9 ms·

Can this even be considered a free speech issue? They aren't deleting his tweet, only displaying it alongside a fact check. Of course you can try to call into q

Can this even be considered a free speech issue? They aren't deleting his tweet, only displaying it alongside a fact check. Of course you can try to call into question the impartiality of the fact check but that is a long way from not deciding not to show the content.

danShumway 6y ago
Not only does it not seem to be a free speech issue to me, from my point of view this is basically the best-case scenario for avoiding censorship of contentious issues on dominant platforms like Facebook/Twitter. It's the obvious conclusion to arguments like, "the way to deal with bad speech is with more good speech." Twitter saw speech they disagreed with, and they fixed it with more speech. They haven't censored any of Trump's arguments, they didn't delete his tweets. They just added their own commentary on top of them. That's what Republicans have always claimed they wanted. Argue that people are wrong, don't censor them. Don't throw people off the platform, add a fact-check. I grew up listening to Republicans rail against the Fairness Doctrine, and I basically agreed with them on that point. Forcing private broadcasters to act like they were neutral on every issue was problematic. But now apparently that's flipped and free speech means forcing a private company not to take sides on any issue, even when taking a side doesn't require censoring or restricting anyone else's speech. Any Republican that was genuinely anti-censorship would be cheering Twitter's move, even if they disagreed with the content of this particular fact-check.
- FriendlyNormie 6y ago
  You belong in a ditch somewhere.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- cheaprentalyeti 6y ago
  And twitter doesn't do this with leftist speech that's wrong/inaccurate propaganda for the sake of propaganda, like (oh, for instance) today someone was posting a photoshopped picture of one of the recent reportedly abusive cops in a "Make America White Again" red hat. So wave the bloody shirt, that's AOK, but say that vote by mail facilitates fraud, and you get a personalized "We Don't Think So!" message from twitter. Twitter hosts outrage mobs that have the stated goals of getting people fired, and it has caused people I was following to quit the platform. They simultaneously want to exercise editorial discresion while not being liable for for all the outrageous or outright wrong speech they do host.
  - chowchowchow 6y ago
    so? you're free to not use the service; it still isn't a free speech issue in terms of limiting expression.
  - giantrobot 6y ago
    One of the coolest features of the web is the hyperlink. You can provide one of these "hyperlinks" to another site as a way to back up assertions you're making or to provide context. A great place for one of these "hyperlinks" would be to show everyone this photoshopped picture you're talking about. Not everyone follows whatever sites you'd consider to be "news". And no, I'm not going to do the legwork and search for random articles trying to figure out what the fuck you're talking about. You also might want to consider that a person with legal power, say a government official, might be held to a higher standard of informational accuracy than some rando posting a photoshopped picture.
    - cheaprentalyeti 6y ago
      Here's a hyperlink with the example Bloody Shirt that was being waved around, along with how the poster thinks it was made. https://twitter.com/RationalDis/status/1265681731094548480 https://twitter.com/RationalDis/status/1265681731094548480
      - giantrobot 6y ago
        A random tweet isn't context! Not everyone is drinking from the shit pipeline that is Twitter. All I got from that Tweet was some guy isn't another guy? Provide some co text like a news article or something. If you can't provide some context for people to understand maybe that's the signal to you that whatever random shit you're talking about doesn't quite rise to the level of seriousness of the President spewing unsubstantiated bullshit as claims of fact. If you think some "leftist" was making absurd claims of fact or saying demonstrably untrue things, report them to Twitter asking for their post to be flagged.
  - danShumway 6y ago
    > exercise editorial discresion Adding a fact-check link to a Tweet is not censorship. Nobody took Trump's link down. And Twitter has a 1st Amendment right both to comment on what it wants to comment on, and to avoid commenting on what it doesn't want to comment on -- regardless of what their reasoning behind those decisions is. Again, Republicans should be applauding this. Open dialog is what you wanted, right? You wanted no censorship, just open debate. Well that's what you got. Twitter didn't censor the post, they debated it. And they have every right to do so. If your argument is that Twitter needs to be 100% politically neutral every time it makes a comment on anything, and that its editorial staff shouldn't have the ability to form opinions or choose what they comment on, then that's the Fairness Doctrine, regardless of what you want to call it. It is of course also legal for Twitter to choose how they outright censor content because of Section 230, but I give Republicans a little bit more slack over objecting to that protection, since at least Section 230 isn't literally a Constitutional right. But anyone who wants to complain that companies should be required to be "fair" when adding political annotations is not someone who supports the 1st Amendment.
