Please consider registering
Guest
sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
We Can Work It Out - Politics & Philosophy
30 May 2020
3.51am
Avatar
QuarryMan
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 3710
Member Since:
26 January 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2121sp_Permalink sp_Print

The social media question is a very difficult one. It seems like both outcomes are far from ideal – either you have big corporations being able to exercise a huge deal of control over the public discourse by regulating it however they like, or you have the sites become vistas of lies, fake news and slander. 

The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:

Beatlebug

¡No pasarán!

 

30 May 2020
7.54am
Avatar
Starr Shine?
Waiting in the sky
Apple rooftop
Members
Forum Posts: 16060
Member Since:
1 November 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2122sp_Permalink sp_Print

Twitter isn’t bound by freedom of speach since it is a private company like how YouTube blocks things that aren’t breaking laws. 

Guess it is about if you’d rather have a corporation in charge rather than the goverment 

https://youtu.be/52nwiTs7bk8

Brainwashed by RadiantCowbells.

If you can't log in and can't use the forum go here and someone will help you out.

30 May 2020
9.24am
Avatar
Dark Overlord
Nowhere Land
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 4463
Member Since:
9 March 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2123sp_Permalink sp_Print

I like to think of it this way:

The internet is the public square but each website is it’s own corporation. This means that sites like Gab and The Daily Stormer have every right to stay up while sites like YouTube and Twitter have every right to remove them from their platform. This is identical to how stores can ban people for any reason besides those stated in the Civil Rights Act Of 1964.

The following people thank Dark Overlord for this post:

Beatlebug

If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.

30 May 2020
9.34am
Avatar
Beatlebug
Find me where ye echo lays
Moderator

Moderators
Forum Posts: 17648
Member Since:
15 February 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2124sp_Permalink sp_Print

AppleScruffJunior said
The President of the US threatened to shoot unarmed US citizens on a social media platform.  

The President of the US threatened to shoot unarmed US citizens who were rioting, looting, and destroying state and private property. You can do quite a lot of damage without a firearm. Now, you can disagree that such decisive military force was entirely fair, but it’s still an important distinction to make. When you start infringing on the rights of others, you forfeit some of your own. Not all of them, but still.

It verges from the sublime to the ridiculote
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
ScotsIrishFlag-1.jpeg creativehmmavatars.png Vietnam Heritage and Freedom Flag
StarSpangledBanner.png

30 May 2020
9.38am
Avatar
Beatlebug
Find me where ye echo lays
Moderator

Moderators
Forum Posts: 17648
Member Since:
15 February 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2125sp_Permalink sp_Print

Starr Shine? said
Twitter isn’t bound by freedom of speach since it is a private company like how YouTube blocks things that aren’t breaking laws. 

Guess it is about if you’d rather have a corporation in charge rather than the goverment   

If you read my entire post and that’s all you’ve taken away, I would encourage you to read it again, more carefully.

It’s not about freedom of speech, it’s about what types of companies can be held to which sets of legal restrictions.

It verges from the sublime to the ridiculote
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
ScotsIrishFlag-1.jpeg creativehmmavatars.png Vietnam Heritage and Freedom Flag
StarSpangledBanner.png

30 May 2020
11.25am
Avatar
AppleScruffJunior
Sitting here doing nothing but procrastinating...
Apple rooftop
Reviewers

Members
Forum Posts: 7452
Member Since:
18 March 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2126sp_Permalink sp_Print

Beatlebug said

AppleScruffJunior said

The President of the US threatened to shoot unarmed US citizens on a social media platform.  

The President of the US threatened to shoot unarmed US citizens who were rioting, looting, and destroying state and private property. You can do quite a lot of damage without a firearm. Now, you can disagree that such decisive military force was entirely fair, but it’s still an important distinction to make. When you start infringing on the rights of others, you forfeit some of your own. Not all of them, but still.

  

A President should not be threatening violence against their own citizens, especially on such a callous platform as social media.

 

Is it right to bring a gun to a knife fight? There are other ways of controlling crowds without shooting them. The fact that a head of a government would even think of posting a thing like that is disgusting.

The following people thank AppleScruffJunior for this post:

lovelyritametermaid

 

INTROVERTS UNITE! Separately....in your own homes!

                 ***

Make Love, Not Wardrobes!

                ***

"Stop throwing jelly beans at me"- George Harrison

30 May 2020
12.13pm
Avatar
Dark Overlord
Nowhere Land
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 4463
Member Since:
9 March 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2127sp_Permalink sp_Print

To be fair, it’s the exact response Obama, Biden, or any other mainstream politician would’ve done if they were president, the only difference being that Trump said it while most would’ve just done it. That’s not to say that i agree with Trump but i can’t blame him for responding the same way 90% of the population would’ve if they were president.

