Twitter Says it Will Label Tweets From Trump and Other Leaders That Break Its Rules (cnn.com) 473
Twitter plans to place a disclaimer on future tweets from world leaders that break its rules but which Twitter decides are in the "public interest," the company said in a blog post Thursday. From a report: This policy change could face its most prominent test in President Trump. Trump has repeatedly tested Twitter's community standards with his regular tirades on the platform and some of the president's tweets have run afoul of Twitter's rules. Twitter has in the past allowed tweets from Trump and other world leaders to remain online, even though they broke the company's rules, a Twitter spokesperson confirmed to CNN Business, because it believes the tweets are in the public interest.
But putting a disclaimer on one of Trump's tweets would almost certainly bring a firestorm of criticism down on Twitter's head. Republicans in Washington, including Trump, often claim without real evidence that technology companies are biased against conservatives. Such a disclaimer on a Trump tweet, even if he had clearly violated Twitter's rules, would provoke a new cycle of such complaints at a time when Washington is increasingly investigating Big Tech over concerns about antitrust and privacy.
But putting a disclaimer on one of Trump's tweets would almost certainly bring a firestorm of criticism down on Twitter's head. Republicans in Washington, including Trump, often claim without real evidence that technology companies are biased against conservatives. Such a disclaimer on a Trump tweet, even if he had clearly violated Twitter's rules, would provoke a new cycle of such complaints at a time when Washington is increasingly investigating Big Tech over concerns about antitrust and privacy.
Oh, OK, don't indicate when he's lying (Score:3, Interesting)
which would be in the public interest, because we wouldn't want him abusing the office to attack a tech company.
Quit dancing around that a-hole and call him out on every one of his lies, every time.
Re:Oh, OK, don't indicate when he's lying (Score:4, Funny)
Quit dancing around that a-hole and call him out on every one of his lies, every time.
Wouldn't it be simpler to simply black list him and manually point out the odd thing he says that is true?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
*Shows picture from 2015 of kids in foil blankets*
"Trump is manufacturing a crisis.... by asking for funds to take care of these record numbers of illegal border crossers. We need to now save these kids who are going through a Humanitarian Crisis because we don't give money to Trump for his manufactured Crisis. Believe us, Reality has a liberal bias".
Re: (Score:2)
Are Americans the only people on this planet who revel so in their ignorance? I am embarrassed for you.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Then they shouldn't post a known compulsive liar's tweets at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Oh, OK, don't indicate when he's lying (Score:5, Insightful)
Most politicians are human; most humans lie, so most politicians lie. We make it worse by voting for the people who lie the most, so we give politicians an incentive to lie to us. Hell, we BEG them to lie to us.
But most politicians are not compulsive liars. They choose when to lie and when to tell the truth. Trump, OTOH, seems to either be a compulsive liar or to not know which facts are true. It's not clear which, but it really doesn't matter. All that matters is that some people think "wow, that guy lied a lot, but I like those lies so I'm gonna vote for him!"
Re:Oh, OK, don't indicate when he's lying (Score:5, Informative)
Errrr... http://www.politifact.com/ [politifact.com] and http://www.factcheck.org/ [factcheck.org] are the canonical places to check, They both give all of their sources, so if you think they are not accurate it is easy to see how they came by their ruling and explain exactly why you think they are wrong.
Or President Trump has made more than 10,000 false or misleading claims [washingtonpost.com]?
I guess I'm not sure how you can say Trump doesn't lie more than most humans if you have at all paid attention to what he said. And if you haven't paid attention to what he says, then I'm not sure why you have such a strong opinion.
I can give a few of his recent lies if you'd like, I guess.
I trust them less than Trump and I don't trust him (Score:3, Insightful)
> Errrr... http://www.politifact.com/ [politifact.com] and http://www.factcheck.org/ [factcheck.org] are the canonical places to check, They both give all of their sources, so if you think they are not accurate it is easy to see how they came by their ruling and explain exactly why you think they are wrong.
I've read that, it's why I actively mistrust them. Let's look at some of the kinds of manipulation I remember reading when I looked over stories there in the past.
For example, there was a claim of som
Re: (Score:3)
Are you suggesting that pointing out facts is dangerous? More dangerous that the lies?
I don't need them to label his stuff as lies for me. I know he's lying every time he tweets or opens his mouth. But there are a lot of benighted people out there who don't know any better. It is for them that Twitter should label his tweets.
