Why isn't anyone talking about Trump and Twitter?

JAHpowSo in the very basic of terms, he signed an order essentially banning a private companies ability to censor?

I already understand the argument for and against this. I'm for a private company having the freedom to do what it thinks is best for itself. I'm also against censorship. I guess a question is, when does a private company have the right to dictate what you see and read?

I've said it before, I'll say it again, if you're believing the very first thing you read on the internet, and take no steps to confirm or falsify what you read... you're a dumbass. Like you said eheath, if it's only a couple of clicks to figure out if something is true or false... then it's a person's duty to make those clicks.

JAHpowSo in the very basic of terms, he signed an order essentially banning a private companies ability to censor?

I already understand the argument for and against this. I'm for a private company having the freedom to do what it thinks is best for itself. I'm also against censorship. I guess a question is, when does a private company have the right to dictate what you see and read?

I've said it before, I'll say it again, if you're believing the very first thing you read on the internet, and take no steps to confirm or falsify what you read... you're a dumbass. Like you said eheath, if it's only a couple of clicks to figure out if something is true or false... then it's a person's duty to make those clicks.

eheathYou can preach all you want on NS, but there are millions of people who don't double check, believe everything they see, etc.

This isn't totally about censorship, this is about twitter enforcing editorial on tweets, i.e. adding a fact checking link below your tweet, trump wants to lie on twitter without anyone call him out, he knows most of his followers are sheep that believe anything he says.

I see this as the president overstepping his authority to change something that makes him upset, not to make twitter/social media more fair. He can't win the election if every tweet about the opposition is fact checked and disproven every time.

little1337It’s sad but even if the fact check stays below his tweets, his followers won’t care and will think it’s liberal twitter trying to discredit everything he says. Hopefully I’m wrong tho

eheathYeah its hard telling, certainly his loyal followers might think that, but maybe some people on the fence will see how much he lies and wont support that. I think he'll win the next election, but I'd be happy if he didn't.

eheathYou can preach all you want on NS, but there are millions of people who don't double check, believe everything they see, etc.

This isn't totally about censorship, this is about twitter enforcing editorial on tweets, i.e. adding a fact checking link below your tweet, trump wants to lie on twitter without anyone call him out, he knows most of his followers are sheep that believe anything he says.

I see this as the president overstepping his authority to change something that makes him upset, not to make twitter/social media more fair. He can't win the election if every tweet about the opposition is fact checked and disproven every time.

theabortionatorThis is why the polar sports teamlike political shit show we're in sucks. My team rules, your team droolz, her her he he lots of anger something something fuck you!


Everything my side does is right, eveything your side does is wrong? How can you not see that? Are you blind?!?!?

Everyone is going to have their own beliefs and biases but our political system is super fucked. Everyone is right, anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. Mothing positive changes and everyone get's saltier and bitches about the other guys on social media. Murica

JAHpowSo in the very basic of terms, he signed an order essentially banning a private companies ability to censor?

I already understand the argument for and against this. I'm for a private company having the freedom to do what it thinks is best for itself. I'm also against censorship. I guess a question is, when does a private company have the right to dictate what you see and read?

I've said it before, I'll say it again, if you're believing the very first thing you read on the internet, and take no steps to confirm or falsify what you read... you're a dumbass. Like you said eheath, if it's only a couple of clicks to figure out if something is true or false... then it's a person's duty to make those clicks.

BedBugDougTo apply a fact or fiction filter to anything a politician says is pointless. I'll save Twitter the trouble and just stamp every tweet with 100% bullshit.

But on a serious note, people are convinced that the other side is spreading lies and their side is preaching truth. And with tech companies being mostly liberal, it's easy to understand why Trump would be mad about this. Especially when everything politicians say are half truths, at best, with their own spin put on it.

ScaredwhiteboyI haven't read the order, but I fully support the goal of preventing online censorship. The five largest social media networks in the US are all headquartered within 30 miles of each other in one of the country's most politically homogenous metropolitan areas. The three largest (Youtube, Facebook, and Instagram), despite being publicly traded companies, are entirely controlled by just three people (Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Mark Zuckerberg). We should absolutely not be granting these unelected CEOs carte blanche to censor whoever they feel like.

If you're a small forum, censorship is acceptable because your users can likely go elsewhere. If you're a big social media site with no real alternative (Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Reddit), censorship is not acceptable. Trust-busting laws exist to prevent large companies from using their dominant market position to harm consumers. These companies shouldn't be allowed to censor arbitrarily unless the users harmed by their censorship have a suitable alternative that won't censor them.

Until somebody creates a micro-blogging platform with a network as large as twitter that doesn't censor half of the political spectrum, Twitter should be forced to be a neutral platform.

JAHpowif you're believing the very first thing you read on the internet, and take no steps to confirm or falsify what you read... you're a dumbass. Like you said eheath, if it's only a couple of clicks to figure out if something is true or false... then it's a person's duty to make those clicks.

eheathTwitter isn't censoring anyone and thats not what the order is about at all.

