Social media (corporate) election interference and censorship

Status
Not open for further replies.
So you would back a rule/law whereby the government forces requires all social media platforms to allow any content, as long as it does not explicitly break the law?
Yes if they want public forum protection. No if they're happy to be responsible for what they publish, just like newspapers and the TV.

I think there are several court cases underway that may force this issue btw. So it may not be a question of Government intervention.
 
It's fake AND it violates their policy.

It has personal info, it purports to be hacked materials.... but it turns out that it's actually likely a mixture of benign hacked materials seeded with fake counter-intel pushed on Giuliani from the Russians.

Says who any proof?

I love it how people have go right to insults and then russian on this.

If hacked/stolen/unauthorised data is off the cards that removes what jurnos can do

No Trumps Tax reports, no Wiki leaks,

Say twitter, If the press got hold of the Watergate tapes then they shouldn't be published as well

If it Fake story the party's invoiced tend to get there assed sued and much more.
 
Yes if they want public forum protection. No if they're happy to be responsible for what they publish, just like newspapers and the TV.

I think there are several court cases underway that may force this issue btw. So it may not be a question of Government intervention.

These companies likely won't exist in that case. Their entire business model is based on advertising revenue. If they have no control whatsoever over the content that can be posted, then advertisers know they have no way of knowing what their advertisement appears alongside etc.
 
No, if they don't want to be public forums then, they don't have to be neutral. They can be publishers and responsible for the content they allow and thus liable for the content. What they can't be is both.
If they want the protections of public forums then yes they should be neutral, they get the benefit of not being responsible for what they distribute and are only required to remove what would be illegal in any media.
If they want to editorialise content they are making a conscious decision about what we see and should be responsible for all of it. Just like a newspaper or TV channel is. Then they can have their political slant.

edit:
And that is a straw man, no one is suggesting the Government decide what they disseminate except where it is illegal material, just like in publishing and TV.

quite
 
The only item of any seeming interest HAS been debunked: that Hunter Biden arranged a meeting for the guy with his father.

Have a read through this dissection :


Not debunked, questioned.


All that's been establish so far on that front is that the headline of the article is misleading. the emails havent been debunked and it hasnt been proven if the meeting took place or not. All we have so far is Biddens camp releasing a statement that no meeting took place on that date at that time. I mean, they're not going to say anything else are they?
 
Says who any proof?

I love it how people have go right to insults and then russian on this.

If hacked/stolen/unauthorised data is off the cards that removes what jurnos can do

No Trumps Tax reports, no Wiki leaks,

Say twitter, If the press got hold of the Watergate tapes then they shouldn't be published as well

If it Fake story the party's invoiced tend to get there assed sued and much more.
There's a clear difference between a story planted in the NY Post, which stinks so much of nonsense that it's not picked up by any reputable sources, compared with a story in the NYT of clearly very well sourced, by journalists of earned repute, publishing details of Trump's tax returns.... which he is yet to provide evidence or any meaningful argument to refute.

Trying to make an equivalent between the two is the sort of base thinking that has flattened the Trump/Biden comparison, where one is a bog-standard old politician and the other is a total ******* maniac, to a "they're both as bad as each other" sort of discussion.
 
Not debunked, questioned.


All that's been establish so far on that front is that the headline of the article is misleading. the emails havent been debunked and it hasnt been proven if the meeting took place or not. All we have so far is Biddens camp releasing a statement that no meeting took place on that date at that time. I mean, they're not going to say anything else are they?
Did you deliberately not read to the end? Or are you misrepresenting what the Biden camp said by pretending they were only denying a very specific time period?

 
I would ask them at the very least to apply there rules evenly and not selectively for a start.

But it is their rules. they can change them on a whim if they want to (within the law).

What i am getting at, is that Twitter is someone else's website. It isn't the governments, it isn't yours and it isn't mine.

They should be able to moderate it how they wish, just like any other forum.
 
There's a clear difference between a story planted in the NY Post, which stinks so much of nonsense that it's not picked up by any reputable sources, compared with a story in the NYT of clearly very well sourced, by journalists of earned repute, publishing details of Trump's tax returns.... which he is yet to provide evidence or any meaningful argument to refute.

Trying to make an equivalent between the two is the sort of base thinking that has flattened the Trump/Biden comparison, where one is a bog-standard old politician and the other is a total ******* maniac, to a "they're both as bad as each other" sort of discussion.

