....trump gonna shut twitter down?

[I AM IRONMAN]

58 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

That applies to pretty much everyone on this OT site...including YOU.   what a pointless statement, but that’s Ironman.  😂 

cya tomorrow....😉

Here's the difference...for me its entertainment...for you its all consuming...i don't go to sleep at night thinking "i showed them...I'll show them tomorrow!"  I read the trump haters spoon Fed by CNN etc. And laugh knowing their upcoming meltdown in November...sleep well HF...you'll get em tomorrow!

[Cat_Scratch]

9 hours ago, Troll said:

Well it's not like you are BROADCASTING IT or anything ....🤣

We never needed that much range...Seaside is only an island of a couple miles, and when the whole crew was out cruising, everyone was usually in range.....and truth be told I think the PA horns got more use on the ocean ave strip...LOL

PS: When social media came out I laughed for years.....we had this shit with full audio 50 years ago 🤣 

 

This was prior to Cellphones for those younger folk BTW...haha

Was 5 watts the limit without a license? My brother had a 25 watt linear If I remember correctly. I had a HAM rig. N4XDL was my call sign. That is a 1 by 3 tech license when Morse code was required to pass the test. Never went for expert.

[Horsefly]

30 minutes ago, I AM IRONMAN said:

Here's the difference...for me its entertainment...for you its all consuming...i don't go to sleep at night thinking "i showed them...I'll show them tomorrow!"  I read the trump haters spoon Fed by CNN etc. And laugh knowing their upcoming meltdown in November...sleep well HF...you'll get em tomorrow!

😂 I don’t either. Look, it’s real simple if you knew me you’d know me by my real name.  This is make believe with all of us using avatars and a few are probably using fake profiles.  It’s all entertainment!  It’s just that people are entertained by different things.  But that was another very profound statement from Ironman.  I’m sure tomorrow you are gonna remind us of how you’re gonna lol at the libtards after the election In Nov.  a day you can’t wait for.  😂 

[RedZone]

It's early Thursday morning and the don trumpy's are still severely butthurt. 

Stay tuned. Should be much entertainment today. 

 

 

 

[DBP66]

13 hours ago, Horsefly said:

It’s not about me not liking his tweets. Twitter thinks he violated their terms of service 

please do stand on the sidelines, you’re contribution as usual are nothing. all you do is post pics and memes that most think are goofy and off topic anyways. 
 

 

….

[thc6795]

5 hours ago, RedZone said:

It's early Thursday morning and the don trumpy's are still severely butthurt. 

Stay tuned. Should be much entertainment today. 

 

 

 

Its early Thursday morning and your daughter said the same thing.

[DBP66]

7 minutes ago, thc6795 said:

Its early Thursday morning and your daughter said the same thing.

you're a sad little man Tex...

[RedZone]

30 minutes ago, thc6795 said:

Its early Thursday morning and your daughter said the same thing.

It's midmorning and you are still the biggest pervert in euless, maybe texas. 

SICK SOB!

You've also grown quite boring.

 

[thc6795]

8 minutes ago, RedZone said:

It's midmorning and you are still the biggest pervert in euless, maybe texas. 

SICK SOB!

You've also grown quite boring.

 

Still frustrated?  All the little kids locked up safe from you in their houses. Its driving you crazy isnt it. That along with washing your fucking hands.

You better just block me again you fucking lump of racist shit. 

[zulu1128]

LOL I'd forgotten about Chip crying about being forced to learn basic personal hygiene.

 

[RedZone]

1 hour ago, thc6795 said:

Still frustrated?  All the little kids locked up safe from you in their houses. Its driving you crazy isnt it. That along with washing your fucking hands.

You better just block me again you fucking lump of racist shit. 

Yawn...... 

Your time has passed. 

 

[15yds4gibberish]

18 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I have to say that I'm kind of torn on this. While some of us know and understand that DJT's opinion is potentially wrong, and certainly isn't backed up by any major evidence, is it right to censor what he is saying. 

I don't agree that Twitter adding a fact check link is censorship. He was allowed to say whatever he wanted to. Hence he wasn't censored at all. 