The following people thank Dark Overlord for this post:

Beatlebug

If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.

30 May 2020
12.53pm
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 11470
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2128sp_Permalink sp_Print

@Beatlebug said

AppleScruffJunior said

The President of the US threatened to shoot unarmed US citizens on a social media platform.  

The President of the US threatened to shoot unarmed US citizens who were rioting, looting, and destroying state and private property. You can do quite a lot of damage without a firearm. Now, you can disagree that such decisive military force was entirely fair, but it’s still an important distinction to make. When you start infringing on the rights of others, you forfeit some of your own. Not all of them, but still.

Most world leaders, among the Western democracies probably only one, your one, would threaten rioters with being shot; they would, instead, send out the message that rioters would met with the full force of the law, and should expect to be prosecuted not executed.

Beatlebug said

Starr Shine? said

Twitter isn’t bound by freedom of speach since it is a private company like how YouTube blocks things that aren’t breaking laws. 

Guess it is about if you’d rather have a corporation in charge rather than the goverment   

If you read my entire post and that’s all you’ve taken away, I would encourage you to read it again, more carefully.

It’s not about freedom of speech, it’s about what types of companies can be held to which sets of legal restrictions.

And were Trump to be successful in opening up social media sites to libel laws the only result would probably be the barring of Americans to social media sites, just as Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) means there are many US-based sites are blocked to me as a European as they are not willing, or do not feel able, to abide by the laws in Europe.

And it wouldn’t just be big players like Twitter, Americans would probably lose access to this forum as I doubt Joe would want to risk a libel action in America for something said on here.

Live social media sites cannot work if every post needs to be pre-moderated to avoid the risk of something libellous getting through.

It would also need to be legislated for, and I very much doubt many in the Congress or Senate would vote to cut off their easiest, and cheapest, way to communicate with their electorate.

He’s a bully, plain and simple, who’s throwing a hissy fit and abusing his office because he got fact-checked, and not for the first time was found wanting, just the first time it was done by Twitter.

And for those who’d claim he’s not abusing his office by using it to intimidate those who disagree with him, there was no talk of making social media sites liable to libel laws before Twitter fact-checked him, and right after he’s making threats to have the law changed (although the law change he proposes wouldn’t prevent Twitter fact-checking him).

Given how many times, and in how many ways, he has breached Twitter’s rules, he’s lucky they have a policy of not shutting the accounts of world leaders.

The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:

lovelyritametermaid

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966

30 May 2020
1.29pm
Avatar
Dark Overlord
Nowhere Land
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 4463
Member Since:
9 March 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2129sp_Permalink sp_Print

@Ron Nasty Regarding point 1, this riot is most comparable to the 1992 Rodney King riots, where 10 people were killed by law enforcement. And while that number may seem low, the fact that the National Guard was armed and ready to kill shows that Trump’s not the only leader who would resort to such measures and it’s also worth mentioning that there’s only been 2 confirmed deaths related to the riots so far, neither being by law enforcement (although 1 of the deaths was a member of law enforcement).

Regarding point 2, i mostly agree but i wouldn’t call Trump a bully. When i think of a bully, i think of someone who does mean but trivial things like steal your lunchbox and call you mean names. Trump on the other hand is one of the most powerful people on the face of the earth who does major things that affect the whole world (mostly (but not always) for the worse IMO).

If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.

30 May 2020
2.12pm
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 11470
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2130sp_Permalink sp_Print

@Dark Overlord said
RN Regarding point 1, this riot is most comparable to the 1992 Rodney King riots, where 10 people were killed by law enforcement. And while that number may seem low, the fact that the National Guard was armed and ready to kill shows that Trump’s not the only leader who would resort to such measures and it’s also worth mentioning that there’s only been 2 confirmed deaths related to the riots so far, neither being by law enforcement (although 1 of the deaths was a member of law enforcement).

Regarding point 2, i mostly agree but i wouldn’t call Trump a bully. When i think of a bully, i think of someone who does mean but trivial things like steal your lunchbox and call you mean names. Trump on the other hand is one of the most powerful people on the face of the earth who does major things that affect the whole world (mostly (but not always) for the worse IMO).

Regarding your point 1, the US having an armed police force always gives the possibility of incidents being met with deadly force when necessary, but it should always be the last resort. Trump didn’t indicate in any way that the use of deadly force would only be deployed as a last resort but headlined it as his response to the situation.

