He's setting things up to claim it's rigged

[Pete F.]

And lying to do so, as usual.
Only registered voters will receive a ballot and just who are these "professionals"?
Don't worry more lies and exaggerations will come from Tweety as his DEATHSTAR campaign falls further behind.
100,000 dead so far

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
3h
There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone.....
....living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one. That will be followed up with professionals telling all of these people, many of whom have never even thought of voting before, how, and for whom, to vote. This will be a Rigged Election. No way!

[wdmso]

Donald Trump accuses Twitter of 'stifling free speech' with fact-check warning, says platform is interfering in US election
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

President Trump and Twitter escalated Wednesday as he threatened to "strongly regulate" or shut down social media platforms, which he accused of silencing conservative viewpoints.

So silencing conservative view point just happen to be lies

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Donald Trump accuses Twitter of 'stifling free speech' with fact-check warning, says platform is interfering in US election
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

By "fact checking" (even more so if they don't fact check everybody), Twitter may have threatened its status as a platform which is not responsible for the content of the tweets, and now become more like a publisher by inserting its own content when it fact checks.

As a "platform" it is immune from liable due to the content of tweets (only the tweeter can be sued). But as the publisher of fact checks derived on its own volition, it produces its own content and so is more a publisher than merely being a platform--especially so if it selectively limits fact checks to one person or to only a certain kind of politically oriented tweeter.

It may have opened the door to lawsuits that publishers are open to even if the objectionable content is a tweet.

[scottw]

heard a leftist news reporter tonight pointing out that the courts have ruled many times that "free speech" is a protection from government infringing on your right to free speech and not from private entities etc....HELLO....funny how they finally get their minds right when it's convenient

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

heard a leftist news reporter tonight pointing out that the courts have ruled many times that "free speech" is a protection from government infringing on your right to free speech and not from private entities etc....HELLO....funny how they finally get their minds right when it's convenient

The most powerful man in the world Lies as a profession and you thinks it a free speech issue??


Trump to 'sign executive order about social media' this should be interesting

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The most powerful man in the world Lies as a profession and you thinks it a free speech issue??


Trump to 'sign executive order about social media' this should be interesting

I didn't mention trump.....and....you should re-read what I wrote

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

By "fact checking" (even more so if they don't fact check everybody), Twitter may have threatened its status as a platform which is not responsible for the content of the tweets, and now become more like a publisher by inserting its own content when it fact checks.

As a "platform" it is immune from liable due to the content of tweets (only the tweeter can be sued). But as the publisher of fact checks derived on its own volition, it produces its own content and so is more a publisher than merely being a platform--especially so if it selectively limits fact checks to one person or to only a certain kind of politically oriented tweeter.

It may have opened the door to lawsuits that publishers are open to even if the objectionable content is a tweet.

by inserting its own content when it fact checks.

So are you suggesting tweeter is presenting their own version of the Facts .. and now Facts are subjective and changed to support tweeters view? because thats that Alternative fact world where conspiracies are born

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

by inserting its own content when it fact checks.

So are you suggesting tweeter is presenting their own version of the Facts .. and now Facts are subjective and changed to support tweeters view? because thats that Alternative fact world where conspiracies are born

"A platform is a technological space designed to serve as a host for a wide variety of things, including web sites. A publisher creates content and materials and then publishes those things using both physical and online platforms."

I am suggesting that by soliciting, requesting specific content, then publishing it, Twitter is no longer merely a host for those who wish to "tweet," because it presents its own content, (it owns it regardless of how that content is derived), and therefor becomes responsible for that content just as tweeters are responsible for the content of their tweets no matter how they derive it or who they quote.

More to the point, by doing so, it becomes a publisher, not merely a platform. And clearly even more so when it picks and chooses who or what to fact check rather than fact checking all tweets.

[Sea Dangles]

Yada
Yada
Yada ding dong

[Pete F.]

We don't know what the WH Counsel's office is going to vomit out when it comes to this social media executive order, but the idea by many Trumplican "conservatives" that this is a Good Thing, is I think, ludicrously wrong.

Nothing says "limited government" like putting the FTC and Commerce Department in the role of policing online speech.

What could EVER go wrong with that? Let me give my Tweety fluffers a couple mild, not too far-fetched scenarios to contemplate.
In 2028, President Cortez (D-Progville, WA) decides that online anti-abortion speech is unacceptable and deceptive.

Or that no online platform should allow discussion of those terrible guns.

Or that free market capitalism has done enough damage or that The Federalist or Sturmbart or the Daily Caller represent a clear and present danger for trying to revive the Tweety Cult, again?

Are these broadly drawn and lurid scenarios? Sure.

Is Tweety teeing this #^&#^&#^&#^& up? Yup.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

��