Now, if we want to debate whether editing his tweet to add the link was wrong or not, then I feel like we are getting somewhere. 

People will have a lot of differing views on this, most will depend on personal biases. Some will argue that the debate should be had in the thread involving the tweet and it's replies, but, the truth be told, most people will not read that debate, and will only see the original tweet, retweet it and etc., thereby promoting the potential misinformation steadily across the planet. 

Personally, I don't see an issue with the fact check link. I don't buy the argument that it's censorship first and foremost. People still have a choice whether to believe what the tweet said without ever even clicking the link, or, they can click the link and make up their own minds. I figure twitter honestly handled the situation pretty well to be honest. They did not change anything the president said, and inspite of him using his personal account, he is still the president and not just a random Twitter user. He really should be subject to fact check scrutiny without people needing to wade through all of the garbage in the thread to make a decision. 

Just my personal opinion on the entire thing. The president deserves additional scrutiny over any other member really, but, he has been granted a lot of leeway since becoming president rather than additional scrutiny from the platform. 

@HawgGoneIt

I always appreciate your thoughtful posts.  I think there are a couple of things going on at once in this thread, and I want to try to untangle them a bit.  

IMPOTUS threatening to "strongly regulate," or "close down" websites that don't publish favored political views is a threat to violate the first amendment:

 

But to your point above, none of this means that social media companies are exempt from criticism for how they regulate content.  Still, it is important to keep two things in mind at once and not conflate them: 1) Does the first amendment give social media the right to regulate content.  Yes.  2) Is the exercise of that right a good idea?  Maybe, maybe not, it's complicated -- My current 'motivated thinking' is a lot like yours, I don't think I have a problem with the fact check link either (but I reserve the right to change my mind  later).   

Gotta admit, IMPOTUS using Twitter to complain about Twitter is very meta! 😉  

[HawgGoneIt]

22 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

@HawgGoneIt

I always appreciate your thoughtful posts.  I think there are a couple of things going on at once in this thread, and I want to try to untangle them a bit.  

IMPOTUS threatening to "strongly regulate," or "close down" websites that don't publish favored political views is a threat to violate the first amendment:

 

But to your point above, none of this means that social media companies are exempt from criticism for how they regulate content.  Still, it is important to keep two things in mind at once and not conflate them: 1) Does the first amendment give social media the right to regulate content.  Yes.  2) Is the exercise of that right a good idea?  Maybe, maybe not, it's complicated -- My current 'motivated thinking' is a lot like yours, I don't think I have a problem with the fact check link either (but I reserve the right to change my mind  later).   

Gotta admit, IMPOTUS using Twitter to complain about Twitter is very meta! 😉  

The thing is, there was so much emphasis put on social media misinformation affecting the last presidential election. So, Twitter is trying to act as a concerned citizen and mitigate that after receiving so much criticism in the past. 

I wonder if the shoe was on the other foot, would this be an issue with DJT or the same people we see up at arms today. I feel pretty sure it wouldn't be. 

The link is a choice, not something anyone has to click on, although, probably should click on. 

I do think social media companies have some responsibility for what is being shared on their platforms, which is why they institute terms of service to begin with. I think the president has jumped the shark in this instance, because what he said is without any real merit. If he was more thoughtful about what he chose to post on there, perhaps there is no need for links to be added to his posts. Just another assholes opinion of course. 

I'd prefer people to be more thoughtful about what they share and think about more than their own agendas. Think about potential repercussions and etc., but, that's not happening. Lol.

[thc6795]

7 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

The thing is, there was so much emphasis put on social media misinformation affecting the last presidential election. So, Twitter is trying to act as a concerned citizen and mitigate that after receiving so much criticism in the past. 

I wonder if the shoe was on the other foot, would this be an issue with DJT or the same people we see up at arms today. I feel pretty sure it wouldn't be. 

The link is a choice, not something anyone has to click on, although, probably should click on. 

I do think social media companies have some responsibility for what is being shared on their platforms, which is why they institute terms of service to begin with. I think the president has jumped the shark in this instance, because what he said is without any real merit. If he was more thoughtful about what he chose to post on there, perhaps there is no need for links to be added to his posts. Just another assholes opinion of course. 

