[flagged]
[0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf
Twitter didn't restrict Trump's tweet. It added their own speech (and not masqueraded as Trump).
Follow me here:
Citizen United says that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals, thus allowing them to exercise their "speech" by dumping tons of dark money into politics.
Twitter exercised free speech by publishing something on their own platform.
The government is now trying to limit Twitter's right to free speech as has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
This is a Trump tantrum.
Would there be any legal impediment to Zoom automatically inserting a caption on YOUR video feed that says "jwalgenbach is a liar"?
If you were to complain, would we be justified in saying "it's just another jwaldenbach tantrum..."
Would it be right to simply say, "if jwaldenbach doesn't like Zoom's polices, he doesn't have to use it"?
What is Western Union added a 'fact check' to your telegrams? What if Google inserts a 'fact check' in your emails?
These issues are not trivial, and viewing them through a partisan lens is naive and immature.
Yes.
> What is Western Union added a 'fact check' to your telegrams?
Don't use Western Union
> What if Google inserts a 'fact check' in your emails?
Don't use Google?
You don't have to use Zoom, you don't have to use Western Union, if you don't like their policies don't use their products.
Trump uses Twitter because he likes it but it's twitters own site! If they want to put 'Trump is a big orange fat dumb loser' under every one of his tweets they can, if they want they can turn it into the 'we love dogs!' site tomorrow, just replace the whole website with pictures of dogs they can. It would kill the company, but they can do it if they want.
I have no idea where this idea that Trump is being forced to use twitter and they're manipulating his free speech on someone elses website is coming from.
Currently, many judicial hearings are being conducted using Zoom. You can literally be ORDERED to appear for a hearing using Zoom.
In this situation, what would you make of Zoom inserting that tag line? Does it change your analysis?
If yes, why? It's still a private company. Does the fact that the government is requiring you to use is restrict what the private company may or may not do?
There are two sides to the "if you don't like it, don't use it" argument. You are focusing only on one side; namely, if the consumer doesn't like it, he need not use it.
The Zoom example might open your eyes to the other side; namely, if a private company chooses to offer a service to the government, it needs to abide by certain restrictions... and, if it doesn't like it, it need not provide that service.
In the Zoom example, if Zoom insists on putting the tag on your video during hearings, a reasonable response would be to turn to Zoom -- and not you -- and say, "If you aren't willing to curtail your 1st Am. rights a bit, Zoom, then don't provide the service to the Court... the choice is yours."
If Twitter is hosting government officials and agencies -- in their official capacity -- there are certain restrictions it muse abide by; namely, not modifying, editorializing, or shadow-banning their posts. If Twitter doesn't like this restriction, it can choose not to host that government official or agency.
> In this situation, what would you make of Zoom inserting that tag line? Does it change your analysis?
It would be counter to the contractual agreements and policies that Zoom has set up. Twitter has no such obligations.
> The Zoom example might open your eyes to the other side; namely, if a private company chooses to offer a service to the government, it needs to abide by certain restrictions... and, if it doesn't like it, it need not provide that service.
The company is responsible for operating according to the terms that both it and its users agree to, and the law. That is it.
> If Twitter is hosting government officials and agencies -- in their official capacity -- there are certain restrictions it muse abide by; namely, not modifying, editorializing, or shadow-banning their posts. If Twitter doesn't like this restriction, it can choose not to host that government official or agency.
Twitter's only mistake is not reprimanding the racist hate-mongers like Trump for the policies it supposedly has. Any regular user or lesser public figure would have (and has) been banned if they tweeted the things he does.
If Twitter has agreements with these users, stating that they are immune from all of Twitter's posted rules, then sure your argument has footing. Otherwise, you don't get to hijack a platform with your own rules and because you happen to work for the government and open a free account there.
The right to speech is curtailed all the time in private... We even teach it to our kids, such as raising one's hand, or waiting their turn.
What exactly does this mean if it doesn't apply to actively telling people when and where they can speak?
It is hard/impossible to create laws around it since it is hard to formally define, but often it is obvious when it is infringed in practice just that we can't litigate it.
The rest of it you’re welcome to your opinions and interpretation of events. There is, however, quite a bit of people that agree with him.
The fact that Trump even admitted on camera that he'd shut Twitter down entirely if he could find a legal route for it kind of gives away the game.
His choice of words is usually unfortunate, but the problem he’s pointing out does exist.
How does it look when the Twitter execs are known to lean left, post publicly their hatred for the president then take actions within their control to force their point on others?
It just blows my mind that I used to have nearly identical arguments with left-wingers.
As for forcing, agree to disagree then. Putting the link on a tweet and then linking to essentially an opinion piece is the definition of fake news. Ignoring the link meaning potentially missing an actual valid point. Ignorance is also dangerous. Why can’t they just take Facebooks stance and stay out of it entirely?
What is wrong with you? That's not even close to the definition.
That is the only issue here that I could see as being partisan, it's not about adding fact checking links, it's about doing so regardless of the political affiliation of the poster. I wish there was a lot more fact checking added to most statements on Twitter.
Both parties still have free speech w/o this EO.
Pres can say whatever (free speech) and Twitter can attach a flag (free-speech).
A challenge to your speech is not restricting your speech.
Please do link to government documents or quotes from elected officials.
You can only infer a bias on that based on your own preconceived notion about Twitter's biases. A completely ignorant and unbiased individual may just as likely think "Twitter wants to show me why Trump is right" as they are to think "Twitter wants to show me why Trump is wrong".
If you really want to have people
> reading into important topics like this and forming opinions without being bated (sic)
then you should be all for this kind of neutrally positioned link to more information. I'm certainly open to entertaining alternatives, though.
I am for neutrality. I’m also a realist. IFF they could pull this off universally, in that all tweets are subject to these same fact checks, then I’m all for it. Removing personal biases of the person doing the fact checks will be a challenge but we can achieve this through multiple fact checkers with specific biases. Like the bulls and bears statements you find with stocks. But we cannot achieve this, we lack both the peoplepower and technology given Twitters scale. Short of it being universally applied to all accounts it can’t meet the definition of neutral. Therefor, don’t do it at all. Instead someone else using Twitter can reply to his tweets with the fact check. This keeps Twitters hands and potential biases entirely out of a very complicated topic.
Is that why they only remove nazis if you set your location to germany? That's bias to the... left?
If those people are lying egregiously to do it then, sure, shut them down too.