Twitter Disabled 'Likes' and 'Replies' on False Trump Tweets. Inadvertently. (msn.com) 191
Business Insider reports:
Twitter on Saturday briefly took new action to stem the spread of President Donald Trump's false tweets about his loss in the 2020 election. Replies and likes were disabled on several of Trump's tweets Saturday morning before Twitter the company reversed course hours later, telling Business Insider the change was made "inadvertently...."
"We try to prevent a Tweet like this that otherwise breaks the Twitter Rules from reaching more people, so we've disabled most of the ways to engage with it," the label said. But hours after, just before 10 a.m., with no public statement from Twitter, it appeared to have changed course, allowing users to like the tweets after first presenting a large warning that the contents of the post were disputed.
"We inadvertently took action to limit engagements on the labeled Tweet you referenced," a Twitter spokesperson told Business Insider on Saturday. "This action has been reversed, and you can now engage with the Tweet, but in line with our Civic Integrity Policy it will continue to be labeled in order to give more context for anyone who might see the Tweet."
"We try to prevent a Tweet like this that otherwise breaks the Twitter Rules from reaching more people, so we've disabled most of the ways to engage with it," the label said. But hours after, just before 10 a.m., with no public statement from Twitter, it appeared to have changed course, allowing users to like the tweets after first presenting a large warning that the contents of the post were disputed.
"We inadvertently took action to limit engagements on the labeled Tweet you referenced," a Twitter spokesperson told Business Insider on Saturday. "This action has been reversed, and you can now engage with the Tweet, but in line with our Civic Integrity Policy it will continue to be labeled in order to give more context for anyone who might see the Tweet."
Inadvertently... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Inadvertently... (Score:4, Informative)
The charge of Russian interference is well documented, among other places in the Senate Report. [slashdot.org] There really isn't controversy there. (The controversy is to what extent the Trump campaign colluded, or tried to collude, with the Russians. The Mueller report answered that only by saying "collusion is not a legal term, and so I did not investigate whether collusion occurred.")
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
and https://www.intelligence.senat... [senate.gov]
Re:Inadvertently... (Score:4, Insightful)
So basically Trump had nothing to do with any interference? And the term "collusion" was left out because of a lack of legal standing? What bout all those other terms that are allowed? Surely if he cheated the election then there would be something in there that shows how he had defrauded a state affair, which is illegal. Right?
I'd say that pretty much confirms the OP's sentiments. All those false claims on twitter going rampant without a care, accusing Trump of pretty much anything they'd like. Where are those fact checkers who are calling him a historically racist and socialist German? The "N" word.
That's the hypocrisy that the OP is pointing out while you debate semantics. Only some facts are allowed to be checked - the ones that don't fit their political bias.
Re:Inadvertently... (Score:5, Insightful)
So basically Trump had nothing to do with any interference?
That... what? How are you coming to that conclusion from what the parent said?
The term "collusion" was addressed, because that's the term that people had been using, but it doesn't mean anything legally and so was not investigated. The other terms, like "conspire," were investigated. We know that Mueller's chose not to charge Trump with conspiracy, we don't know why other than "insufficient evidence." That part is redacted.
However, the part about why they chose not to charge Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner over the Trump Tower meeting is not redacted. There are two reasons: First, they couldn't put a monetary value on the information that those three were expecting to receive from the Russians. The law requires that it have a monetary value above a certain limit. Second, they didn't feel that they would be able to prove that those three knew that what they were doing was illegal. The law requires a willful violation, and so ignorance is a defense.
We can't assume that the same factors are true for Trump himself, but that's the best we've got.
I have absolutely no idea how you're going from that to dismissing Russian interference in the election. The Mueller report says specifically, "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion." This is the first sentence past the preamble, on the first page. You can't possibly miss it.
Re: (Score:3)
This is wondering even further from the topic at hand, however.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically Trump had nothing to do with any interference?
Almost. More clearly stated: no evidence was found connecting Trump to the election interference.
And the term "collusion" was left out because of a lack of legal standing?
Correct.
Then you would be wrong. The OP was about a purported ""Russia rigged the election!" movement" that "went on unfiltered for years."
There was no such thing. There was, however, a claim that Russia interfered with the election. This claim went on "unfiltered" because in fact it was accurate.