Maybe Twitter could require liars to include reliable references (not other liars, like Fox "news") to back up the BS before proven liars are allowed to post anything.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"communicate differently" is GOP (government of Putin) speak for "lying".
This ought to be good (Score:2)
Corporations are free to do what they want (Score:5, Insightful)
Double standards (Score:5, Interesting)
"World leaders" and other sumbitches who run afoul of a forum's rules get flagged, ordinary plebs get banned...
Re:Double standards (Score:4, Informative)
Well, yea.
...when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything.
Twitter, inc. thus arbitrates who's a world leader (Score:2)
"World leaders" and other sumbitches who run afoul of a forum's rules get flagged, ordinary plebs get banned...
And thus Twitter, Inc seizes the power to declare who is a world leader and who is a serf.
Never mind primaries. Never mind the constitution, which carefully makes nobody special except while holding particular offices, most of which anyone can compete to be elected to or appointed to by those elected to others.
Never mind the previous kingmakers - the press - where (again thanks to the constitution
Silly kids.... (Score:4, Insightful)
...don't you know that the rules only apply to the little people?
As above so below (Score:4, Informative)
And will all leaders have their posts flagged? Or will the new ruling follow the usual Twitter guidelines and flag only world leaders that do not follow the Twitter-approved political inclinations?
Granted, I doubt anyone except Trump will be affected by this as all other Twitter-active world leaders fall in the IQ 100+ category.
Re: (Score:2)
Way better than banning (Score:2)
Twitter should do this for everyone instead of banning, put warnings around aspects of a Tweet that break twitter guidelines.
It is going to be HI-Larious to see what Twitter considers lies, and probably going to accelerate them losing the 230 protections.
Twitter should corresponding let anyone submit feedback correcting Twitter allegations of lying or what have you, which would serve to quickly weed out truly bad moderation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or conservatives could just leave the Twitter/FB/Google
I kind of agree but at the same time why not try to fix what is there? It is a pretty big blow to not be able to take advantage of some of these larger platforms, and in general I think we should all fight deplatforming of anyone, anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but the legal fight to regulate these monopolies may be unnecessary if we simply break the monopolies. Without their stranglehold on the public forum, there's no good reason for legal intervention, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Why, I have no idea how I'm actually seeing your post. Please tell me your technique for avoiding the stranglehold that prevents others from putting up their own comment systems [openhub.net], Slack communities [standuply.com] and the like, and building viable businesses [bloomberg.com] in competition with them.
Patent system. (Score:2)
Please tell me your technique for avoiding the stranglehold that prevents others from putting up their own comment systems, Slack communities and the like, and building viable businesses in competition with them.
The patent system. If someone hosted a social medium that became a serious threat to Twitter, inc, they can expect to face a few billion dollars worth of lawyer time in patent court.
It doesn't really matter if they didn't actually infringe any of them, as long as they don't have the bux (or the con
Re: (Score:2)
Name circumstances where this has happened. I don't see anyone, Twitter especially, patent trolling Gab.
Here it comes.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Banning speech of politicians, even if it violates some rules, smacks of pushing a political position, which these companies don't wanna be accused of. It's a struggle to have their cake and eat it to, in the shadows.
And? (Score:5, Interesting)
Republicans in Washington, including Trump, often claim without real evidence that technology companies are biased against conservatives.
So what if they are; they're private companies / non-governmental organizations People can post somewhere else if they don't like it.
And, I've also heard, "Reality has a liberal bias." -- Many People
Re: (Score:2)
As for your first part they are private companies however they currently have protection under the law, 47 U.S.C. Â 230. That they are monitoring, modifying the content people post, and performing other action brings into question if they are exceeding the rights allowed under the law and if they should lose the protection they get from 47 U.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the right not to be treated as the "speaker" of posted content created solely by users is absolute (47 USC 230(c)(1) [cornell.edu]), so it's hard to exceed that one.
And the right not to be liable for moderation decisions does require good faith (47 USC 230(c)(2) [cornell.edu]), but editorial judgments made by private, non-broadcasting entities are also protected by the first amendment [wikipedia.org], so they can be a
Re: (Score:2)
Enforcing their own ToS doesn't violate the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Censorship is exactly the opposite of what a liberal would support. You might want to re-think about what it is you stand for when you find yourself siding with fascists.
Re: And? (Score:2)
No force of law equals no censorship. If you don't like being called out for being a jerk, go to Gab.
