Ike★ 2,922 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 "When I use the word 'censor' here, I'm meaning blocked content, fact-check, or labeled content, or demonetized websites of conservative, Republican, or pro-life individuals or groups or companies," Lee said. https://www.businessinsider.com/republican-sen-mike-lee-said-fact-checking-form-of-censorship-2020-10 Link to post Share on other sites
Cooke 2,041 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 The thing is who gets to decide if the fact check is honest? And why does only one side seem to be fact checked when multiple times major stories about Doofus Trump turned out to be false yet social media didn't fact check it. They either have to fact check every single claim people make or don't do it at all. When they do it half assed their political biases reveal themselves. I think everything should be fair game as long as it's not inciting violence, war, or hate. Let the people decide and do their own due diligence. There's nothing stopping other media outlets from countering claims, but to block it outright shouldn't be allowed. Especially private DM's, that's actual censorship. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Ike★ 2,922 Posted October 29, 2020 Author Share Posted October 29, 2020 9 minutes ago, Cooke (not admin cant help said: The thing is who gets to decide if the fact check is honest? And why does only one side seem to be fact checked when multiple times major stories about Doofus Trump turned out to be false yet social media didn't fact check it. They either have to fact check every single claim people make or don't do it at all. When they do it half assed their political biases reveal themselves. I think everything should be fair game as long as it's not inciting violence, war, or hate. Let the people decide and do their own due diligence. There's nothing stopping other media outlets from countering claims, but to block it outright shouldn't be allowed. Especially private DM's, that's actual censorship. When it's a danger to public health like Trump's untrue claims on COVID or just plain wrong like Trump's implication that mail-in voting is fradulent are mostly when it has been done. Link to post Share on other sites
Cooke 2,041 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Ike said: When it's a danger to public health like Trump's untrue claims on COVID or just plain wrong like Trump's implication that mail-in voting is fradulent are mostly when it has been done. I agree there. There just needs to be a more transparent method for "fact checking" It comes down to who watches the watchers? Edited October 29, 2020 by Cooke (not admin cant help Link to post Share on other sites
Ike★ 2,922 Posted October 29, 2020 Author Share Posted October 29, 2020 4 minutes ago, Cooke (not admin cant help said: I agree there. There just needs to be a more transparent method for "fact checking" It comes down to who watches the watchers? The public, just like any other media one consumes. It's up the person who reads it to decide to accept it or not. They can leave the platform or get vocal if they believe it's being misused. I think most times they've done it have been fair to use it. I also think the crackdown on conspiracy theories like Qanon BS is a good thing. I don't use any social media so it doesn't affect me though. lol Link to post Share on other sites
nitric 472 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 I wish Twitter had the balls to ban Trumps account. Link to post Share on other sites
Literal Nazi Rudolf Hess 278 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 1 minute ago, nitric said: I wish Twitter had the balls to ban Trumps account. That would kill twitter Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,298 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 1 hour ago, Cooke (not admin cant help said: The thing is who gets to decide if the fact check is honest? And why does only one side seem to be fact checked when multiple times major stories about Doofus Trump turned out to be false yet social media didn't fact check it. They either have to fact check every single claim people make or don't do it at all. When they do it half assed their political biases reveal themselves. I think everything should be fair game as long as it's not inciting violence, war, or hate. Let the people decide and do their own due diligence. There's nothing stopping other media outlets from countering claims, but to block it outright shouldn't be allowed. Especially private DM's, that's actual censorship. Fact are observable and provable by others. If it can debunked, and other people observe that it was successfully debunked.........then its not a fact. Why are you pretending to be naive about concepts that is not confusing for adults? Link to post Share on other sites
lostfool 680 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 41 minutes ago, Literal Nazi Rudolf Hess said: That would kill twitter No it wouldn't. Trumps Twitter account is full of Russian bots and people who hate Trump. It will be nice to not have 1000 Tweets by a retard calling people names and lying. Fuck Trump and his supporters. I hope you all get herpes in your eyeballs. Link to post Share on other sites