If that's what he meant, he should have said that (Score:2)
The collusion campaign involving interference is clearly what was meant. You said it yourself, there was no "Russia rigged the election" movement, so the OP must have been referring to the baseless collusion allegations.
I'm not sure if I can even follow your argument. The OP was talking about "Russia rigged the elections!", I responded pointing out that Russia didn't rig the elections but they did interfere with the elections. And your response is that the fact that Russia didn't rig the elections but did interfere is so obvious that when the OP said "Russia rigged the elections" he clearly must have meant "Trump colluded with Russia," why didn't I understand that.
If that's what he meant, he should have said that.
Re:Inadvertently... (Score:5, Interesting)
Selective memories [google.com], huh?
Distinction without difference to the point being made.
For over two years Trump had to endure baseless accusations of "collusion" with Russia — with government officials, elected lawmakers, journalists and lawyers falling out of every TV-set talking about it. The talk, though subsided after Mueller's report obliterated the allegations [theintercept.com], continues to this day [twitter.com] — but Twitter was not, and is not stamping any of it out.
The actual quote from the report was:
Meanwhile vote-rigging is a crime, and the accusations exist — with evidence of witness testimony [vice.com], signed affidavits [filmdaily.co], and other documents. So why is it Ok to discuss Trump's non-crime of "collusion" — for which there is no evidence — but not Ok to discuss the actual crime of vote-rigging, for which evidence does exist?
Why, despite no proof ever emerging, do you continue to believe, Trump "colluded" (whatever that means) with Putin, while the vote-rigging is not merely unsubstantiated to you, you call them false?
Why do you treat absence of evidence as evidence of absence in the latter case, but not in the former?
Re: Inadvertently... (Score:2)
When you get laughed out of court because you can't provide any evedience of vote rigging you don't actually have it.
Sort of like the hunter biden laptop that was mysteriously lost in the mail.
Did it even exist is a question.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what I refer to as absence of evidence — there may have been vote-rigging, but we cannot prove it.
To pretend, that this is also evidence of absence — that there was no rigging — is a fallacy. If "Mueller didn't exonerate Trump", then your judges certainly didn't exonerate Democrats either.
So, why are you allowed to claim, Trump "colluded" with Russia, but Trump is not allowed to say, you rigged the vote? Not
Re: (Score:2)
Selective memories [google.com], huh?
I'm not sure what results google give you, but my results are about rigged Russian elections, and Russian interference in American elections.
Meanwhile vote-rigging is a crime, and the accusations exist — with evidence of witness testimony [vice.com],
Surely you got a better article than one where the witness himself says it is not true and that it was written by Project Veritas
A difference with an important difference (Score:2)
Selective memories [google.com], huh?
I assume you googled and posted the link without actually reading any of the articles linked? Because none of them say that that Russia "rigged" the election.
The two are not the same. The charge of Russian interference is well documented
Distinction without difference to the point being made.
A difference with an important distinction: Russia did interfere in the election.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia interfered in every election prior as well — all countries try their hardest at that.
The accusation was, Trump "colluded" with it — committing some sort of crime while at it. That accusation was baseless, but was and continues to be repeated — without any attempt by Twitter to put and end to it.
For that same entity to declare Trump's own accusations false and inhibit his speech is most hypocritical.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia interfered in every election prior as well — all countries try their hardest at that.
You seem to be using a lot of words to say over and over again that you agree with me. I'm not sure why this thread is continuing.
The accusation was, Trump "colluded" with it — committing some sort of crime while at it.
No it was not. The specific accusation that I was responding to stated that Russia "rigged" the elections.
You want to change the topic and talk about the Trump campaign "colluding" with Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a change of topic, that's the original topic. You wrote:
If people alleging, Trump "colluded", can repeat such baseless beliefs on Twitter, Trump should be able to repeat his own too.
That his own aren't quite so baseless is a separate topic — maybe, a special prosecutor, funded and empowered as Mueller was
Re: (Score:2)
Because there has been no evidence presented anywhere that there was vote rigging on a widespread scale. if there was such evidence it would have been presented in court. On the other hand, there was evidence of likely collusion, and it was investigated even if it was never proven.