Re:And? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Would you say a baker has a right to decide what he writes on cakes then ?
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans in Washington, including Trump, often claim without real evidence that technology companies are biased against conservatives.
So what if they are; they're private companies / non-governmental organizations People can post somewhere else if they don't like it.
And, I've also heard, "Reality has a liberal bias." -- Many People
No one is saying they don't have a right*. But whether they do this or not is still of high interest.
* Not true. Both parties want to change liabilty laws so as to harm companies that don't share their concept of speech, depending on the speech and era. How many of you defending Twitter's right defended Chick-fil-a when certain cities literally unconstitutionally tried to deny them licensing over their owner's hot air?
(Crickets)
I thought so. Fair weather friends of rights.
Re: (Score:2)
So what if they are; they're private companies / non-governmental organizations
The big social media companies have a monopoly over political discourse. If they exercise biased moderation, they are effectively interfering with that discourse and potentially affecting the outcome of democratic processes. I hope you see the danger in that.
You can either be a "platform" or you're a "publis (Score:2)
You can either be a "platform" or you're a "publisher". You can't have the cake and eat it too. If you're a platform, you're not responsible for the content users post. If you're a publisher (i.e. you actively decide what's being posted), you are.
"Reality has conservative bias" -- also many people
Re: And? (Score:2)
Thr Dixie Chicks have done pretty decently for themselves in their post-boycott years. Even won a couple awards for themselves. Are you telling me Trump is weaker than the goddamn Dixie Chicks?
This was their actual position (Score:2)
>> So private companies can be biased against blacks?
This was, in fact, the official position of the Democratic Party as of 50 years ago. People tend to forget which party gave us the KKK.
Twitter's arrogance helps no one (Score:3, Interesting)
Twitter's plan is to score partisan internet snark cred for themselves, for the benefit of no one.
Twenty years from now we will be talking about how Bay Area billionaire arrogance ended this era of Internet resurgence. Just like the bad old days at Microsoft, we will look back on a time when Google and Facebook and many other companies misused their power, how they lost out to less arrogant, more inventive rivals, and (for some) how the subsequent leaders took over from the arrogant jerks and righted the ship.
Re: (Score:2)
Twenty years from now we will be talking about how Bay Area billionaire arrogance ended this era of Internet resurgence.
This is overly optimistic view. I think it possible that thousand years from now we will be talking about how Western Technological Civilization collapsed and how it took so long to re-write all these burned books.
Common Carrier Status (Score:2, Interesting)
Now that they have started editing they have no more im munity.
Not bad as a start... (Score:2)
They should also label posts, not just with the fact that they violate the site's terms of service, but with what disciplinary action could have been taken if one of of the "little people" had said the same thing. I mean, they should have banned Trump months if not years ago, but keeping a running count of the number of times he should have been banned is just about the next best thing.
God help the poor people who have to review his stuff, though. Even if they only intend to review posts that get flagged by
Wait just one darn min... (Score:5, Insightful)
Look you guys.. IF you are granted immunity by Section 203, then you really cannot start acting like the news police. You've been granted immunity, I think you should not be filtering content beyond what would be filtered on a street corner. (I.E. profane content, inciting riots, and stuff like that.) So, anything you can say on a street corner, truth, lies, hate, political, religious and such all should be allowed, with the exceptions provided as matter of law (Which includes, removing libelous and copyrighted material when notified by the offended party). This is what SHOULD be happening on the likes of Twitter and Facebook.
We all know THAT isn't going to happen, so I'm willing to accept it if social media platforms want to publish Objective criteria for posted content, then provide consistent enforcement of their own rules and provide content providers with the actual objective reasons their content has been removed and allow a public debate about the fairness of individual decisions.
I remember the "Diamond and Silk" debacle and I'm aware of the consistently inconsistent application of policy by U-Tube/Google, including the latest Project VERITAS exposé of Google, and I'm starting to feel like these various platforms are not opposed to being biased while trying to claim they are not.
Oh, and by the way...The above story is wrong, there IS actual evidence of bias here. There may not be convincing proof for some and you can try and argue they are trying to be fair (in as much as they see it), but there IS evidence of continued bias if one is honest about this.
Re: (Score:3)
What the heck, I'll throw away some Karma on this..
You realize that the concepts of "evidence" and "no convincing proof" cancel each other out, right? All we have left is your assertion of bias.
