4 ms·

Fact-checking is itself freedom of speech. Notices of fact-checking references is freedom of speech as well. Content was not removed in those instances, and a p

by loopz 6y ago

Fact-checking is itself freedom of speech. Notices of fact-checking references is freedom of speech as well. Content was not removed in those instances, and a private platform has private rules. A legitimate President must abide by the same Laws of the land as everyone else, and not expect special treatment or to censor speech that fails to please own ears. The latter is dangerously working against the Constitution and 1st Amendment.

shripadk 6y ago
Notices of fact-checking can be given as a reply to his Tweet. Just like everyone else. Twitter has its own account to rebut anyone if it wants to. If Twitter starts fact-checking by invading his personal virtual space then why don't I, a regular user, have the same tools available at my disposal? I also have issues with some politicians in my country who tweet nonsense/falsehood and would like to have my opinions attached to their tweet. Is that possible? If not, why not? Okay if that is too much power in the hands of a user then why isn't Twitter applying the same policy to politicians all around the World? Which other politician is Twitter doing the same to? If it is singling out Trump then it is "special treatment" meted out by Twitter to a politician. Do you see how quickly the cookie crumbles? What Twitter has done has a chilling effect. If it cannot justify on what policy it decided to attach a notice to a politicians tweet it won't stand a chance in convincing that it is just a platform and not a publisher/editorial. Especially if it targets a single politician and the rule was not used for any other politician.
- loopz 6y ago
  Visiblity of fact-checking is within Twitter's private domain to control. It could be a separate post, shown above everyone else's. It makes little sense to make special laws micro-managing technical designs of private platforms. That someone blatantly bullies people and lies on such a platform, would get anyone else banned or at least posts moderated. Lying/deception, defamation and "hate" speech is not protected speech. Some of it may even be punishable by Law. Twitter still has the option to ban the president. This is not censorship either. Prudent moderation is being performed daily on many social platforms. Maybe it is time to review the power of social media platforms (so I do see your point). Though, I suspect a prudent review would end unfavourably for bullies, trolls and liars, at the very least for unprotected speech and especially speech violating established Law.
  - shripadk 6y ago
    > That someone blatantly bullies people and lies on such a platform, would get anyone else banned or at least posts moderated Exactly. So Twitter should have shown it has the balls and banned Trump "just like everyone else". It had the policy backing it up. It wouldn't have caused Twitter to be dragged into this controversy of becoming a biased publisher instead of a neutral platform. > Lying/deception, defamation and "hate" speech is not protected speech. Some of it may even be punishable by Law. Yes it is. But Twitter is not the Judge, Jury or Executioner. You have the courts for it. > Twitter still has the option to ban the president. This is not censorship either. Prudent moderation is being performed daily on many social platforms. Nope. That doesn't cut it. Your hatred for Trump cannot be a justification for misuse of power by Twitter. If Twitter tries to be an arbiter then it loses the ability to call itself a platform. It can either allow/disallow posts. It cannot decide to add to/edit/remove the post in question. This makes it an editorial/publisher and no longer a platform. You may think both are the same thing. Both are "moderation". Nope. Imagine you are in a debate and you are the "moderator" of the debate. You have these rights: allow the speakers to speak when their turn comes, disallow speakers from speaking about certain topics. If the debate goes South you have every option to stop the debate. You can kick out a speaker if you feel the speaker is not adhering to the rules. All this is valid and is part of "moderation" as the speakers have come on your "platform". But just because they are on your "platform" does not mean you have acquired rights over them. They are still individual entities. Now imagine if you are a "biased" moderator. You do not like a speakers point and you decide to add to/edit/change it. But you do not want the speaker to stop talking (lest you be accused of bias) so you instead take a sticky note, write down your counter opinion and attach it to the speakers forehead. Would the speaker be okay with that? Now that is invading that speaker's personal space. Just because you are a moderator you do not get to own the speaker or add to/edit/change his words. You can ask the speaker to leave (or ban) which is perfectly within your right. But you cannot have a notice stuck to his opinion. Then you are not a platform. An editorial does precisely that: edits out the bad parts, fixes the language, makes it better for consumption, fact checks, ensures that it isn't held liable for any wrong doings and then and only then will it allow the content to be published.
    - loopz 6y ago

