I’m sure you’ve tried hard to find opposing opinions.
The 1st Amendment also doesn’t protect one from speech that is determined to be defamatory. Your silly quote has little to do with the protections afforded under Section 230 however.
What sort of law do you practice?
I didn’t change the subject. Now, since we have established that including fact checking is not censorship, I will say that Twitter has the option to create a job for someone who decides whether or not to include fact checking with a Tweet. It is a private business after all. If that individual allows his own bias to influence his decisions, that’s a matter between him and his boss. So, regardless of why fact checking is included, since we both agree it is not censorship I don’t see an issue. And since it is not censorship, nor editorializing, you have your logical conclusion that the law does not apply.
Back to the beginning we go, Mr. Logic.
Edit: I’m going to go ahead and assume that the answer is “no”.
You seem to believe in fact checking Donald Trump and anyone else at Twitter’s own discretion. That’s a clear position at least.
The right shit themselves when Obama said that Trayvon could have been his son. This piece of trash we have now is talking about killing Americans in not just a callous tone, but almost humorously. But, but, but, Hillary.
Who thinks this?
Luckily in most of Trump’s fact checking it’s not even remotely difficult. Countless examples of easily proven false things that he says happen all the time. This is what happens when a person doesn’t think before speaking or tweeting. You don’t try to make sure you say or type something that is accurate because you don’t care.
And why should he? Republicans don’t give a flying fuck what he does or says. He has free reign to do whatever he wants with them no consequences. Sails to the parties nomination again. Huge polling numbers from people who have claimed they were conservative when Obama was President.
99% of Republicans. Some posters on this board.
I Googled this morning, didn’t see any. Do you a link that does?
Sure it does. Section 230 doesn’t add to 1A protections, it raises a certain kind of defense up one notch to provide immunity to social media by removing the opportunity for frivolous lawsuits. The goals was to incentiviIe A state actor doesn’t get to change that law.
You seem to be trying to argue a point that no one made. I stated that I wouldn’t call fact checking the president censorship, to which you agreed, and that I would call it a public service.
I know you are looking for your gotcha moment (you might want to stop watching Ben Shapiro) and I would give it to you, because I am a nice guy, if you were more concise about what you are asking.
I believe that because it is true. It is not even a position.
I don’t think they read their own posts.
You weaseled your way out of every question I asked when trying to pin down your logic, which is easy for anyone reading to see. You don’t have a logical position, just strong feelings that you are unable to articulate in clear terms.
That’s fine, but don’t say stuff like this if you can’t even begin to back your own words up.
That’s all I’ve got today. Have a good weekend, people.
Yet, you didn’t explain how banning speech is endorsing speech.
You asked about fact checking. So who is the weasel?
One more time, then I’ve got to get back to work. Let’s go back to the beginning of any logical analysis. I even started with Trump’s gripe, just to be fair.
You believe selective fact checking is a public service. That’s perfectly clear from your words.
You’ve clarified this now. Is Donald Trump posting? If so, fact check. How high-minded of you. Is that the only condition you feel necessary?
What follows is my very concise and clearly-stated question that gives you the perfect opportunity to explain your logic, assuming it extends beyond “IF Trump, THEN fact check.”
One more time, Mr. Logic. Let’s hear it.
Was there a study you saw that showed this or did this come from your experience as an independent voter?
I never said that. I said that fact checking the president (note, I didn’t say Trump) would be a public service (which was said in a context that included censorship).
My logic about what? Reread the quote from me you posted.
Yet, you are talking about fact checking when attacking my logic about something other than fact checking.
You are asking me to defend something that I never said in the way you have characterized it. You want me to defend my logic on something I never asserted as logical; it was clearly my opinion.
Silence is complicity.
So defamation lawsuits and other illegal speech is “frivolous”? No, what it does is provide certain immunity to platforms that don’t create content. What’s the word for when you make an entirely new piece of content related to another piece of content? Oh yeah…I think its called “create”! One might imagine that creating speech such as a “fact-check” might fall under the definition of a content creator.
Utter rubbish.
What happens when good men do nothing?
Maybe. But did the platform create the facts or did they provide a link to something that was already created.?