By the way, there IS actual evidence that Project Veritas is biased. There may not be convincing proof for some and you can try and argue they are trying to be fair (in as much as they see it), but there IS evidence of continued bias if one is honest about this.
Read what I said.. There is evidence, but evidence is NOT always proof, it's evidence. Your fingerprints may be on the murder weapon, that's evidence that you MAY have fired the weapon, but it's not proof. You may even have powder burns on your hands, again evidence, but it doesn't prove you murdered somebody. How? Well, in this case you where seen at the gun range test firing your new gun, after which you locked your gun in the car and walked next doo
Love him or hate him (Score:4, Insightful)
His Twitter Tantrums are an embarrassment.
I don't care what party you represent. Just act like a grown-up...
"Bias" (Score:4, Insightful)
Republicans in Washington, including Trump, often claim without real evidence that technology companies are biased against conservatives.
I'm so tired of this claim.
The "bias" is against LIES. If "conservatives" like Republicans and Trump spoke truths - Instead of tweeting out lie after lie - They wouldn't have this problem.
Sounds fair (Score:2)
If they do anything else they're untrustworthy. (Score:3)
Re:Twitter is playing with fire (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this kind of activity something the SEC should be looking at?
NO, simply no. Twitter is a company, they have no obligation to give space to anyone under any circumstances. If Trump violates their policy - regardless of how such a policy is presented, interpreted, or applied - Twitter has the right to take whatever action they see fit. Similarly Trump is free to go start his own microblogging service and post his thoughts there.
Twitter is not the government. Twitter is not a resource guaranteed for all people. Twitter is free to take actions they believe to be in their own best interest.
Re:Twitter is playing with fire (Score:4, Insightful)
I presume GP meant FEC (Federal Election Commission).
Anyway, when leaked email, hidden camera video interviews and such have insiders admitting that they see it has their mission to stop a Trump 2020 presidency from occurring, that is the very definition of election tampering. Consider, if Twitter openly endorsed an opposing candidate, that would fall under their right to free speech as per the Citizen's United decision. However, if Twitter uses its powers as an information provider to secretly shadowban, suppress or otherwise covertly interfere with a political candidate, whether that be Trump or the fellow running for Town Dog Catcher, that is where they cross the line.
Currently, the thinking seems to be that Sec. 230 of the CDA gives them immunity to do this and still maintain their status as a "common carrier", although the tide does seem to be shifting on that. Certainly it would be well within the prerogatives of the state and federal election commissions to subpoena twitter, et. al with an eye towards election tampering.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the SEC, as in "Twitter is doing something that materially affects their ability to continue doing business, but didn't tell shareholders first."
Twitter shareholders are certainly able to read the same ToS that Twitter users are expected to read. If they didn't like the ToS they could have bought shares in something else, or raised concerns with the board to try to have them changed. If someone bought Twitter stock without reading the ToS first, that is not in any way Twitter's fault.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, I've been absent from here for a decade or so. When did /. become home to fascists that want to suppress speech they don't like? /. is still a platform where people can have an honest discussion.
Also, sounds like twitter is a publisher and should be treated as such. At least
Re: (Score:2)
At least /. is still a platform where people can have an honest discussion.
Wow you have been gone a long time. Discussions here are rare, but they do exist. However the articles... it's just a bunch of triggering political garbage. Nothing to do with technology or the original mindset that sparked Slashdot.
Thanks for coming back :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To me that's a good argument that a corporation shouldn't be allowed to own the Town Square. Unfortunately, governments have just as checkered a history.
Re: Twitter is playing with fire (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that one intrigued me, also. Do they label it "Official Truth" or what?
P.S.: "Official Truth" is a decent translation of "Pravda".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Twitter operates a website that generally open to the public.
They cannot discriminate in any way that targets people based on any protected class, and they cannot discriminate in any way that disproportionately affects people of any protected class. For example, enforcing building codes was deemed to be racist and unconstitutional because doing so would affected people of a certain race disproportionately (because they buildings they tended to be in in that area were not up to code).
Twitter claims immunity
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter operates a website that generally open to the public.
That does not make Twitter a public or critical service. Just because a lot of people use it does not mean it is public or something that needs to be regulated by the government.
They cannot discriminate in any way that targets people based on any protected class, and they cannot discriminate in any way that disproportionately affects people of any protected class
And what protected class is Trump a part of? If he says something that violates the Twitter ToS then his comment deserves to be flagged as such. The summary even went on to mention that his comment would still be there - it would not be removed - it would just carry a disclaimer that it was in violation.
