[Pants-of-dog]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... ive-order/

Lots of anger and excitement over this order. A lot of conservatives feel that they get unfairly censored or edited over social media and the White House has been publicly gathering evidence of double standards for the past couple years.

Recently Twitter "fact checked" a Trump tweet about mail in voting being an invitation for voter fraud. This is what prompted the executive order but it's been in the works for years.

The argument is simple: if a social media company (and this may apply to forums as well, most notably Reddit) chooses to "editorialize" people's content, then that makes them a "publisher" and not a "platform".

Adding a fact check is not editing.

The text written by Trump exists and is distributed exactly as Trump wrote it.

The group distributing the message added text that was clearly designed to be seen as separate from Trump’s message. And everyone reading it knows that the fact check is separate from, and added to, Trump’s whole and unedited message.

In order to be a platform, they have to apply their rules in a neutral manner, not edit other's content and only remove content which is "flagrantly offensive" which presumably would not extend to things like debates over vote-by-mail elections.

The most obvious next move by social media companies is to expand the definition of what is considered flagrantly offensive but that might backfire in the long run since accusing people of anything you can censor might be defamation. For example then, if you can censor someone for saying that something is "racist" you might in theory also be sued for calling something racist.

While Trump is often flagrantly offensive, this has nothing to do with what happened.

Trump was fact-checked, not flagged for being offensive.

Considering the amount of misinformation and outright lies on social media, and how this misinformation can and does have real impacts on people’s lives, social media companies arguably have an obligation to clarify when misinformation may be present.

If they can find a way to do this while simultaneously allowing people to present misinformation (like they did with Trump), then they are addressing the issue of misinformation while still allowing the free expression of lies.

Another response I've seen is "Trump is attacking Twitter's free speech" but this is also a losing argument because if Twitter's free speech is happening in the context of them editing other people's postings, that is basically an admission that they are editorializing.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, already hated for his stance on net neutrality, has received the executive order and presumably has some things that were mostly written last year ready to go.

If Trump is trying to stop Twitter from distributing factual information alongside Trump’s misinformation, then Trump is arguably trying to restrict the free expression of a private group that is trying to keep a government figure accountable.

[Wulfschilde]

Adding a fact check is not editing.

The text written by Trump exists and is distributed exactly as Trump wrote it.

The group distributing the message added text that was clearly designed to be seen as separate from Trump’s message. And everyone reading it knows that the fact check is separate from, and added to, Trump’s whole and unedited message.



While Trump is often flagrantly offensive, this has nothing to do with what happened.

Trump was fact-checked, not flagged for being offensive.

Considering the amount of misinformation and outright lies on social media, and how this misinformation can and does have real impacts on people’s lives, social media companies arguably have an obligation to clarify when misinformation may be present.

If they can find a way to do this while simultaneously allowing people to present misinformation (like they did with Trump), then they are addressing the issue of misinformation while still allowing the free expression of lies.



If Trump is trying to stop Twitter from distributing factual information alongside Trump’s misinformation, then Trump is arguably trying to restrict the free expression of a private group that is trying to keep a government figure accountable.

It's true that a "fact check" is not "editing" in the strictest sense but it is "editorializing". First Google result on what editorializing means:

editorialize
/ˌɛdɪˈtɔːrɪəlʌɪz/
verb
gerund or present participle: editorializing
(of a newspaper, editor, or broadcasting organization) express opinions rather than just report the news.
"the BBC itself was not to editorialize about the news or matters of public policy"

To add some text saying "he is lying" or to put it behind some kind of warning that has to be clicked through after reading their explanation on why that was done is definitely a way to express an opinion instead of merely reporting on the news.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's true that a "fact check" is not "editing" in the strictest sense but it is "editorializing". First Google result on what editorializing means:

To add some text saying "he is lying" or to put it behind some kind of warning that has to be clicked through after reading their explanation on why that was done is definitely a way to express an opinion instead of merely reporting on the news.

So he is not being censored or edited.

Instead, the argument is that by presenting the real facts alongside Trump’s misinformation, this is somehow casting aspersions on Trump. It presents the “opinion” that Trump is providing misleading information.