I'd prefer people to be more thoughtful about what they share and think about more than their own agendas. Think about potential repercussions and etc., but, that's not happening. Lol.

It is not twitter job to do anything other than to disseminate people opinions. They are not the social media police. If they want to do that then they need to be held to the same standards as the rest of the media. Why do you think Zuck came out against Jack?

This really isn’t hard man. If Twitter would have fact checked Saint Obama during his presidency people like Bell, SOC, Canes would all be losing their shit. Because it is Trump they are all ok with it. If they try and deny it they are nothing but liars.

[HawgGoneIt]

1 hour ago, thc6795 said:

It is not twitter job to do anything other than to disseminate people opinions. They are not the social media police. If they want to do that then they need to be held to the same standards as the rest of the media. Why do you think Zuck came out against Jack?

This really isn’t hard man. If Twitter would have fact checked Saint Obama during his presidency people like Bell, SOC, Canes would all be losing their shit. Because it is Trump they are all ok with it. If they try and deny it they are nothing but liars.

Umm, I don't remember Obama using Twitter to spread misinformation as president. I also don't remember him using  his personal Twitter account either. If he posted something there it was usually something official from the potus account. 

He was also usually remarkably more thoughtful in the things he did say. Hence  not often requiring a fact check. 

This is the clear difference between today and "yesterday." Obama did usually use the normal media route where he was usually fact checked in real time following whatever he said. Today, the guy we have is definitely dishonest far more than not, so, he was trying to bypass traditional media and their fact checking by using Twitter. Well, that went down the tubes now. 

I'm glad they're trying to clean up the sewers. To me they have a lot more work to do. There is way too many bots on there for one thing.

Zuckerberg and the gang are doing similar type things by moving things down the hit list they deem in appropriate. If DJT was using that platform in the same manner as Twitter, it probably wouldn't be long before they discovered the need to do something as well. 

If twitter isn't the police of their platform, then who is? It has to be them, it's their private company.

[Troll]

31 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Umm, I don't remember Obama using Twitter to spread misinformation as president.

 

 

[SOCIntellectualProperty]

7 hours ago, thc6795 said:

Still frustrated?  All the little kids locked up safe from you in their houses. Its driving you crazy isnt it. That along with washing your fucking hands.

You better just block me again you fucking lump of racist shit. 

You are seriously trying to compete for the biggest 🤡 here

 

ive never seen blatant brown nosing on this level....

 

it’s almost mesmerizing 
 

[Troll]

8 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

If twitter isn't the police of their platform, then who is? It has to be them, it's their private company.

you might find this interesting....

(told you this guy usually gives good summaries 😄)

 

[HawgGoneIt]

8 hours ago, Troll said:

you might find this interesting....

(told you this guy usually gives good summaries 😄)

 

Well, he pretty much covered exactly what we had already discussed. I do like the case law he cited though. 

As we know, twitter has been moderating content since before all of this. In a suit against, they would likely be found liable for content found on their platform already, without any EO from the president. 

This is all going right down the path I figured it would. 

Twitter flagged one of his inflammatory tweets since all of this as a violation basically saying it could incite violence. Pretty much something that you would agree I said he has been guilty of on there and has been getting away with it. The ball is back in his court now. Let the real actual censorship begin. 

They likely should have taken that violence inciting tweet down. Probably would have had it been a different user. Imo The only way they should have flagged it and let it be allowed to stand on the platform was if it was an official statement from an official government handle like @potus. 

As the pendulum swings...

[HawgGoneIt]

You would also notice that I hit the eject button on actively moderating the OT section over a year ago. Much for the same reasons we're seeing questioned about twitter, their rights, responsibilities and liabilities.

I felt like it was very difficult to remove my own biases from active moderation for one thing. The other is, with so much guideline violating going on, even threats of violence at times, the OT section would have been killed with a nuclear moderating pass. Hahaha. 

Election years prove to be even more difficult as politics is a place where biases and strong feelings erupt more often than not. I think maybe we are seeing a bit of that from twitter. 

[DBP66]

20 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

You would also notice that I hit the eject button on actively moderating the OT section over a year ago. Much for the same reasons we're seeing questioned about twitter, their rights, responsibilities and liabilities.

I felt like it was very difficult to remove my own biases from active moderation for one thing. The other is, with so much guideline violating going on, even threats of violence at times, the OT section would have been killed with a nuclear moderating pass. Hahaha. 

Election years prove to be even more difficult as politics is a place where biases and strong feelings erupt more often than not. I think maybe we are seeing a bit of that from twitter. 

you have a very difficult job and I know knuckleheads like me don't make your job any easier!...IMO you do a good job moderating...I hope things don't get out of hand as the election approaches..😉

[HawgGoneIt]

7 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

you have a very difficult job and I know knuckleheads like me don't make your job any easier!...IMO you do a good job moderating...I hope things don't get out of hand as the election approaches..😉

It's better to leave moderating duties at the door than to overdo it. As we can watch with twitter and DJT currently, it becomes a neverending back and forth of censorship or whatever you want to call it. 

Best for me as a mod to wait on a report, and then judge the level of seriousness to make a decision on action. 

Other than that, I'm here to debate and argue with the rest of you. 

[thc6795]

1 hour ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Well, he pretty much covered exactly what we had already discussed. I do like the case law he cited though. 

As we know, twitter has been moderating content since before all of this. In a suit against, they would likely be found liable for content found on their platform already, without any EO from the president. 

This is all going right down the path I figured it would. 

Twitter flagged one of his inflammatory tweets since all of this as a violation basically saying it could incite violence. Pretty much something that you would agree I said he has been guilty of on there and has been getting away with it. The ball is back in his court now. Let the real actual censorship begin. 

They likely should have taken that violence inciting tweet down. Probably would have had it been a different user. Imo The only way they should have flagged it and let it be allowed to stand on the platform was if it was an official statement from an official government handle like @potus. 

As the pendulum swings...

What did he post that was wrong? There are case all over showing how mail in balloting has been corupt. it has been done by both sides. So again what did he say that was wrong? BTW Seems Nadler agrees with him

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jerry-nadler-in-2004-paper-ballots-are-extremely-susceptible-to-fraud

https://whyy.org/articles/philly-judge-of-elections-pleads-guilty-to-election-fraud-accepting-bribes/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/pacei-voterfraudcases.pdf

[HawgGoneIt]

48 minutes ago, thc6795 said:

What did he post that was wrong? There are case all over showing how mail in balloting has been corupt. it has been done by both sides. So again what did he say that was wrong? BTW Seems Nadler agrees with him

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jerry-nadler-in-2004-paper-ballots-are-extremely-susceptible-to-fraud

https://whyy.org/articles/philly-judge-of-elections-pleads-guilty-to-election-fraud-accepting-bribes/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/pacei-voterfraudcases.pdf

For one thing he suggested that every human in the state would get a ballot. Not just registered voters ya know. He said everyone. 

To be honest it seems at like he doesn't really want every registered voter to have the opportunity to vote, and it also seems like he's suggesting if every registered voter does have easy opportunity that it would somehow be bad for him, per earlier statements. Just like democrats have often said, voter suppression and low turnout is the only way Republicans continue winning. That may or may not be true, but, it is the playbook. Earlier statements and that tweet are proof. 

 

Notice he didn't have a problem with Georgia's rogue secretary of state Raffensberger when he mailed out all of those applications for mail in vote. He only wants to silence one side's voice. Here lies the problem.

[thc6795]

4 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

For one thing he suggested that every human in the state would get a ballot. Not just registered voters ya know. He said everyone. 

To be honest it seems at like he doesn't really want every registered voter to have the opportunity to vote, and it also seems like he's suggesting if every registered voter does have easy opportunity that it would somehow be bad for him, per earlier statements. Just like democrats have often said, voter suppression and low turnout is the only way Republicans continue winning. That may or may not be true, but, it is the playbook. Earlier statements and that tweet are proof. 

 

Notice he didn't have a problem with Georgia's rogue secretary of state Raffensberger when he mailed out all of those applications for mail in vote. He only wants to silence one side's voice. Here lies the problem.

Do you REALLY believe only registered voters will get a ballot?