MAGAThread XIX: Hambergers, Noble Prizes, & Disinfectant

[Page]

Similarly, if I asked an Antifa supporter their reasons for hating Trump I would get a mixture of half-truths and no-truths. Still, they probably wouldn't hate him if he was a gender studies professor antifa supporter instead of a businessman.

I'm an antifa supporter and I assure you I can provide many truthful reasons for hating Trump.

[Crockerland]

Exceptionally marking Trump's tweets does play into his claims that the "deep state" or "media" are against him, yes. Why is this difficult to understand.

So what examples are there of tweets from other people that need to be marked as such?

https://twitter.com/TheOnion

[Tirmon]

Exceptionally marking Trump's tweets does play into his claims that the "deep state" or "media" are against him, yes. Why is this difficult to understand.

So what examples are there of tweets from other people that need to be marked as such?

Democratic Senator Ed Market had tweeted "A grand jury had been impaneled in New York, he said, to investigate the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia".
This was completely untrue and no action taken by Twitter before he deleted it himself a few days later and issued an apology, after it had already gone viral, with no mark of course

[Page]

Pointing out Trump is bullshitting again is magically advancing his agenda and giving him ammunition because google-d chess.

Exceptionally marking Trump's tweets does play into his claims that the "deep state" or "media" are against him, yes. Why is this difficult to understand.

His supporters will believe those claims with or without Twitter fact-checking him.

[Crockerland]

So what examples are there of tweets from other people that need to be marked as such?

Democratic Senator Ed Market had tweeted "A grand jury had been impaneled in New York, he said, to investigate the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia".
This was completely untrue and no action taken by Twitter before he deleted it himself a few days later and issued an apology, after it had already gone viral, with no mark of course

Not that surprising, Russian Conspiracy Theories have been normalized by the media. A Democratic politician could openly say that Russian Bots were working to hide evidence of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster and they would not be challenged by the Left whatsoever.

NEVER 4GET RUSSIAN ATTACK ON OUR POWER GRID!

[Ifreann]

Why put warning labels on chemicals and electrical appliances then?

This is a great analogy actually. Putting warning labels on one company and not another wouldn't look good.

Except what's happening is that Trump has repeatedly broken Twitter's rules, but Twitter are afraid to ban him like they would any other user. This has provoked steadily increasing outcry to which Twitter is now responding with these little notes they're adding to Trump's tweets. They are not censoring Trump and making exceptions for other users. They are making exceptions for Trump.

[The Emerald Legion]

This is a great analogy actually. Putting warning labels on one company and not another wouldn't look good.

Except what's happening is that Trump has repeatedly broken Twitter's rules, but Twitter are afraid to ban him like they would any other user. This has provoked steadily increasing outcry to which Twitter is now responding with these little notes they're adding to Trump's tweets. They are not censoring Trump and making exceptions for other users. They are making exceptions for Trump.

To be fair, their rules are in violation of the first amendment. They know provoking Trump would end poorly for them because of that.

[Ifreann]

Except what's happening is that Trump has repeatedly broken Twitter's rules, but Twitter are afraid to ban him like they would any other user. This has provoked steadily increasing outcry to which Twitter is now responding with these little notes they're adding to Trump's tweets. They are not censoring Trump and making exceptions for other users. They are making exceptions for Trump.

To be fair, their rules are in violation of the first amendment. They know provoking Trump would end poorly for them because of that.

There is no first amendment right to tweet.

[Jerzylvania]

To be fair, their rules are in violation of the first amendment. They know provoking Trump would end poorly for them because of that.

There is no first amendment right to tweet.

Or to write on a bathroom wall. Not all that much difference.

[Vassenor]

Except what's happening is that Trump has repeatedly broken Twitter's rules, but Twitter are afraid to ban him like they would any other user. This has provoked steadily increasing outcry to which Twitter is now responding with these little notes they're adding to Trump's tweets. They are not censoring Trump and making exceptions for other users. They are making exceptions for Trump.

To be fair, their rules are in violation of the first amendment. They know provoking Trump would end poorly for them because of that.

Twitter is the US Government now?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Imagine enjoying years of special dispensations and accommodations to post shit that violates the content rules and then demanding to see the manager because the stuff you posted got a little flag posted next to it. It doesn't follow from the fact that he's been given great latitude in the past that he is entitled to it in perpetuity.

[The Emerald Legion]

To be fair, their rules are in violation of the first amendment. They know provoking Trump would end poorly for them because of that.

There is no first amendment right to tweet.

Of course there is. Twitter is a political town hall remember? Any American citizen has a right to view and post on it.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Except what's happening is that Trump has repeatedly broken Twitter's rules, but Twitter are afraid to ban him like they would any other user. This has provoked steadily increasing outcry to which Twitter is now responding with these little notes they're adding to Trump's tweets. They are not censoring Trump and making exceptions for other users. They are making exceptions for Trump.

To be fair, their rules are in violation of the first amendment. They know provoking Trump would end poorly for them because of that.

You might want to rethink this statement and hold it up next to the rest of your beliefs. The US Constitution needing to apply to companies, not only legally but morally, brings to light that there is oittle difference between governmental or corporate power, and that both need democratic legitimisation. Which is part of anarchist philosophy. So, does the US Constitution apply to companies?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

So, let me get this straight. Trump, posting an ad that calls for people to oppose antifa, involves particular antifa imagery that is both not widely known and a reclaimed symbol of the holocaust? For what purpose? Do you think that many political attack ads just show the imagery of the opponent?

By the way, even if what you say it's true, it's bad form to use a group's reclaimed symbols against them, because of this very reason. People will confuse your intentions.

Your little what if scenario isn't really relevant, and you thinking that that would happen has no bearing on reality. If Trump would actually post anti-fascist imagery, or make antifascist statements, that would be great. Thing is, context exists, and Trump has used his position of power to constantly spout fascist talking points and wink towards the extreme right wing. That context exists. That's why people distrust him when he says disingenuous shit. Do you think antifa hates Trump just because he is called 'Donald Trump'? Or because of what he has said and done?

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "because of what he has said and done."

I mean, if I say "I hate Bill Gates because he wants to give our children autism through his vaccines," I probably wouldn't hate him if he were a crack addict anti-GMO activist living in a van somewhere, so I guess that's "because of what he has said and done," since his actions had a direct impact on my judgement and yet at the same time that criticism is based on delusions and therefore not really "because of what he has said and done."

Similarly, if I asked an Antifa supporter their reasons for hating Trump I would get a mixture of half-truths and no-truths. Still, they probably wouldn't hate him if he was a gender studies professor antifa supporter instead of a businessman.

Yeah, he chose to be a businessman rather than spend his life in a meaningful way. His political positions, which he has the power to enact because he is the US president (not some crackhead), make him hated to antifascists. This is entirely reasonable.

[Proctopeo]

When it's incredibly obvious that it's meant as satire/a meme, it sure looks that way.

Ah yes, the "it's just a joke" / "it's just a meme" defence.

Oh don't worry, CNN will blackmail the shitposter who made this newer meme just like they did the last one

[The Emerald Legion]

To be fair, their rules are in violation of the first amendment. They know provoking Trump would end poorly for them because of that.

You might want to rethink this statement and hold it up next to the rest of your beliefs. The US Constitution needing to apply to companies, not only legally but morally, brings to light that there is oittle difference between governmental or corporate power, and that both need democratic legitimisation. Which is part of anarchist philosophy. So, does the US Constitution apply to companies?

A.) Organizational power is Organizational power. By limiting one, but not the other you merely give one type of organization primacy over the other. If Corporations can censor your opinions, while governments can't does that not mean that Corporations are a greater authority than the government? Does this not defeat the entire purpose of disallowing the government from doing this thing?

B.) Twitter was legally declared a virtual town hall by the courts. It's widely used for emergency announcements, and in general has become increasingly entwined with official government functions. Why wouldn't it need to abide by the first amendment?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

You might want to rethink this statement and hold it up next to the rest of your beliefs. The US Constitution needing to apply to companies, not only legally but morally, brings to light that there is oittle difference between governmental or corporate power, and that both need democratic legitimisation. Which is part of anarchist philosophy. So, does the US Constitution apply to companies?

A.) Organizational power is Organizational power. By limiting one, but not the other you merely give one type of organization primacy over the other. If Corporations can censor your opinions, while governments can't does that not mean that Corporations are a greater authority than the government? Does this not defeat the entire purpose of disallowing the government from doing this thing?

B.) Twitter was legally declared a virtual town hall by the courts. It's widely used for emergency announcements, and in general has become increasingly entwined with official government functions. Why wouldn't it need to abide by the first amendment?

A.) No, you are absolutely right. Corporations should not exist, after all. All power needs to be democratically legitimised, and all power needs to yield to basic principles of law and human rights.

B.) You misunderstood that ruling. The ruling decided that Trump’s twitter feed is a public forum, because he is the president of the US. Therefore, Trump cannot block anyone on twitter. That says nothing about twitter as a whole, just about Trump’s feed:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/busi ... block.html

[Gormwood]

So what examples are there of tweets from other people that need to be marked as such?

Democratic Senator Ed Market had tweeted "A grand jury had been impaneled in New York, he said, to investigate the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia".
This was completely untrue and no action taken by Twitter before he deleted it himself a few days later and issued an apology, after it had already gone viral, with no mark of course

So it was deleted before any fact check label could be slapped on. And that gets you all pearl clutching?

[Tombradyonia]

Except what's happening is that Trump has repeatedly broken Twitter's rules, but Twitter are afraid to ban him like they would any other user. This has provoked steadily increasing outcry to which Twitter is now responding with these little notes they're adding to Trump's tweets. They are not censoring Trump and making exceptions for other users. They are making exceptions for Trump.

To be fair, their rules are in violation of the first amendment. They know provoking Trump would end poorly for them because of that.

No they are not. The first amendment only applies to the government not being allowed to curtail your freedom of speech, apart from situations such as you are not allowed to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater.

The Twitter company or whatever they are called are perfectly free to allow or disallow certain types of speech within their own service (TOS).
From what I gather, there is NO 'serial shadow banning' against conservatives, but there IS a whole bunch of cases where conservatives peddle untruths, conspiracy theories and all sorts that violate the TOS in which case the company (Twitter) can perfectly legally delete the comments or even ban profiles.

Example:
Person X posts debunked conspiracy implying that politician A has done something which they didn't do.
Twitter deletes person X's tweet.
Person X does the 'surprise Pikachu' face.
Person X starts yelling 'conservatives are being oppressed and censored'

Maybe if conservatives quit posting lies, conspiracy theories and other assorted BS so often they wouldn't have the TOS enforced on them so often.
As others have stated, pretty much anyone else who posts so many lies and conspiracy nuttery like Trump does would have been tombstoned from the platform ages ago.
Anyway, conservatives could always start their own social media sites. Being on Twitter is a choice, not a requirement. Funny how they want to use government power to enforce some nonexistent 'right to post any BS anywhere free from all consequences'.

Freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequences

[Proctopeo]

Democratic Senator Ed Market had tweeted "A grand jury had been impaneled in New York, he said, to investigate the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia".
This was completely untrue and no action taken by Twitter before he deleted it himself a few days later and issued an apology, after it had already gone viral, with no mark of course

So it was deleted before any fact check label could be slapped on. And that gets you all pearl clutching?

You'd expect them to be faster than a few days when it comes to misinformation from politicians.

[Vassenor]

Basically Trump is being suppressed by the deep state media conspiracy because a whole three(!) tweets of the however many thousand he's made over the last four years got marked to anyone who reads them as being potentially misleading. Nothing taken down, nothing hidden. Just a line of text saying the tweet may not be entirely truthful. That's suppression now.

[Gormwood]

Basically Trump is being suppressed by the deep state media conspiracy because a whole three(!) tweets of the however many thousand he's made over the last four years got marked to anyone who reads them as being potentially misleading. Nothing taken down, nothing hidden. Just a line of text saying the tweet may not be entirely truthful. That's suppression now.

Of course challenging Trump's Magical Thinking is suppression!

[Valrifell]

So it was deleted before any fact check label could be slapped on. And that gets you all pearl clutching?

You'd expect them to be faster than a few days when it comes to misinformation from politicians.

I don't trust any efficiency nor expect any competence from tech conglomerates.

[Proctopeo]

You'd expect them to be faster than a few days when it comes to misinformation from politicians.

I don't trust any efficiency nor expect any competence from tech conglomerates.

If they're going to declare themselves the final arbiter of what is and isn't true, they damn well better be good at it.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

I don't trust any efficiency nor expect any competence from tech conglomerates.

If they're going to declare themselves the final arbiter of what is and isn't true, they damn well better be good at it.

Well, it hasn’t stopped you.