Tell me, if Trump said 2+2=5, and some person called A said “Trump is providing misleading information”, would A’s claim be a statement of fact or statement of opinion?

[Wulfschilde]

So he is not being censored or edited.

Instead, the argument is that by presenting the real facts alongside Trump’s misinformation, this is somehow casting aspersions on Trump. It presents the “opinion” that Trump is providing misleading information.

Tell me, if Trump said 2+2=5, and some person called A said “Trump is providing misleading information”, would A’s claim be a statement of fact or statement of opinion?

Whatever bro. You quoted me as using the word "editorializing" from the start but now you want the argument to be about your narrow definition of "editing". I'm about done with dinner here and this is not enough to hold my interest. Peace

[Pants-of-dog]

Whatever bro. You quoted me as using the word "editorializing" from the start but now you want the argument to be about your narrow definition of "editing". I'm about done with dinner here and this is not enough to hold my interest. Peace

You did not answer the question.

So, the answer is “a statement of fact”. A is not providing an opinion but instead stating a fact that Trump is lying.

So, Twitter is not editorializing when they fact check, according to the definition of editorializing that you provided.

[Wulfschilde]

You did not answer the question.

So, the answer is “a statement of fact”. A is not providing an opinion but instead stating a fact that Trump is lying.

So, Twitter is not editorializing when they fact check, according to the definition of editorializing that you provided.

Still can't tell if you are real

You guys basically want to apply a kangaroo-court standard to the President of the United States. "It's not editorializing because Trump always lies; Twitter always tells the truth. Twitter knows all." Unbelievable that this appears to be some people's actual argument.

[Hindsite]

As for Facebook, Zuckerbot has repeatedly signaled that he doesn't intend to censor the President of the United States and that he wants to apply the site's rules fairly. Although this gets debated a lot, the action is mostly aimed at Twitter and maybe Reddit, Facebook doesn't seem to intend to fall on that sword.

I believe Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has it right when he said platforms that provide freedom of speech should not be arbiters of truth.

Zuckerberg: 'Facebook shouldn't be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online'

Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Wednesday doubled down on his defense of the platform not labeling misinformation shared by politicians after Twitter placed warnings on two posts from President Trump it deemed “misleading.”

“I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online,” Zuckerberg said in the interview on Fox's "The Daily Briefing." “I think in general private companies probably shouldn't be — especially these platform companies — shouldn’t be in the position of doing that.”

During a speech at Georgetown University in October, the CEO said he doesn’t think it's right for a private company to “censor politicians or the news in a democracy.”

“Political ads on Facebook are more transparent than anywhere else,” Zuckerberg said. “We don’t fact check political ads… because we believe people should be able to see for themselves what politicians are saying."

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4 ... thing-that

It is clear to me that Facebook has it right and Twitter has it wrong. I do have an account of Facebook, but not on Twitter.

[Pants-of-dog]

You guys basically want to apply a kangaroo-court standard to the President of the United States. "It's not editorializing because Trump always lies; Twitter always tells the truth. Twitter knows all." Unbelievable that this appears to be some people's actual argument.

No one made this argument.

The actual argument I made was that fact-checking is not editorializing according to your definition, because it is not expressing an opinion on Trump. Instead, it makes a factual claim about whatever Trump was discussing.

[Drlee]

I believe I dispensed with most of the arguments I'm seeing here in my OP.

Sure you did son. You are playing in the shallow end of the pool. I am waiting for you to make any argument at all. So far all you have done is whine.

[Politics_Observer]

@Drlee

If it's one thing that Trump has demonstrated during his Presidency it is that the Presidency has too much power and that the Presidency needs to be stripped of some of it's power. That needs to be the first order of business if the Democrats ever take both the House and Senate and can over-ride any Presidential veto: to strip away some of the current power of the Presidency. Trump has demonstrated this needs to be done and that the President has too much power. That way if somehow we get another Trump in office he can't do as much damage to the country that Trump has done. There also needs to have serious checks and balances on the power of the President, checks and balances that have REAL teeth.

