No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias

from the get-a-fucking-grip dept

I know we’ve gone through this a bunch already, but there remains no evidence to support the claims of “anti-conservative bias” at major social media platforms. Some people (usually self-claiming conservatives, though they rarely seem to represent actual conservative principles) get really angry about this. But, oddly, none ever seem to present any actual evidence.

Of course, the very underpinnings of the White House’s silly and nonsensical executive order regarding social media is that of course there’s is anti-conservative bias in the moderation, and it even points to the action that kicked off this entire temper tantrum from the thin-skinned President: they provided a link under his debunked conspiracy theory tweet about mail-in ballots. Many Trump supporters and the executive order itself argue that this kind of fact checking is only done to conservatives:

Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician?s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ?Site Integrity? has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

This is a sample size of one. And, indeed, while it’s not a “politician’s tweet,” Twitter has used the same fact check labeling system to defend this administration. Indeed, the first time I ever saw such a fact check was a few weeks ago when it was used to defend Mike Pence from misleading claims in a Jimmy Kimmel bit:

It turned out that Kimmel’s portrayal of Pence was totally inaccurate, and he took what was an obvious joke by Pence and pretended it was serious. And Twitter’s fact checkers debunked the viral tweet. Even though it was a story going viral in the anti-Trump world, and the fact check aided the administration.

Now, these are both just anecdotes, but, at the very least, they suggest that the idea that Twitter is applying these fact checks in a politically biased manner is not obviously supported by the evidence. So far I’ve seen this feature show up on two viral tweets. One that debunked Trump and one that debunked people making fun of Pence.

Meanwhile, perhaps the funniest thing I’ve seen in a while is a bunch of famous people, who claim to be conservatives, gloating over how this executive order is so necessary because Twitter censors conservatives… and all of their gloating is on Twitter itself.






If Twitter is stifling free speech, and censoring conservative voices, it’s doing a shit job of it.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,
Companies: twitter

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
274 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
David says:

Of course fact-checking is anti-conservative

Science and facts are constantly advancing, and the whole point of being conservative is to stick with established views and values. This is particularly relevant for the religious fundamentalism that has permeated the United States from the arrival of the Pilgrim Fathers (in contrast, Jesuits don’t see God as such a sloppy creator that he needs protection from logic and analysis of his creation).

If Trump speaks "there be light", you don’t get to run around with a light meter. That just is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Second Article(?) of the Constitution bestowing divine powers upon Trump. If he says so, there is light, period. Fact checks amount to a coup trying to steal the most overwhelming election win of all times.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Of course fact-checking is anti-conservative

"… the whole point of being conservative is to stick with established views and values"

You should think about that statement. What it says is that to be considered conservative one cannot think for themselves, but must toe the party line. So, who sets the party line. Aren’t those people thinking for themselves, which is against the doctrine that you have prescribed in order to be conservative?

Or are you talking out of your ass? I bet there are many flavors of conservative, and some of them agree with Trump, and some don’t. Some of those flavors of conservative might be called right wing nut jobs by some. Others might be called centrists by some. That you stick all conservatives in the same barrel with the same thoughts tells us that you don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground, and that you have a very skewed view of conservatives.

I bet that some conservatives are not bigoted. I bet that some conservatives are pro choice. I bet that some conservatives are pro immigration. I bet that there are other ‘tenets’ of your conservatism that are not followed by all conservatives. I bet that all of those thoughts cause you to have small coronaries. More power to them.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
David says:

Re: Re: Of course fact-checking is anti-conservative

What it says is that to be considered conservative one cannot think for themselves, but must toe the party line. So, who sets the party line.

Trump.

Aren’t those people thinking for themselves, which is against the doctrine that you have prescribed in order to be conservative?

If you say that Trump is thinking, whether for HIMSELF or others, you haven’t been following the news.

David says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Of course fact-checking is anti-conservative

I think Trump has an agenda, but we don’t have Emperors here in the USA.

What do you then call someone who has the "Department of Justice" state that they think he is entitled to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue without being subject to legal proceedings?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
David says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Of course fact-checking is anti-

The judge got involved before Barr decided to have the DOJ pull out as a favor to Trump. He is clawing onto his case by having essentially named an independent to do the job of prosecutor. It’s very dubious that this will be allowed to stand.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Who sets the party line

When it comes to new religious movements, they have to be around for at least a century before they’re no longer regarded as a cult, id est are investigated by law enforcement for social abuses and causes to shut them down. But the US is particularly paranoid of NRMs (in comparison to other new social organizations active in the US, I can’t speak for how other nations respond to NRMs).

I’d assume the GOP has a star chamber somewhere where they decide what their federal platform is, and similar conclaves for each state. This isn’t to say their values are based on prior conservative values. The 1950s GOP was irreligious, pro-science and pro-education. But then we were in a Mexican standoff with the Soviet Union.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Who sets the party line

"The 1950s GOP was irreligious, pro-science and pro-education. But then we were in a Mexican standoff with the Soviet Union."

But that was right when FDR’s "New Deal" chased all the traditionally democrat southern racists out of the democratic party, and caused all the sensible conservatives out of the GOP.

The formerly democrat racists then joined the GOP and that brings us to today’s political landscape where many of the political positions of both parties are 180 degrees apart from what they were in the 50’s.

The GOP in the 50’s were indeed a more sane and pragmatic bunch by far, as compared to the democrats of the 50’s which were openly the home party of the KKK and the origin of the Jim Crow laws.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Of course fact-checking is anti-conservative

"…I bet there are many flavors of conservative, and some of them agree with Trump, and some don’t."

…there could indeed be such a group of people in the US, but as long as they keep voting steadfastly republican and keep supporting the narrative that they are ostracized victims of partisan online moderation every time some neo-nazi gets booted off of Twitter…then that distinction you mention becomes meaningless.

If you call yourself a conservative but leave it up to the wingnut in the tinfoil hat to present the public debate about what being a "conservative" really means then you have no call to argue differently when people start defining the conservative view as being that of the wingnut.

"I bet that some conservatives are not bigoted. I bet that some conservatives are pro choice. I bet that some conservatives are pro immigration."

Then why isn’t every inflammatory troll claiming the conservative view met by other conservatives eager to say "Stop speaking in my name, because you do not represent my views, as a conservative"?

That’s a problem.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Of course fact-checking is anti-conservative

Which brings the conclusion that the wingnut doing the talking for the conservatives is, in fact, the one saying what 90% of them silently agree with.

It’s not that surprising considering how many republicans have quietly – and in some cases, loudly – left the republican party lately. The GOP truly turned into a cesspool at some point right before the GWB administration when the neocons took power and they invited the populist demagogues to the inner circles.

Then once the neocons collapsed like a house of cards the populists were quick to grab the reigns. Notably the Tea Party which no longer needs that name, having basically become the conservative part of the GOP.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Of course fact-checking is anti-conservative

Really "conservatism" is fundamentally a lie on several levels. First off there are many attached bits which are considered "conservative" which are completely novel and did not exist in the past which they support. Even the Victorians did not execute abortionists nor dispute the need if the lige of the mother was threatened.

Second tradition itself is fundamentally a lie and fails to preserve the past as it really was in favor of an image. The reason for a tradition is never preserved – by induction traditions were never first done because they were traditional. Either they tried something which worked or they were invented whole cloth. Blindly clinging to tradition fails to capture either the experimentalism or the creativity. It is like trying to preserve a life by embalming – if it was alive it kills it horribly and leaves an empty shell with a supetfical resemblance to what was.

