Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday May 27 2020, @12:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the fact-checking dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday May 27 2020, @03:48PM (11 children)

    by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday May 27 2020, @03:48PM (#999714) Journal

    Twitter gets the safe harbor treatment immunizing it from about everything, but editorializes, and has become essentially a public square yet gets to be censorial and propagandistic due to being a private company.

    Time for regulation or stripping of the immunity.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Flamebait=1, Troll=1, Insightful=4, Total=6
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2020, @04:12PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2020, @04:12PM (#999740)

    Wake me up when you call for the same type of measure against Fox and Breitbart.

    Oh that will be never? Ok, crawling back in bed till you idiots die off.

    • (Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Wednesday May 27 2020, @06:25PM (5 children)

      by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday May 27 2020, @06:25PM (#999817) Journal

      Apparently you slept through the alarm because Fox and Breitbart have no immunity -- they are legally responsible for what they publish. If they defame someone they can be sued. Twitter on the other hand, saves gazillions in legal fees based on an immunity bestowed upon it by Federal legislation, but the other half of that legislation is that it is supposed to merely be a service provider and not engage in editorializing. If Twitter wants to editorialize, that's cool, but it should not also get to keep the immunity a non-editorializing service provider enjoys. Anything else is Twitter getting its cake and eating it too at the expense of Americans.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2020, @09:05PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2020, @09:05PM (#999918)

        Anyone can be sued for defamation. If Twitter has any protections it is simply that they can not be sued for the words of their users. It is clear from your posts today that you're a little unhinged in the realm of "liberal media elites" and "deep state" style conspiracies. Your opponents are always wrong and you will invent whatever excuse to keep your world view intact.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2020, @10:14PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2020, @10:14PM (#999944)

          >> Your opponents are always wrong and you will invent whatever excuse to keep your world view intact.

          Oh, jeez. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. You are! No, you are! No, you are!!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2020, @01:29AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2020, @01:29AM (#1000015)

            Better than you're whining about people arguing.

        • (Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Thursday May 28 2020, @03:54AM (1 child)

          by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday May 28 2020, @03:54AM (#1000052) Journal
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2020, @06:10PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2020, @06:10PM (#1000223)

            Sigh, from your own link

            No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

            In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by Section 230, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:[9]

                    The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service."
                    The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must treat the defendant as the "publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue.
                    The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.

            So yes, if Twitter had included some defamation against Trump they could be sued.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2020, @04:14PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2020, @04:14PM (#999742)

    Kick Trump off Twitter.

  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday May 27 2020, @04:41PM (2 children)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday May 27 2020, @04:41PM (#999759) Journal

    Twitter gets the safe harbor treatment immunizing it from about everything, but editorializes, and has become essentially a public square yet gets to be censorial and propagandistic due to being a private company.

    Yep, they get freedom to say, or to not to say, whatever they want. Also know as freedom of speech.

    • (Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Wednesday May 27 2020, @06:32PM

      by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday May 27 2020, @06:32PM (#999821) Journal

      I have no problem with twitter editorialising and manipulating -- I just have an issue with them doing it on my dime. If they wanna do that stuff, strip the immunity. If they want the immunity, then just be a service provider. They shouldn't get it both ways though.

      https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/wikipedia-wins-dismissal-baseless-defamation-claim [eff.org]

      Note that the lawsuit was "baseless" because the law forbids it so long as the service provider is just a service provider.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2020, @06:41PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2020, @06:41PM (#999830)

      Commercial speech is not free speech. You and I can legally say "Tide Pods are tasty and nutritious" but a corporation forfeits 1A rights for "communication more likely to deceive the public than to inform it". When a 2005 bipartisan report singled out mail-in ballots and a mail man is arrested for election fraud in the same news cycle, then Twitter were clearly acting to deceive and misinform the public.