Trump threatens to shutter social media companies after Twitter warning

[johnnybangkok]

7 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

It is censorship and it certainly is suppression, and prohibition too. Do you or Twitter think Trump will continue tweeting if every tweet carries such a warning?

That is still his prerogative. If fully censored he wouldn’t have that choice. What aren't you understanding?

[JensenZ]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

If every tweet carries such a warning his tweets deserve that warning.

Yes, show me some "fact-checking" to Tweets from his political opponents to prove Twitter is being even-handed. You'll probably reply that his political opponents don't need fact-checking. Do you think Washington Post, New York Times and CNN will be called upon to fact-check Democratic Tweeters?

[JensenZ]

3 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

That is still his prerogative. If fully censored he wouldn’t have that choice. What aren't you understanding?

I was thinking the same - what aren't you understanding? I don't think you want to understand, but either way, this fact-checking of Trump's tweets was an interesting experiment that won't last long, and the shareholders probably agree. 

 

[johnnybangkok]

2 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

I was thinking the same - what aren't you understanding? I don't think you want to understand, but either way, this fact-checking of Trump's tweets was an interesting experiment that won't last long, and the shareholders probably agree. 

 

What is there to “understand “? You are insisting he is being censored, I’m saying he isn’t. I’m correct, you’re wrong. 
And believe it or not, integrity is greater than money for many. Something that Trump fans don’t ever seem to understand. 

[JensenZ]

Just now, johnnybangkok said:

What is there to “understand “? You are insisting he is being censored, I’m saying he isn’t. I’m correct, you’re wrong. 
And believe it or not, integrity is greater than money for many. Something that Trump fans don’t ever seem to understand. 

He is being censored. Censorship has many forms, but you're stuck on one.

[ChouDoufu]

46 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

There's no difference to censorship - because it is censorship. Have a look at the people responsible for the fact-checking.

 

But don't worry - it's over. It won't happen again.

 

please define censorship.

 

 

[JensenZ]

3 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

 

please define censorship.

 

 

You can check the dictionary. We are discussing an example of censorship.

[johnnybangkok]

6 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

He is being censored. Censorship has many forms, but you're stuck on one.

Webster dictionary

Censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable. 
His tweet hasn’t been suppressed (it’s still there), it hasn’t been deleted (it’s still there). 
It’s simply been fact checked which isn’t censorship. 

[ChouDoufu]

1 minute ago, JensenZ said:

You can check the dictionary. We are discussing an example of censorship.

 

no, we are not.  you are claiming something to be censorship when it is not, thus my question as to whether you can define "censorship."

 

 

[JensenZ]

12 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

 

no, we are not.  you are claiming something to be censorship when it is not, thus my question as to whether you can define "censorship."

 

 

 We can play these games all night. Please define "semantics". Dictionary definitions are not the final word.

 

You and Johnny can keep liking each others posts all night. I'm outta here - good night!

Edited May 28, 2020 by JensenZ

[johnnybangkok]

12 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

 We can play these games all night. Please define "semantics". Dictionary definitions are not the final word.

 

You and Johnny can keep liking each others posts all night. I'm outta here - good night!

Good idea. May I recommend a dictionary for your bedtime reading?

[candide]

49 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

That was CNN reporters reporting on CNN and nothing to do with tweets being fact-checked.

 

Do you have an example of a tweet being fact-checked? A tweet by one of Trump's political opponents.

It's a new method they tried for coronavirus tweets, and extend for the first time to political messages. So no wonder there isn't any other case, whatever the political affiliation.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, JensenZ said:

It is censorship and it certainly is suppression, and prohibition too. Do you or Twitter think Trump will continue tweeting if every tweet carries such a warning?

The warning wouldn’t be there if he was telling the truth.

[Throatwobbler]

2 hours ago, JensenZ said:

There's no difference to censorship - because it is censorship. Have a look at the people responsible for the fact-checking.

 

But don't worry - it's over. It won't happen again.

Do you know what the word censorship means? Evidently not by what you are posting.

[Opl]

25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The warning wouldn’t be there if he was telling the truth.

if he did'nt throw red meat to his base, who will eat it up and share it on and on..

Edited May 28, 2020 by Opl

[riclag]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The warning wouldn’t be there if he was telling the truth.

 

 This has nothing to do with whether  The POTUS  lied or told the truth!

"This does not make us an “arbiter of truth.” Our intention is to connect the dots of conflicting statements and show the information in dispute so people can judge for themselves. More transparency from us is critical so folks can clearly see the why behind our actions," Dorsey wrote.

  Dorsey is saying twitter isn't there to settle or judge a dispute on the truth! So he is leaving it for people to judge themselves! So  for me judging ,I want to know who the factcheckers are ! I want to know what political bias they have! Lastly why did they decide now with all the other broader conflicting statements going on in world news!

Conflicting statements works both ways

[yuyiinthesky]

2 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

So by your logic Al Qaeda, the PLO, Boko Haram, all other terrorist organisations, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, bestialty and all other offensive content should be allowed or is censorship not right just when it suits you and your views?

This has nothing to do with my views, or your views. 
You might not have heard of it, but the USA have a constitution, and that constitution has a First Amendement,  which is among others about free speech.  
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

Currently Google, FakeBook and Twitter seem to censor happily. Not good.

 

Especially seeing that Google/Youtube censors even words the CCP does not like. 
 

Censorship is not good, if you start it, where to draw the line, who has the right to draw the line?

 

I don‘t know why you start to talk about pedophiles and other illegal activities, there are enough laws about them, this has nothing to do with censoring, but with being legal or not legal.

 

So just apply the First amendment, and all is good. (Unless you are a terrorist and want to get away with the constitution, I hope that is not what you mean.)