We need to make sure we institute new checks and balances against the Presidency and be absolutely sure those checks and balances have REAL teeth. The judiciary needs to be checked too given that the Republicans have packed them full of "conservative" judges. As soon as the Democrats pass a law that Republicans don't like they will go to the biased courts packed full of conservative judges who can't be trusted to be apolitical and unbiased. The courts need to be checked as well given there is not a fair and even handed balance in the courts. We don't need the courts preventing a check on Presidential power in the future. The courts need to return to being apolitical and unbiased as any real court should be. We don't need courts packed full of conservative judges (or liberal judges for that matter) legislating from the bench in a partisan and biased fashion.

[Drlee]

@Politics_Observer ....Presidency has too much power and that the Presidency needs to be stripped of some of it's power...

I agree with every bit of your post. All of that should happen. Of course the problem with it is that we have to get a sitting president to hand over power and history shows that it is a double edged sword. Look at how democrat, for example, presidents have prevented Republican legislative adventures in the past.

One thing that I believe a friendly congress could do is consider removing lifetime appointments from lower federal courts. But this really would have no affect as these courts really do little on constitutional matters anyway, other than filtering out the obvious ones. Important issues are almost always resolved at the appellate level anyway.

The thing is P_O is that I believe that the major problems in the US can be resolved with a short term solution. An example is Obama Care. The republicans vowed to repeal it. Still do. They may ruin it in the courts. In fact probably will. But it is extremely popular now so if they do it will be a political problem. So popular that with control of all three branches they could not pass its repeal. And it is good for them that they couldn't.

TIN HAT TIME:

I do not believe that McCain's vote was a surprise. I believe it was a carefully crafted political maneuver to give those who promised to repeal the ability to say that they tried while not taking the whole party down over a very popular program. Repeal and replace was impossible because the insurance company money which was behind this who misadventure, would not allow the more popular parts of Obama care in any "replacement". Besides. The whole motivation for repealing it in the first place is vaguely racist. So now they have the insurance company money and are trying to earn it in the courts. They will probably succeed.

For the time being, Trump is in great shape. He is in total control of the debate on every issue. The party loves him because he gives them cover to do pretty much whatever it likes. The democrats have not forwarded a single issue except "no more Trump".

The only hope for November is that the razor thin margins that Trump had in some key districts collapses. Otherwise he will cruise to victory.

What will a second Trump term look like? It will look like Mussolini's Italy. It will be, the final stake in the heart of any kind of democracy in the US. We will be just like Russia, an Oligarchy.

My opinion is that this has already happened. The republicans have taken down the US as a global economic and even military power. China is in the ascendancy and this will be their century.

One more prediction. This pandemic has put mid income hourly work to the sword once and for all. It will destroy so many small businesses that these jobs will never come back. Already the Trump administration has blocked reports that tell us what the unemployment rate is. We already had far to many people in jobs that were unnecessary.

So the question for those under 40 on this site will be: How will you eat when there are no longer jobs for you to have even if you want one? And with the end of Social Security as a viable security net, what will you do for money in retirement?

[Politics_Observer]

@Drlee

I really feel for the younger generations. The only way today to escape poverty is through education. However, education is extraordinarily expensive and inaccessible. Many people end up going into a lot of student loan debt. Education has become less accessible and this will damage us as a country as there is plenty of talent in the lower income classes of society who need to be afforded the opportunity to a good education. That being said, I am not somebody is for economic equality because economic equality produces a situation where everybody is impoverished but equal. That's not a desirable state where everybody is miserable but equal. Instead, my economic principles are:

1) Regulating capitalism to the benefit of ALL of society
2) Ensuring the opportunity to education without getting into crushing student loan debt is available to those with the least ability to pay for it
3) Ensuring that instead of everybody being economically equal, that everybody economically speaking has enough. With "enough" being defined as the ability to put food on the table, a roof over your head, go on vacation at least once a year, having sufficient medical insurance to where you don't have medical debt and a comfortable retirement to look forward to after the age of 65 where it's not necessary for you to work if you don't want to.
4) International trade deals need to ensure the interests of the working class are also met in all countries party to those international trade deals. The working class and working poor cannot be ignored in international trade deals.

