social media platforms tend to be liberal cesspools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and Orange_Vol1321
#795
#795
hog88 said:
You can't claim the lawsuit protection section 230 gives to platforms that host user generated content then turn around and use your platform like a newspaper editorial. Just amend the language to make the differences clearer or do away with it, I prefer making the language clearer.
Click to expand...

Could Twitter have been sued for libel or something else for the content they did provide (the fact check)? I don't see why the fact that they added their own content really changes anything. They still shouldn't be responsible for what others publish on their site, IMO.
 
#796
#796
Wafflestomper said:
Could Twitter have been sued for libel or something else for the content they did provide (the fact check)? I don't see why the fact that they added their own content really changes anything. They still shouldn't be responsible for what others publish on their site, IMO.
Click to expand...

I don't know if they could be sued or not for "editing", that's a damn good question. I would have supported going about attacking Twitter that way or through legislation but not through an EO.
 
#798
#798
evillawyer said:
I love this guy. He's hilarious.

Click to expand...

You only like it because it’s slamming Trump. I’m in for a good laugh at anyone’s expense but that wasn’t funny in the least. He reminds me of that host from the Daily Show. The very little I’ve seen of that guy isn’t funny at all and neither is this guy unless his other videos are better than this one.
 
#799
#799
A Judge Rules Rachel Maddow is a Fake News Fabulist and Not a Journalist

A stark admission to avoid culpability took place.

A court decision came in with a pure document-dump timing this past weekend. On Friday a judge dismissed a lawsuit brought against MSNBC personality Rachel Maddow by the upstart network One America News, and most in journalism circles probably shrugged with smug satisfaction, if they even noticed during the news vacuum on a holiday weekend.

The $10 million suit was a defamation case, where OAN stated that Maddow had slandered the network on-air when she declared it was an outlet of ‘’paid Russian propaganda’’. What has not been properly acknowledged is that in order for her to evade responsibility in the case Maddow took on the defense that she was not delivering fact-based news on her program that evening, something the judge agreed was accurate.

“Maddow had inserted her own colorful commentary into and throughout the segment, laughing, expressing her dismay (i.e., saying ‘I mean, what?’) and calling the segment a ‘sparkly story’ and one we must ‘take in stride,'” Judge Cynthia Bashant wrote Friday.​
​
This is a rather amazing stance for a member of the media to take. Here we have Maddow essentially resorting to the convenient dodge more popularly employed by the likes of John Stewart from his tenure of the satirical ‘’The Daily Show’’. At times when he would be caught delivering an inaccuracy or potentially slanderous commentary he could fall back on, ‘’It’s only satire, who fact-checks jokes?’’ It is a far different scenario for Maddow, who cloaks herself as being a serious journalist, to resort to the clown nose on/clown nose off act of deflection.


05903ec8-faf8-4ebb-9fe9-7b9ec1149393.png


Except — Maddow’s own quote about OAN from that evening is hardly one of unmistakable jocularity. “In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right-wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda.”

Judge Cynthia Bashant wrote in her decision, “For her (Maddow) to exaggerate the facts and call OAN Russian propaganda was consistent with her tone up to that point.’’ Of note here is that it is left to the viewer to make the assumption when Maddow is no longer delivering serious news and information. ‘’The Court finds a reasonable viewer would not take the statement as factual given this context,” Bashant added, essentially acknowledging the ‘’fake-news’’ aspect of the Maddow broadcast.

Rachael Maddow’s own words here defy the interpretation of things being clearly and obviously a joke. It becomes one of amazement to declare a quote using ‘’really literally’’ was never intended to be treated as realistic, nor literal. Racheal Maddow has thus invalidated herself as any type of reputable source, as her words once delivered bear absolutely no semblance to reality, and anyone attempting to hold her to her quotes is operating in error.

Rachael Maddow’s own words here defy the interpretation of things being clearly and obviously a joke. It becomes one of amazement to declare a quote using ‘’really literally’’ was never intended to be treated as realistic, nor literal. Racheal Maddow has thus invalidated herself as any type of reputable source, as her words once delivered bear absolutely no semblance to reality, and anyone attempting to hold her to her quotes is operating in error.

Rachael Maddow’s own words here defy the interpretation of things being clearly and obviously a joke. It becomes one of amazement to declare a quote using ‘’really literally’’ was never intended to be treated as realistic, nor literal. Racheal Maddow has thus invalidated herself as any type of reputable source, as her words once delivered bear absolutely no semblance to reality, and anyone attempting to hold her to her quotes is operating in error.

Rachael Maddow’s own words here defy the interpretation of things being clearly and obviously a joke. It becomes one of amazement to declare a quote using ‘’really literally’’ was never intended to be treated as realistic, nor literal. Racheal Maddow has thus invalidated herself as any type of reputable source, as her words once delivered bear absolutely no semblance to reality, and anyone attempting to hold her to her quotes is operating in error.

RED STATE.COM
 
#800
#800
Wafflestomper said:
Wouldn't it just be easier for Trump to stop using Twitter if he's butthurt about being fact checked? Seems like if you hate them so much continuing to provide them more business is a bad way of communicating that.
Click to expand...
I don't think Trump would know how to fill his day if he couldn't tweet. It's like an addiction.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top