Oh I defiantly agree with you it was planted/timed for max effect that if well agenda driven, like how its agenda driven the press that hates trump and want Biden to win have ignored this but pick up on every turmp gaff they can.
 
Did you deliberately not read to the end? Or are you misrepresenting what the Biden camp said by pretending they were only denying a very specific time period?


Hang on a minute. It wasnt me who said it was thoroughly debunked then changed to 'some of it's true' when questioned and posted a twitter thread as 'proof' when it's anything but. Yes, i did read all of his tweets and what i said was correct. You are loosing any argument you're trying to make if the only thing you can hang on to is the difference between 'didnt happen at that date and time' or 'ever'. Yes ok, I worded that badly, but you know full well I meant that the Bidden camp denied it happened. So..oh well, whoopdido. I guess that's debunked then? What with that an a twitter thread that mostly talks about how the emails were obtained.
 
But it is their rules. they can change them on a whim if they want to (within the law).

What i am getting at, is that Twitter is someone else's website. It isn't the governments, it isn't yours and it isn't mine.

They should be able to moderate it how they wish, just like any other forum.

They can change them on a Whim sure that's very different to applying there rules unevenly.
 
Like I've told you before, when your posts pop up with this drivel, all we see is this:

yNF7QfJ.gif

Dude.....
 
Hang on a minute. It wasnt me who said it was thoroughly debunked then changed to 'some of it's true' when questioned and posted a twitter thread as 'proof' when it's anything but. Yes, i did read all of his tweets and what i said was correct. You are loosing any argument you're trying to make if the only thing you can hang on to is the difference between 'didnt happen at that date and time' or 'ever'. Yes ok, I worded that badly but you know full well i meant that they denied it happened. Oh well, whoopdido. I guess that's debunked then?
So what was actually in the NY Post story that wasn't debunked? What is the controversy here?

ps. the twitter thread provided was just a simple and quick summary. There are plenty of legit reports of the same information from reputable news sources.
 
Last edited:
Oh I defiantly agree with you it was planted/timed for max effect that if well agenda driven, like how its agenda driven the press that hates trump and want Biden to win have ignored this but pick up on every turmp gaff they can.
The press and social media continuously makes Trump look better than he is. That's why his performance at the first debate moved the polling so badly against him: most of what regular americans hear of Trump is through the filter of the press. Seeing him without that filter smashed the illusion for many. He's clearly a total moron.
 
They can change them on a Whim sure that's very different to applying there rules unevenly.

But even then, so what? You dont like the service they are offering? You think their administration is poor or unfair? If you think a company is poorly run....don't use that company.
 
These companies likely won't exist in that case. Their entire business model is based on advertising revenue. If they have no control whatsoever over the content that can be posted, then advertisers know they have no way of knowing what their advertisement appears alongside etc.
They don't have a God-given right to exist and if they can't pair their advertisers with the right content they need better algorithms or suck it up. That is the price of legal protection. If you want to editorialise your responsible for everything, if you don't your not.
 
They don't have a God-given right to exist and if they can't pair their advertisers with the right content they need better algorithms or suck it up. That is the price of legal protection. If you want to editorialise your responsible for everything, if you don't your not.

So going back to this very forum. OCUK ban many things on here that are not illegal, due to business decisions in the same way Facebook and Twitter do (they don't want swearing, pornography, competitor links, no medical advice etc). Do you therefore think OCUK should also be responsible for the content posted on here?

Almost every forum or social media platform bans certain things that are not necessarily illegal.

Are you therefore advocating that all such places should be responsible for everything posted?
 
Last edited:
This story was quickly debunked and not reported on by any reputable news outlets.

So why cry over it? It's literally fake news.
Just taking this example, thoroughly debunked as it is
It's fake AND it violates their policy.
it turns out that it's actually likely a mixture of benign hacked materials seeded with fake counter-intel pushed on Giuliani from the Russians.

.
.
.

So what was actually in the NY Post story that wasn't debunked? What is the controversy here?
You said it was thoroughly debunked, now you say some of it's true. You're soo sure; you tell me what's true and what isn't.

ps. the twitter thread provided was just a simple and quick summary. There are plenty of legit reports of the same information from reputable news sources.

Same information. So no debunking then?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom