SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Twitter adds label to Trump's misleading tweets about mail-in ballots:
Twitter said Tuesday that it added a label to President Donald Trump's tweets for containing "potentially misleading information about voting processes," a rare move that shows the social media company is taking a tougher stance against misinformation.
It's the first time that Twitter has displayed a label on Trump's tweets.
On Tuesday, Trump tweeted that "There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-in-Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent," a claim that has been debunked by fact-checkers and news organizations. He continues his remarks in another tweet, stating that it will be a "Rigged election."
A label appears under both tweets that states "Get the facts about mail-in ballots." Clicking on the warning notice directs users to a page that states that fact-checkers say there isn't any evidence that mail-in ballots are linked to voter fraud. Trump also falsely states in the tweets that California will send mail-in ballots to "anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there" when only registered voters will receive ballots. States such as Oregon, Utah and Washington have long conducted elections by mail only, while states such as Nebraska allow any voter to request a ballot and vote by mail without having to provide a reason.
A Twitter spokeswoman said in a statement that the decision is in line with how the company approaches misinformation on its site, which includes adding warning notices and labels depending on the likelihood and severity of harm a tweet could cause.
Twitter's actions against Trump's tweets will also likely increase tensions between the company and conservative users, who allege that the social network suppresses their speech. Twitter has repeatedly denied those allegations. Earlier this month, Trump tweeted that the "Radical Left" is in control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google and said his administration is working on a solution.
In two tweets, Trump accused Twitter of interfering in the 2020 US presidential election.
"Twitter is completely stifling FREE SPEECH, and I, as President, will not allow it to happen!," he tweeted.
Also at BBC News, Ars Technica, MIT Technology Review
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2020, @01:13PM (10 children)
The obvious solution is to nationalize Twitter. Twitter won't be a private entity anymore. Your precious private entity loophole won't save you.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 27 2020, @02:34PM (1 child)
Good luck with that.
One wonders... if Twitter is such an essential piece for the public, why the govt didn't invent/setup a "Twitter service"? Isn't that dereliction of duty? (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2020, @12:46AM
If he were to set up a Mastodon [joinmastodon.org] instance he would probably be blocked by the rest of the federating servers and the apps.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2020, @03:25PM (1 child)
How are consercatives so dumb and hypocritical? Seriously, you've lost all personal values and replaced it with the worship of false idols. Double points for much Trump loves gold.
This shit is almost enough to make me belive in the supernatural, Trump being an actual demon would make more sense than millions of people suddenly becoming obedient morons with no morals.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday May 27 2020, @04:05PM
They never had any personal values to begin with, it's been lies all along. It's just more obvious now.
The debt has only ever mattered when Democrats are in charge.
States Rights are terrible as soon as CA tries to pass emissions controls.
This is just the inevitable conclusion to their complete divorce from reality.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday May 27 2020, @05:09PM (4 children)
On first glance, the above quoted idea may be perceived as hyperbolic or extreme; but really, Twitter (and Facebook, and Youtube, and several other commercial entities), by virtue of their market penetration, which is extremely thorough, have become de facto public squares.
Regulating and/or denying speech in what essentially amounts to a public square seem (to me, at least) to strongly resemble an effective and highly unfortunate end-run around the actual intent of US constitutional principles.
I have no objection to appending commentary to content that presents misleading information (and commentary to that commentary, and so on as far down the rabbit hole as anyone cares to dig); but editing, and/or regulating, and/or denying the ability to post... that strikes me as a trip well down the wrong road.
I understand that as a commercial entity, they (presently) have no obligation to allow what amounts to free speech; but you know, perhaps they really should be subject to such an obligation.
I'd prefer just seeing the law changed so that censorship and access limitations are both forbidden to commercial entities maintaining forums that present user-generated content, rather than having them nationalized... but the latter is still preferable, in my view, to what is going on now.
WRT earlier comments about moderation here, I tend to agree — moderation should exist and be visible, it's a form of commentary at that level, but I don't think user X's moderation should serve to hide user Y's post from user Z. If you want to block someone from your own view, that seems perfectly fine. But blocking them from someone else's... that really never did strike me as a good idea. It's far too attractive as a punitive enterprise for inappropriate reasons. If moderators were all honest, aboveboard, critical thinkers, and consistent, well, that'd be something else. But that is not the reality at all.
--
Even Chuck Norris stays off my lawn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2020, @05:16PM (1 child)
The phone company is a commercial entity that can't discriminate on a customer's political beliefs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2020, @12:51AM
True but I'll get a restraining order if you keep calling me with your dumb arguments, Richard!
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Wednesday May 27 2020, @06:11PM (1 child)
No, they have not. If a public square is privately-owned, guess what? It's not a fucking public square.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2020, @07:22PM
If it's a private space then the owners set the rules and become liable for the behavior of their guests, including but not limited to Twitter's disgusting "MAPCommunity".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2020, @01:21AM
If Trump is mad a Twitter why doesn't he just go use MySpace?