The fraud election is a lie. By now after 4 years people on both sides of the aisle should know very clearly that the current president is a habitual liar. And yet so many still believe all his crazy fantasies.
And Trump was no
Re: (Score:2)
As to your claims that Mueller's report exonerated Trump; it'd be laughable if the implications of what may have happened weren't so severe. I think I'll take Mueller's own words on what his report did or didn't mean. Those words were
Wrong, and wrong [Re:Inadvertently...] (Score:2)
It was satire because Hillary, the DNC, and their stooges were shrieking that her illegal email server was hacked by the Russians (which was a lie).
Wrong, and wrong.
Nobody said (much less "shrieked") that Hillary's email server had been hackedn. It was the DNC email server that had been hacked. And this was not a lie; it happened.
https://apnews.com/article/dea... [apnews.com]
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04... [techcrunch.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Bzzzz, false. [nytimes.com]. Emphasis mine:
The abov
Still wrong [Re:Wrong, and wrong] (Score:2)
OK, you quote the FBI saying their investigators had no “direct evidence” that Hillary Clinton’s email account had been “successfully hacked,
That's fine; I'll go with that: There was no evidence that Hillary Clinton's email account was hacked.
Now, can you show me the part in that article where "Hillary, the DNC, and their stooges were shrieking that her illegal email server was hacked by the Russians" (that is: the text I called "wrong")-- not the part where it said "the FBI said
It worked [Re:Inadvertently...] (Score:4, Informative)
Are you really, sincerely claiming, this is how colluding co-conspirators communicate?
Turns out it worked.
"Mueller’s report also found a cause-and-effect between Trump’s remarks in July 2016 and subsequent cyberattacks.
“I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” said then-candidate Trump at a press conference, referring to emails Clinton stored on a personal email server while she headed the State Department. Mueller’s report said “within approximately five hours” of those remarks, GRU officers began targeting for the first time Clinton’s personal office.
More than a dozen staffers were targeted by Unit 26165, including a senior aide. “It is unclear how the GRU was able to identify these email accounts, which were not public,” said Mueller."
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04... [techcrunch.com]
Re: (Score:2)
“Widespread” may not be a legal term either, since the definition is almost wholly subjective. I’m clearly a Troll as well, or my contrary opinion is Flamebait.
Re: (Score:2)
The Mueller report answered that only by saying "collusion is not a legal term, and so I did not investigate whether collusion occurred."
That's a very odd reading of the report.
A better one is that Mueller investigated whether Trump's campaign coordinated (which is a term used by the law with respect to non-financial foreign campaign contributions) with Russia, and although it found a lot of suggestive events, failed to find conclusive evidence of overt or covert coordination. One odd thing about Mueller's approach was that he used a more stringent definition of coordination than the FEC uses when enforcing the relevant statute. It's likel
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but the election of 2016 was so close that many relatively small groups can claim to have been decisive. Notwithstanding my reservations, I thought The Road to Unfreedom by Timothy Snyder presented the case against Russia quite strongly.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I definitely remember a Hillary Clinton, who said there were attempts to attack her, but never questioned the election result and conceded on November 9, 2016.
Unlike one lying gibbon who keeps telling his base a bunch of lies and moronic "legal theories" that those morons swallow whole, although it should be obvious to everyone with several functioning brain cells they are all lies and crap.
Also, I remember many calls to "lock her up" from the same lying sack of shit, calls that weren't followed by anything
Re: Inadvertently... (Score:4, Insightful)
I like how the Hunter Biden Laptop story was such a short blip that it doesn't didn't get brought up just now.
Re: Inadvertently... (Score:4, Informative)
You mean "corruption" that got investigated for years and turned up zero indictable offences? This one: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/0... [cnn.com]?
Re: Inadvertently... (Score:4, Informative)
That's not election rigging. That's plain old ratf*cking.
The decentralized nature of the American presidential elections make them very difficult to rig. The Russians know this, so clearly that's not their purpose. What they were trying to do with Clinton was undermine her Presidency in case she won.
That's generally their purpose, to undermine Americans' confidence in their institutions.
Re: Inadvertently... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's generally their purpose, to undermine Americans' confidence in their institutions.
So just like Donald Trump then..
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe the Russians hacked every county in Florida [dispatch.com] according to Hillary.
The D and R are just dumb and dumber, and you've chosen to be on one of those teams.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, you guys need to get Hillary out of your head. I know that I'm kicking Donald Trump out on January 20.
Re: (Score:2)
You chose your party, you're just as dumb as everyone else who chooses a party.
Re: (Score:2)
* citation needed
Read the report (Score:2)
Re:Inadvertently... (Score:4, Insightful)
Twitter are FAR LEFT (Score:2, Interesting)
If this was their actual motivation, they would've promoted the NY Post story about e-mails from Hunter Biden's laptop [nypost.com]. Instead they not only buried it, but went as far as suspend the newspaper's account [businessinsider.com] — which certainly reduced the amount of "eyeballs and clicks".
I just offered fresh evidence to the contrary rebutting this statement. But you would've known before, if you
Russia interfered in 2016, and colluded with Trump (Score:4, Informative)
Citation Provided [washingtonpost.com]
On Tuesday, the Republican-chaired Senate Intelligence Committee released a report with damning details of the extent of cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence operatives.
The Post reports: "The long-awaited report from the Senate Intelligence Committee contains dozens of new findings that appear to show more direct links between Trump associates and Russian intelligence, and pierces the president's long-standing attempts to dismiss the Kremlin's intervention on his behalf as a hoax." These include a determination "that a longtime partner of Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was, in fact, a Russian intelligence officer."
Also according to The Post:
The report also for the first time cites evidence that that alleged operative, Konstantin Kilimnik, may have been directly involved in the Russian plot to break into a Democratic Party computer network and provide plundered files to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks. . . .
It offers new proof that former national security adviser Michael Flynn lied about his conversations with the Russia's ambassador to the United States, raises troubling questions about Manafort's decision to squander a plea agreement with prosecutors by lying to Mueller's team, and accuses Blackwater founder Erik Prince of 'deceptive' accounts of his meetings with a Russian oligarch in the Seychelles weeks before Trump was sworn into office.
Just as Norman Eisen, former counsel for the House impeachment managers, detailed in his book "A Case for the American People: The United States v. Donald J. Trump," the intelligence committee report suggests, according to The Post, that there was evidence Trump had lied about discussions concerning Roger Stone and the WikiLeaks release of stolen Democratic emails. "Collusion simply means Trump and those around him wrongly working together with Russia and its satellites, and the fact of that has long been apparent," Eisen told me. "Indeed, it was clear to anyone with eyes from the moment Trump asked, 'Russia, if you're listening.' " Eisen added, "The Senate report is a valuable contribution advancing our understanding, including explaining former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort's nexus to Russian intelligence. The report further elucidates our understanding of collusion via WikiLeaks, which acted as a Russian cut-out."
In addition, the Trump Tower meeting on June 9, 2016, with Manafort and Donald Trump Jr. included Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian attorney and, according to the report "part of a broader influence operation targeting the United States that was coordinated, at least in part with elements of the Russian government."
That Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the acting committee chairman, declared there was no evidence of collusion is belied by the mounds of evidence in the bombshell-filled report. Eisen tweeted, "I said it was collusion at the time and I have not wavered. Every additional piece of evidence that has come in has only proved it more."
Max Bergmann, who runs the Center for American Progress's Moscow Project told me, "He did it. He colluded with Russia during the 2016 election." He added, "The bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee should erase any lingering doubt that Trump and his campaign deliberately sought out and coordinated with Russia and its influence operations during the election." Moreover, "the report also demonstrates that the president of the United States is a clear counterintelligence threat to the country. He is not only compromised by his close contact with the Kremlin but he eagerly sought out covert Russian support in 2016." Bergmann warns that "Trump is certainly willing to cheat again in 2020, and there is no doubt the Kremlin will do what it can to help him."
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) acknowledged proof of the "alarming lengths to which Donald Trump and his campaign welcomed and relied on a hostile foreign power's i
Re: (Score:2)
But suddenly, we have pristine elections. Elections so clean you can eat off them. After 3 years of hearing how easy they were to manipulate. What if Republicans had been up in arms because they were convince that a bunch of foreigners had influenced our elections? What happened to xenophobia being a bad thing? Democrats are advocates of globalization, yet here they are, clutching their pearls at the thought of other countries using social media .... SOCIAL MEDIA ... to subvert an election.