__s 6y ago
If Trump can levy something vs Twitter then soon enough he'll be using the same mechanism to say fake news is censoring him when they report on what he's saying
mathdev 6y ago
A fact check would be fine if it led to objective analyses of some sort, or even Wikipedia. But when I clicked it, it displayed some highly partisan sources, including a CNN article with its usual "Trump bad" vitriol. Maybe it was an algorithm's fault, but it didn't work at all.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Would an AP article similarly critical of the president's remarks been more acceptable?
  - SaltyBackendGuy 6y ago
    > Would an AP article similarly critical of the president's remarks been more acceptable? Seems like it would be more acceptable. (sorry for the ads) CNN: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/ AP : https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/associated-press/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/associated-press/
    - FillardMillmore 6y ago
      Whether reporting on Trump objectively makes him look 'bad' obviously depends on the content being reported on. The objective reporting (meaning, nothing but the facts, no insinuations or implications past what we can garner from the facts) on something like Trump tweeting about Joe Scarborough's possible culpability in the death of his intern might make him look bad while reporting of Trump's efforts to pull troops from abroad back home might make him look good. The problem though, as I think some of the posters above have touched on, is how can Twitter effectively account for media biases in a way that will not make them look biased? I suppose that's just begging the question of: should they care if they appear biased? One thought I've had is that perhaps, for every tweet that Twitter decides to put a 'fact-check' on, they could link to three different sources of information - one with a well-established left-bias, one with a well-established right-bias, and one without any well-established bias. Just an idea, I'm sure that'll probably present problems as well.
m-p-3 6y ago
And if he decided to "close" Twitter, it would actually be a clear case of censorship from the government and a violation of free speech. Twitter is merely labelling a tweet as being factually incorrect, it's not hiding the content.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  Well, it wouldn't be, because he _couldn't do it_. He's not a dictator, despite apparent aspirations.
  - three_seagrass 6y ago
    Real question: As the head of the Federal executive branch, who would stop him?
    - dlp211 6y ago
      Judges in every district, appeals court, and the SCOTUS. An injunction would be put in place not more than an hour after such a deceleration by the POTUS was made.
      - colejohnson66 6y ago
        Genuine question: What would happen if there was a massive conspiracy to just plow through with the plan despite the injunction? Sure, Congress could impeach him again and “convict” him, but what if the people with the power to literally remove him refused to cooperate? I know this is a very massive hypothetical, but it’s one I’ve wondered for a while. Basically, as the head of one of the branches, he could have subordinates forcefully removed, but who’ll forcefully remove him in this case?
        jefftk 6y ago
        You're describing a coup. We haven't had one in the US, but many other countries have. In a coup it starts to matter a lot who has the actual power and where their loyalties lie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
dang 6y ago
(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23322571 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23322571)
paultopia 6y ago
constitutional law professor with a phd in political theory slowly raises hand No, it cannot even be considered a free speech issue (except insofar as Trump proposes to censor Twitter). Those of us in the con law/democratic theory community, and everyone else in the universe who is even semi-rational, use them term "counterspeech" to describe what Twitter did. Traditionally, counterspeech is seen as the virtuous alternative to censorship---as the thing that us snotty free speech people tell those who call for their opponents to be censored to do instead. John Stuart Mill would jump up and down and pop champagne in celebration of what Twitter did.