On your point 2, many people in positions of power — be they a Weinstein or Trump — use their position to try and intimidate those they feel they can to get what they want. The playgrounds may be bigger but the threats to hurt you if you don’t do what they want are still the actions of a bully. As my mother used to say, “If you take a penny out of my purse without asking or a fifty pound note, you’re still a thief.” The scale doesn’t change what you are.

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966

30 May 2020
2.53pm
Avatar
Dark Overlord
Nowhere Land
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 4463
Member Since:
9 March 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I don’t think it makes much of a difference that the president said he’ll shoot protesters acting in an uncivilized manner when in both cases, the military was brought in, ready to kill if necessary. Admittedly, he shouldn’t’ve said that but this is Trump, the former reality TV star turned president, we’re talking about. He always sounds edgy because his fanbase loves him for it.

If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.

30 May 2020
4.45pm
Avatar
lovelyritametermaid
You can meet me after heavy rain has fallen
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1443
Member Since:
5 December 2019
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Aren’t there other, less deadly ways of riot control other than just shooting at protesters like they’re rabid dogs? 

"....When I cannot sing my heart, I can only speak my mind...." 

"....This ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no fooling around...."

 ||She/They ||  File:Fist.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia | Black lives matter art,  Black fist, Black lives matter poster    Pride Flag Redesign: It  DSA Libertarian Socialist Caucus

30 May 2020
5.18pm
Avatar
Dark Overlord
Nowhere Land
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 4463
Member Since:
9 March 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2133sp_Permalink sp_Print

Absolutely. If they were smart, they’d bring them into a room to discuss their concerns and negotiate a plan. This way, everyone clams down and police who abuse their power are sentenced fairly.

And even if they’d rather bring in the National Guard, they could make human barriers or use non-lethal chemicals such as pepper spray to deter the rioters. If that’s not enough, using non-lethal force and arrest should suffice. Only if that doesn’t work AND they’re endangering human life, should lethal force be used.

If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.

31 May 2020
12.46pm
Avatar
50yearslate
Playing on the roofs again
Apple rooftop
Members
Forum Posts: 8722
Member Since:
15 November 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

^A very good point. Also, I think that if the President of the United States is going to say misleading or false things on a social media platform where they will be seen by enormous numbers of people, it’s kind of important for someone (not necessarily Twitter, but someone) to point out the inaccuracies. If my forty-three-year-old accountant neighbor posts a false opinion or fact, it doesn’t matter that much, because they’re not the President of the United States and people don’t take their word as law. But in the case of tweets made by POTUS, accuracy is far more important.

Edit: MEGA FIDDY!!!! I meant to reply to ASJ’s post on the previous page, having clicked on my mention from Bebu and not realizing there was a whole other page. Apologies!

The following people thank 50yearslate for this post:

lovelyritametermaid

Love one another.

- - -

(I'm Fiddy, not Walrian)

- - -

2018:IMG_3980.PNG 2019: 00A040E0-7F67-413C-9CAB-AB4C27EB864A.png 2020:offtopic.png

31 May 2020
1.02pm
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 11470
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Though Governments around the world, including the US, have been urging Twitter to become more proactive in responding to things posted there that could be viewed as misleading and/or harmful, @50yearslate. Thing is with politicians, they want their opponents statements to be found to be misleading and/or harmful, not theirs. When theirs are found wanting, especially when they are in power, they start screaming that Twitter, etc., are biased and shouldn’t be policing their posts.

You wouldn’t have heard a word of complaint from Trump had Twitter fact-checked a Biden post and found it wanting; instead there would probably been applause from him.

The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:

lovelyritametermaid, Dark Overlord, 50yearslate

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966

31 May 2020
1.16pm
Avatar
Dark Overlord
Nowhere Land
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 4463
Member Since:
9 March 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2136sp_Permalink sp_Print

To be fair, this is the ex-reality TV star who won due in large part to conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones who despise both Bush and Obama because they believe the former was responsible for 9/11 and the latter is a radical Muslim socialist born in Kenya (despite none of those claims having any truth to them). If someone went in correcting Trump, his supporters would likely label THEM as “fake news trying to silence our president so he won’t get a second term”.

If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.

31 May 2020
3.02pm
Avatar
QuarryMan
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 3710
Member Since:
26 January 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2137sp_Permalink sp_Print

I understand why it might be necessary, but I for one am not looking forward to having NYT and Washington Post articles linked under every tweet lol

The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:

Dark Overlord, 50yearslate, Beatlebug

¡No pasarán!