This doesn't make everybody economically equal but rather ensures that opportunity to be your best self is available to everybody and that everybody economically has enough. I am also a proponent of collective bargaining rights of the working class and working poor members of society so that they can work in safe working conditions and also not be treated as an expendable commodity by business or the government. This also ensures that they have a political voice in government as well.

[Tainari88]

@Drlee

I really feel for the younger generations. The only way today to escape poverty is through education. However, education is extraordinarily expensive and inaccessible. Many people end up going into a lot of student loan debt. Education has become less accessible and this will damage us as a country as there is plenty of talent in the lower income classes of society who need to be afforded the opportunity to a good education. That being said, I am not somebody is for economic equality because economic equality produces a situation where everybody is impoverished but equal. That's not a desirable state where everybody is miserable but equal. Instead, my economic principles are:

1) Regulating capitalism to the benefit of ALL of society
2) Ensuring the opportunity to education without getting into crushing student loan debt is available to those with the least ability to pay for it
3) Ensuring that instead of everybody being economically equal, that everybody economically speaking has enough. With "enough" being defined as the ability to put food on the table, a roof over your head, go on vacation at least once a year, having sufficient medical insurance to where you don't have medical debt and a comfortable retirement to look forward to after the age of 65 where it's not necessary for you to work if you don't want to.

This doesn't make everybody economically equal but rather ensures that opportunity to be your best self is available to everybody and that everybody economically has enough. I am also a proponent of collective bargaining rights of the working class and working poor members of society so that they can work in safe working conditions and also not be treated as an expendable commodity by business or the government. This also ensures that they have a political voice in government as well.

In other words, a classic liberal with common sense ideas?

The American people are not even getting that nowadays Politics Observer.

Imagine they bailed out the big banks and corporations to the tune of 1.2 Trillion dollars. If they wiped out all student debt TODAY? It would take 1.5 Trillion dollars. They found the money for bailing out the rich and corporate. But they can't find the money to bail out students who will graduate and be future tax payers and allow them to keep more of their paychecks and save for a house they can buy and get married and have kids so they can replace all the gray haired retirees and boomer generations who no longer want to be going the rat race route and 9 to 5 jobs out there.

They either come up with a plan or they just have to admit they suck.

[jimjam]

education is extraordinarily expensive and inaccessible

I graduated in 1968 with a 4 year degree and $218 in debt. Yes, that was a long time ago ( ) but, IMO, college has morphed into a rip off scheme to benefit banks/lenders and college deans and their enablers.

God forbid we forgive "student debt". That may help ordinary people but …… THE BANKS! THE BANKS! this would hurt their "earnings".

[Politics_Observer]

@jimjam

At the time you attended college, unions were much stronger as well as laws that supported unions were much stronger too. Moreover, Reagan had not yet set the legal precedent that private employers can use today to replace striking workers. Hence, striking workers today do not have the bargaining and striking power they had at the time you attended college. This has had the effect of handing over all economic and thus political power to the extremely wealthy in our system. We are seeing the consequences of this today. The wealthy today engage in a disgusting economic gluttony that was not as prevalent during your time as a younger man in the 1960s.

Even for those workers who were not in a union during your time, they benefited from union power because they were paid better, had better retirements (today you get just a 401(k) whereas in the past you got a retirement package that were more generous than 401(k)s and made retirement more realistic) and safer working conditions even though they themselves were not in a union. Laws such as the ability to declare bankruptcy on student loan debt were in place plus college was much cheaper (however, one would have to take in account inflation to determine the true cost of college then as opposed to today). "Back in the day" when you were younger, education was more of a right than a privilege.

Today, education is privilege instead of a right. Education is something that is desperately needed today and it needs to be realistically accessible to the less privileged members of society such as those of the working and working poor classes as well as minority groups who have been historically dis-enfranchised (I am a supporter of Affirmative Action). Otherwise, the U.S. is going to lose it's competitive advantages economically speaking and we'll end up as a third world country where just handful of a few people hold all the wealth and real power. Everybody else could end up in poverty. It's not the kind of future I want for our country.

