3 ms·

>This is just a narcissistic/rage hissy fits, or just another attempt to create noise and detract from the real issues of this country is facing now. You don't

>This is just a narcissistic/rage hissy fits, or just another attempt to create noise and detract from the real issues of this country is facing now. You don't think it's a problem that a platform which controls the information that reaches millions of eyes, acting as a mouthpiece for the president, applies a totally subjective "fact check" disclaimer based on an uncharitable interpretation of the president's tweet, while pretending to be politically neutral? And while ignoring similar misstatements from other politicians on both sides of the aisle? The issue here, and I cannot stress how dangerous this is for society, is that an entity which gatekeeps information for millions of eyes, is pretending to be a neutral party while overtly manipulating the messages of politicians from one political party. This creates a manufactured consensus which is influences policy and elections according to the whims of a handful of high level managers/executives at Twitter. It's an abhorrent concentration of unnofficial, unchecked soft power and it was hugely irresponsible and unethical for Twitter to publicly pick a side without a massive disclaimer. This isn't even getting into the holes in the "fact check". What a joke. How much hubris do you need to believe that your tech company can act as an arbiter of truth?

eunoia 6y ago
You and I see different problems here. To me, the problem is a platform (and therefore legitimacy) has been granted to someone who abuses that power at every turn. We (those arguing against you) are not empowering Twitter as the new POTUS, merely trying to minimize the current one’s ability to cause damage via lies and hateful rhetoric. (Things you or I would have been banned for years ago) There will come a time to deal with Twitter’s societal overreach too.
- tw000001 6y ago
  >lies and hateful rhetoric There is simply no objective definition for either of these concepts and if you may be fine with Twitter having this kind of power now, but you may regret it if the shoe is ever on the other foot. Having a corporate arbiter of truth is antithetical to a free society, especially when creating one's own platform is impractical because of network effects. Who is going to fact check the fact checker? Effectively Twitter has the final word because this is their platform - not because they are correct, and if these political squabbles had an objectively correct answer then we wouldn't have multiple parties. People are find with it right now because it's en Vogue to hate on the president, but that doesn't mean the fact checking is justified or even honest - and I reiterate, the dangerous part here is that people implicitly take Twitter to be an authority when they absolutely are not. Their fact check isn't even accurate, but people don't tend to question what they want to hear. Twitter's role is a neutral party - the same way that journalists are ultimately doing a disservice to society by editorializing everything while claiming to be neutral. It is dishonest and divides society from the top down.
  - eunoia 6y ago
    I actually agree with everything you’re saying. But the real world demands compromise. There is no ideal authority.
- ueueshitashita 6y ago
  > lies and hateful rhetoric If Twitter really cared about the "lies and hateful rhetoric" they would have put their money where their mouth is and banned him years ago. It's just a meaningless gesture to drum up more drama, more clicks, more views.
loopz 6y ago
user: tw000001 created: 19 minutes ago -1
- tw000001 6y ago
  What this have to do with my point?

eunoia 6y ago

You and I see different problems here. To me, the problem is a platform (and therefore legitimacy) has been granted to someone who abuses that power at every turn. We (those arguing against you) are not empowering Twitter as the new POTUS, merely trying to minimize the current one’s ability to cause damage via lies and hateful rhetoric. (Things you or I would have been banned for years ago) There will come a time to deal with Twitter’s societal overreach too.

tw000001 6y ago
>lies and hateful rhetoric There is simply no objective definition for either of these concepts and if you may be fine with Twitter having this kind of power now, but you may regret it if the shoe is ever on the other foot. Having a corporate arbiter of truth is antithetical to a free society, especially when creating one's own platform is impractical because of network effects. Who is going to fact check the fact checker? Effectively Twitter has the final word because this is their platform - not because they are correct, and if these political squabbles had an objectively correct answer then we wouldn't have multiple parties. People are find with it right now because it's en Vogue to hate on the president, but that doesn't mean the fact checking is justified or even honest - and I reiterate, the dangerous part here is that people implicitly take Twitter to be an authority when they absolutely are not. Their fact check isn't even accurate, but people don't tend to question what they want to hear. Twitter's role is a neutral party - the same way that journalists are ultimately doing a disservice to society by editorializing everything while claiming to be neutral. It is dishonest and divides society from the top down.
- eunoia 6y ago
  I actually agree with everything you’re saying. But the real world demands compromise. There is no ideal authority.
ueueshitashita 6y ago
> lies and hateful rhetoric If Twitter really cared about the "lies and hateful rhetoric" they would have put their money where their mouth is and banned him years ago. It's just a meaningless gesture to drum up more drama, more clicks, more views.

loopz 6y ago

user: tw000001 created: 19 minutes ago -1

tw000001 6y ago
What this have to do with my point?