Republican Sen. Mike Lee said fact-checking is a form of censorship

[Crovax]

That would be up to you if you claim it is false...show it.

there is no evidence that the GOP as an organization targets “low IQ” individuals as potential candidates for public office

you comment was rated 4 “I told you sos” by the Crovax truthisness association

 

[JasperL]

Would you expect it be fact-checked and flagged if you were?

Why not? Seems like a public service to hold public servants accountable for their lies.

 

[mrjurrs]

there is no evidence that the GOP as an organization targets “low IQ” individuals as potential candidates for public office

you comment was rated 4 “I told you sos” by the Crovax truthisness association

So, you've got your opinion (which is fine), but nothing else.

 

[Crovax]

So, you've got your opinion (which is fine), but nothing else.

no, the OPs statement was false and it was fact checked.

 

[bubbabgone]

Yeah, good point, because there's no substantive difference between public figures with 10s of millions of followers on Twitter making false claims on significant matters, and someone else with a few dozen claims expressing what's clearly opinion. Also, obviously, if Twitter cannot fact check EVERY Tweet, they must not (or else censorship) fact check any. Makes sense.

An opinion is still an opinion no matter who's it is.

 

[bubbabgone]

That's factual. Who else would classify correcting for truth as censorship?

Sounds like you might believe “We choose truth over facts.” too.

 

[LouC]

To demonstrate why Twitter, for example, is in no way qualified to do comment fact-checking, your comment that " Senator Lee (R-UT) exemplifies the low IQ types that the GOP advances for public office." would not be flagged or censored by Twitter.

Why would that person's non criminal OPINION be flagged or censored by Twitter?

By the way, did you post that comment to Twitter to test if it actually would not get flagged or censored, or is that assumption that it wouldn't just your opinion?

Real simple to avoid being flagged or censored for posting harmful non factual crap to Twitter, just don't do it.

 

[bubbabgone]

Private platforms are in fact allowed to have "subjective evaluations" and nothing in 230 prohibits that. It's what allows hundreds or thousands of communities to exist on Reddit, each with their own 'subjective' standards about what's allowed and enforced by volunteer moderators who aren't risking a lawsuit by applying their subjective standards to individual posts.

"The statute in Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith."
Twitter's selective actions show it's not.

 

[bubbabgone]

Opinions can't be fact checked.

And they shouldn't be censored.

 

[bubbabgone]

Why the hell would twitter waste an employee or even algorithm's time fact-checking a tweet from some random person on the internet?

algorithms are neutral and applied by programs but they're written by programmers who aren't.

 

[bubbabgone]

He said he beat it personally, and that we have turned the corner as a nation. He "beat" it with a medical staff including at least 20 doctors (that's how many they named when he was being treated, there may have been others.) The nation overall is setting daily records for new infections. The pandemic is accelerating, not receding.

He is presenting a counter-productive messaging and personal example to the public, and some are taking it to heart. You can play at semantics if you like but that's what's going on. You don't have to lie to be deceptive, and Trump is pushing an inaccurate, dangerous, and wrong narrative.




You'll need to flesh out this word salad if you want a response.

Right ... he personally beat it. He didn't say he beat COVID for the USA. Should you have been censored by Twitter for claiming he did?

 

[LouC]

It is in fact true. since fact checkers are all run by ideological liberals and are used as a justification for censorship by big tech.

 

[bubbabgone]

Why not? Seems like a public service to hold public servants accountable for their lies.

Twitter's protection from civil liability that was provided by Congress assumes they would be a neutral site. They aren't.

 

[LouC]

Facts are facts. Even the Daily Fail can't change that, try as they may.

Then you have alternative facts and the truth isn't truth Republican administration we have now.

 

[JasperL]

"The statute in Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith."
Twitter's selective actions show it's not.

Those dots don't connect. Who decides if Twitter is acting in good faith? Do you want unelected government bureaucrat deciding whether Fox News is moderating its comment section in good faith? Free speech! Regulated by unaccountable government bureaucrats who decide what's fair or not!! What could go wrong?

Private platforms are allowed to be as biased as they want. This place could ban hammer anyone not on the Trump Train and not run afoul of sec. 230. That is a GOOD THING. Their playground, their rules, and they don't have to be "fair." That's what free speech actually looks like.

 

[calamity]

Republican Sen. Mike Lee said fact-checking is a form of censorship

Senator Lee (R-UT) exemplifies the low IQ types that the GOP advances for public office.

The Republicans are irritated because Twitter/Facebook/Google are fact-checking [habitual liar] Donald Trump, and killing Giuliani conspiracy smears against Joe Biden.

The Right Wing has a right to believe alternative facts, and they want to share them with everybody. So, when others who are in the business of sharing actual facts refuse to play, the Right whines like the babies in search of their binkies.

 

[WillyPete]

Right ... he personally beat it. He didn't say he beat COVID for the USA. Should you have been censored by Twitter for claiming he did?

You aren't adding anything to the conversation, apart from ignoring my points.

Shall I assume we've reached the extent of your thoughts on the matter?

 

[bubbabgone]

Why would that person's non criminal OPINION be flagged or censored by Twitter?

For political reasons

By the way, did you post that comment to Twitter to test if it actually would not get flagged or censored, or is that assumption that it wouldn't just your opinion?

It was my uncensored opinion.

Real simple to avoid being flagged or censored for posting harmful non factual crap to Twitter, just don't do it.

I just saw that Twitter censored the CBP commissioner because he said The Wall helped to “stop gang members, murderers, sexual predators and drugs,” and said “It’s a fact, walls work.”
Twitter said it was "hateful".

 

[The Mark]

algorithms are neutral and applied by programs but they're written by programmers who aren't.

Yes, and?

 

[bubbabgone]

You aren't adding anything to the conversation, apart from ignoring my points.

Shall I assume we've reached the extent of your thoughts on the matter?

It appears you're not understanding the issue.

 

[JasperL]

Twitter's protection from civil liability that was provided by Congress assumes they would be a neutral site. They aren't.

That's in fact false.

Sec. 230 allows, among other things, that you can if you want start a site that just includes fellow MAGAs, and you all can spend all day every day discussing Dear Leader's awesomeness, and if some of those dumb liberals come in and try to disrupt your "Trump is Great, or The Greatest of All Time?" thread, you can ban hammer them with impunity.

And, again, how does free speech work if "neutral" is determined by you answering to a board of unelected government bureaucrats? Do you want Big Government defending your right to "free speech" by telling you what speech you must allow on your private platform, or else you can get sued into bankruptcy? Sounds like an authoritarian hellhole to me.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Orwellian

That was my first impression as well.

 

[bubbabgone]

Yes, and?

... and that's the problem with censorship by ideologically written algorithms

 

[JasperL]

And they shouldn't be censored.

Some opinions are "censored" where you're posting as we speak, on DP. Lock them up? Force them to tolerate racist trolls with racist, trollish opinions?

 

[bubbabgone]

That's in fact false.

Sec. 230 allows, among other things, that you can if you want start a site that just includes fellow MAGAs, and you all can spend all day every day discussing Dear Leader's awesomeness, and if some of those dumb liberals come in and try to disrupt your "Trump is Great, or The Greatest of All Time?" thread, you can ban hammer them with impunity.

And, again, how does free speech work if "neutral" is determined by you answering to a board of unelected government bureaucrats? Do you want Big Government defending your right to "free speech" by telling you what speech you must allow on your private platform, or else you can get sued into bankruptcy? Sounds like an authoritarian hellhole to me.

No it's true.