There is merit to learning from tbe past and using it as a baselin for models to tweak from but unfortunately the old hypocrite tradition of sifting through "the Bible" to justify what they already want for selfish reasons.

David says:

Re: Re:

No, they are calling for Twitter to stop getting the protection of a content relayer if they don’t just relay content but provide comment on it.

Section 230 of the CDA frees them from any responsibility for the multitude of lies Trump spreads through them, but not once they add comments.

Really, the only way to cover their ass would be to block Trump’s account. That would be legal and responsible.

It would also get an irrational autocrat upset with them, one who had his cronies replace judges on a partisan basis rather than based on competence.

So in a dictatorship like the U.S., this would be an imprudent move to make.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Section 230 of the CDA frees them from any responsibility for the multitude of lies Trump spreads through them, but not once they add comments.

Not true. Even after adding their own comments to Trump’s shittweets Twitter is still not responsible for Trump’s shittweets, only for the comments they added. Just as you and I are only responsible for what we post.

CDA230 doesn’t really absolve them of anything the 1st Amendment and other laws already absolved them of. It was a direct clarification of the law surrounding that specific subject matter. Even if the Orange Assclown managed to tear down CDA230 it wouldn’t change the law that 230 clarified and Twitter could still call out Trump for shittweeting.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Section 230 of the CDA frees them from any responsibility for the multitude of lies Trump spreads through them, but not once they add comments.

Yep. At that point, Twitter remains free of responsibility for Trump’s tweets but becomes responsible for the content it added to his tweets.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

"Section 230 of the CDA frees them from any responsibility for the multitude of lies Trump spreads through them, but not once they add comments."

No, it doesn’t. Section 230 means they don’t have responsibility for the comments made by someone else. Once they add comments, they have responsibility for their own comments but still don’t get made responsible for the words of others they were commenting on.

Section 230 is a very short and simple clause, why is it so hard for some to understand it’s very basic functionality?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 R

"Here is a simple way to understand the new reality:"
What is this new reality you speak of? I was thinking there is nothing new about any of it as we have been through this several times now. Perhaps you are too young to remember our past and your education was underfunded, I don’t know and at this point it becomes academic.

"censor and lose immunity"
If the government censors then they will lose immunity? Awesome dude!

"Try it. Censor me, right here, right now, and lose your immunity. I guarantee it! MAGA!"
Please explain in detail how this all will go down as I am interested in what the white nationalists have planned. Looks like you just might get that civil war you basturds have always wanted.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Here is a simple way to understand the new reality: censor and lose immunity.

“I reject this reality and substitute my own” doesn’t make your reality the actual reality that everyone else lives in, you know. Your comments will be hidden and you can legally do nothing about it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
David says:

Re: Re:

That’s not how religious fundamentalists in the U.S. (well, apart from the Amish maybe) operate. They want all the things made possible by science and open minds and thinking, but ascribed to the grace of God rather than to science and open minds and thinking.

Basically, they think of modern technology like milk from their cows: a God-given benefit that for some reason faithless animals are better at producing than they are, but that they are entitled to benefit from by divine grace.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Cdaragorn (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I’m fascinated by your continued demonstration of nothing but hatred for anyone you disagree with followed by countless completely baseless and unproveable statements about said individuals seemingly for no better reason than that they disagree with you.
So please, do tell me what makes you think that most scientists don’t believe in God/some similar concept of a divine being? Please remember that statements of your own opinions without some kind of evidence to back them up are nonsense.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Scientists and naturalism

According to surveys of scientists, most are of a category of atheist or agnostic. The typical understanding is includes:

~ an intelligent creator is not necessary for us to exist and

~ an intelligent creator is not demonstrable.

This is to say we can model all observations within the universe (not perfectly — we still haven’t explained ball lightning, for instance) without resorting to a divine intelligence. Curiously, our sun provides all the features we need of a supreme being, including consistent, unconditional regard and life-sustaining energy. (Though extinction-level solar flares are not entirely absent in our geological history, so the sun may express…opinions sometimes after all.)

The current state of all fields of scientific or historic study presume methodological naturalism, and therefore reject supernatural forces (miracles, gods, magic, etc.) as historical fact, so even when we look at the Resurrection of Jesus or the miracles he allegedly performed in life, it is presumed by historians and scholars that these events transpired within the confines of natural mechanics (such as simply being fables invented after the fact).

And so it is with the creation of the universe or the placement of the Earth and the human species within it. As nihilism and absurdism are rather bleak as personal outlooks, scientists may hold personal opinions on divinity (and may live under a theistic pretense or at least a hope that we are more than walking, thinking meat on a speck of dust), but when they do scientific work and build scientific models, these private specters of the supernatural are withheld.

But sure, just maybe we’re in a complex computer simulation or in Azathoth’s dream and for our own sake, our story doesn’t end when our neurons cease firing. There is zero evidence to this effect, however.

OGquaker says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Scientists and naturalism

As the Warden of the oldest monthly meetinghouse in LA (don’t ask:) of a 370 year old cult (the Crown put 12,000 in jail and a few were hung in Boston) with a long list of scientist on the roster, and a complete book shelf of "Theoretical Physics" here (with so little INDEPENDENT proofs), i could not have said it better.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

This is God’s command (all verses from Matthew 5):

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

These are the words of Christ himself. I don’t know what you think God’s command is, but you aren’t following it.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"So please, do tell me what makes you think that most scientists don’t believe in God/some similar concept of a divine being?"

Plenty of scientists are religious. Those of them who are religious fundamentalists – as described by David, above, tend to be utter shit about their chosen vocation since a job which demands empirical observation goes badly with a faith which demands to trust Holy Scripture over the observations of their Lying Eyes.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
radix (profile) says:

Here’s a fun game: Any time somebody claims anti-conservative bias, ask for examples.

If there are any given, which is rare, it will almost certainly be plainly racist or harassing speech that was "censored." It’s almost like the only thing that defines speech as "conservative" is that it’s racist or cruel.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

tz1 (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Name any example of someone from CNN, MSNBC, or the Democratic Party being “fact checked” by Twitter. Name a prominet lefty banned (e.g. Kathy Griffin for Trump’s severed head). Sarah Jeong posted tweets which were anti-white bigotry and they AFAIK are still up. Candace Owens just swapped the word “black” for “white” and every one was banned and she had her account locked.

Put simply, if they “fact checked” Maxine Waters, Cuomo, Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, AOC, Illan Omar, Rashida Talib, etc. over the Russiagate and Ukrainegate hoax or even the Michael Flynn railroading, and also did Trump no one would be complaining.

If they banned Dan Savage when they banned Milo no one would be complaining.

Here’s a simple experiment. Create two twitter accounts. Post a tweet to each of them, calling for violence, using epithets, being offensive, but swap targets – men v.s. women, white v.s. black, gay v.s. straight.

If you are correct Twitter will consistently apply something to both or neither. If Conservatives are correct, only one set of tweets will be marked or deleted.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Even if it’s true and there is an anti-conservative bias on social media platforms,

ANTI-CONSERVATIVE IN SOCIAL MEDIA MODERATION IS NOT ILLEGAL

It doesn’t make any difference whether such a bias exists or not. No difference at all. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Fuck-all. Viva la 1st Amendment.

Snowflake.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I’m confused, if Trump’s claims are correct exactly what is the problem with fact checking them?"

Bingo. This is always the problem. When more conservatives are kicked off for being white supremacists, they whine about bias rather than ask why most of the white supremacists are on their side. When more conservatives are kicked off for homophobic bigotry, they whine about bias rather than ask why there’s more bigot s on their side. And so on. When challenged for examples of people on the other "side" who have committed the same actions but not been banned, we hear crickets.

So, here, we see the same behaviour. If they’re being fact-checked more (according to their personal assumption), it must be because there’s bias. It can’t be because they are doing more to need fact checking (or recently, flagged as promoting violence).

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

If twitter takes money from pro mail-in ballot groups and doesnt disclose this when "fact checking" by linking to opinion pieces minimizing the risks of mail-in ballot voting fraud, there is a problem with fact checking. There are clear cases of fraud made possible by mail in ballots such as the recent problems in NJ.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
xyzzy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

That article, from Breitbart, well, I hardly needed to read it, being an propaganda outlet for the right, but just to humor you I did.

It does NOT, as you accuse "substantiate that Twitter is taking money from Mail-In Ballot groups", the article merely suggests that, and I quote, Twitter "…is an active “Premier Partner” of Vote Early Day 2020, an election advocacy group seeking to educate voters that they can cast their ballots prior to Election Day, including via the vote-by-mail option."

If anything this suggests (and there is no evidence presented, as one would expect from Breitbart) quite the opposite, that Twitter is helping fund a group performing actions to help increase participation in the voting process, something the right fears for obvious reasons. You already got a president in on a minority vote, heaven forbid more people participate in an election!

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

twitter takes money from pro mail-in ballot groups and doesnt disclose this when "fact checking" by linking to opinion pieces minimizing the risks of mail-in ballot voting fraud

Cite a source with more credibility than Breitbart.

There are clear cases of fraud made possible by mail in ballots such as the recent problems in NJ.

Cite a source that talks about these “problems”. Then cite a source that somehow managed to find more instances of voter fraud than did everyone who has ever studied the issue of voter fraud (mail-in ballots or otherwise). Remember, Donald Trump himself put together a group tasked with finding such widespread voter fraud; he later disbanded the group and never let it release its findings, presumably out of embarassment that the findings went against his lies about widespread voter fraud.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Almost all of the stories I’ve ever read about voter fraud in the US are about a Republican agitator trying to rove it exists. It’s rarely about someone doing it under normal circumstances and never seems to be a Democrat.

"Cite a source with more credibility than Breitbart."

My cat left something in the litter tray with more credibility.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

David says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

When the president of the united sates is lying to the citizens they really ought to know about it – no?

If they were interesting in knowing about it, the information had been readily available before he made it through primaries and election.

Adding fact checks to his tweets is unwanted information. It’s like when your TV set will keep switching to CNN (say) if you are watching Fox News for too long. That’s not its decision to make.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

So, you’re saying that Twitter should be ok with transmitting propaganda to the wilfully ignorant, and it’s wrong to alert them to the fact they’re being lied to? I agree that voters need to educate themselves before voting, but allowing lies to be spread without comment isn’t going to get them to do that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

"So, you’re saying that Twitter should be ok with transmitting propaganda to the wilfully ignorant, and it’s wrong to alert them to the fact they’re being lied to?"

Yes, I believe that is exactly what that poster is saying.

This is just another step in the dictators handbook.

David says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

No, I think they should just hold Trump to the same standard as every other user and kick him out. And should have done that when he continued violating their terms of service.

What they are doing now is changing from being a megaphone for an autocrat into being a megaphone for an autocrat with disclaimers. Nobody is interested in those: they are fig leafs, a laughable excuse for continuing to help him spread his messages of misinformation, bigotry and hatred.

It’s like sending Hitler’s speeches with a preface stating "we don’t think fascism a good idea". The ones who want to tune in to the message will tune out to the warning.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

"If they were interesting in knowing about it, the information had been readily available before he made it through primaries and election."
Victim Blaming … of course, why not? It is so easy. What do the primaries and election have to do with it? Do you think that once elected, the president can then do whatever they please? Is that you Donald? lol, go back to twitter you loser.

"Adding fact checks to his tweets is unwanted information"
How is it unwanted? Are you claiming that people do not want to know what their government officials are doing to them? I call bullshit.

"That’s not its decision to make"
Ok, I now see this should be marked as funny

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
JMT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

"If they were interesting in knowing about it, the information had been readily available before he made it through primaries and election."

Elected officials don’t get a free pass after elections, they get held to account every single day they’re in office. The Trump administration clearly doesn’t believe this should be the case, despite it being absolutely critical to a functioning democracy.

"Adding fact checks to his tweets is unwanted information."

Unwanted by you, I guess because the facts undermine your narrative.

David says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Says who? A rightwing fucktard?
No, millions of them. Which is why Twitter needs to stop pussying around with "fact checks" that do not change anybody’s opinion. They need to follow their rules and throw Trump off the platform while he insists on spreading lies and violence.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

You are such a poor, poor victim, aren’t you. Nothing can shield you from the pain of hypothetical things you made up not getting the same treatment your cult is in real life.

"If Conservatives are correct, only one set of tweets will be marked or deleted."

…and if both are, you’ll whine that it’s an exemption that proves the rule and that your fragile egos are more important than the free speech of others. There’s no winning with you.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Cdaragorn (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Name any example of someone from CNN, MSNBC, or the Democratic Party being "fact checked" by Twitter

Completely irrelevant but just to point out your own obvious bias I’ll point out that the article literally did exactly that. Apparently you just like to ignore any evidence that doesn’t fit your narrative.
Of course the more important point that has already been made to you is that Twitter is allowed to censor any way it pleases the same way you’re allowed to censor in your own household any way you please. Don’t like it? Too bad.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Pics or it didn’t happen."

I’m going guess that it was pics, and not the political leaning that was the problem. Those guys tend to go way overboard with their appeals to emotion (rather than facts, because even they know they’re on shaky ground there), and I’ll bet the sites got tired of people complaining about seeing dead fetuses in their feed.

Same thing happens with some animal rights folk. They’ll post horrific videos of animals being tortured and slaughtered, then complain of censorship when they’re blocked. They’ll honestly think it’s due to their political leanings, but they’re just too dumb to realise that most people don’t want to see such things alongside the family holiday videos and silly memes they use the site forst

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/370455-blocked-how-the-pro-life-movement-is-being-censored-on-social

https://www.christianpost.com/voices/social-media-censorship-of-pro-life-content.html

https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/12/pinterest-twitter-trying-censor-live-action-pro-life-group/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7132879/Whistleblower-reveals-Pinterest-BANNED-pro-life-group-Live-Action.html

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

It is nice to see the links to references that one feels are relevant to the discussion. As others have pointed out, the pictures that pro-life uses are sometimes objectionable, did any of your references address this?
It appears that your selection of references are all a bit biased toward a particular pov – no?

Lies of omission are still lies.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

The Hill article doesnt adress this because its about blocking crowdfunding for a movie about RoeVsWade.
"Earlier this month, a social media platform blocked a crowdfunding advertisement designed to help finance a pro-life movie. The movie, according to its overview, “is the real untold story of how people lied; how the media lied; and how the courts were manipulated to pass a law that has since killed over 60 million Americans.”"