by loopz 6y ago

shripadk 6y ago

Notices of fact-checking can be given as a reply to his Tweet. Just like everyone else. Twitter has its own account to rebut anyone if it wants to. If Twitter starts fact-checking by invading his personal virtual space then why don't I, a regular user, have the same tools available at my disposal? I also have issues with some politicians in my country who tweet nonsense/falsehood and would like to have my opinions attached to their tweet. Is that possible? If not, why not? Okay if that is too much power in the hands of a user then why isn't Twitter applying the same policy to politicians all around the World? Which other politician is Twitter doing the same to? If it is singling out Trump then it is "special treatment" meted out by Twitter to a politician. Do you see how quickly the cookie crumbles? What Twitter has done has a chilling effect. If it cannot justify on what policy it decided to attach a notice to a politicians tweet it won't stand a chance in convincing that it is just a platform and not a publisher/editorial. Especially if it targets a single politician and the rule was not used for any other politician.

loopz 6y ago
Visiblity of fact-checking is within Twitter's private domain to control. It could be a separate post, shown above everyone else's. It makes little sense to make special laws micro-managing technical designs of private platforms. That someone blatantly bullies people and lies on such a platform, would get anyone else banned or at least posts moderated. Lying/deception, defamation and "hate" speech is not protected speech. Some of it may even be punishable by Law. Twitter still has the option to ban the president. This is not censorship either. Prudent moderation is being performed daily on many social platforms. Maybe it is time to review the power of social media platforms (so I do see your point). Though, I suspect a prudent review would end unfavourably for bullies, trolls and liars, at the very least for unprotected speech and especially speech violating established Law.
- shripadk 6y ago
  > That someone blatantly bullies people and lies on such a platform, would get anyone else banned or at least posts moderated Exactly. So Twitter should have shown it has the balls and banned Trump "just like everyone else". It had the policy backing it up. It wouldn't have caused Twitter to be dragged into this controversy of becoming a biased publisher instead of a neutral platform. > Lying/deception, defamation and "hate" speech is not protected speech. Some of it may even be punishable by Law. Yes it is. But Twitter is not the Judge, Jury or Executioner. You have the courts for it. > Twitter still has the option to ban the president. This is not censorship either. Prudent moderation is being performed daily on many social platforms. Nope. That doesn't cut it. Your hatred for Trump cannot be a justification for misuse of power by Twitter. If Twitter tries to be an arbiter then it loses the ability to call itself a platform. It can either allow/disallow posts. It cannot decide to add to/edit/remove the post in question. This makes it an editorial/publisher and no longer a platform. You may think both are the same thing. Both are "moderation". Nope. Imagine you are in a debate and you are the "moderator" of the debate. You have these rights: allow the speakers to speak when their turn comes, disallow speakers from speaking about certain topics. If the debate goes South you have every option to stop the debate. You can kick out a speaker if you feel the speaker is not adhering to the rules. All this is valid and is part of "moderation" as the speakers have come on your "platform". But just because they are on your "platform" does not mean you have acquired rights over them. They are still individual entities. Now imagine if you are a "biased" moderator. You do not like a speakers point and you decide to add to/edit/change it. But you do not want the speaker to stop talking (lest you be accused of bias) so you instead take a sticky note, write down your counter opinion and attach it to the speakers forehead. Would the speaker be okay with that? Now that is invading that speaker's personal space. Just because you are a moderator you do not get to own the speaker or add to/edit/change his words. You can ask the speaker to leave (or ban) which is perfectly within your right. But you cannot have a notice stuck to his opinion. Then you are not a platform. An editorial does precisely that: edits out the bad parts, fixes the language, makes it better for consumption, fact checks, ensures that it isn't held liable for any wrong doings and then and only then will it allow the content to be published.
  - loopz 6y ago