danShumway 6y ago

Not only does it not seem to be a free speech issue to me, from my point of view this is basically the best-case scenario for avoiding censorship of contentious issues on dominant platforms like Facebook/Twitter. It's the obvious conclusion to arguments like, "the way to deal with bad speech is with more good speech." Twitter saw speech they disagreed with, and they fixed it with more speech. They haven't censored any of Trump's arguments, they didn't delete his tweets. They just added their own commentary on top of them. That's what Republicans have always claimed they wanted. Argue that people are wrong, don't censor them. Don't throw people off the platform, add a fact-check. I grew up listening to Republicans rail against the Fairness Doctrine, and I basically agreed with them on that point. Forcing private broadcasters to act like they were neutral on every issue was problematic. But now apparently that's flipped and free speech means forcing a private company not to take sides on any issue, even when taking a side doesn't require censoring or restricting anyone else's speech. Any Republican that was genuinely anti-censorship would be cheering Twitter's move, even if they disagreed with the content of this particular fact-check.

FriendlyNormie 6y ago
You belong in a ditch somewhere.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cheaprentalyeti 6y ago
And twitter doesn't do this with leftist speech that's wrong/inaccurate propaganda for the sake of propaganda, like (oh, for instance) today someone was posting a photoshopped picture of one of the recent reportedly abusive cops in a "Make America White Again" red hat. So wave the bloody shirt, that's AOK, but say that vote by mail facilitates fraud, and you get a personalized "We Don't Think So!" message from twitter. Twitter hosts outrage mobs that have the stated goals of getting people fired, and it has caused people I was following to quit the platform. They simultaneously want to exercise editorial discresion while not being liable for for all the outrageous or outright wrong speech they do host.
- chowchowchow 6y ago
  so? you're free to not use the service; it still isn't a free speech issue in terms of limiting expression.
- giantrobot 6y ago
  One of the coolest features of the web is the hyperlink. You can provide one of these "hyperlinks" to another site as a way to back up assertions you're making or to provide context. A great place for one of these "hyperlinks" would be to show everyone this photoshopped picture you're talking about. Not everyone follows whatever sites you'd consider to be "news". And no, I'm not going to do the legwork and search for random articles trying to figure out what the fuck you're talking about. You also might want to consider that a person with legal power, say a government official, might be held to a higher standard of informational accuracy than some rando posting a photoshopped picture.
  - cheaprentalyeti 6y ago
    Here's a hyperlink with the example Bloody Shirt that was being waved around, along with how the poster thinks it was made. https://twitter.com/RationalDis/status/1265681731094548480 https://twitter.com/RationalDis/status/1265681731094548480
    - giantrobot 6y ago
      A random tweet isn't context! Not everyone is drinking from the shit pipeline that is Twitter. All I got from that Tweet was some guy isn't another guy? Provide some co text like a news article or something. If you can't provide some context for people to understand maybe that's the signal to you that whatever random shit you're talking about doesn't quite rise to the level of seriousness of the President spewing unsubstantiated bullshit as claims of fact. If you think some "leftist" was making absurd claims of fact or saying demonstrably untrue things, report them to Twitter asking for their post to be flagged.
- danShumway 6y ago
  > exercise editorial discresion Adding a fact-check link to a Tweet is not censorship. Nobody took Trump's link down. And Twitter has a 1st Amendment right both to comment on what it wants to comment on, and to avoid commenting on what it doesn't want to comment on -- regardless of what their reasoning behind those decisions is. Again, Republicans should be applauding this. Open dialog is what you wanted, right? You wanted no censorship, just open debate. Well that's what you got. Twitter didn't censor the post, they debated it. And they have every right to do so. If your argument is that Twitter needs to be 100% politically neutral every time it makes a comment on anything, and that its editorial staff shouldn't have the ability to form opinions or choose what they comment on, then that's the Fairness Doctrine, regardless of what you want to call it. It is of course also legal for Twitter to choose how they outright censor content because of Section 230, but I give Republicans a little bit more slack over objecting to that protection, since at least Section 230 isn't literally a Constitutional right. But anyone who wants to complain that companies should be required to be "fair" when adding political annotations is not someone who supports the 1st Amendment.

__s 6y ago

If Trump can levy something vs Twitter then soon enough he'll be using the same mechanism to say fake news is censoring him when they report on what he's saying

mathdev 6y ago

A fact check would be fine if it led to objective analyses of some sort, or even Wikipedia. But when I clicked it, it displayed some highly partisan sources, including a CNN article with its usual "Trump bad" vitriol. Maybe it was an algorithm's fault, but it didn't work at all.

paulryanrogers 6y ago
Would an AP article similarly critical of the president's remarks been more acceptable?
- SaltyBackendGuy 6y ago
  > Would an AP article similarly critical of the president's remarks been more acceptable? Seems like it would be more acceptable. (sorry for the ads) CNN: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/ AP : https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/associated-press/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/associated-press/
  - FillardMillmore 6y ago
    Whether reporting on Trump objectively makes him look 'bad' obviously depends on the content being reported on. The objective reporting (meaning, nothing but the facts, no insinuations or implications past what we can garner from the facts) on something like Trump tweeting about Joe Scarborough's possible culpability in the death of his intern might make him look bad while reporting of Trump's efforts to pull troops from abroad back home might make him look good. The problem though, as I think some of the posters above have touched on, is how can Twitter effectively account for media biases in a way that will not make them look biased? I suppose that's just begging the question of: should they care if they appear biased? One thought I've had is that perhaps, for every tweet that Twitter decides to put a 'fact-check' on, they could link to three different sources of information - one with a well-established left-bias, one with a well-established right-bias, and one without any well-established bias. Just an idea, I'm sure that'll probably present problems as well.

m-p-3 6y ago

And if he decided to "close" Twitter, it would actually be a clear case of censorship from the government and a violation of free speech. Twitter is merely labelling a tweet as being factually incorrect, it's not hiding the content.

rsynnott 6y ago
Well, it wouldn't be, because he _couldn't do it_. He's not a dictator, despite apparent aspirations.
- three_seagrass 6y ago
  Real question: As the head of the Federal executive branch, who would stop him?
  - dlp211 6y ago
    Judges in every district, appeals court, and the SCOTUS. An injunction would be put in place not more than an hour after such a deceleration by the POTUS was made.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      Genuine question: What would happen if there was a massive conspiracy to just plow through with the plan despite the injunction? Sure, Congress could impeach him again and “convict” him, but what if the people with the power to literally remove him refused to cooperate? I know this is a very massive hypothetical, but it’s one I’ve wondered for a while. Basically, as the head of one of the branches, he could have subordinates forcefully removed, but who’ll forcefully remove him in this case?
      - jefftk 6y ago
        You're describing a coup. We haven't had one in the US, but many other countries have. In a coup it starts to matter a lot who has the actual power and where their loyalties lie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

dang 6y ago

(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23322571 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23322571)

paultopia 6y ago

constitutional law professor with a phd in political theory slowly raises hand No, it cannot even be considered a free speech issue (except insofar as Trump proposes to censor Twitter). Those of us in the con law/democratic theory community, and everyone else in the universe who is even semi-rational, use them term "counterspeech" to describe what Twitter did. Traditionally, counterspeech is seen as the virtuous alternative to censorship---as the thing that us snotty free speech people tell those who call for their opponents to be censored to do instead. John Stuart Mill would jump up and down and pop champagne in celebration of what Twitter did.