4 ms·

What is and isn't fact is for people to decide by themselves based on evidence. Not whatever Twitter decides is the truth. There are very few hard facts in this

• JadeNB 6y ago
  > There are very few hard facts in this world especially surrounding politics. Surely this is false. The world is full of hard facts—politics less than the sciences, sure, but still [0]. What are much rarer (non-existent?) are undisputed facts. [0] To be clear, I distinguish hard facts in politics, like "Trump is the 45th president of the United States", from hard facts in political science, of which there indeed seem to be very few.
• jrockway 6y ago
  > What is and isn't fact is for people to decide by themselves based on evidence. That is why Twitter is linking some facts to go along with the President's tweets.
  • partyboat1586 6y ago
    Which facts you choose can show bias. Let people supply sources in replies.
    • ineedasername 6y ago
      Is the free speech of Twitter to be abridged? Section 230 allows good-faith moderation. Whether or not you believe they should do it, current law and court rulings have come down on the side them being allowed to do it and maintain their safe-harbor status.
      • partyboat1586 6y ago
        We are taking about reform not what the current state of the law is. Twitter has an outsized impact for the small number of people who make those decisions.
        • jrockway 6y ago
          You have to look at social media like a newspaper that publishes letters to the editor. They're the editor, you're writing letters. The editors are free to throw away crazy letters, edit letters for length, syntax, and content, or discontinue the section entirely. That's what free speech is. If a newspaper won't publish your letter to the editor, you can make your own newspaper and publish whatever you want. You need a really good reason to take away Twitter's editorial control over Twitter. Please provide one. (The best I see so far is "Twitter is really popular, so they shouldn't be allowed to edit their own website." I am not convinced that that is a good justification for limiting the freedom of the press. If that's where we want to go, I would be the first in line to make sure Fox News drops their conservative bias and gives liberal viewpoints a fair shake. Does that sound good to you?)
        • ineedasername 6y ago
          What decisions? You think the government should be able to control whether Twitter adds additional context to posts? For almost 100 years it has been held both in general and by the Supreme Court in particular that the remedy to speech you disagree with is more speech. Do you object to Twitter's ability to have such a disagreement? Or, as is being proposed, do you believe Twitter should be held legally liable for every nasty thing said on their platform simply because they choose to have an opinion of their own? To me that seems like a recipe for significantly more banning of content & users by Twitter to avoid even the hint of liability that would come with allowing it to stand.
• thwave 6y ago
  What is and isn't evidence is for people to decide by themselves based on facts?
  • partyboat1586 6y ago
    Again up for people to decide. Let people post facts and their sources in replies rather than have Twitter do it.