Twitter claims immunity foe everything they host as if they are merely a platform or carrier, yet they also claim the right to edit and censor as if they are a publisher.
Not sure why you feel t
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There's a lot more evidence than that, but that's a good one. Google's recent debacle where they decided that Trump shall not be re-elected and they are tooling their AI to sway people is the latest of many.
And heaven help anyone who says anything negative about the LGBTEIEIOOMG crowd. You'll be pilloried, doxxed, shunned, shadow banned, you name it. Just this week in Texas at UT, a nasty group of antifa/leftist tards put out an edict telling incoming freshmen that if they join any of the university's conse
Re: (Score:3)
If Alex Jones is the "right", then yes, the right is indeed engaging in threatening and dangerous behavior. And honestly, you don't remember the massive protests against Obama or Clinton? Taxpayer march on Washington?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"You lefties are so blinded by your ideology that you can't even see yourself for what you are when you look at yourself in the mirror."
Go fuck yourself. If you'd look into that mirror yourself you'd realize the reason assholes like Alex Jones of all people get banned off of social platforms for the same reason Trump should be - they're LITERALLY breaking the rules of those very services. Something a LOT of vocal conservatives do, and thus they get hit by the ban hammer for it AS PER THE REGULATIONS they ag
Re: (Score:3)
You lefties are so blinded by your ideology that you can't even see yourself for what you are when you look at yourself in the mirror.
Sounds like something Senator Mitch McConnell would try to say unironically only to be mocked by everyone, including Republicans.
Re:Wow. Slashdot is so biased. (Score:5, Informative)
Alex Jones peddled a complete and total lie that Sandy Hook was staged and didn't actually happen. There isn't any more fake-news than that. He also dogwhistled his followers to harass parents of victims of that tragic crime, which is against many online services' ToS. Sounds standard fare there. Peddle in nonsense conspiracy bullshit where people are getting threatened or hurt and don't expect to be given a platform for long.
Re:Wow. Slashdot is so biased. (Score:5, Informative)
Alex Jones is not just a conservative (or even a conservative). He's and out and out marketer of conspiracy theories and hoaxes. He's nowhere near the mainstream and even if you went very far right you'd still need a telescope to see out to where he is. The phrase "beyond the pale" applies here, except that all the young turks don't understand what that means.
He is spreading ideas that are actually dangerous and harmful, and is encouraging (disputed) others to take action in response to made up conspiracies. Parents of the victims in the Sandy Hook shooting were accused of being actors in a fake event by Alex Jones and they have been harrassed and threatened by fans of his show. Anyone who thinks this shooting was a fake is not worthy of having a political debate with anyway. Someone showed up with a gun at a pizza parlor hoping to uncover the child sex ring that took place there led by Hillary Clinton, because that ridiculous and comical story was being promoted by Alex Jones. Again, anyone believing this story is just so messed up it's not with having a debate.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that Google disappeared the Project Veritas insiders post
I googled for this and while I found info about it there's nothing about google "disappearing it". Link it if you got it please.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah I see the link below.
Re: (Score:3)
some examples [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, and along those lines if people DON'T leave Twitter to follow vile shitposters, it should be a wake-up call to those unfortunate individuals instead of a reason to double-down on terrible ideologies out of a sense of impotent spite.
Re: (Score:3)
Is that state of affairs best for society? Shall we submit to our corporate overlords in all things?
No, you should stop using Twitter. Any other hard questions?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. It would seem that they should. But it hasn't had that effect in the past.
not if they label all political talk as political (Score:2)
not if they label all political talk as political
so will the fcc fine someone for an live speech? (Score:2)
so will the fcc fine someone for an live speech?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Live speech = FCC fine to the broadcaster = Because the broadcaster is liable for what airs.
Tweet = Not really anything to anyone = Because Twitter is a "Information Service Provider" and isn't liable for Tweets made by users.
But of course, these facts flew right over your head ?
Re: (Score:3)
You might be missing my point. I was commenting on people's outrage, not FCC fines. Nobody would bat an eye if the news bleeps a curse word... because everyone has a clear understanding of the rules that govern that medium. Most people are pretty clear on the Twitter TOS too. This is why I don't get the outrage. Why is everybody so bent out of shape that Twitter doesn't want to post what the president says? It's their platform not his, and he's got plenty of other outlets to choose from if he doesn't
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
See for yourself
https://www.projectveritas.com/
By saying "Go see at Project Veritas!" you've pretty much cemented that you are indeed, a fucking tool.