Goukosan 2,283 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 43 minutes ago, Literal Nazi Rudolf Hess said: That would kill twitter Lmfao... Twitter wse huge before Trump and will be huge after Trump. Link to post Share on other sites
nitric 472 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 3 minutes ago, lostfool said: No it wouldn't. Trumps Twitter account is full of Russian bots and people who hate Trump. It will be nice to not have 1000 Tweets by a retard calling people names and lying. Fuck Trump and his supporters. I hope you all get herpes in your eyeballs. Imagine thinking Trump is still presidential after years of name callin and bullying people online. Lmfao Link to post Share on other sites
Goukosan 2,283 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 56 minutes ago, Cooke (not admin cant help said: I agree there. There just needs to be a more transparent method for "fact checking" It comes down to who watches the watchers? If you would actually bother to read an article that was fact checked they actually detail what was not true and provide sources etc. Link to post Share on other sites
Cooke 2,041 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 1 minute ago, Goukosan said: If you would actually bother to read an article that was fact checked they actually detail what was not true and provide sources etc. Link? Link to post Share on other sites
Cooke 2,041 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 5 minutes ago, Goukosan said: Lmfao... Twitter wse huge before Trump and will be huge after Trump. He's talking about the legal issue regarding banning the President. Link to post Share on other sites
Cooke 2,041 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 12 minutes ago, jehurey said: Fact are observable and provable by others. If it can debunked, and other people observe that it was successfully debunked.........then its not a fact. Why are you pretending to be naive about concepts that is not confusing for adults? What I said wasn't overly complex and you did not need to argue it. There is nothing wrong with anything I said unless you truly do not believe in freedom of the press, free speech, and full transparency. Don't argue for the sake of disagreement. Stop being a queef. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Goukosan 2,283 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 Just now, Cooke (not admin cant help said: He's talking about the legal issue regarding banning the President. There would be no legal issue. Twitter is a private company. Social Media is not a right. It would be a moral issue and a PR issue. Link to post Share on other sites
Literal Nazi Rudolf Hess 278 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, Goukosan said: There would be no legal issue. Twitter is a private company. Social Media is not a right. It would be a moral issue and a PR issue. And you're ok with this? Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,298 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 1 minute ago, Cooke (not admin cant help said: What I said wasn't overly complex and you did not need to argue it. There is nothing wrong with anything I said unless you truly do not believe in freedom of the press, free speech, and full transparency. Don't argue for the sake of disagreement. Stop being a queef. No, you are purposely trying to say that media outlets CAN'T fact-check people. By trying to say "well.................WHAT IS a fact????????" like some sort of 13 year old trying to argue with an agenda. If a news outlet says that is it providing a fact, its like a Science Report.........OTHER PEOPLE can replicate the results. If I tell you 2 + 2 equals 4, and I show the work on how I arrived to 4, other people can verify this on their own. Link to post Share on other sites
Goukosan 2,283 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Cooke (not admin cant help said: What I said wasn't overly complex and you did not need to argue it. There is nothing wrong with anything I said unless you truly do not believe in freedom of the press, free speech, and full transparency. Don't argue for the sake of disagreement. Stop being a queef. It's clear you don't understand what freedom of the press or Freedom of speech is. It has nothing to do with being free publish false stories. It's about a free press that wouldn't get jailed or killed for criticism of the government. Lmfao Cooke lmfao. Edited October 29, 2020 by Goukosan Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,298 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 Just now, Literal Nazi Rudolf Hess said: And you're ok with this? With what? A private company choosing whether or not they want to host certain people? They have money to lose if they host the wrong people. Their FINANCIALLY and potentially LEGALLY liable. Yeah, I absolutely okay with that. Are you saying that the Constitution gives you the right to be a racist inside of a McDonalds restaurant? Because I'm pretty sure that, if you are inside a PRIVATE BUSINESS, like a McDonalds, and start doing racist shit...........the McDonalds establishment has the right to kick you out. Do they not? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts