Renegade7

US Government vs Social Media...

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

I don't watch CNN much these days, but Don Lemon went at him last night. Like no other anchor I've seen.


Don Lemon does that every night and literally cried on air. It’s his schtick...

 

don’t trust social media companies to act in my best interests and I certainly don’t trust Trump to act in anyone’s interests.... 

 

 

I think that the question of if they are going to label tweets untrue, what is their liability is interesting.

 

 

Personally, people want to believe what they want to believe and a sticker proclaiming that what they want to believe is a lie won’t change their mind....


Twitter: A haven for alternative facts.

 

 

Just roll with that as the slogan and not pick which tweets are true and which aren’t is my suggestion. People who want to find the truth will find it. People who want to believe in alternative facts will. 
 

It IS different when it’s government lying to you vs Karen lying to you though...

 

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being protected from liability for what users post on a site you run is a pretty big deal. It’s how a lot of people get away with a lot of ****. Everything from terrorism, hacking, to just hate speech, software pirating, etc. 

 

im actually all for removing that at this point. But I don’t really understand what’s the right way to remove it and what’s blowing smoke (with on purpose or because they don’t actually understand the law)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd support removing immunity under some circumstances.  

 

I think the DMCA at least attempted to do that.  My vague understanding was that it gave the government the authority to "shut down" (actually, I think it was to do things like order all DNS servers in the US to return no record found, to any attempt to resolve the site's domain name.  Which isn't a really thorough shutdown.) web sites, if it could be shown that the site was being run for the primary purpose of copyright infringement.  I think they used criteria like, if more than half of the files available for download were copyright infringement.  Or if the site took efforts to conceal their content, like blocking web crawlers.  

 

Think I'd have a problem trying to hold places like Tailgate or Wikipedia civilly or criminally liable for the things that some of our posters post.  

 

Wouldn't have a problem with a system where "You're immune from liability if you do A, B, and C.  You can be liable if you do X, Y, or Z."  And let the owner decide whether he wants to be Disney or WhichLiberalsToKill.net.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I know nothing about what trump can do without having laws repealed

 

but I think the idea of what he’s threatening here is being undersold. 
 

I think opening up an investigation into twitter or Facebook would reveal that they know exactly about all the shady **** that goes on within their platform, and chose to at best do nothing about it. I think they’d find emails, company documents and presentations, and employees (current and former) to show that’s it’s worse than most imagine. 
 

successfully forcing them to do something about it will cost them tons of money. They’ll have invest in the capability to meet over site, they’ll inherently lose user base which means ad loss and stock devaluation. They’ll be drug through the mud in the media. They’ll be forced to testify to Congress or whatever. It’ll hurt. It’ll cost time and money. And I think they know it. 
 

I actually think in terms of a threat, from a strategic perspective, he actually did a good job. 
 

Acting on that threat? No idea. I have no understanding of how all those laws work and what he could make DoJ do. 
 

but I think it’s a solid threat and they likely care about it. 
 

It’s also likely it’s just a threat to get them to stop policing him specifically. And I think it’ll work

 

 

13 minutes ago, Larry said:

I think the DMCA at least attempted to do that.  My vague understanding was that it gave the government the authority to "shut down"

Your understanding is the same as mine

 

but I think the difference would be under current situations they are required to act when certain cases are presented in certain ways. 
 

I would think what he’s gunning for here, is that they have to wholly proactive about it and can be punished if they’re caught not doing a good enough job. 

Edited by tshile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

I don't watch CNN much these days, but Don Lemon went at him last night. Like no other anchor I've seen.

 

I used to like Don Lemmon and that he didn’t hold back.  But in recent years, his overuse of the dramatic pause makes me want to kick a baby over a power line.  Has no one told him how bad he is at it?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twitter should keep fact checking and censoring him. They are legally allowed to regulate speech on their platform however they want. Gloves off. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's remarkable is the popularity of Trump is all bc of his tweets against Obama. Without Twitter, he would be nothing and another hack. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, skinfan2k said:

What's remarkable is the popularity of Trump is all bc of his tweets against Obama. Without Twitter, he would be nothing and another hack. 

