Originally posted by BackFire
Twitter made a very minor criticism of something he posted, didn’t delete the post or anything and now he’s signing an executive action against them and other social media that will likely be an attempt to stifle their first amendment rights.
Exactly, Trump's post was not altered or censored in any fashion. His followers are free to read it just as he wrote it.
Originally posted by Robtard
Exactly, Trump's post was not altered or censored in any fashion. His followers are free to read it just as he wrote it.
even if they deleted it, and even if they deleted Trump's account, it's within their rights. oh well, let's watch the great unraveling and humiliation of donald trump, with much laughter
Originally posted by dadudemon
Alternative take: Twitter is systematically targeting Trump with fake news and misleading "science" in an attempt to influence US politics and undermine the lawfully elected PotUS. Because Twitter has a clear agenda.
Even if that is true, their first amendment right included their right to be as biased as they want. It doesn’t excuse government interference in their rights.
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
So all the news organization who said there was Russian collusion, tell me about how those fact worked out for you.
And democrats got pissed and went after Facebook for Russian stuff.
They cried about them allowing any political ad too.
But now they wanna gas light us as if they give two shits about freedom of speech or the rights of private companies. Bullshit.
Originally posted by BackFire
Even if that is true, their first amendment right included their right to be as biased as they want. It doesn’t excuse government interference in their rights.
I thought we cared a lot about election interference, though?
Illegal activities related to elections are not protected by the first amendment.
However, no court, especially the supreme court, would uphold a law's application to the suppression of free speech if such a conflict does arise.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Facts are not opinions. Fact-checking is not editorializing.
In this particular case, wrong and wrong.
Also, almost all fact checkers editorialize and bring two heaping scoops of bias.
Fact-checking is definitely editorializing.
If you were correct, a bunch of smart people (but mostly dumb people on both sides) wouldn't be argue about this very topic.
Originally posted by Surtur
But then I do not want to see the left whine at social media companies about Russian ads..
Whining about something is one thing. I have no issue with trump whining about twitter or anything else. I might make fun of him but there’s nothing inherently dangerous or anti American about whining about something. Making policy targeting first amendment rights of American citizens because you disagree with is quite another.
Originally posted by BackFire
Whining about something is one thing. I have no issue with trump whining about twitter or anything else. I might make fun of him but there’s nothing inherently dangerous or anti American about whining about something. Making policy targeting first amendment rights of American citizens because you disagree with is quite another.
Democrats legit brought in Zuckerberg to question him tho.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought we cared a lot about election interference, though?Illegal activities related to elections are not protected by the first amendment.
However, no court, especially the supreme court, would uphold a law's application to the suppression of free speech if such a conflict does arise.
What illegal activities did twitter engage in when they said that Trump said something unsubstantiated?