8 ms·
I said it yesterday and got downvotes, Twitter’s CEO decided to pick sides in the political battle so they should expect what’s coming to them.
by paganel 6y ago
I said it yesterday and got downvotes, Twitter’s CEO decided to pick sides in the political battle so they should expect what’s coming to them.
- s5300 6y agoI don't understand. He broke their TOS. They applied a punishment in line with their TOS. Do heads of state somewhere not-stated to the public have some sort of social media diplomatic immunity?
- tracer4201 6y agoHe attacks people on Twitter and pretends he can literally do what he wants without consequences — whether from the government and rule of law or in this case, a private company. You’re getting downvoted for a fair call out. There’s a deeper rot in this country where a select group believes freedom and fairness is something they can own and define, screw reality or objective fact. Anything else is biased and a conspiracy paid for by Soros, Obama, Hillary, Muslims, Hispanics, and the “swamp”.
- rootlocus 6y agoFact checking doesn't imply picking sides. Not fact checking does.
- 2019-nCoV 6y agoAnd they're not fact checking Biden.
- pm90 6y agoBiden doesn’t make multiple false claims everyday. Also Biden’s not the President (yet).
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- acid__ 6y agoMaybe a statement that we can all agree on would be: _selectively_ fact checking implies picking sides? I think it's a point of contention (colored by existing political views) as to whether or not Twitter is selectively fact checking here. Hopefully this isn't too controversial, there's a lot of hostility already in this thread, and I don't want to contribute to it.
- makomk 6y agoSelectively fact checking things that are arguably opinions rather than factual claims in the first place, using flimsy evidence, whilst leaving actual factual misinformation to spread is definitely picking sides.
- nabaraz 6y ago> Fact checking doesn't imply picking sides. Not fact checking does. Fact checking with partisan media sources does imply picking sides.
- knowaveragejoe 6y agoThere has to be a line somewhere, otherwise the implication is that nobody can be held correct by fact checking. Snopes and Politifact do a pretty good job, IMO. I think this just touches on the fact that the GOP and Trumpists in general are more likely to engage in distorting the truth or outright fabricating lies.
- senectus1 6y agoit sort of does, WHO they use to check the facts can very def define what side they're on.
- celticninja 6y agoor perhaps you use it against the most egregious offences by users with a high number of followers. not much point fact checking my tweets because at worst I could misinform 6 people, perhaps if it was retweeted a lot it would then be fact checked. Trump's verbal/typed diarrhea gets everywhere.
- xpaqui 6y agoCan you explain how not fact checking implies picking a side?
- rootlocus 6y agoNo fact check = implicit trust
- moojd 6y agoNot fact checking is only picking a side once you have decided to fact check. Before all of this twitter could claim to be a medium of communication. There isn't implicit trust that something is true because it is written on paper, posted on a billboard, or appears on TV. By choosing to mark tweets as true or false, they are no longer just a medium of communication. We can now imply that if twitter does not mark a tweet as false, they are endorsing that tweet as true.
- chirau 6y ago"them" who?
- ewidar 6y agoI think they just mean them=Twitter
- fzeroracer 6y agoDoes not wanting your government to shoot US citizens count as choosing a side now?
- bryanrasmussen 6y agowhat's coming to them? Is it violence? That's how I often here the phrase "get what's coming to you" used.
- kortilla 6y agoPerhaps you spend too much time around violent people? The phrase is the equivalent of “reaping what you sow”.
- celticninja 6y agowhich again is used to refer to a violent response to a violent action.
- kortilla 6y agoOnly by violent people. It’s about a consequence, good or bad. It’s literally about fucking harvesting crops.
- paganel 6y agoI was talking about stuff like this, of course: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/27/politics/donald-trump-twitter-threat-regulate/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/27/politics/donald-trump-twi...
- gentaro 6y agoSounds like maybe you should take the hint. It's not "taking sides" to point out that you're glorifying violence if you as the president are threatening to deploy military force against protestors.
- 101404 6y agoSending police to stop violence is "glorifying violence"? How exactly?
- ryanobjc 6y agoSigh. Really. The tweets didn’t offer “sending in the police” it threatened to send the military in. Which isn’t the police. Word matter. The fact I’m m reading this comment here is sad.
- mrighele 6y agoSending police to shoot at protester is "glorifying violence". As a reference, that's the approach that Assad took in Syria back in 2011.
- pnako 6y agoHe mentioned shooting at looters, not protesters. Maybe you didn't see that part because Twitter has hidden the tweet?
- totalZero 6y agoShooting at looters instead of arresting them and taking them before a judge? That's reminiscent of the very brutal police practices that sparked this chaos in the first place.
- pnako 6y agoIn which country do you live? Shooting rubber bullets at rioters and looters is standard practice pretty much everywhere in democracies, and in non-democracies they tend to go straight to lethal ammo.
- arrrg 6y agoTo believe that it’s even possible to not pick sides is non-sensical. “Not picking sides” often means siding with the status quo. That might be fine but it’s not the same as not picking a side.
- morsch 6y ago> so they should expect what’s coming to them The national guard?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]