Social media (corporate) election interference and censorship

[PlacidCasual]

Public Forum has a legally understood meaning different to the plain English words. I don't know if an internet forum meets that bar like I say I don't know the case law. A lay mans reading of the description leaves it as dubious if internet forums are "public forums" and asserting you are not responsible in the terms of service is not a protection unless it is backed up by some existing case law. But in most cases I imagine internet forums fall into the sledgehammer to crack a nut category and wouldn't fight a request for removal and have such low visibility that it is difficult to demonstrate slander/libel (don't know which applies here assume libel as printed).

The social media giants though have defined themselves as "public forum" and asserted protection from legal proceedings on that basis and appear to be acknowledged as such. So if someone assert "insert celebrity here" is a slapper on YouTube they don't get sued the Tuber does. But if they were publishers they would be responsible for the Tuber's comments. They have claimed defence against proceeding because they are "public forums" now that is fine and dandy whilst they are neutral. Soon as you started making editorial decisions beyond meeting local legal requirements the question is are you a publisher? Some people myself included think the definition and requirements should be cleared up for the social media giants so they aren't acting as publishers whilst claiming the protections of "public forum" then it becomes their choice how they wish to act.

 

[cheesyboy]

Cynical? I'm not being cynical or constructing any kind of world. i'm just not dismissing anything based on debunks that arent really debunks. You're quite happy to say no meeting took place because camp bidden said so, and you call that a debunk? Sounds like you're constructing a world were politicians don't lie to protect their own interests?

The guy was VP at the time - there are proper records of all his meetings!

It, very quickly, would have been called out - by Trump's Whitehouse no less - if Biden had really had that meeting.

Use some reasoning here.

 

[james.miller]

Yeah, and Clinton didnt bone Lewinski, Saddam really did have weapons of mass destruction and Trump really was telling the truth when he said 'it's just one guy on a plane, we have it sorted. dont worry about the coronavirus'.

Reasoning would be saying 'it's really doubtful but it hasnt been properly debunked YET', but that isnt what you've said at all. You've not even been consistent in what you believe so why should I think for a second that you are being more reasoned than I am?

 

[cheesyboy]

Yeah, and Clinton didnt bone Lewinski, Saddam really did have weapons of mass destruction and Trump really was telling the truth when he said 'it's just one guy on a plane, we have it sorted. dont worry about the coronavirus'.

Reasoning would be saying 'it's really doubtful but it hasnt been properly debunked YET', but that isnt what you've said at all. You've not even been consistent in what you believe so why should I think for a second that you are being more reasoned than I am?

What are you clinging on to that might still be truthful in this whole nonsense story?

Which bit should we leave open to possibility?

Because, honestly, everything that might have been even a bit newsworthy seems to be so untrustworthy that it would be foolish to try to cling on to belief.

It's been debunked as far as the evidence presented allows it to be. If there's anything that makes it more real, Guiliani seems to be passing at the opportunity to provide it!

 

[james.miller]

Ive already said it multiple times. Until its proven the emails are fake, then they aren't debunked. Until its proven Hunter was doing something else when the alleged meeting took place, then its not debunked. And no, 'no meeting took place honest' isn't proof. Until proper proof is found, then your 'thoroughly debunked' statement is completely false. Easy as that.

 

[Jono8]

Public Forum has a legally understood meaning different to the plain English words. I don't know if an internet forum meets that bar like I say I don't know the case law. A lay mans reading of the description leaves it as dubious if internet forums are "public forums" and asserting you are not responsible in the terms of service is not a protection unless it is backed up by some existing case law. But in most cases I imagine internet forums fall into the sledgehammer to crack a nut category and wouldn't fight a request for removal and have such low visibility that it is difficult to demonstrate slander/libel (don't know which applies here assume libel as printed).

Is the size of the forums user base relevant? Facebook, Twitter, Reddit are just simply big forums when it comes down to it. Some with subsections moderated by individuals that censor anything and everything. Try posting anything positive about Biden on r/conservative and see how you get on (for example).

The social media giants though have defined themselves as "public forum" and asserted protection from legal proceedings on that basis and appear to be acknowledged as such. So if someone assert "insert celebrity here" is a slapper on YouTube they don't get sued the Tuber does. But if they were publishers they would be responsible for the Tuber's comments. They have claimed defence against proceeding because they are "public forums" now that is fine and dandy whilst they are neutral. Soon as you started making editorial decisions beyond meeting local legal requirements the question is are you a publisher? Some people myself included think the definition and requirements should be cleared up for the social media giants so they aren't acting as publishers whilst claiming the protections of "public forum" then it becomes their choice how they wish to act.

But basically every forum and social media site will have the same disclaimer about them not being responsible for the content posted. I am not sure that simply saying "we are a public forum" means they cannot have that disclaimer, or whether they could just simply say they are not a "public forum" and have that legal disclaimer anyway.

What you are advocating for is that all platforms whereby users can post their own content would be responsible for what that user posts UNLESS they had no restrictions/rules on what could be posted (as long as it isn't breaking the law). That seems absurd to me.

 

[cheesyboy]

Ive already said it multiple times. Until its proven the emails are fake, then they aren't debunked. Until its proven Hunter was doing something else when the alleged meeting took place, then its not debunked. And no, 'no meeting took place honest' isn't proof. Until proper proof is found, then your 'thoroughly debunked' statement is completely false. Easy as that.

Even best case, the emails only show that Hunter was suggesting he could arrange a meeting with Biden.