You are mistaken, IMO, to believe the core Trumpers pay that much attention to politics, beyond the dog whistle stuff.  He made his bones, as far as his base is concerned, on the Apprentice.  He was their big business, cartoonishly tough, version of Honey Boo Boo.  His Obama criticisms were a product of, and only paid attention to because of, that infamy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KAOSkins said:

You are mistaken, IMO, to believe the core Trumpers pay that much attention to politics, beyond the dog whistle stuff.  He made his bones, as far as his base is concerned, on the Apprentice.  He was their big business, cartoonishly tough, version of Honey Boo Boo.  His Obama criticisms were a product of, and only paid attention to because of, that infamy.

 

Even if that was the case, the apprentice brought in maybe 20M viewers a week. Not enough viewers to win an election.   Twitter allowed me to reach those Americans to feed those stories they wanted to hear from the media and Washington that they thought were never talked about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, skinfan2k said:

 

Even if that was the case, the apprentice brought in maybe 20M viewers a week. Not enough viewers to win an election.   Twitter allowed me to reach those Americans to feed those stories they wanted to hear from the media and Washington that they thought were never talked about. 

Those twenty million have families of which they are the "patriarch"  and who cow tow to their rancid beliefs because bible, mumble, mumble and threats.  I am being facetious to a point, but really the reality tv thing (and the character he portrayed) is what he did that got him listened to initially.  When he was a Howard Stern/Playboy guy he didn't get that much traction on the national level.  It spurred the audience of that show to follow his tweets and a lot of other righties liked what he was saying (as you point out).  But the core base, the 30% or so that really believe the lies (not just allow them because agenda) are a product of that show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, KAOSkins said:

Those twenty million have families of which they are the "patriarch"  and who cow tow to their rancid beliefs because bible, mumble, mumble and threats.  I am being facetious to a point, but really the reality tv thing (and the character he portrayed) is what he did that got him listened to initially.  When he was a Howard Stern/Playboy guy he didn't get that much traction on the national level.  It spurred the audience of that show to follow his tweets and a lot of other righties liked what he was saying (as you point out).  But the core base, the 30% or so that really believe the lies (not just allow them because agenda) are a product of that show.

 

I agree with you but I think we are overestimating the impact of Apprentice. His Casinos, his WWE days and just being popular.  I kinda claim him to be the first Mark Cuban in a bad way.  He was always in the media for no reason.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big government over-reachng and coming down hard on a private company that hasn't broken any laws?

why, how conservative of you.

 

**** this ****ing guy and **** any ****er who still supports him.

 

~Bang

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bang said:

Big government over-reachng and coming down hard on a private company that hasn't broken any laws?

why, how conservative of you.

 

**** this ****ing guy and **** any ****er who still supports him.

 

~Bang

 

Aye, "I want the government as small as possible, unless it's something I don't personally like" is NOT conservatism.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

Twitter gonna ban this fool, it's only matter of time.

 


They are like eight years too late on putting a muzzle on the barking dog, but it’s a welcomed development for the year. 
 

I actually woke up rethinking my opposition to Section 230. It’s absolutely comical that conservatives don’t realize that this law is the only thing standing between them and social media companies censoring them even harder.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, No Excuses said:


They are like eight years too late on putting a muzzle on the barking dog, but it’s a welcomed development for the year. 
 

I actually woke up rethinking my opposition to Section 230. It’s absolutely comical that conservatives don’t realize that this law is the only thing standing between them and social media companies censoring them even harder.

 

I'm with you, trying to better understand it, but your "self-goal" analogy yesterday seems spot on right now. Don't know what they were gunning for, but in practice this hurts them, not helps them. If it is jus a useless distraction it's still going to backfire for Trump.

Edited by Renegade7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Twitter gonna ban this fool, it's only matter of time.

 

 

 

 

Didn't know you had a gif of @Jumbo and @TK.  That's Jumbo swinging the hammer, btw. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.