If my sources are biased its because leftist/mainstream outlets who are pro abortion wont talk about it and also why you guys have not heard about it.

It also mentions posts with bible verses against abortion being censored. Is that also too graphic? Pro abortion groups can advocate for their side by making taking lives innocent, lovey dovey, "brave and liberating". Telling the truth of what happens in an abortion is on the other hand forbidden.

Live action, one of the groups censored tried to get around the problem of graphically shocking images by using drawn images but it is apparently not enough. Some of their content is simply criticzing planned parenthood and their actions. This is not about graphic content but about criticizing of the left’s side that cannot be allowed by social media companies.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

"For a while, on both twitter and Facebook, I don’t know if this is still the case, any pro life content was censored or even accounts banned. "
The above is your prior post, to which Paul relied with Pics Or It Didn’t Happen. I think you understand what this means. You failed to produce.

"If my sources are biased its because leftist/mainstream outlets who are pro abortion wont talk about it and also why you guys have not heard about it. "
Blame your opposition, standard operating procedure. Media does not talk about abortion? Or is it not enough talk about abortion that is really the issue? One trick ponies are so entertaining.

"bible verses against abortion"
This is news, which verse might that be?

"get around the problem of graphically shocking images "
Why are they necessary? I remember graphic pictures/video of the Vietnam war being too shocking for media to publish but pro-life pictures/video is a-ok somehow. I thought you chicken hawks loved that shit.

"This is not about graphic content but about criticizing of the left’s side"
No, it is about the total bullshit that is the present administration and their followers. Completely out of touch with the nation they are sworn to serve. Some completely out of touch with reality. But yeah – it’s all about conservatives being censored isn’t it?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

My answer to pics or it didnt happen was news articles describing that it did in fact happend i dont see what more you should want.

I’m not saying media doesnt talk about abortion im saying media doesnt talk about censorship of pro-life side because they like it or at least it furthers their agenda.

I don’t know which bible verse it is, it is simply said in one article (that I linked) that posting bible verses ensued in blocking of accounts. I then assumed that it was in the context of pro-life seeing the context described in the article.

I don’t personally see a problem with graphical images but your point or another poster’s was that images of abortion were being banned for being too graphic and not for the actual viewpoint against abortion. You didnt even read the articles and just tried discrediting my sources for being biased and for not touching on this point when each article described different situations where the problem was not actually pictures but other content being censored.

I’m from Switzerland and therefore don’t understand what you mean by chicken hawk but i assume its just an insult which is weird seeing as I thought we were having a civil discussion.

The last point about bullshit of present administration is besides the point of wether conservative organisations/individuals are being censored for expressing themselves on social media without violating TOS when the opposing viewpoint is being given free range. If you are answering with all your hatred for a political party and not answering me and my point about censorship you’re just assuming things and opinions that I might hold and not actually answering the questions.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

In my opinion, you did not provide the requested evidence in support of your claims … any of them.

"news articles describing that it did in fact happend"
…. followed by
"I don’t know which bible verse it is, it is simply said in one article (that I linked) that posting bible verses ensued in blocking of accounts. I then assumed that it was in the context of pro-life seeing the context described in the article."
It does not prove any of what you called fact and you admit to not verifying the claim yourself. But I am to believe that it did in fact happen just because you say so. Got it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

You have to at least examinate the validity of the claim that "it never happened", not because "I" said so, but because news articles say so, notably the one from "The Hill" that cannot be dismissed as a bad source.

If the standard of proof that you are asking for is "my personnal experience of it with screenshots as proof". Then i cannot prove it. You would then dismiss it as anecdotal anyway.

But at least with the articles that i have linked you could, reading them, come to realise that it indeed happened, and that it might have happened in other areas of the discussion. Even if the reasons for this happening can only be assumed and that we might disagree on them.
But you are at this point just rejecting reality by denying that something happened and you are not being clear as to what proof i could provide to convince you otherwise. How am i supposed to verify myself what bible verse caused the banning if they are not cited in the news article?

Another article about project veritas and pinterest being biased against christians.
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/june/pinterest-insider-reveals-company-censors-bible-verses-christian-terms

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

Yes, I am rejecting reality – ok, if you say so – lol

"How am i supposed to verify myself what bible verse caused the banning if they are not cited in the news article?"
…. here is your original claim:
"It also mentions posts with bible verses against abortion being censored."
…. in reply I asked which verse (in the bible is against abortion). idk, I thought that might be an easy search to perform if the verse actually says what you claim.

btw, project veritas is not a trust worthy source by any means at all.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Re:

No one here, other than me and my new friend, wants truth, reality or honest debate. The commenters here are like pop together plastic train tracks, each head planted firmly in the asshole of the next, all experiencing their favorite leftist odor, blinded by their choice of their own tiny stinky universe as the same train of leftist thought goes round and round again.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Re:

Well, when this is the level of mature discourse you’re offering as an alternative, can you blame us? I graduated from kindergarten a long time ago, and I don’t really fancy lowering myself to your level just so you can feel like you belong at the grown up table. You don’t.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

"I can also find you quotes from the Bible instructing to perform abortions. So?"

The old testament I’m sure he’s taking those quotes from does provide incentive for or against just about anything. Including murder, incest and slavery.

There’s just something extra pathetic about a group of religious morons who claim to be Christian without realizing the first thing that guy did was update and invalidate the old testament. That’s basically the core of the controversy they’ve got going with judaism.

After which they eagerly quote cherry-picked parts of the part of the book their chosen prophet very deliberately put under the "Don’t really read this part" bit of his lessons. The ones often going completely contrary to his own various sermons, mind.

There’s a certain type of person who just needs someone they can look down on and disparage. Without something to fear and hate their lives aren’t complete. And those people tend to find their calling in religion, even if their only connection to the prophet of their religion is by going directly against most of his teachings.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

Whistleblowers have gone to project veritas to expose the inner workings of social media platforms and censorship for instance. On other occasions, PV has managed to record employees talking about the censorship and bias they apply to conservative content as well as a lot of other subjects which i would qualify as investigative journalism since they inverstigate what is happening instead of simply repeating talking points of the press people representing these same companies.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

Project Veritas tried to falsely accuse Roy Moore of having sex with a teenager as part of what was likely a sting operation against the Washington Post.

“I’ve said this before, but the way to understand conservative media’s hostility towards the rest of the press is that they think it operates the way many of their reporters and outlets do—that they take money to make shit up.” — Adam Serwer

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

"If my sources are biased its because leftist/mainstream outlets who are pro abortion wont talk about it and also why you guys have not heard about it."

No, it’ll be because it’s obvious right-wing propaganda based on lies, and a platform has the right to not be involved. Why do you want them to lose their free speech and free association rights just so you can be lied to?

"It also mentions posts with bible verses against abortion being censored. Is that also too graphic?"

Depends which ones. I will just note that you’re not complaining about the bible verses instructing abortion (of which there are several). Why is that?

"Live action, one of the groups censored tried to get around the problem of graphically shocking images by using drawn images but it is apparently not enough"

No, your pathetic attempts to appeal to emotion rather than facts is still objectionable even in manga form.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

"I’m going guess that it was pics, and not the political leaning that was the problem."

That was the case where the animal rights folk were concerned. The US "Pro-life" brigade, however, often come down to outright calling for the execution-style murder of doctors and nurses who perform abortions, and in no few cases, the systematic firebombing of abortion clinics.

I’d argue that the content and feed of the US pro-life faction would get blocked for much the same reason they started blocking ISIS recruitment pages.

Of course in the minds of the demented wingnuts who proliferate in the "pro-life" organizations it IS bias to have their messages moderated away while the "child-killing godless scum" get to retain their family planning manuals online.

We see a similar disconnect with modern US "conservatives" who feel they’re being discriminated against just for putting queers and black folk in "their place" – which to them is as natural as breathing.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

"Well, without knowing which posts are in question I can’t say, I was being charitable in assuming it was the pictures rather than actual death threats involved."

The pictures are bad enough, but even the most "genteel" pro-life site has language which simply isn’t acceptable by ANY ToS I’ve seen.
Here, an example of the type of rhetoric you find on such sites, in which I’ll assume, for the sake of argument, that you are pro-choice.

If I begin by defining you, PaulIT, as a "child-killer" or as someone who "abets and enables the wholesale slaughter of unborn children", and continue by citing what holy scripture (or any other "authority" easy to appropriate) has to say about "murderers"…
I may not be threatening you with death, but I certainly have implied that "good and decent" people might consider taking matters into their own hands and lynch you as the abomination you apparently are. And this would be what you’d end up with as a mere pro-choice advocate.

And this obviously not only poses anyone named at risk of unhinged violent zealots but also definitely violates the ToS of Twitter and FB. Even if it’s entirely lawful according to the 1st amendment.

The problem is that their political leaning in itself assumes that everyone who is pro-choice is an accessory to murder. Pictures be damned, you can’t even present much of that policy in any sort of moderated forum as-is without having a moderator going "Oh, hell no".

It’s a bit like the white supremacy crowd similarly don’t need to show pictures of beaten black people to get themselves banned simply over trying to present their policy – which even in the most polite terminology boils down to "Look, we call a spade a spade, so why can’t we call black people <redacted>?"

It’s not hard to understand why groups whose politics can not be expressed without causing harm want to do away with section 230. Nor is it hard to understand why they feel there’s a bias when they try to express what to them is a righteous belief.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

What was asked to be proved (by someone else):

I replied to a discussion on free speech that the op should use their free speech to counter people rather than advocating for hate speech laws and Twitter shadow banned me.

The “evidence” you offered (which were actually just more claims without evidence, BTW) had nothing to do with that particular claim. I have no idea what you were trying to prove, but it wasn’t what anyone else was discussing.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Bloof (profile) says:

‘Don’t behave like rich, condescending, jackbooted thugs.’ – Ted Cruz, with an estimated net worth of $3,198,068 in 2018, the same Ted Cruz who supports the death penalty, called supporters of same sex marriage liberal fascists, shared a stage with someone who called for gays to be put to death, supported the USA Freedom Act reauthorisation of the Patriot act…. And so on.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Well, not everyone likes us Texans. But we can shoot straight! Practice every day, drunk. We don’t actually give half a rat shit if you like us. But we like you! Come have a snort and shoot with us! Ted does! He’s great!

Can’t we all just get along?

Strong fences make better neighbors, and big guns make better friends!

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

'Seriously, we can barely see a thing.'

Damn, those whiners are projecting hard enough the light has got to be causing some serious glare on the international space station.

The only people trying to undermine the first amendment are those trying to punish a site for making use of their first amendment rights as they accuse Twitter of gaslighting and attacking free speech, and you just can’t help but laugh at the last example, the cherry on the cake, as they admit that Trump’s latest tantrum was because Twitter fact-checked him, something you’d think they’d be all for if he really was correct.

When people checking to see if you’re right are seen as a dire threat in need of immediate attention it’s time to admit that even you know your position is wrong and indefensible.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: 'Seriously, we can barely see a thing.'

"When people checking to see if you’re right are seen as a dire threat in need of immediate attention it’s time to admit that even you know your position is wrong and indefensible."

Unironically and not so funnily the last time I saw that sort of gaslighting in heavy use was right before the DDR fell.
On the good side the fact that a given faction has begun seeing fact-checking as a dire threat means it’s the beginning of the end for that faction.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: 'Seriously, we can barely see a thing.'

One of the sad things I’ve noticed is that some groups of older people who grew up believing that Communism and the USSR were the ultimate evil are now unironically supporting the exact things those regimes stood for. Then calling the rest of us communists for pointing it out to them.

You see it in these threads here – insisting that a private company controlling its own property is unacceptable censorship, but the president forcing them to speak in a certain way is free speech.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: 'Seriously, we can barely see a thing.'

"One of the sad things I’ve noticed is that some groups of older people who grew up believing that Communism and the USSR were the ultimate evil are now unironically supporting the exact things those regimes stood for. Then calling the rest of us communists for pointing it out to them."

You too, huh?

It makes me wonder to which extent those methods and principles they abhorred back then were condemned in such loud tones because the enemy had managed to adopt them first.

Bill Barr would make a fine commissar – he sounds like Honecker having a really good day.

tz1 (profile) says:

Re:

Name any example of someone from CNN, MSNBC, or the Democratic Party being “fact checked” by Twitter. Name a prominet lefty banned (e.g. Kathy Griffin for Trump’s severed head). Sarah Jeong posted tweets which were anti-white bigotry and they AFAIK are still up. Candace Owens just swapped the word “black” for “white” and every one was banned and she had her account locked.

Put simply, if they “fact checked” Maxine Waters, Cuomo, Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, AOC, Illan Omar, Rashida Talib, etc. over the Russiagate and Ukrainegate hoax or even the Michael Flynn railroading, and also did Trump no one would be complaining.

If they banned Dan Savage when they banned Milo no one would be complaining.

Here’s a simple experiment. Create two twitter accounts. Post a tweet to each of them, calling for violence, using epithets, being offensive, but swap targets – men v.s. women, white v.s. black, gay v.s. straight.

If you are correct Twitter will consistently apply something to both or neither. If Conservatives are correct, only one set of tweets will be marked or deleted.

Anonymous Coward says:

I’m so sick of the people thinking fact checks will do the slightest iota of good given what they’re up against. This is a matter of trust, not a matter of lack of accurate information!

What next? Are you going to try to fact check the person that believes their parish can cure them of the Coronavirus? That they’ll suddenly go "I admit my theory that my pastor can cure Covid-19 was proven wrong after I saw a fact check on Twitter"?

It’s ludicrously stupid and yet it’s somehow paraded around as if it’s a substantive win to fact check Trump. Good lord! This is something you should be laughed at!

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'

Fact check someone lying, exposing that he is lying which might make others more hesitant to believe what they say even if it won’t budge his die-hard supporters, or let the liar control the narrative with lies and falsehoods that could have serious or even lethal consequences…

Of the two I certainly know which a liar would prefer people would go with.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'

Who is it supposed to budge? The mythical blank slate idiot that will be a better person if you show them the correct information? The idiot that pundits assume make up a substantive portion of the U.S. population yet no one can find?

The idiots here are the pundits and just how little they understand actual living and breathing humans (as opposed to some bizarre activist caricature of what the U.S. population is).

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'

Who is fact checking supposed to ‘budge’? If a liar knows they will be called out on their lies they are usually going to be less likely to lie so blatantly(perhaps not Trump, because he seems literally incapable of self-control), and if even one person who might have bought a falsehood but doesn’t because someone pointed out that it was wrong is a worthwhile improvement over the falsehood being allowed to stand unchallenged.