Hillary
Re: (Score:2)
But suddenly, we have pristine elections. Elections so clean you can eat off them. After 3 years of hearing how easy they were to manipulate.
Maybe that has something to do with several states actually ditching dangerous voting practices, such as Georgia ditching their old paperless voting machines.
Re: (Score:2)
Troll? This person expresses on honest opinion, and because it’s unpopular they’re a troll? I don’t think that word means what you think it does. Disagree != Troll. Either feed into the echo chamber or have your opinion shunted to the same bucket as the swastika guy. Avoid cognitive dissonance at all costs.
I had an enjoyable run with Slashdot, since the mid-90’s. I think I just aging out. This is how the younger generations see the world. They have 1,000 rationalizations for
Re: (Score:2)
Russia did not rig the election, but the DID try to secretly influence it.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it unbelievable that Trump's lies and incessant whining about "winning" and "fraud" keep being tolerated by such a large group of people when this bullshit been soundly proven false and rejected by every possible institution that has reviewed them under a modicum of objective criteria. Yet here we are...
I mean using the term "disputed"? It's an awkward position they are in, but lies are lies, and not disputed.
Re:Simple answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Elections are a legal process, and we need to let the legal process run its course.
You don't say!
Is trying to overturn elections by calling your party legislators to violate the elector choice regulations "legal"? I somehow doubt it, yet the gibbon tried to bribe the republican members of several state legislatures to overturn the vote and replace it with his wishes.
Is making a sycophant in a state file a frivolous lawsuit asking the supreme court of your country to overturn fair election results in another "legal"? Your supreme court doesn't think so, yet it happened.
The "whining" is all coming from the left
I see very little whining from the "left" (which is actually moderate right, but that's another story).
There is a political tradition in the US that expects the loser to concede when it is obvious he's lost. It is an important tradition, as it ensures peaceful transition and gives the office, and the person who's vacating it dignity. There are places where traditions of power transition are different - for example in Russia you're carried out in a coffin or in handcuffs. Look at how much worse the outcomes of this lack of dignity and peaceful tradition are. You want that for your country? You can't be serious.
Calls were made for Trump to uphold this valuable tradition.
The point of upholding it, conceding an obvious loss and enacting a power transition procedures passed for Trump in mid-November, yet here we are today with him and the most corrupt part of his horde still trying absurd challenges - among them more than 50 frivolous lawsuits - which have all been shown to be illegal, as in having no basis in law or fact. All of that BS happened under the never stopping whine of the lame gibbon on twitter and in the news.
And you say "the left whines", meaning the center-right Democratic Party? Methings you're a bit on the dishonest side.
Curious fact:
Curiousier fact: state legislatures cannot call elections on the basis of instructions from a gibbon in the whitehouse, but it was tried.
Curiousiest fact: because of his whines, his lies and his attempts to undermine election results by tricks that are no part of the legal process, your fucktard of a president has endangered democracy in many places in the world that will now point at the example, the conspiracy theories and the rest of the whine and bullshit and bludgeon their weaker opposition at home with it.
Trump did in these two months give wannabe democracy subverters a whole new universe of justifications and examples to point to.
It is disgusting, truly. Luckily, this shit will stop Monday when electors choose according to the votes shown to be correct.
I have little doubt that the gibbon and his shitnuggets will not accept the losing or stop whining, but at least the volume will go down considerably.
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats fought a war to preserve slavery. Democrats gave us the institution known as the KKK. Democrats supported eugenics for decades.more Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act than Republicans. Democrats oppose the Equal Rights Ammendment. The Democrats had an ex-KKK member in Congress well into the 2000s. Hillary was against gay marriage well into her 60s. Far younger people have been “cancelled” for holding the same opinion. Barack Obama was publicly against gay marriage both times he wa
Are you an anarchist? (Score:2)
Fun fact, "pull yourself up by your bootstrap" was originally a joke meant to highlight the impossibility of making it on your own until people without the ability to understand irony or civilization just kinda ran with it...
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone that doesn't recognize there is a whole class of social problems that can be solved most effectively by a government should not be allowed to vote until they pass with a satisfactory grade an exam in a rigorous course of public finance and economic history.