[jimjam]

[quote="Politics_Observer"][usermention=13268]@jimjam[/usermention]

At the time you attended college, unions were much stronger as well as laws that supported unions were much stronger too. Moreover, Reagan had not yet set the legal precedent that private employers can use today to replace striking workers. Hence, striking workers today do not have the bargaining and striking power they had at the time you attended college. This has had the effect of handing over all economic and thus political power to the extremely wealthy in our system. We are seeing the consequences of this today. The wealthy today engage in a disgusting economic gluttony that was not as prevalent during your time as a younger man in the 1960s.

Even for those workers who were not in a union during your time, they benefited from union power because they were paid better, had better retirements (today you get just a 401(k) whereas in the past you got a retirement package that were more generous than 401(k)s and made retirement more realistic) and safer working conditions even though they themselves were not in a union. Laws such as the ability to declare bankruptcy on student loan debt were in place plus college was much cheaper (however, one would have to take in account inflation to determine the true cost of college then as opposed to today). "Back in the day" when you were younger, education was more of a right than a privilege.

Today, education is privilege instead of a right. Education is something that is desperately needed today and it needs to be realistically accessible to the less privileged members of society such as those of the working and working poor classes as well as minority groups who have been historically dis-enfranchised (I am a supporter of Affirmative Action). Otherwise, the U.S. is going to lose it's competitive advantages economically speaking and we'll end up as a third world country where just handful of a few people hold all the wealth and real power. Everybody else could end up in poverty. It's not the kind of future I want for our country.[/quote]


You covered it very well P.O. I have looked back many times and thought to myself that I was very very lucky to have been born when I was ….. although I did not know it at the time. I took a lot for granted that I should not have. Workers without degrees back then usually made a livable wage. Today, long after unions (workers) have been crushed we hear lots of bragging from the ruling Republican class how "unemployment" is so low (obviously before the current mess) and folks should be so very very grateful. Slightly below the surface, however, lays the truth about trump's wonderful economy. Yes you get a $8 @ hr. job that may or may not feed your family and you are up to your ass in debt to make up the difference. Well, you can always work 2 jobs and sell drugs on the side. Oh ….. thank you Donald for such a wonderful economy. As you mentioned, this has been going on a few decades promulgated by the party of the rich, Republicans, and is not fully the doing of trump although he has speeded things up greatly.

Yes I KNOW how very lucky I was with my timing. I even resisted the endless consumer based culture and have a decent retirement with zero debt and places to live in Maine and South Florida. As a bonus I attended all three days at the Woodstock Music festival and was sent around the world by my first employer (I got the job on the first try with nothing on my resume but a college degree …… also unheard of these days).

[Drlee]

I want to second PO and JimJam's posts.

I am from the same era and remember when virtually every job carried with it a living wage. I was briefly a member of two unions and they really did look out for my welfare.

There is another aspect of this that is forgotten. At the time the US was not just wealthy it was transcendentally wealthy. It had enough money that it could literally fund the rebuilding of Europe and Japan. Our economy was growing and for the average white male life looked good. What is forgotten is that we funded this growth of the middle class with very high taxes. They were not, as we have been fooled into believing, a bad thing. Why.

Just look a the aforementioned schools. At the time state colleges and universities were largely funded with tax money. Tuition money was not intended to totally pay for school. I remember that I borrowed $2500.00 for my freshman year and it paid for my tuition, dorm room and food. That is $17,000.00 in today's money so it was no small amount. Minimum wage was $3328.00 per year. BUT! That is $24,000 per year in today's dollars. Today that same thing would cost $30,000.00 at U of A. Almost double. And what does it buy? Oftentimes a minimum wage job that is a fraction of what it would have been in 1969.

So the middle class, especially under Trump but also under just about everyone since Reagan, has taken it in the ass for the benefit of the very wealthy. It is not even debatable. It happened.

So when I hear Trump supporters talking about how good the economy is, and when I look at all of the hard working hard hurting people out there I just shake my head. There is a reason Trump wants the old people to die. We know what he is up to because we have seen better days. Much better.