ScaredwhiteboyTwitter is censoring a lot of people. You can find a pretty lengthy list of people they've censored on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions

Censorship is exactly what the order is about. You shouldn't need to go any farther than the title to figure that out: "Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship"

eheathMy take is that if you're lying/spreading misinformation/posting something that can be disproven by a couple links, it shouldn't be considered free speech. In an era of fake news, rampant misinformation and a society of sheep that praise their phones, I think what twitter is doing is great, as long as its applied to all people, not just trump (which i'm pretty sure they're implementing fact checks on all post).

FruitBootProSo lying to someone in person via speech is legal, lying about something in public in front of a group is legal...lies are protected speech under the 1st Amendment. Misinformation should be legal, especially when it something subjective. Only defamation and libel aren't protected in America and even then America's defamation laws are less protective than other more progressive countries

eheathI suppose referring to "free speech" was the wrong thing there, I believe that private companies like twitter should be able to restrict and/or suppress fake news, misinformation and propaganda, because they are so widespread and used by millions, misinformation in incredibly dangerous.

FruitBootProYes that makes sense, owners of social media platforms should be able to regulate their content. I agree with that, but the government really shouldn't have a hand in how they do it imo

SourSteezleCry me a river eheath, you mad you can't sensor me?

SourSteezlePeople that are upset about this are a bunch of whiners that will bitch about anything. The order is protecting freedom of speech. I'm not sure what the issue is here. The people bitching about this are still able to post whatever they like online, it doesn't effect them at all, they are the ones that are letting it effect them.

SourSteezleThe order is protecting freedom of speech.

iggyskierFor the rest of us - can you explain in detail how the President's freedom of speech is being suppressed?

eheathAnd again, this order or the posts on twitter have anything to do with censorship. The order is changing the way social media is viewed by the government, making it more into a news organization than a UGC site. This means twitter could be held liable for what people post on twitter and it also means they can send the Federal Trade Commission after them too and enforce strict regulations on them, some pretty major things that twitter and other social medias didn't have to worry about in the past that will completely alter their businesses.

I think it's unfair to the nature of the platforms, they would likely have to completely change how they operate if something were to come of this order... But nothing will happen, this is just a shot over the bow by the white house to twitter and to social media, they don't want people to know when the president is lying on twitter, because it happens nearly every time he tweets.

SourSteezleWhen did I say that it was?

SourSteezleI disagree. People have different opinions, it's nothing new, so you shouldn't get so worked up about it.

iggyskierFor the rest of us - can you explain in detail how the President's freedom of speech is being suppressed?

ScaryDumpTruckIt's not all just about the president. Basically any large conservative network or person is being censored. Examples being Steven Crowder, PragerU and Republican candidates have gotten their ads pulled over bs reasons.

eheathI also forgot to add that its complete bullshit that trump wants to do this because social media suppressed conservative content, which is 100% untrue. Twitter is doing this to keep everyone honest, to stop the spread of misinformation. Honestly twitter should just ban all political figures from using their platform.

SnowshoeThompsonIs that a joke? Lmao.

ScaredwhiteboyI haven't read the order, but I fully support the goal of preventing online censorship. The five largest social media networks in the US are all headquartered within 30 miles of each other in one of the country's most politically homogenous metropolitan areas. The three largest (Youtube, Facebook, and Instagram), despite being publicly traded companies, are entirely controlled by just three people (Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Mark Zuckerberg). We should absolutely not be granting these unelected CEOs carte blanche to censor whoever they feel like.

If you're a small forum, censorship is acceptable because your users can likely go elsewhere. If you're a big social media site with no real alternative (Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Reddit), censorship is not acceptable. Trust-busting laws exist to prevent large companies from using their dominant market position to harm consumers. These companies shouldn't be allowed to censor arbitrarily unless the users harmed by their censorship have a suitable alternative that won't censor them.

Until somebody creates a micro-blogging platform with a network as large as twitter that doesn't censor half of the political spectrum, Twitter should be forced to be a neutral platform.

eheathYou disagree with what dude? You haven't said anything that relates to the thread topic, what you quoted or anything else in the thread, you wrote a reply so you could talk shit to me then completely backed off? You could at least express your opinion about the topic instead of dropping a quick mini rant about censorship and free speech with a fuck you at the end. Why did you even respond to the thread?

ScaryDumpTruckIt's not all just about the president. Basically any large conservative network or person is being censored. Examples being Steven Crowder, PragerU and Republican candidates have gotten their ads pulled over bs reasons.

SourSteezleI don't care to argue about this topic. I just wanted you to know that some people (like me), read your post and think you sound like a whiner, which is why I said, go cry about it. Maybe that will actually make you feel better.

eheathGreat argument, I'm so convinced.

SnowshoeThompsonYour quoting an article from the Washington post, get real dude. You are just as able to take a quote from a right wing website but here we are.

If you have a problem with him fighting censorship and post altering on social media outlets then I have no desire to make a discussion with you regarding political bias.

eheathI also forgot to add that its complete bullshit that trump wants to do this because social media suppressed conservative content, which is 100% untrue. Twitter is doing this to keep everyone honest, to stop the spread of misinformation. Honestly twitter should just ban all political figures from using their platform.

LonelyYou support a president who wants to censor private businesses and suppress the vote. Sick