We used to call them lies (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't get the memo? We are in the post truth era ... facts don't matter ...
Re: We used to call them lies (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no facts coming from the Trump camp regarding "mass fraud" or "a win", only lies that have been rejected by every serious institution on the way from vote to certification, from the election boards, through state legislatures and courts and all the way up to state high courts and governments.
Facts don't depend on "political spectrum", they are what they are, and they are simple: Trump is lying and the people who repeat his lies are either sycophants who profit from those, or dumb sacks of shit who pay him or get off by denying the gibbon lost.
End of story.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
End of story.
You did an awesome job of summarizing someone else’s opinion. I mean your, YOUR opinion. The media got their talking points from you, not the other way around.
Seriously, some may think I’m being sarcastic but I’m totally not.
Re: We used to call them lies (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: We used to call them lies (Score:5, Insightful)
No bullshit. Random grifters are getting tossed out for lack of standing because as members of the public don't have standing to sue and never have. The Trump campaign is losing when it has standing because its evidence is laughable. The important thing is that they are getting donations to file these embarrassing lawsuits. The Republican Senators and Congressmen who think that they were elected in a fraudulent election should refuse to take office until free and fair elections are held in their state. To do otherwise would be to participate in--and benefit from--the fraud. Until they do so, they can fuck off with their bullshit.
In the Texas case, even Justices Thomas and Alito "would not grant other relief" had the case been heard. https://reason.com/volokh/2020... [reason.com] Trump people are lying to to raise money and preserve his aura of invincibility that exists among conservatives; you believe the lies because it makes you feel good. But no evidence of alleged voter fraud has persuaded a single court in these United States.
So it seems reasonable to infer that zero Supreme Court justices, zero Republican Senators and zero Republican members of the House actually believe that the elections weren't fair. And yet they are telling you to send them money and not trust liberals. Don't worry, JFK Jr. will fix everything soon.
Re: We used to call them lies (Score:5, Insightful)
No, what you posted is not an evidence of wide-spread voter fraud at all. Sorry. There's a reason Trump's krakens aren't arguing voter fraud except on TV, and the reason is pretty simple: they argue "voter fraud" only in, let's call em "responsibility-free" environments. That is, they are just lying.
Re: (Score:2)
I found it hilarious that when the star witness at Giuliani's showboat hearings went off the deep end and Giuliani himself tried to get her to stop talking, and you can see that on video.
Re: (Score:2)
We found out during the Gore v Bush election, that you can run exactly the same ballots through the same electronic counting machines and get a different number every time. There is no perfect answer, no one single truth there, because ballot markings and chads are analog. This freaks some people out because they want 1s and 0s to be 1s and 0s.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is your lot so dishonest?
people use the same word with different meanings
No, there is no "different meaning" when you say "massive election fraud". It means only one thing, a very large (compared to the number of votes) amount of votes cast for money or not cast by people with the right to vote, but inserted into the vote tally by a party with an interest in changing the outcome. None of your contrived examples (most of which aren't even technically fraud) comes close to the baseless and ridiculous accusations that the trumpist bunch has made in the
Re: We used to call them lies (Score:2)
Great. Now all you need is some actual evidence.
Also, legal cases aren't usually tried on Slashdot. Try bringing the evidence to COURT next time, see if that works any better for you.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, the courts in those states said they did not violate any laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is.
Re: (Score:2)
No, there actually are such things as facts and falsehoods. Not everything is purely a matter of opinion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are trying to be the death of democracy. Why? I thought Americans were proud of their democracy. It's strange to see the most patriotic try to destroy what they profess to love.
There is zero evidence for Trumps claims, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. They are not facts they are lies. And stop making shit up about extermination. The vast majority of people who don't swallow Trumps lies and ask for more simply want him to leave and people like you to stop being raging idiots trying to destroy Amer
Re: (Score:2)
It's hypocrites. Always happens, and happens especially often when politicians are involved. For example federalism is bad and awful and we should respect state's rights says the GOP, until they realize that federalism could hand them the presidency so decided that they did want the courts to overrule some states' duly legal elections. They're all for democracy, until the wrong person gets democratically elected. They're all for freedom and liberty for everyone, except if they're gay, muslim, from the w
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So tell me in that pile of missions, where is the actual evidence.
