4 ms·

> On the one hand I don’t think we should leave it up to companies like Twitter to censor things. Is it really _censorship_ to fact check tweets? I mean, Twitt

> On the one hand I don’t think we should leave it up to companies like Twitter to censor things. Is it really _censorship_ to fact check tweets? I mean, Twitter hasn't _removed_ (i.e. censored) any tweets from Trump, just added an annotation.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ecmascript 6y ago
No but it's literally censorship to remove people from Twitter because they use the correct gender pronoun for a biological sex. Where are the fact-checking in all those cases, I wonder?
- nkkollaw 6y ago
  Good point. Leftists think you're misgendering someone who thinks he's a woman if you call her a biological man, normal people see it the opposite way (that doesn't mean you need to not be nice and call her "she", but actually thinking one can change biological sex is insane). That's why everyone should be able to say whatever they want, and people can discuss the merits of what's been said.
Ididntdothis 6y ago
“Fact checking” is a nice exercise and somewhat helpful but a lot of people say half baked or stupid things all the time, including myself. Part of a healthy discourse is the ability to say questionable things and having a discussion. Once you start fact checking where does it end? A lot of people have different views on different things and there is no clear right or wrong. What I would like to see is that the US political system starts fact checking itself and stop spreading misinformation. This should be done out of self respect.
- _never_k 6y ago
  >Once you start fact checking where does it end? With all the facts being checked?
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    I imagine he's suggesting that it will end with all the opinions being checked.
    - dspillett 6y ago
      Nothing wrong with that, particularly if those opinions are communicated in a way that makes them look like statements of fact. Someone being able to say "I think your opinion is wrong" is no less a freedom of speech matter than someone being able to state an opinion in the first place. Freedom of speech does not, or at least it should not, give special privilege or protection to the first person who speaks.
  - Ididntdothis 6y ago
    The line between fact and opinion can become very blurry. Whatever you do there will be a lot of issues that can’t be fact checked.
  - heurist 6y ago
    This is a tough position for Twitter because they now have to fact check practically all of his tweets. Any tweet not checked will be seen either as tacit endorsement by Trump's political opponents or 'undeniable truth' by some portion of their users regardless of validity.
- heurist 6y ago
  Public officials choose to live a live under intense scrutiny and should expect to be challenged on their positions and able to provide well-reasoned arguments for their opinions and actions. "Fact checking" is a necessary component of a functional democracy. As small and local news outlets die en masse from the social media takeover, someone needs to pick up the slack.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nkkollaw 6y ago
Yes, of course it is. Most people will all of a sudden ignore someone's message. I have no idea why anyone would argue in favor of Twitter. When has it become required to be an expert in the field to be granted the privilege of leaving a comment on a forum? When has it become unacceptable to lie? People lie all the time. Advertisements lie to you, politicians lie to you, your mom lies to you. It's really annoying that the truth police is going to go and check your tweets or comment—even if you ignore the fact that the line between facts and opinions isn't always easy to see. Even facts like Taiwan being its own country or part of China or the Armenian genocide can be denied, and people should be able to say that—and perhaps rightfully get shit for that, but still be able to say it. We're going back to the Middle Ages, where if you say Earth isn't flat or God doesn't exist (replace with global warming isn't caused by humans, Covid-19 is man-made), you're executed. Sad.
- mplanchard 6y ago
  There’s a difference between you or I saying something incorrect (willfully or not) on the Internet and a world leader doing the same. Twitter already distinguishes famous people, world leaders, etc. in a variety of ways. It seems reasonable that this would be one of them, given that the potential reach and impact of anything they say far, far exceeds that of your average Tweeter.
  - nkkollaw 6y ago
    Is there, though? Why should Twitter be in charge of deciding who's a world leader or famous enough to get checked? Who is Twitter to fact-check world leaders? When world leaders rarely tell the truth, how can anyone realistically think that such a system could even work, even if it made sense?
    - bostik 6y ago
      Well, here's the funny bit: Twitter doesn't need to decide. If someone in a major power, such as a G20 member country, is in a government position, they are a world leader. And because things are always contested, that same category can be extended to high-ranking members of opposition. I'm going to take you at your word and accept that world leaders rarely tell the truth: so they should ALL get the same treatment then. But instead of stamping their output with just "fact-check this", why not unilaterally label all of it with: "may contain lies, omissions and half-truths"?
DavidVoid 6y ago
Use * text * (but without spaces) to italicize text btw.
dspillett 6y ago
> Is it really _censorship_ to fact check tweets? Not at all. Free speech in both cases. He is free to say what he thinks, we (us as individuals, Twitter as a company, everyone) are free to say we think he is talking complete and utter balderdash if that is what we think. A president trying to silence Twitter's statement about what he has said by intimidating them is an attempt at censorship though.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ecmascript 6y ago

