Free Speech

They leaked the draft of the XO. It's a cluster. Looks like government examination of speech content is free speech now and private questioning of government is suppression. He completely misstates and misuses FCC and FEC rules and demands the exact opposite of 1A.
 
lotstodo said:
They leaked the draft of the XO. It's a cluster. Looks like government examination of speech content is free speech now and private questioning of government is suppression. He completely misstates and misuses FCC and FEC rules and demands the exact opposite of 1A.
Click to expand...

He seems to be getting more unstable than when he started, I had high hopes he'd grow into this responsibility.
 
What apparently happened was that Twitter slapped "Misleading" labels over two of Trump's tweets regarding mail-in voting. From what I read, it has been established that his tweets were, indeed, factual.

So that's what has his panties in a bunch.
 
Here's the tweet in question:




Regardless of whether or not what Trump tweeted was factual, twitter is a private company and can set their own rules for posts made using their platform. This has nothing to do with the right to free speech no matter how many times Trump says it does.

Also, the executive order is stupid.
 
I don't mind him, or any politician, being on Twitter. The problem is the content of his tweets.

He does a good bit of retweeting other tweets which he wouldn't be able to do on a Whitehouse website (well, technically he could but it wouldn't be as easy or seamless).
 
cptlo306 said:
I don't mind him, or any politician, being on Twitter. The problem is the content of his tweets.

He does a good bit of retweeting other tweets which he wouldn't be able to do on a Whitehouse website (well, technically he could but it wouldn't be as easy or seamless).
Click to expand...
That could be a good thing.
 
cptlo306 said:
Here's the tweet in question:




Regardless of whether or not what Trump tweeted was factual, twitter is a private company and can set their own rules for posts made using their platform. This has nothing to do with the right to free speech no matter how many times Trump says it does.

Also, the executive order is stupid.
Click to expand...

An argument can be made on the basis of civil rights. twitter can not pick and choose who they will falsely edit. That is a violation of the civil rights laws. Where is the ACLU?
 
I did some searching on this, and social media sites could possibly fall under the Public Accommodation laws. It seems legal scholars are about evenly split on this.

Honestly, I don't know. Social media is still a relatively new thing and I'm not sure there's a consensus on what laws do and don't apply.

I do think there are major problems with information on social media. Fake news propaganda is being spread rampantly on social media, which is why there's been massive outcry for some sort of policing of facts or fact checking. But is the cure worse than the disease? There seems to be an obvious political slant in social media, and that is not good. But what is the best way to handle it? Ideally, the consumers that use the sites would demand accuracy, but that doesn't work well because so many of those very users are already filled with propaganda, and frankly many of them are plain dumb as hell.

So what to do?
 
The question is what are the facts. Two people can be presented with the exact same information and they could interpret the facts differently. It's simply not possible to police the volume of content on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and thousands of other websites. We certainly don't want the govt managing this.
 
cptlo306 said:
The question is what are the facts. Two people can be presented with the exact same information and they could interpret the facts differently. It's simply not possible to police the volume of content on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and thousands of other websites. We certainly don't want the govt managing this.
Click to expand...
There is only one set of facts. The problem is in how they are perceived and interpreted. Partial facts can be equally bad as well. Leave out a word or two and something said can have an entirely different meaning.
 
Facts? It’s much too easy to just Google any topic and take the top line result as fact or scroll through FB and Twitter to read interesting articles on topics and consider them factual rather than actually research a topic and consider your sources. As one highly regarded social media think tank leader once said, “Ain’t nobody got no time for that.”
 
I think that in social media there is too much 'Go with the flow' mentality. One person says something or quotes something of questionable fact, but gets tons of Likes, others think think that they must know what they're talking about, ergo they go with the flow and pass on the info as fact. I see this as a dangerous way to get news or back ground information and only slightly worse than the nightly news.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top