Thing is you don't want fair, legal elections. You had those but they are not good enough for you because your guy lost fair and square and you cannot countenance that. What you want is for your guy to win. That's what makes you a fascist.
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats pass laws outlawing discrimination against groups they like, then turn around and yell “but they’re private companies and can discriminate against whoever they’d like”, when the discrimination goes against people they don’t like.
Then, they look in the mirror, and think, “I’m so righteous. Let me go tell those others what is wrong with them!”
We such a ridiculous species. We can do incredible things, like build spacecraft, yet at the end of the day, w
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's only a lie if the person knows it's wrong. Trump appears to be mental. He may believe what he tweets.
Let's put it this way, the orange buffoon is so mentally deficient, he didn't attend the Christmas party (you remember that war on Christmas, don't you?) he created, but instead sat in his room tweeting about how everyone was against him [msn.com].
That is the literal definition of a loser.
Re: We used to call them lies (Score:2)
It's like the kid from that old Twilight Zone episode who spent his birthday wishing people into the cornfield.
Difficulty: for his last birthday, the village came together, took up a collection, and gave the kid his own nuclear arsenal.
Jan 21st can't come soon enough (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The 1% will reign him in (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming he's allowed to use Twitter from jail.
News (Score:5, Insightful)
With Trump out of office, what on earth will news outlets use for clickbait articles now? They can probably milk COVID for another year, maybe. Unless there is some sort of other disaster in the wings, I think there are going to be some serious problems for news outlets by the end of next year.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They can probably milk COVID for another year, maybe.
I know what you mean. It's been almost 20 years since the 9/11 terror attacks and we still have to hear about them every year despite less than 3,000 people dying. We have that many people dying every day from covid.
On top of which, we still have to take our shoes off to get on a plane, not to mention undergo pat downs and background checks. How much longer can the media milk this one-off event?
I think there are going to be some serious problems for new
Re: (Score:2)
On top of which, we still have to take our shoes off to get on a plane, not to mention undergo pat downs and background checks.
FWIW, get TSA approved. It makes going through the airport as easy as going to a train station (depending on the train).
Re: (Score:2)
On top of which, we still have to take our shoes off to get on a plane, not to mention undergo pat downs and background checks.
FWIW, get TSA approved. It makes going through the airport as easy as going to a train station (depending on the train).
Approved? You mean undergo being investigated even though you're not a criminal? You mean I need permission from the government to board a plane? Do I need my papers too?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean I need permission from the government to board a plane? Do I need my papers too?
Yeah, you do.
Maybe (Score:2)
FWIW, get TSA approved. It makes going through the airport as easy as going to a train station (depending on the train).
I had a friend get TSA pre-approved. The five times he tried to use it, he got pulled aside for extra screening. Every single time. One time he almost missed his flight - they had him wait in a room for an hour, he complained, and they just let him go with no screening. It's stupid. He tried to get his money back, but they wouldn't refund him anything. So yeah, it might work, but it might not. If it doesn't you're out $85 and you won't get it back.
Re: (Score:2)
I got TSA approved, never had a problem. I don't have to take off my shoes, or remove my laptop from my bag. I don't get x-ray scanned, just metal detectored.
Re: (Score:3)
Without being able to cover the lies of the con artist, what else will they have to report on?
It's not reporting per se, it's the inflammatory headlines they can sling on social media. "You won't believe what Trump tweeted today!" Clicky clicky, pageviews pageviews. I'm sure he'll still be tweeting nonsense for a few months, then most people will get bored as it's irrelevant.
More than likely the Fox tabloid will suddenly discover the massive debt and blame Biden for it, or the tax increase being shoved down the middle classes' throats in 2021 because of the way Republicans wrote the law will also be blamed on Biden.
Biden winning will be a goldmine for Fox and it's demographic. He makes enough gaffes and spouts off just enough nonsense that they will get some mileage from him for a while. The issue will be CNN, and MSNBC, and NBC, and CBS,
Two things (Score:4, Informative)
1. Purportedly false
2. "Inadvertently". Yeah, sure.
This is going to come back and bite y'all. Next week, it will be you and what you want to say, but it will be too late, the apparatus and acceptability of censorship will already be in place.
private censorship (Score:2)
I wonder how many repubs/trumpists will claim this is censorship?