Again, fact-checking is only a problem if someone is lying or otherwise saying false things, while it is a benefit to those that otherwise might have ended up believing false things, putting them in a worse position. Having people believe more true things and less false things is absolutely a worthwhile goal, and is only really problematic for those attempting to spread lies and/or falsehoods, so to just brush it aside with a ‘what’s the point?’ just exposes an indifference to the truth.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'

As the gorram US president more people pay attention to his tweets and other communications than just those that believe anything he says without question, as given he has the ability to affect massive numbers of people it’s kinda important to know what he’s saying and doing, even if it’s just to point out the latest instance of something wrong.

If the only people that paid attention to what he said were those that already believed everything he said and couldn’t be convinced otherwise, and if people were incapable of changing their minds after being presented with evidence, and if Trump wasn’t in a position of power where falsehoods could cause serious damage and it therefore refuting them was valuable, and if knowing more true things and less false things didn’t have value, then the arguments against fact checking the US president might have some weight, but as it stands you are basically arguing in favor of people being lied to because… why again?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'

"Who is it supposed to budge?"

Whether you like it or not, the average person does not pay that much attention to politics outside of elections cycles. When they do pay attention, they might be more likely to pay attention to the sitting President, and thus they may be swayed by evidence that the man is outright lying to them for political gain.

"(as opposed to some bizarre activist caricature of what the U.S. population is)."

A known conman, multi-time bankrupt gameshow host is currently the leader of your country, having run on the platform of running the country like a business. The caricature is what you are until you change that.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'

"Anyone who pays attention to Trump’s tweets isn’t the average person. You’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise."

Like the 20-30% who actually voted for Trump?

Like it or not that’s not enough of a minority for you to call them anything but average.

An argument could be made that your entire country has gone fscking nuts. Supported by the fact that the guy filling twitter with utter hogwash happens to be your actual president – the type of guy who in any democracy or republic ought to be selected among the most credible and trustworthy of the candidates, or at the very least not be the sort of sleazy con man you wouldn’t trust to live in the same city block as your children.

And that argument is further supported by your own implication that the only ones who should be listening to what your Commander in Chief, bearer of The Fotball has to say would be a proportionately minor cadre of fanatics and nutjobs.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'

"An argument could be made that your entire country has gone fscking nuts"

That’s the wrong argument, though. He did not get the support of the majority of Americans, he has lost a lot of support since then, and even in the current situation there have been police departments joining with the opinions of protesters rather than following his advice and start shooting people.

Call me naive, but I still think the majority of Americans are good people who would rather not have a conman intent on selling the country out in office. The question is how to make their voices heard over the cult members.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'

"Call me naive, but I still think the majority of Americans are good people who would rather not have a conman intent on selling the country out in office."

I know quite a few smart, well-educated americans. That doesn’t change the facts that between the country having a 60% average voter rate and 50% of americans subscribing to creationism the practical reality is that roughly half the nation thinks it’s a fundamentalist theocracy and half the nation thinks that "voting" is something they can’t be arsed to do.
Add to that a poverty rate which is proportional to the rest of the G20 only by drastically lowering the subsistence minimum, the only first world nation to NOT have some form of universal health care, and infrasdtructure so badly maintained some 3000 communities are left "drinking the flint river"…

…and yet most americans still insist they live in this, the best of all possible worlds, my dear Tartúffe.

I’m usually a great believer in Hanlon’s Razor…but at some point you really need to break out Grey’s Law as well.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'

"That’s the wrong argument, though."

ad notam; I’m thinking the whole US has gone fscking nuts mainly because Trump has become Normal. His campaign speeches were so incoherent they might – as a comedian stated it – have been written by the autocorrect on his iPhone. His tweets are so demented that when someone says they’ll fact-check them it sends him off in an unhinged vendetta and a campaign of signing executive orders.

And yet the people actually actively opposing him are as small a minority as his cult. Most of the rest just grumbling a bit and not otherwise giving much of a fsck.

That’s what I mean when i say the entire US has gone nuts. If you live in a nation in better shape than germany in the last days of the Weimar then a clown such as Trump has no place, if the country is otherwise relatively sane.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: 'Stop looking behind those curtains!'

"…as opposed to some bizarre activist caricature of what the U.S. population is"

A population where 50% believe in religion over science, where a known compulsive tort-happy con man got elected, where the conservative news outlets invent stories out of whole cloth, talk show hosts have more sway over the population than actual journalists, and the state of infrastructure and health care is so spotty you’d be pardoned for thinking you were in early 19th century Botswana rather than in the nominal leader of the first world?

If anything the activist caricatures aren’t going far enough by half.

"The idiot that pundits assume make up a substantive portion of the U.S. population yet no one can find?"

You mean the one showing up at Trump rallies wearing a MAGA hat and dressed like a wall, cheering hysterically at a chubby orange demagogue whose speech reads as if it was written completely by the autocorrect function of his iPhone after outting random letters in?

He’s not exactly hard to find. None of them are.

But I’ll give you this, they DO seem impervious to fact.

The one’s actually benefiting from the fact-correction might be those swing voters who are still on the fence on whether Trump would be worse than the failure to send a message to the DNC that they really need to present a candidate you don’t have to hold your nose while voting for.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

For the record, we have over 100,000 people dead in this country.

Members of Congress & pundits are more upset over fact checking a tweet then bodies in the streets.

This is yet another dog whistle to keep the base distracted & riled up.

If you had to make a cake for my wedding it would infringe on your rights!!!
If I refused to provide medical aid to you b/c of your political party or religion you’d freak the fsck out.

Perhaps it is time we try again to remind people rights are not a 1 way street, that if you claim this right only for you then perhaps you are as bad as those you are calling out.

You have every right to call me a faggot
I have every right to call you a closet case

You and I do not have the right to demand only 1 of us get to call names & pretend that our rights are violated if our host shuts one or both of us up.

Cities on fire
people dying due to violence, virus, neglect
but the most important thing is to make sure our leader can lie to us unchecked

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"Members of Congress & pundits are more upset over fact checking a tweet then bodies in the streets."

Also, just as an update to that – Trump witnessed the violence that occurred recently in response to the unjustified murder of yet another unarmed black man. His response to that? To threaten to send the army in to kill them. Then, he and his followers lost their shit at Twitter again for labelling that as an incitement to violent.

They care more about how the Tweet was labelled than they do about the police murdering people.

"You have every right to call me a faggot
I have every right to call you a closet case"

…and Twitter has to right to tell one of you to shut up and GTFO their property, and are more likely to go after the instigator (the homophobe in your example). You also have the right to go elsewhere if you dislike the way they treat others on their property. You do not have the right to insist that Twitter lose rights to control their property because your feelings were hurt by who they told to GTFO.

XcOM987 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Please correct me if I miss-understood your statement, are you to say that if media wasn’t so focused on facts the figures would be lower, how would this be? would this be because they don’t have all the facts this meaning the info they would be providing would be misleading and requiring a fact check mark and link?

Or would the media/news be using "Alternative facts" which Kellyanne Conway seemed so keen on pushing, there is no such thing as an alternative fact, an alternative viewpoint yes, or an alternative interpretation yes, but a fact is a fact is a fact and that’s fact. (Yes facts can change but then the old fact is nolonger a current fact, not an alternative fact)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

"If media were not so obsessed with facts, the numbers you are reading could be a lot lower."

You mean that if we as a nation were more like a dictatorship then …..