And if you believe that Trump's Whitehouse wouldn't immediately counter the Biden claim that no meeting took place, when they have possession of the records of such from the previous administration, then you really are, truly, beyond reasoning.

 

[PlacidCasual]

@Jono8 At this point I don't know if you're arguing in bad faith or simply repeatedly not understanding the point I'm making. I think I've made it adequately but if I haven't I apologise. I won't respond again to you on this specific point because it isn't getting us anywhere.

edit:typo

 

[james.miller]

Stop trying to strawman me. I've not thought or said anything of the sort. Let's stick to what has been said?

Here's an idea, instead of denying the meeting took place, why not tell the public what Hunter was doing that day instead? You know, because it's all recorded like you said. Should be easy, right?

 

[cheesyboy]

Stop trying to strawman me. I've not thought or said anything of the sort. Let's stick to what has been said?

Here's an idea, instead of denying the meeting took place, why not tell the public what Hunter was doing that day instead? You know, because it's all recorded like you said. Should be easy, right?

Hunter? What does it matter if he's meeting someone from Burisma - he worked for them!

 

[wesimmo]

Stop trying to strawman me. I've not thought or said anything of the sort. Let's stick to what has been said?

Here's an idea, instead of denying the meeting took place, why not tell the public what Hunter was doing that day instead? You know, because it's all recorded like you said. Should be easy, right?

Why are you automatically giving credence to the whole story, even though it makes no sense at all, just because a liar said it happened?

Why give a CT spouting lunatic, in Giuliani, any benefit of the doubt when all this rubbish comes out?

 

[Jono8]

@Jono8 At this point I don't know if you're arguing in bad faith or simply repeatedly not understanding the point I'm making. I think I've made it adequately but if I haven't I apologise. I won't respond again to you on this specific point because it isn't getting us anywhere.

edit:typo

But what is your position? Is it that you simply dont like them classing themselves as "public forums"?

Would you be quite happy with them not identifying themselves as one, and then simply having the same terms (ie they are not responsible for the content posted, but can impose their own rules/regulations on what can or cannot be posted)?

You don't seem to be taking objection to how this or other forums operates, so would you be happy if twitter and facebook simply classed themselves the same?

 

[Raymond Lin]

Hunter? What does it matter if he's meeting someone from Burisma - he worked for them!

The person NOT on the election meeting someone he worked for = death
Trump meeting Russians in the White House with photo proof = It's just a meeting innit?

Yeah, that's not biased at all!

 

[james.miller]

Why are you automatically giving credence to the whole story, even though it makes no sense at all, just because a liar said it happened?

Why give a CT spouting lunatic, in Giuliani, any benefit of the doubt when all this rubbish comes out?

Im not, I never said its indisputable. I said cheesy boys efforts to debunk it have failed. If its not true it should be easy enough to prove, right? And if it is, then case closed.

Doesn't make me a ct nut. Doesn't mean I'm constructing fantasy realities to support my own twisted definition of the word 'debunk'... Doesn't mean I'm being unreasonable. And I've stated my position without trying to strawman.

 

[cheesyboy]

Im not, I never said its indisputable. I said cheesy boys efforts to debunk it have failed. If its not true it should be easy enough to prove, right? And if it is, then case closed.

Doesn't make me a ct nut. Doesn't mean I'm constructing fantasy realities to support my own twisted definition of the word 'debunk'... Doesn't mean I'm being unreasonable. And I've stated my position without trying to strawman.

The Biden team literally said they checked the records and Biden was not in a meeting. What more evidence do you need?

Trump would have the evidence of Biden's meetings - he was VP at the time. He can call him out if what they're saying is false, but he hasn't.

But you need more 'evidence'?

Come on.

 

[wesimmo]

Im not, I never said its indisputable. I said cheesy boys efforts to debunk it have failed. If its not true it should be easy enough to prove, right? And if it is, then case closed.

Doesn't make me a ct nut. Doesn't mean I'm constructing fantasy realities to support my own twisted definition of the word 'debunk'... Doesn't mean I'm being unreasonable. And I've stated my position without trying to strawman.

It's just odd the you want to put the burden of proof about a ridiculous story on the accused and you've given no thought whatsoever to the fact that the original story is so ridiculous as to be unworthy of having to be debunked anyway, add to that it was made up by a proven liar and CT nut.

 

[chroniclard]

Guiliani, lol. King of the nothing burger CT.

 

[james.miller]

It's just odd the you want to put the burden of proof about a ridiculous story on the accused and you've given no thought whatsoever to the fact that the original story is so ridiculous as to be unworthy of having to be debunked anyway, add to that it was made up by a proven liar and CT nut.

Well, I wouldnt have said it was worthy, not until people started claiming it was debunked when it never was.

As for the burden of proof, not sure what else you can do in such a situation when there's no proof the emails aren't real. Do you shut up and hope it disappears or just say 'nope, isn't true, can't be true and here's why :..'. That's what I'd do? What would you do with such a damaging accusation?

 

[Theophany]

This thread:

 

[wesimmo]

Well, I wouldnt have said it was worthy, not until people started claiming it was debunked when it never was.

As for the burden of proof, not sure what else you can do in such a situation when there's no proof the emails aren't real. Do you shut up and hope it disappears or just say 'nope, isn't true, can't be true and here's why :..'. That's what I'd do? What would you do with such a damaging accusation?

Exactly what they've done, said they've checked records and there was no meeting, beyond that give it no more credibility otherwise Trump and Rudy tie up your time and effort with obvious fairy stories only believable by people who want to believe it.