8 ms·

By Trump they directly "fact" checked the tweets.

by hersko 4y ago

r00fus 4y ago
There are thousands of Trump's tweets that were bald-faced lies that did not get fact checked. Instead people replied in the comments. That one or two of his tweets may have gotten a "<!> may be inaccurate" advisory is completely different from this kind of "community".
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  Yeah but the tooling has evolved over time. If those got tweeted today, there would be "context" added on many of them.
  - roflyear 4y ago
    Let's see if that is true! We should find out, right?
    - bpodgursky 4y ago
      If you have a 80 million follow account, go for it. Not sure what you're suggesting.
      - roflyear 4y ago
        I'm saying we'll find out soon if conservative politicians are treated the same way. Do you disagree?
- lawn 4y ago
  I always thought Trump's tweets were a big reason for these context notes being added in the first place.
pessimizer 4y ago
There are constitutional questions raised when intermediaries are editing a POTUS's communications. Just like there were constitutional questions that kept him from banning people. edit: while I love the event that sparked this thread, I would be upset if they were adding this shit to Biden's personal account.
- awb 4y ago
  > I would be upset if they were adding this shit to Biden's personal account I'm not sure if it's codified anywhere, but I don't think a sitting US President is afforded the luxury of a personal life while in office, outside of personal non-political relationships. Otherwise, the POTUS would just pick and choose when they were acting as a President and when they weren't as a legal loophole. So, any public communication, wether on an official or personal account, would be considered an act of the POTUS while they're in office, no? If so, then I don't know why you'd treat it any differently than an official WH account, especially if the personal account is being used to discuss current political events relating to their role as POTUS.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > I don't think a sitting US President is afforded the luxury of a personal life while in office It's not his personal life I'm thinking about, it's his political life. He's the top elected official, and the top representative of a political party. His political speech shouldn't be played around with, even if we can somehow rationalize political censorship for everyone else. I think that's different than an official White House account, though, because the actual government belongs to us. In his function as head administrator of the Executive Branch, he's an employee. In his function as the winner of a presidential election, however, he's the anointed representative for a majority of US voters (more or less, because of our antiquated system), and silencing him is antidemocratic.
    - awb 4y ago
      > In his function as head administrator of the Executive Branch, he's an employee. In his function as the winner of a presidential election, however, he's the anointed representative for a majority of US voters (more or less, because of our antiquated system) OK, but then how do you determine when he’s acting in which capacity? > and silencing him is antidemocratic. These context bubbles are supplemental and apparently provided by users. They’re not hiding anyone’s speech. It’s more like boosting the most succinct, relevant reply.

By Trump they directly "fact" checked the tweets.

by hersko 4y ago

By Trump they directly "fact" checked the tweets.

There are thousands of Trump's tweets that were bald-faced lies that did not get fact checked. Instead people replied in the comments. That one or two of his tweets may have gotten a "<!> may be inaccurate" advisory is completely different from this kind of "community".

bpodgursky 4y ago
Yeah but the tooling has evolved over time. If those got tweeted today, there would be "context" added on many of them.
- roflyear 4y ago
  Let's see if that is true! We should find out, right?
  - bpodgursky 4y ago
    If you have a 80 million follow account, go for it. Not sure what you're suggesting.
    - roflyear 4y ago
      I'm saying we'll find out soon if conservative politicians are treated the same way. Do you disagree?
lawn 4y ago
I always thought Trump's tweets were a big reason for these context notes being added in the first place.

pessimizer 4y ago

There are constitutional questions raised when intermediaries are editing a POTUS's communications. Just like there were constitutional questions that kept him from banning people. edit: while I love the event that sparked this thread, I would be upset if they were adding this shit to Biden's personal account.

awb 4y ago
> I would be upset if they were adding this shit to Biden's personal account I'm not sure if it's codified anywhere, but I don't think a sitting US President is afforded the luxury of a personal life while in office, outside of personal non-political relationships. Otherwise, the POTUS would just pick and choose when they were acting as a President and when they weren't as a legal loophole. So, any public communication, wether on an official or personal account, would be considered an act of the POTUS while they're in office, no? If so, then I don't know why you'd treat it any differently than an official WH account, especially if the personal account is being used to discuss current political events relating to their role as POTUS.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > I don't think a sitting US President is afforded the luxury of a personal life while in office It's not his personal life I'm thinking about, it's his political life. He's the top elected official, and the top representative of a political party. His political speech shouldn't be played around with, even if we can somehow rationalize political censorship for everyone else. I think that's different than an official White House account, though, because the actual government belongs to us. In his function as head administrator of the Executive Branch, he's an employee. In his function as the winner of a presidential election, however, he's the anointed representative for a majority of US voters (more or less, because of our antiquated system), and silencing him is antidemocratic.
  - awb 4y ago
    > In his function as head administrator of the Executive Branch, he's an employee. In his function as the winner of a presidential election, however, he's the anointed representative for a majority of US voters (more or less, because of our antiquated system) OK, but then how do you determine when he’s acting in which capacity? > and silencing him is antidemocratic. These context bubbles are supplemental and apparently provided by users. They’re not hiding anyone’s speech. It’s more like boosting the most succinct, relevant reply.