The fact is that the reported numbers are all under stated. The state of Florida is known to be fudging the numbers, so you dispute this? There have been many deaths at home that are most likely due to the virus but we have not fully tested those deceased, but sure , the number are too high aren’t they.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Uh oh, are you confused about where you are? This is LEFTIE Country! Facts optional! Agree with the party line or be SILENCED! Change your brain and JOIN the Collective! Synchronization is required here! No dissent! Zig Heil, Uber Mike (aka Uber Steven). Be absorbed!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: replacing one tyrant with another tyrant

So is the case with most regime changes. But maybe you’d rather the peons lie down when the police murder them, and otherwise work themselves until they are starved, morbidly sick or poisoned.

I’m not saying revolution is the best option. I’m saying it’s the one remaining option. And no we’re not prepared to turn it into anything but another Reign of Terror. I’m not going to judge whether that is better than rule by Trumpian authoritarianism in perpetuity, just that the latter won’t sustain the nation well enough to be tolerated by the hungry.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Working as advertised

The problem is, it never did. And now that the Democratic party has gone far right, and pushed out all the progressives, it won’t now.

And the plague epidemic has shed sunlight on just how useless the federal government is.

Whether or not the people want it dissolved, the US is dissolving already by the mortar. The ruthless police state, the plague, the unresponsive executive, the gridlocked congress, the unsympathetic judiciary…these are all mere catalysts.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Working as advertised

"The problem is, it never did."

Oh, I don’t deny that.
I think a lot frustration among the citizens originates in the fact that they have been lied to by their government repeatedly.
Oh, yeah – things will definitely change this time – and then they do not … ever.

The gop seems hell bent on "dissolving" it while everyone else just wants it to work as they were told it did/would. That is all I was saying, the fact that it has never worked as advertised is just more fuel on the fire.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

"Yes, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias."

I’m glad we agree.

Assuming you post was sarcastic, I have to ask … how far are you and others like you willing to go? Are you willing to embrace your new leader like they are forced to do in NK? Maybe you should just move there.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Well, you were right the first time at least.

Fact checking someone is not in any way evidence of ‘bias’ against them, it’s simple taking their claims and checking to see how accurate they are, which is rather important when you’re talking about claims that could impact millions of people.

To claim that fact-checking is problematic against someone is to basically admit that the one being fact-checked is dishonest and their claims can’t withstand scrutiny, not the best look to say the least.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

Daily Proof of Bias

The bias happens nearly daily. For today’s example, twitter is working to censor Trump for this tweet, supposedly for "glorifying violence", even tho he was denouncing violence.

https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1266342941649506304?s=20

Meanwhite, liberal youtuber Ajia G very much glorified violence and was reported to twitter. Twitter has refused to take any action.

https://twitter.com/QueenOfGeele/status/1265634003585044486?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

It is very clear that twitter is biased against conservatives, and will censor them, but not liberals.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Daily Proof of Bias

The only bias I see is that loudmouths tend to get moderated more often, so the only conclusion I can draw from what you are saying then is that conservatives are more likely to be loudmouths.

Another thing I see is that people complaining about bias against conservatives tend to conflate, misrepresent and plain lie making their arguments.

I have to ask though, do you have some kind of learning disability? I’m asking because it has been explained to you several times now that moderation isn’t censorship, only the government have the power to censor someone. If you happen to have a disability, may I suggest you write this down so you can use it as reference next time you write a post.

xyzzy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Daily Proof of Bias

Na, stupidity is its own reward, it means you never have to agonize over right or wrong, or deal with complexity, it means you can simply assume any batshit crazy idea you have is right and you always know best, it is a blessed relief. It’s a feeling normal people can only get by excessive drinking.

See also https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/dunning-kruger-effect

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Daily Proof of Bias

Normal people don’t drink excessively. You and your drunk idiot leftist friends are NOWHERE near normal.

Yes, I had a drink, but only one. Yes, the glass is a pitcher, and I spilled some down my shirt, but that’s considered polite here in Texas.

Want to go shoot some stop signs?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Daily Proof of Bias

Claim: Twitter censors conservatives, including Trump.

Common assertion: It is censorship because Twitter is literally an agent of the state when moderating. (One of many arguments that it is censorship, but let’s roll with this one.)

Common assertion 2: Donald Trump is the government and can literally do or order anything he wants.

Donald Trump censored Donald Trump and conservatives, not entirely dissimilar to the way conservatives create, defend, and fund the "Deep State" they all hate so much. (Similarity ends where one is much closer to reality than the other.)

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Daily Proof of Bias

" For today’s example, twitter is working to censor Trump for this tweet, supposedly for "glorifying violence", even tho he was denouncing violence."

No, he threatened violence. He literally said he would send in the army to shoot at crowds of Americans if they didn’t behave in the way he wanted. I guarantee that if that was Obama, you’d have been losing your hypocritical mind.

"Meanwhite, liberal youtuber Ajia G very much glorified violence and was reported to twitter."

Who? No, seriously I haven’t got a clue who that is and why her words matter.

"It is very clear that twitter is biased against conservatives, and will censor them, but not liberals."

More likely, they will apply a new feature to the fucking President of the USA before they apply it to some random YouTuber.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Daily Proof of Bias

More likely, they will apply a new feature to the fucking President of the USA before they apply it to some random YouTuber.

Much more likely that the press will report it being applied to the president that reporting any moderation applied to the average social media user.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

That, too, but have you ever heard of the term “stress testing”? I figure Twitter would use a new moderation-side feature on a well-known account with millions of followers (or allow such an account to use a new user-side feature) as a test of how said feature would work in a “high stress” situation.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

"Also, it’s far easier to roll out said feature on accounts that’s already known to contain "contentious" posts.."

Bingo. Why run automation and risk false positives during the testing phase when you can just apply it so someone who lies in nearly every Tweet?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Bottom line

I’m not comfortable with fact checking The Onion due to the shit-show that has been going on lately, I fear that some of the stuff they have written may actually turn out to be true.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Lessig

Lessig is brilliant, but not brilliant about everything. What would he have offered in place of 230 to allow the internet to continue to flourish and stay legal. Because the other option is for it to flourish and become entirely illegal.

And then we’d keep the internet where we keep our prohibition hooch, under our kitchen sink.

But it also would mean radicals, anarchists, drug chemists, bootleg Trekkies, explosive chemists, furverts, hackers and child-porn connoisseurs would all have a much easier time having a voice and getting their material.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"Liberals like me were all for revoking 230 safe harbor protection for censorious social media sites."

Then, you’re an idiot, no matter your political leanings. Although, it’s my experience that anyone who starts a comment by claiming they’re a liberal is actually a lying conservative who’s too dumb to know that others don’t play the same stupid team game he does.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Yes, Paul, everybody is an idiot, except you. All of us Trump voters, we’re idiots. But 230 is GONE now, and Trump is still in office. You will be unmasked. Speak more, I am happy to read your every thought."

Maniacal ranting is a sign of mental illness, please go get yourself checked out before you hurt yourself and others.

and btw, you are wrong

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Yes, Paul, everybody is an idiot, except you"

No, just the idiots. I’m hoping the intelligent mature adults among your population manage to stop you killing half the remaining economy and many useful services because an orange manbaby has his feelings hurt.

"But 230 is GONE now,"

So, in a thread about how the little manbaby would like to kill a bunch of jobs in the middle of a pandemic because he was fact-checked when he lied about the voting process, your response is to lie?