An, by the way. Better under republicans and democrats. In those days we did not fight like roosters about territory. There were differing political views for sure but when congress met it passed laws and chose judges based upon what was nominally good for the country. No longer. In 1969 if any senator had said, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president" he would have been politically finished. Now it is a rallying cry for the likes of Hindsite who simply is incapable of seeing what that means.

[Unthinking Majority]

If Trump is trying to stop Twitter from distributing factual information alongside Trump’s misinformation, then Trump is arguably trying to restrict the free expression of a private group that is trying to keep a government figure accountable.

Twitter can do anything they want to any posts, including fact-checks if they want, it's their platform. But they should be applying the rules consistently and evenly, regardless of whatever political ideology or party the poster belongs to.

If they fact-check Trump's posts then they have to fact check Biden's posts and the Chinese government's posts etc.

Since this would take a ridiculous amount of time and resources on twitter's part, and becomes subjective on where and how you draw the line on what should be fact-checked which will cause all sorts of controversy and disagreements, it doesn't seem like a very good idea for twitter to be doing this.

The key is for social media companies to have very clear rules and for their moderators to applying them consistently.

[Unthinking Majority]

@Drlee

I really feel for the younger generations. The only way today to escape poverty is through education.

There are exceptions, but yes I totally agree.

However, education is extraordinarily expensive and inaccessible.

Only in the United States. In Canada the universities are highly subsidized with public funds. For a good university the tuition is around $6000 annually, plus books. That would be for something like an Arts degree. For law school at a good university I think is around $20k a year.

The cost of post-secondary in the US is a huge barrier for economic mobility.

[Politics_Observer]

@Drlee @jimjam

So the middle class, especially under Trump but also under just about everyone since Reagan, has taken it in the ass for the benefit of the very wealthy. It is not even debatable. It happened.

I agree. I would also argue that since Reagan, both Democrats and Republicans have been complicit in the destruction of the lower middle class. But it was Reagan's legal precedent of firing air traffic controllers that started the whole mess. His "trickle down economics" didn't help either. Really, "trickle down economics" is not economics but a fraud perpetrated by the wealthy elite to steal from the lower middle class on down to the working poor to further enrich themselves. The problem that is to be tackled and solved today is the economic gluttony of the wealthy elite and there stranglehold on controlling the U.S. government, public and economic policy.

The solution is a delicate one too as we want to still have an economy that is productive, wealthy and enables those who want to climb the economic ladder and have a better life can do so. We also want our economy to be more humane as part of the solution. We don't want to accommodate the economic gluttony of the wealthy elite but we also don't want to destroy the economy and apply a solution that is worse than the problem either.

International trade deals also have to take into account the lower middle class, the working class and the working poor for all parties negotiating international trade deals so we have a more evenly distributed shared prosperity instead of ONLY and SOLELY the wealthy elite enjoying any prosperity from such international trade deals. Human rights and worker rights need to be part of such trade deals. These are valued and cherished principles that should not be traded away solely for profit.

@Unthinking Majority

Only in the United States. In Canada the universities are highly subsidized with public funds. For a good university the tuition is around $6000 annually, plus books. That would be for something like an Arts degree. For law school at a good university I think is around $20k a year.

The cost of post-secondary in the US is a huge barrier for economic mobility.

The cost of my regionally accredited private college education for taking online classes that are also offered in person on a campus runs pretty close to 10k a year. That doesn't include books and I am not having to pay for the cost of living on campus like a much younger traditional student might do. I am also probably not being charged some of the fee of a traditional student given my classes are online. The online classes I take have the same value as the on campus classes. However, my understanding is that the fact it is online reduces the cost of those classes significantly. So, one way to reduce the cost of a college education is offer classes online.

Now, if you were to take those same classes in person, on a campus, in a classroom setting after aid according to some sources I have read, my education would cost $35k a year. That's expensive. There are much cheaper schools to attend in the U.S. However, Uncle Sam is paying for my education given my veterans benefits and the taxpayers probably appreciate me taking the cheaper online courses. The education I am getting is valuable too.

So for me, I can attend without going into debt. That being said, nobody should have to join the services just to get their tuition paid for if they don't want to. They should have other options to pay for college without fear of crushing debt.