4 ms·

> "Currently, social media giants like Twitter received unprecedented viability shield based on the theory that they are a neutral platform, which they are not

> "Currently, social media giants like Twitter received unprecedented viability shield based on the theory that they are a neutral platform, which they are not," Trump said in the Oval Office. "We are fed up with it. It is unfair, and it's been very unfair." What examples of this unfairness are being referred to? I never understand why journalist don't press harder and follow up with obvious questions. Same with "many people are saying" style statements.

vkou 6y ago
Journalists do followup with obvious questions, but the WHPS doesn't answer them.
- seanwilson 6y ago
  Why do they not keep pushing back with "you haven't answered my question" though? If it's so easy to ignore hard question, why doesn't everyone just do this to avoid criticism from the press?
  - vkou 6y ago
    Because then they don't get invited back to the next press conference, and they get fired, because their spineless employers want their journalists to be present at press conferences. Meanwhile, the press conference room can always be filled with sympathetic media reps. > If it's so easy to ignore hard question, why doesn't everyone just do this to avoid criticism from the press? Have you seen how this administration has been running press conferences? It's not an entirely unprecedented trainwreck (when any administration is in scandal mode, it behaves in such a fashion), but it is unprecedented for how frequently it has had to operate in scandal mode. Its supporters, of course, point to this sort of thing as an example of the bad liberal media bias that is being mean to the greatest man in the history of this country. The WHPS of the week could spend every single conference reading from a phonebook, and it still wouldn't change anyone's mind on anything.
akersten 6y ago
He has no examples, it's just word salad. The premise is also false - the shield from [liability] applies regardless of the political affiliation, motivation, or actions of the platform. He's trying to convince people that Twitter had some kind of duty to remain neutral, but they really don't. Twitter would have just as strong of a case under current law if they came out and said "yep, no conservative viewpoints allowed here."
- w3mmpp 6y ago
  > "yep, no conservative viewpoints allowed here." At least it'd be clear if they said so, nothing worse than the current situation where they think it but won't say it because it'd be bad for business.
  - akersten 6y ago
    I mean, I even disagree that there's major 'anti-conservative' bias at all. Some prominent conservatives have been banned from the platform, like Alex Jones, but it wasn't due to their views on Keynesian economics, it was for spreading outright lies about Sandy Hook. Diving deeper into almost any of the examples that people dig up as 'anti-conservative bias' reveals trolling, hateful attacks, or other bad behavior, completely independent of the author's political views, and earnestly deserving of removal.
    - CyberDildonics 6y ago
      Exactly, for some reason people will throw out toxic lies, racism, conspiracy theories, etc. and then act like those are just their 'political views'. I hope we aren't at a turning point where conspiracy theories and suppression of journalism is a 'political viewpoint'.
    - w3mmpp 6y ago
      > I mean, I even disagree that there's major 'anti-conservative' bias at all. Are you a conservative yourself? I'm gonna take a guess that you are not so how would you know? It's a real question, no trick.
ardy42 6y ago
> What examples of this unfairness are being referred to? I never understand why journalist don't press harder and follow up with obvious questions. Same with "many people are saying" style statements. The "unfairness" is a fact check that got attached to a couple of his tweets: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265255835124539392 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/12652558351245393.... Journalists do press him for details, but they get answers like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNlSRd2w5IA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNlSRd2w5IA.

vkou 6y ago

Journalists do followup with obvious questions, but the WHPS doesn't answer them.

seanwilson 6y ago
Why do they not keep pushing back with "you haven't answered my question" though? If it's so easy to ignore hard question, why doesn't everyone just do this to avoid criticism from the press?
- vkou 6y ago
  Because then they don't get invited back to the next press conference, and they get fired, because their spineless employers want their journalists to be present at press conferences. Meanwhile, the press conference room can always be filled with sympathetic media reps. > If it's so easy to ignore hard question, why doesn't everyone just do this to avoid criticism from the press? Have you seen how this administration has been running press conferences? It's not an entirely unprecedented trainwreck (when any administration is in scandal mode, it behaves in such a fashion), but it is unprecedented for how frequently it has had to operate in scandal mode. Its supporters, of course, point to this sort of thing as an example of the bad liberal media bias that is being mean to the greatest man in the history of this country. The WHPS of the week could spend every single conference reading from a phonebook, and it still wouldn't change anyone's mind on anything.

akersten 6y ago

He has no examples, it's just word salad. The premise is also false - the shield from [liability] applies regardless of the political affiliation, motivation, or actions of the platform. He's trying to convince people that Twitter had some kind of duty to remain neutral, but they really don't. Twitter would have just as strong of a case under current law if they came out and said "yep, no conservative viewpoints allowed here."

w3mmpp 6y ago
> "yep, no conservative viewpoints allowed here." At least it'd be clear if they said so, nothing worse than the current situation where they think it but won't say it because it'd be bad for business.
- akersten 6y ago
  I mean, I even disagree that there's major 'anti-conservative' bias at all. Some prominent conservatives have been banned from the platform, like Alex Jones, but it wasn't due to their views on Keynesian economics, it was for spreading outright lies about Sandy Hook. Diving deeper into almost any of the examples that people dig up as 'anti-conservative bias' reveals trolling, hateful attacks, or other bad behavior, completely independent of the author's political views, and earnestly deserving of removal.
  - CyberDildonics 6y ago
    Exactly, for some reason people will throw out toxic lies, racism, conspiracy theories, etc. and then act like those are just their 'political views'. I hope we aren't at a turning point where conspiracy theories and suppression of journalism is a 'political viewpoint'.
  - w3mmpp 6y ago
    > I mean, I even disagree that there's major 'anti-conservative' bias at all. Are you a conservative yourself? I'm gonna take a guess that you are not so how would you know? It's a real question, no trick.

ardy42 6y ago

> What examples of this unfairness are being referred to? I never understand why journalist don't press harder and follow up with obvious questions. Same with "many people are saying" style statements. The "unfairness" is a fact check that got attached to a couple of his tweets: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265255835124539392 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/12652558351245393.... Journalists do press him for details, but they get answers like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNlSRd2w5IA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNlSRd2w5IA.