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

Been hearing John Gruden recently bought some property in Washington DC.

 

He just took over his brother's house payment

 

Who did? Biden?

 

You missed the joke. Jay Gruden was the Washington Redskins HC, he got fired last year. Dooz said John bought some property in DC.

 

Ah. Sorry, I don’t see Dooz’s posts.

 

As you can tell you are not missing much.

 

SpidermanpointingatSpiderman.meme

 

I didn’t think so, but I’m sure that there’s always the griping about sacks that aren’t being hackeyed.

 

beep beep

 

Legit LOL, dipshit.

 

Ouch.

Faildozer - 1
Smiffacious D - 0

 

Always like getting shoutouts.

 

Twitter fact checking the President now and he doesn't like it. Threatens to "shut them down".

Good luck with that, Mr. President.

 

That was a stupid move on their part

 

You might be surprised how this turns out.

Some would argue, perhaps quite successfully, that assuming editorial control passes the rubicon from being a mere “content platform” to a “content creator”.

And Twitter is going to deserve every ounce of what they’ve practically dared to come to them.

And this on the heels of the State AG’s preparing to go after Google.

 

They've crossed the line of open forum that keeps them for being liable to wanting to play publisher.

 

To the best of my limited, non-expert knowledge, there is no legal distinguishment between a "platform," and "publisher" or "content creator." It's made up internet talking points. I am about to be humbled, I guess? I am not a lawyer. I'm ready to read up on where this is codified in the law and coming to understand how this wouldn't be an infringement on the First Amendment.

 

Section 230 of the communications decency act

 

No distinguishment is made there between "platform," "publisher," or "content creator." It defines an "interactive computer service," which can't be treated as the publisher or speaker of 3rd party content. That kind of language flat out isn't there.

 

Of course, the important part is not the president tweeting nonsense and slanderous murder accusations/insinuations towards a prominent critic in the media, but that he was corrected on it which has some apoplectic. It should be noted the origins of "fake news" was not Trump, but these ubiquitous, and blatantly obvious in most cases, phony stories on social media. Do I have any issue with Twitter, Facebook, etc. having a label which notes links to demonstrably false stories? Nope, not at all. And, that goes for some of the left wing absurdities out there, too.

Now, in my mind, this does not include people interjecting their opinion about items which are incorrect, false, whatever. That's merely the discussion we all have. But, cutting down on the bots and identifying the clearly false stories and conspiracy items goes a long way towards dealing with the epidemic of disinformation on social media.

This reminds me of a hyper right wing friend I have on Facebook who persistently posts memes/gifs on all kinds of shit, only to have gotten pissed off the past few weeks when the site has identified her link as false. She complained about conservative bias and leaving Facebook for conservatives to start their own social media site. I tried to point out to her memes were the absolute lowest form of information and almost always full of misinformation (The post she gave quoted Hitler and Facebook noted he didn't actually make the quote) from whatever political perspective it presented, plus was the sort of thing easy to monitor and limit. She kind of understood, I thought, and then did the same thing the next day, [itch bay]ing again about censorship.