 

2 June 2020
3.56pm
Avatar
Beatlebug
Find me where ye echo lays
Moderator

Moderators
Forum Posts: 17648
Member Since:
15 February 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

@Dark Overlord said
Absolutely. If they were smart, they’d bring them into a room to discuss their concerns and negotiate a plan. This way, everyone clams down and police who abuse their power are sentenced fairly. 

Yes, that’s how you deal with peaceful protesters. Not RIOTERS WHO ARE BURNING THINGS DOWN AND KILLING PEOPLE. I’m sorry, but you forfeit your 1st Amendment right to freely assemble when you start infringing on property rights and using physical violence against people and things. I’d like to see you bring people into a room when they’re smashing things and whacking you over the head.

And even if they’d rather bring in the National Guard, they could make human barriers or use non-lethal chemicals such as pepper spray to deter the rioters. If that’s not enough, using non-lethal force and arrest should suffice. Only if that doesn’t work AND they’re endangering human life, should lethal force be used.  

Fair enough.

@50yearslate said
^A very good point. Also, I think that if the President of the United States is going to say misleading or false things on a social media platform where they will be seen by enormous numbers of people, it’s kind of important for someone (not necessarily Twitter, but someone) to point out the inaccuracies. If my forty-three-year-old accountant neighbor posts a false opinion or fact, it doesn’t matter that much, because they’re not the President of the United States and people don’t take their word as law. But in the case of tweets made by POTUS, accuracy is far more important.
 

People do rail against Trump’s tweets all the time, lol… have you seen the “reply guys” (and/or gals) who make a career out of calling him out in his Twitter threads… still not Twitter’s job.

And to be clear, @Ron Nasty and others, Trump’s executive order doesn’t dictate that Twitter should now be a publisher and held accountable for everything said on their site… it just enforces existing law, saying in essence that Twitter has to choose which side to be on and stick to it. They can’t keep having the best of both worlds like they are, it’s gone on long enough. It would be the best thing for everyone if they went back to being the lightly and transparently moderated platforms as they were intended to be (Section 230 allows protections for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected”).

SO now that he’s only done it after they “fact-checked” him personally and has a direct incident to point to, y’all are saying it’s retaliation and petty and childish of him. I have a question for you all, had he done it earlier, would you have thought him overstepping his power and striking at Twitter for no good reason?

It verges from the sublime to the ridiculote
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
ScotsIrishFlag-1.jpeg creativehmmavatars.png Vietnam Heritage and Freedom Flag
StarSpangledBanner.png

2 June 2020
4.03pm
Avatar
50yearslate
Playing on the roofs again
Apple rooftop
Members
Forum Posts: 8722
Member Since:
15 November 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2139sp_Permalink sp_Print

^If he had done it earlier I would be confused why he suddenly turned against his favorite way of communicating with the people of his country and I would be concerned that regulating Twitter might violate the first amendment at least partly. It wouldn’t look as bad and childish as it does now, but I would still be unsettled by it.

Love one another.

- - -

(I'm Fiddy, not Walrian)

- - -

2018:IMG_3980.PNG 2019: 00A040E0-7F67-413C-9CAB-AB4C27EB864A.png 2020:offtopic.png

2 June 2020
4.39pm
Avatar
Dark Overlord
Nowhere Land
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 4463
Member Since:
9 March 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2140sp_Permalink sp_Print

While these protests definitely aren’t within 1st amendment rights, these people are only rioting because they want to be heard. To quote MLK, “a riot is the voice of the unheard”. If Trump gave them a chance to be heard, they’d no longer have a reason to riot and would therefore calm down.

The following people thank Dark Overlord for this post:

QuarryMan

If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.

Forum Timezone: America/Chicago
Most Users Ever Online: 700
Currently Online: Leopillow
Guest(s) 1
Top Posters:
Starr Shine?: 16060
Ron Nasty: 11470
Zig: 9832
50yearslate: 8722
Necko: 7952
AppleScruffJunior: 7452
parlance: 7111
mr. Sun king coming together: 6403
Mr. Kite: 6147
trcanberra: 6064
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 88
Members: 2648
Moderators: 5
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 44
Topics: 5035
Posts: 360070
Newest Members:
Leopillow, O. N. Fernandes, ScottB, kmyler, John Paul Harrison
Moderators: Joe: 5236, meanmistermustard: 23894, Ahhh Girl: 20084, Beatlebug: 17648, The Hole Got Fixed: 8268
Administrators: Joe: 5236