Rather than, "It's a private company, they can do whatever they want."
But is it private.. (Score:2)
Since twitter *is* currently protected by 230, you cannot sue them in many ways that you could if they were not.
Including, for example, suing them over that very censorship...
So, as the government in effect protects their ability to censor via 230, the government IS enabling the censorship.
(and yes, without 230 they certainly could do some censorship legally, but not all...)
Of course, good luck trying to take up such a case, as between twitter etal and the us government, you better have DEEP pockets.
(and th
One question.... (Score:2)
If Trump tweets, "I won!" and it gets flagged as "disputed" then if Biden tweets, "I won!" then that gets flagged as "disputed" as well, correct?
If both sides are arguing with the other side on who won then both sides of the argument should be considered "disputed" by someone. I have a feeling that Biden isn't getting the same treatment as Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
"Disputed" is just a nicer way of saying "probably a lie".
If we were to go with a pig-headedly literal interpretation of the word "disputed", then you'd have to put that on a tweet referring to Elizabeth II as the Queen of England. There are to this day Jacobites who believe Franz of Bavaria is the rightful ruler of England, Scotland and Ireland. Oh, and of the United States too -- George III's government had no legal standing to relinquish the crown's sovereignty over North America.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, duh, the G-MAFIA works hand-in-hand with the DNC. That's all documented.
The Constitution is clear - Congress will either certify the Electoral College vote on Jan 6th or contest it. That will either create a President Elect or go to a House vote which will.
Clearly the matter of the next President is widely disputed now and will be resolved in less tham a month. There are rules, Dude, this isn't 'Nam.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only if your second "if" a strawman, but no, because states have certified far more than 270 electoral college votes for Biden, and "faithless electors" are historically less than the margin of victory here.
False equivalence, buddy.
Big tech stopped even trying to hide their bias... (Score:2)
in 2020. They have become very sloppy with their lies ever since they realized they could lie under oath to the US congress and nobody would be punished for it.
As a general rule, random errors have a random distribution. When all the "errors" made by Big Tech over the past several years have gone against Trump the chances that these were all just random errors evaporated - and the guys at Facebook and Twitter are too smart to not know this, yet each time they are caught they insist is was an accident. That'
Facism (Score:4, Insightful)
Fascism, an Italian creation that as a term as been destroyed using 1984 (Orwell) tactics to the point where it is almost meaningless; essentially, the most useful thing the fascists could ever hope for. Plus a lack of education as to what it really was in place of what it did has done nothing to keep it from happening again.
By definition, Fascism is extremely nationalistic so it can never be an imported foreign creation; it has to become it's own localized franchise likely with it's own branding to make it their own. It's a kind of religion in that it's a belief system around an unproven solution; a super natural truth as to proven or discovered truth and like those many denominations can flourish. Like denominations there can be elements that differ to where you wonder if it's close enough to be meet the threshold and merely shares a common origin.
-
FYI: Slavery is still legal in the USA. They only banned private ownership of slaves. 13th amendment, read it. Better hope government functions well enough...
Re: (Score:2)
The point being civilised countries do not act like that becuase it does not help with the problem of crime. Inm fact it makes it worse. But I'm sure you are ok with that.
Re: (Score:2)
The American version of authoritarianism comes wrapped inside a shell of democracy.
Well, yeah, exactly. Yet here you are, defending censorship. Why are are you so authoritarian?
Re: (Score:3)
If the concept of private property means anything, surely it entails the ability to keep idiots from shouting lies from your rooftop.
Authoritarianism looks more like government raids on people saying things the government doesn't want heard--like just happened in Florida.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
most racists are Republicans.
Bullshit. It wasn't the Republicans who tried to bring back legalized racial discrimination in California. It's not the Republicans who are demanding segregated housing in colleges. It's not the Republicans who are assigning guilt by race to innocent people for crimes committed a century ago.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why do I only ever see Trump signs at white nationalist rallies?
Re: (Score:2)
A being "white nationalist", B being "Trump supporter".
Re: (Score:3)
Let us not club all Republicans together. Republican is a term of unity among them. Allowing these nihilists to own the term Republican without challenge is counter productive. We
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter does not remove Trump's tweets. They're all there for everyone to see.