The head of integrity has unabashedly showcased his strong political bias on Twitter, and I suspect things will begin going poorly for either him or Twitter shortly.
Although I doubt he put that fact checking warning up all on his own, there must have been a policy in place that senior management agreed to, and legal have presumably okayed.
Sure, their personal political bias should put them up to a greater level of scrutiny; but it they can still fact check without bias.
So, have they?
They're gonna get dragged for these tweets any time they fact check anything, even if their judgment is always impeccable.
They’ll get dragged for doing anything that doesn’t align with X party. If not his tweets than something else.
Not saying people shouldn’t have common sense about what they post on a public forum tho...
I'm pretty sure most judges would recuse if they had statements like that surface.
Sections (a) (1) and especially (a) (5) here, for example: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili...
I really don't like twitter for all the crap and bots that's on there. I think it's a terrible format. But I think we are in a middle time, were new publishers and formats are rising at the same time as traditional media is falling. Hopefully larger publisher's and media organizations such as Facebook, Google and Twitter take the power and responsibility they have seriously.
For more stories just google "Military main-in ballots lost"
He’s mindless in his opinions. He’s not against a policy or a politician. He’s separating society.
But seeing this mislabeled as "bias" has got to be the silliest and most hyperbolic over-reaction I've ever seen.
It's somebody being a minor asshole on Twitter. That is not bias of any substantial sort.
Feelings are important, but as somebody who does get his (overly sensitive) feelings hurt by that statement, I'm at least mature enough to place it in context.
We need to grow up as a society. There are faaaaaar worse actual biases on display everyday on Twitter, from people with far more power. We have a president who's threatening to use his own political bias to shut down or regulate companies based only in what he perceives as politics.
Whenever some known person from the "right side of history" says something clearly bad, there are always comments like yours "but but but", whereas when the source is on the "wrong side of history" it is taken as final and irrefutable proof of their evilness and no amount of perspective or depth is allowed.
Things will get better when we can give a level headed non-partisan response to statements like
>Today on Meet The Press, we're speaking with Joseph Goebbels about the first 100 days...' - What I hear whenever Kellyanne is on a news show.'
I’m guessing you mean that they should be held accountable for what people post there? Or is there a different angle I’m not seeing?
Here's also some history on the law https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history
Also preempting the brigade downvoting anything that has the word 'conservative' in it by pointing out that Joe Biden is actually for this idea as well (middle of article when he starts talking about the Facebook hearings and CDA 230):
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-b...
```
This article does a good job of explaining the issue https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/social-medi...
Here's also some history on the law https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history
This is not a conservative-only point of view: Joe Biden is actually for this idea as well (middle of article when he starts talking about the Facebook hearings and CDA 230): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-b...
```
You are allowed to be informative without being obnoxious. I was not aware of this issue and the article on theamericanconservative have an interesting point of view. The tone you used however will make most people here ignore or dismiss you. Yes, there is an anti-conservative bias on HN, but most people will still read an argument even on breibart if it is good.
I understand the concern of the article but imho cancelling 230 might cripple them, and the propostion of state regulation will make them lost their power overseas. Will it allow other, european, asian or SA platforms to emerge? If the answer is yes it might have interesting side effects.
You absolutely can, and that's even been a norm in the US since CDA Section 230 was implemented specifically to make that possible, within certain bounds, which Twitter sits well within.
Admittedly, that's been progressively chipped away recently.
Joe Biden is for the idea: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-b...
The government being selective about which expressive choices by a platform operator are get favorable treatment under law rapidly gets into violations of actual Constitutional free speech protections, unlike the private actions that people are making fake “free speech” claims about.
No, it's not. Permitting private bias without government consequence is the definition of free speech. Restricting it is contrary to free speech, and is permitted only to the extent that it fits within recognized Constitutional limitations on the right of free speech.
It was clever of them to convince the internet community that it's about "free speech" when it's actually always about the costs.
Because doing it without centralized government control is bad. But regulation of speech can be good. Take a look at https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1189120.shtml for an interesting discussion.