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The warning wouldn’t be there if he was telling the truth.

Yes and this explains why it is so important that the American people well understand the back story of the lies he is telling about mail in ballots and their very dark and very dangerous implications going forward if enough people buy into his garbage.

 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2020 by Jingthing

[riclag]

Twitter owner suggest to judge for yourselves!

https://www.eip-ca.com/eip-news2020.htm

 

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article242606111.html

 

https://youtu.be/nL6ixYa1hUY

 

"This does not make us an “arbiter of truth.” Our intention is to connect the dots of conflicting statements and show the information in dispute so people can judge for themselves. More transparency from us is critical so folks can clearly see the why behind our actions," Dorsey wrote.

Dorsey in a reply to the POTUS.

 

[White Christmas13]

US President Donald Trump’s plan to take down social media sites for their perceived bias against Republicans and conservatives appears to have hit a snag after a Federal court didn’t agree with him.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/censorship/president-trumps-plan-to-shut-twitter-threatened-by-freedom-watch-court-decision/news-story/3f4ecd1e4a86f52ef5d28c136e8f5aa2

 

And without Twitter how will he broadcast his lies to his followers?

[ChouDoufu]

1 hour ago, yuyiinthesky said:

This has nothing to do with my views, or your views. 
You might not have heard of it, but the USA have a constitution, and that constitution has a First Amendement,  which is among others about free speech.  
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

Currently Google, FakeBook and Twitter seem to censor happily. Not good.

 

Especially seeing that Google/Youtube censors even words the CCP does not like. 
 

Censorship is not good, if you start it, where to draw the line, who has the right to draw the line?

 

I don‘t know why you start to talk about pedophiles and other illegal activities, there are enough laws about them, this has nothing to do with censoring, but with being legal or not legal.

 

So just apply the First amendment, and all is good. (Unless you are a terrorist and want to get away with the constitution, I hope that is not what you mean.)

 

fact-checking is not censorship, as it neither prohibits nor suppresses speech.  but let's say for argument's sake, twatter censored the president's twirt.

 

please explain how the first amendment applies to google/twatter/farcebook in regards to censoring postings.  those social media companies are not government entities.  their wholly-owned platforms are not public spaces.

 

please click your link and read the very first sentence in the explanation:

 

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which..."

 

the first amendment will possibly come into play in the event mr. orange issues an executive order to "shut them down."

[yuyiinthesky]

10 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

 

fact-checking is not censorship, as it neither prohibits nor suppresses speech. 

 

Please don’t put words in my mouth which I haven’t said. 
I have not said that Twitter censored him. 
However I have said that I hope he stops social media from censoring, with the example of Google / Youtube censoring words the CCP does not like.
Do you think it is ok that they do that?

https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270290/youtube-deleting-comments-censorship-chinese-communist-party-ccp

[Tie Dye Samurai]

4 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

And finally, Trump hasn't been censored, he's been flagged for 'unsubstantiated' claims. He is still free to post on his media outlet of choice, he just can't keep spreading false information like he has done for many, many years without getting called out on it. This has got to be a step in the right direction.   

At the end of the day what is really sad and being overlooked, especially by all the Trumpites out there is that Trump is dragging a widower and his family into the mud over a death that happened 20 years ago to smear the morning host on the network he doesnt like with no regard for the widower, his family or his wife's memory. Trump could care less about this man, his dead wife or their family, he only cares about trying to throw shade on a man that is a tv host with an opinion and voice that The Donald sees as a threat to his re-election. He is implying that the TV host was in on a MURDER and without any evidence to back it up and with no regard to right or wrong. Trump is disgusting for doing it and if you support tactics like that you are disgusting as well.

[ChouDoufu]

5 minutes ago, yuyiinthesky said:

 

Please don’t put words in my mouth which I haven’t said. 
I have not said that Twitter censored him. 
However I have said that I hope he stops social media from censoring, with the example of Google / Youtube censoring words the CCP does not like.
Do you think it is ok that they do that?

https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270290/youtube-deleting-comments-censorship-chinese-communist-party-ccp

 

then i don't understand why you brought up the first amendment, as it is not applicable.  they can factcheck/censor/suppress all they want.  it's their house.

[candide]

25 minutes ago, yuyiinthesky said:

 

Please don’t put words in my mouth which I haven’t said. 
I have not said that Twitter censored him. 
However I have said that I hope he stops social media from censoring, with the example of Google / Youtube censoring words the CCP does not like.
Do you think it is ok that they do that?

https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270290/youtube-deleting-comments-censorship-chinese-communist-party-ccp

It's quite interesting as all Google services are banned in China. Is Google changing it's previous position and trying to get approved to operate in mainland China?

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts, troll posts and the replies have been removed. 

[DoctorG]

14 hours ago, stevenl said:

Shows how far to the right you are if telling us the BBC has a left bent.

Shows how far to the Left you are if you think they do not.

[DoctorG]

11 hours ago, earlinclaifornia said:

To think I thought it was that 100 million from Spotify!

That is because you do not know how much Joe actually makes now.

[Sujo]

4 hours ago, yuyiinthesky said:

 

Please don’t put words in my mouth which I haven’t said. 
I have not said that Twitter censored him. 
However I have said that I hope he stops social media from censoring, with the example of Google / Youtube censoring words the CCP does not like.
Do you think it is ok that they do that?

https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270290/youtube-deleting-comments-censorship-chinese-communist-party-ccp

The constitutional right to free speech is against the govt stopping you. A company is not the govt and can censor.

[stevenl]

23 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

Shows how far to the Left you are if you think they do not.

You're wrong there, but this would be going very off topic.