POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

I always get a kick out people who complain about the changes to a free platform they are under no obligation to use in the first place.

Sure, it would be nice if I could make a change or two to Instagram feeds, for example, but since I can’t my options are either deal with it, or not use it altogether.

 

It is in there.

It has to be an open and facilitate a true diversity of political discourse to be immune and fall under the protection.


They want to have the protection of the law, but edit to their desired political bent.

They have every right to do that as a company under the 1st amendment, but they can't have it both ways.

 

But are they truly editing or simply adding annotations? Did they change what the President was saying or adding warnings or information for the reader? Can a neutral entity not say "Sorry, but flat earth is not a thing" or "There is no evidence that Bigfoot shot JFK"?

 

But once you start adding annotations of truth you have to do it for everything or it will be assumed it is true.

Will they do that with CCP officials too? Or just the orange man.

Basically a Karen news woman cried to Twitter and this is how they respond.

 

I wish they would do it with any and all accounts, or at least those over a certain viewership. Obviously they cannot do it for all accounts.

And as for the CCP, I hope the USA makes it damn hard to do business in China if you kowtow to the CCP's demands, especially in the domestic markets. We don't need a proxy government.

 

YouTube has been very protective of the CCP and who during this.

Rogan is even calling it out and was part of the push to him taking the Spotify deal

 

Where? Tell me where. I've looked it up and down. True diversity of political discourse? No way, that's not even definable. Senator Hawley proposed a bill to add that: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1914

But it didn't get voted on. If every point of view has mandated equal time, you've just killed meaningful communication.

Think about what you are asking for. You want every Nazi to be able to spout whatever eugenics nonsense every single time any political view is posted, to get equal and neutral standing. Not even the few rules of this board would be legal, under what you are proposing.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

 

Man, there is nothing defining a publisher vs platform, and there is nothing saying one must offer a "true diversity of political discourse." It says

under findings. The [uck fay]ing internet. Not anything about a specific entity, and nothing requiring each to do so.

 

I swear to God, people have lost their damn minds. The CCP have some state-mandated, FCC-equivalent certified "true diversity of political discourse." Go there if you hate free speech so much.

 

Yeah, they're "editing" his tweets so much by not changing a single character. Instead they separately present a link that further explores the topic brought up by the President.

All this talk about transparency and a desire for truth, but now an out pour of outrage when the one of the most powerful narcissists in the world is fact-checked.

 

That's what is incredible. All this reaction to facts being linked to his claim. Not even political, just facts.

 

It's not been a big deal at all until it affected Trump.

Stupid on their part? Maybe.

Response resembling that of a third world dictator? Weeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllll

 

First, their facts are wrong.

Will they now fact-check everyone? Most? Some? Anyone who likes that they’ve done this had better hope they’re consistent.

This will go to the courts and be quickly settled. Luckily, that’s what they’re for.

Welcome to the New World.

 

We always love free speech, all the time, don’t we?

 

Clearly not free speech in the form of fact checks

 

They should have applied their rules to him all along.

 

The fact check might have felt good, but I wonder what the ROI will be.

230 isn’t in danger of being amended (which would be apocalyptic to Big Tech, in its own right), it’s in danger of being erased. That’s not the threat, but the goal.

Twitter and lots of Big Tech, would cease to exist within a month.

This isn’t new shit, y’all are just too busy [itch bay]ing about Breitbart links.

Sometimes you don’t have to be the asshole, you can just turn the real assholes loose to do what they wanted, anyway.

Link: https://www.breitbart.com/clips/201...30-special-immunities-over-tech-company-bias/

 

I’ve not argued against free speech, even here.

I’ve been steadfast in saying that you can lawfully exercise your rights however you see fit, but be prepared for what comes of it, too.

 

Not exactly a good move by Twitter to open that can of worms.