No but it's literally censorship to remove people from Twitter because they use the correct gender pronoun for a biological sex. Where are the fact-checking in all those cases, I wonder?

nkkollaw 6y ago
Good point. Leftists think you're misgendering someone who thinks he's a woman if you call her a biological man, normal people see it the opposite way (that doesn't mean you need to not be nice and call her "she", but actually thinking one can change biological sex is insane). That's why everyone should be able to say whatever they want, and people can discuss the merits of what's been said.

Ididntdothis 6y ago

“Fact checking” is a nice exercise and somewhat helpful but a lot of people say half baked or stupid things all the time, including myself. Part of a healthy discourse is the ability to say questionable things and having a discussion. Once you start fact checking where does it end? A lot of people have different views on different things and there is no clear right or wrong. What I would like to see is that the US political system starts fact checking itself and stop spreading misinformation. This should be done out of self respect.

_never_k 6y ago
>Once you start fact checking where does it end? With all the facts being checked?
- whatshisface 6y ago
  I imagine he's suggesting that it will end with all the opinions being checked.
  - dspillett 6y ago
    Nothing wrong with that, particularly if those opinions are communicated in a way that makes them look like statements of fact. Someone being able to say "I think your opinion is wrong" is no less a freedom of speech matter than someone being able to state an opinion in the first place. Freedom of speech does not, or at least it should not, give special privilege or protection to the first person who speaks.
- Ididntdothis 6y ago
  The line between fact and opinion can become very blurry. Whatever you do there will be a lot of issues that can’t be fact checked.
- heurist 6y ago
  This is a tough position for Twitter because they now have to fact check practically all of his tweets. Any tweet not checked will be seen either as tacit endorsement by Trump's political opponents or 'undeniable truth' by some portion of their users regardless of validity.
heurist 6y ago
Public officials choose to live a live under intense scrutiny and should expect to be challenged on their positions and able to provide well-reasoned arguments for their opinions and actions. "Fact checking" is a necessary component of a functional democracy. As small and local news outlets die en masse from the social media takeover, someone needs to pick up the slack.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

nkkollaw 6y ago

Yes, of course it is. Most people will all of a sudden ignore someone's message. I have no idea why anyone would argue in favor of Twitter. When has it become required to be an expert in the field to be granted the privilege of leaving a comment on a forum? When has it become unacceptable to lie? People lie all the time. Advertisements lie to you, politicians lie to you, your mom lies to you. It's really annoying that the truth police is going to go and check your tweets or comment—even if you ignore the fact that the line between facts and opinions isn't always easy to see. Even facts like Taiwan being its own country or part of China or the Armenian genocide can be denied, and people should be able to say that—and perhaps rightfully get shit for that, but still be able to say it. We're going back to the Middle Ages, where if you say Earth isn't flat or God doesn't exist (replace with global warming isn't caused by humans, Covid-19 is man-made), you're executed. Sad.

mplanchard 6y ago
There’s a difference between you or I saying something incorrect (willfully or not) on the Internet and a world leader doing the same. Twitter already distinguishes famous people, world leaders, etc. in a variety of ways. It seems reasonable that this would be one of them, given that the potential reach and impact of anything they say far, far exceeds that of your average Tweeter.
- nkkollaw 6y ago
  Is there, though? Why should Twitter be in charge of deciding who's a world leader or famous enough to get checked? Who is Twitter to fact-check world leaders? When world leaders rarely tell the truth, how can anyone realistically think that such a system could even work, even if it made sense?
  - bostik 6y ago
    Well, here's the funny bit: Twitter doesn't need to decide. If someone in a major power, such as a G20 member country, is in a government position, they are a world leader. And because things are always contested, that same category can be extended to high-ranking members of opposition. I'm going to take you at your word and accept that world leaders rarely tell the truth: so they should ALL get the same treatment then. But instead of stamping their output with just "fact-check this", why not unilaterally label all of it with: "may contain lies, omissions and half-truths"?

DavidVoid 6y ago

Use * text * (but without spaces) to italicize text btw.

dspillett 6y ago

> Is it really _censorship_ to fact check tweets? Not at all. Free speech in both cases. He is free to say what he thinks, we (us as individuals, Twitter as a company, everyone) are free to say we think he is talking complete and utter balderdash if that is what we think. A president trying to silence Twitter's statement about what he has said by intimidating them is an attempt at censorship though.