Re: There is evidence that tech companies r biased (Score:2)
Of course they are. So build your own. That's the wonderful thing about the Internet: anyone can start something. Do the bootstrappy thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Most republicans ARE NOT racist, sexist, etc. It's only the biggotted minority that complain about the bias.
Racist and sexist aren't booleans.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Boycot (Score:4, Insightful)
A very vocal minority then, which appears to be overrepresented on the internet including Slashdot.
I believe the more extreme one's viewpoint about anything is, the more likely someone is to want to spread their viewpoint. It's true about most things- but obviously there are outliers to the rule.
Think of it as the "vegan" principle:
If you eat meat you're not going to go around telling everyone randomly that you eat meat, you're part of the mainstream and no-one cares that you eat meat because "everyone" does. If you're vegetarian, you might casually bring it up in conversation from time to time because it's an interesting factoid about yourself. Now think about the "humble vegan", you're on the extreme edge here now folks... and so you have to find a way to bring up the fact that you're vegan in just about every conversation you have.
People are the same in politics. The more extreme their political views, the more they want to talk about it. If you're centrist and main-stream, you're less likely to go around telling everyone about it. If you're a racist twat and have the anonymity of the internet to hide behind, you're going to make twattish comments on a regular basis and appear to post disproportionately.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're vegetarian, you might casually bring it up in conversation from time to time because it's an interesting factoid about yourself. Now think about the "humble vegan", you're on the extreme edge here now folks... and so you have to find a way to bring up the fact that you're vegan in just about every conversation you have.
The Truth, as understood by a non-Vegan that's annoyed that someone is different than them. I work with ~25% vegans, and the only way I know is by observing them when they eat.
To be fair, I am annoyed by the amount of leftover, wasted vegetarian pizza.
Re:Boycot (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably true, but they seem to keep electing people who apparently are racist, sexist, ...
I think Trump is a despicable human, but I don't think he's racist. I think he'll deal with anyone that flatters him, will vote for him, or offers him an avenue to make a buck ... regardless of creed or color.
Re: (Score:3)
The cynic in me thinks the only reason they haven't already kicked this crackpot off, is that they're making money off him.
But is it true? Is Twitter ad-supported?
Since they don't charge--yes. And that's it exactly. Kick Trump off, and several hundred thousand (picking a semi-random number) wingnuts will go with him.
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda like slashdot's moderation/meta-moderation.
Re: Moron vote (Score:2)
Because we've seen where that inevitably leads: raids, bots, and other forms of bullying and abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Trolling is the deliberate act of trying to stir shit up and elicit overwrought reactions. If anything there is a dearth of troll moderation actions on /. If a politician is speaking chances are exceptionally good that they are trolling. Just think of the way that Pelosi has handled Trump recently, her actions were specifically aimed at riling him up to illustrate how unhinged he is. And Trump in much the same way trolls nearly constantly to rile up the democrats to keep his base interested.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When conservatives start yelling to get the collectivists run out of restaurants, I'll agree with you.
When conservatives start attacking people at collectivists' rallies, I'll agree with you. (Before you start, Charlottesville was not a liberal rally.)
When conservatives ban together to get collectivists de-platformed and de-banked, I'll agree with you.
Until then, no. The GP isn't doing the same.
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't happen to be playing baseball anyplace you want to share with us, would you? Let's see if the conservatives here show up and start shooting. Which bigot, I doubt will happen.
Re: (Score:2)
What will the penalty be if they're wrong? Simply linking to a generic apology?
One libel suit per mislabelled tweet seems about right.
Re: (Score:2)
One libel suit per mislabelled tweet seems about right.
Read a ToS. It essentially says they can do whatever they want at their discretion at any time.
Re: (Score:2)
I conclude that the media are biased based on years and years of observing bias. The fact that someone claims you need a student T test to prove bias is completely immaterial to me.
captcha: so-called science
There's plenty of bias from both sides... but I can believe more of a left bias in the media.
Creatives tend to lean left and pragmatists tend to lean right. (obviously neither of these are hard and fast rules). People going into jobs in the media are more likely to be creatives (and therefore left leaning). Before the last 20 years or so, much of this was unintentional bias, sure, a lot of newspapers have had deliberate bias one way or the other for centuries- but TV and radio always had less of a delibe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)