"You will be unmasked"

Erm, I’m not hiding anywhere but I do wonder what you think repealing section 230 would do to identify me. Are you hallucinating again?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Lawsuits? No, TD will likely have to immediately shut down its commenting to avoid those.

Discovery? What would you expect them to discover? TD don’t have any personal information about me except the publicly available information that’s already in my profile.

Even if they did, I wouldn’t be any more vulnerable to a lawsuit than I am now. Section 230 protects them from being held liable for my words, it does not protect me. Lawyer up and come at me. TD would be able to provide my email address in response to a lawsuit, but they have nothing else that you can’t already see, and removing section 230 wouldn’t magically make them have more.

"Read the tea leaves."

Maybe you should start reading what the law is that you fight so valiantly against instead, because it really doesn’t seem to say what you think it says.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

The passing of John Smith has not been kind to Hamilton, who desperately masturbates himself while wearing a Fran Drescher mask in his memory.

I don’t know why he bothers. horse with no name always comes back under a new pseudonym, except these days he can’t be fucked to do that because even without a pseudonym, he smells like a week-old fish.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Bias is Not the Problem

All this huffing and puffing about "omg bias!" and "lol no bias" is irrelevant. Twitter, Facebook and friends own the platforms the public posts on and they can whatever they like with their property. Whether there is or isn’t a bias means absolutely nothing in a country where every one of us has a right to free speech. Free Speech, by definition, means Twitter can moderate the content on their service however they like, with or without 230.

It’s seriously hypocritical of conservatives to want to regulate these services while calling for deregulation everywhere else. And it’s stunningly stupid of all people of all stripes to call for the dissolution of 47 U.S.C. § 230 which says:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"
They want to tear down the thing that allows them to post their tirades against 230. But 230 isn’t the magic wand, the 1st Amendment of the Constitution is. 230 is just a clarification. Even if 230 goes away we still have 1A and Twitter can still do what they like with their own platform.

The real problem this country has relative to this discussion is rampant stupidity. Stop arguing about whether there is or isn’t a bias; It doesn’t matter. Start looking for ways to solve or at least reduce stupidity. Things like fact checking the crap out of tweets from people in positions of mass influence.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Shel10 (profile) says:

Fact Check Twitter

This article is correct. Twitter fact checking our President is not evidence of bias toward conservatives. But it is a denial of 1st Amendment rights provided by our Constitution. It is a denial of one of the very reasons our country was founded. It is a denial of the very reasons Twitter is allowed to operate.

The chairman of Twitter should leave the United States, and move to China, Russia, or any of the countries run by an Islamic Oligarchy. Let’s see if Twitter can become a billion dollar company in any of those places.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

Twitter fact checking our President is not evidence of bias toward conservatives. But it is a denial of 1st Amendment rights provided by our Constitution.

No, it isn’t. Twitter added speech to someone else’s speech — sort of like what I’m doing right now by quoting your factually incorrect statement, then tearing it apart. The First Amendment gives Twitter that right. (And 230 doesn’t protect Twitter from legal liability for the speech it added to Trump’s tweets.)

The chairman of Twitter should leave the United States

Why, because his company dared to fact-check Donald Trump, a man who has told literally thousands of lies during his time as president?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: That's not how that works. That's not how any of that works.

No, adding speech does not in any way shape or form ‘deny’ the original speaker’s first amendment rights, unless you have a wildly different version of that you’d like to share.

The first amendment means you can say what you want and the government is not allowed to punish you for it(with a few narrow exceptions), it does not, nor has it ever, included a ‘… and no one is allowed to point out that what you said is wrong’ clause.

(For added humor if you think that it does I’m pretty sure Trump would need to leave the country well before any exec of Twitter would under your interpretation, as he regularly engages in worse, like attacking any press that he doesn’t like as ‘fake news’, which I’d say is a much more serious issue than simply fact-checking someone.)

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Fact Check Twitter

Let’s say I was to have a bulletin board in my yard (both of which are my private property), and my yard is in an area that many people frequent and would thus be able to read my bulletin board often. I decide to post a sign saying that, barring some terms and conditions, I will allow anyone who wants to post anything on my bulletin board to do so, and many people take me up on my offer.

Now, let’s say that someone posts something on my bulletin board that I know to be false. I decide to add a note saying that that post is misleading/wrong and a reference for people to learn more. This is in no way infringing on anyone’s First Amendment rights; on the contrary, it is an instance of me exercising my right to free speech. I could also choose to remove the offending material if I so desired without infringing on the First Amendment because I’m a private citizen and the bulletin board is still my private property even if I’m allowing the public to use it.

Legally speaking, there is no material difference between this example and what Twitter did here. Trump posted something on Twitter’s privately-owned property that’s open to the public, and Twitter (a private entity) chose to add a message saying that his post was incorrect or misleading along with a reference to provide additional context. This is not censorship or infringement of the First Amendment.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Fact Check Twitter

"But it is a denial of 1st Amendment rights provided by our Constitution"!

lolwhut? A private entity telling you that your president is lying to you is removing his free speech?

You know what’s actually a 1st Amendment violation? The president telling private individuals that they cannot respond to him in such a way.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Fact Check Twitter

Do you know what is funny in a rather sad way? Many foreigners speak better english than many of the citizens of the us. In addition, some of those foreigners are better educated and therefore understand the workings of government both on paper and in action – theirs and ours. Is that disgusting?

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Fact Check Twitter

"Do you know what is disgusting?"

That fucking FOREIGNERS know the US constitution better than americans do?

But hey, thanks for playing, and next time you pretend to know what an amendment means don’t be shy to ask.

Meanwhile, in case anyone failed to get the memo, the 1st amendment can only be violated by government, unless you make the case that Twitter can have Donald Trump arrested and forcibly restrained from speaking anywhere in public.

Twitter making USE of the first amendment to add their own commentary is…NOT exactly that. Unless you believe Twitter is to the US what Xi Jin Ping is to China and Trump is that powerless peon impotently shaking his fist in the house arrest Twitter imposed on him.

"…lecturing their BETTERS…"

Huh. This is the first time I’ve heard the word "betters" used to describe uneducated morons unable to grasp what should be grade school knowledge.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I read a poll that said 70% of black fatherless children would prefer free alcohol and marijuana in exchange for their right to vote. Think about it. Nancy has."

Perhaps if one were not so ignorant about the topics they wish to discuss, but I digress. I gotta ask – what poll might that be?

I read a poll that claimed 86.4 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Are they fatherless due to the Vietnam war?

How many white children are fatherless? Is it fair to compare?

Since many of "them" are not afforded the right to vote, I suppose it would be a fair exchange – no?

How do you know what Nancy does, is your name Karen?

ECA (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Find that report, as I would like to check the title.

"70% of black fatherless children"
Can you give me an age bracket? Teens?
And what about the White, spanish,green kids??
esp. the poor.

How many are so over run by the political BS, that going out for a drink is better then voting.

30% of the populace is register either rep or demo. the rest of us have better things to do.
During the last election BARELY 55% voted..thats an additional 20%, NOT even comparable to that 30%.

But with the 50/50 separation of both parties.. 15% belong to 1 of those parties. That extra 20% could elect anyone else.

Many state(dont know them all) have passed an interesting law, for State elections. That a Majority does not have to Vote, for a bill to pass. If no one, except 1 person voted, it would pass.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »