The white man has spoken. Non-whites should not go to polling stations.

What a lie. Any other advice you have for non-whites?

That's not because only Democrats would act fraudulently, or "are [all Republicans] utterly truthful" according to you? It's because covid-19 disproportionally affects non-white US citizens who tend to vote Democratic more often. Denying them the ability to vote via mail-in ballots is the ploy and that's the real violation of rights here. Not a little link beneath the President's unsubstantiated claims.

You don’t think non-whites can line up and vote like everyone else? Fucking sick.

See, "yelling fire in a movie theater".

It’s a poor phrase used to illustrate an old standard which was used to censor opposition to the draft.

The standard in first amendment law is “immanent lawless action”, or in other words, the advocacy of criminal activity, if and only when the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action.

A traditional public forum is something like a street or park; "public property which have, as 'a principal purpose, ... the free exchange of ideas'"1. Social media platforms aren't public property. Is Trump planning to nationalise social media?

I think the term “functional equivalent” means it is not actually public property, but functions in a similar manner. Recall when the courts claimed Trump’s Twitter account to be a “designated public forum”. But I agree that is a hard sell.

Which users are they going to monitor? Why are they monitoring them? I don't know how to read this as anything other than Big Brother tracking critics.

It is my understanding that they want to collect publicly available information on the tracking of users by social media companies, along with complaints.

Edit: here’s the actual EO, just signed. It’s similar to the draft, but not the same.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/

Apparently this is a draft of Trump's executive order on social media.

I was worried that Trump would attempt to regulate Twitter, but the EO seems to be consistent with law without getting all authoritarian.

1. To order the FCC clarify Section 230 of the Communications decency act ("No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider").

2. To review federal spending of tax-payer dollars on advertising upon social media platforms.

3. A federal review of unfair and deceptive acts and practices.

4. To establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair and deceptive acts and practices.

Is there anything objectionable in it?

I don't see why I would feel any kind of fear now while thinking what I would do if the situation was real. Fear would perhaps be able to play a role only in the real situation, if you would feel any to begin with, that is. Bystander effect is also not it, as it would only work if there are other people around you and I assumed in this situation that you would be alone in the train yard. I think a reason one would choose inaction is that there is no good solution to the trolley case. You are to choose between a minor sacrifce and a major one, and no matter what you choose you are still going to sacrifice someone. If I could, I would just go in front of the trolley and stop it with my bare hands.

Maybe that’s the key to it: do what you can instead of washing your hands of the situation and walking away. Warn the conductor, call the police, make a gallant attempt to get the people off the tracks.

I think it’s a step too far. But the question of who fact-checks the fact-checkers is an important one. The capricious and political use of their labelling and anti-Trump sources, all of whom endorse opposing candidates, makes plain their motives, which seems to me to score points against Trump and to influence the election.

All that being said, it is wrong for Trump to try to regulate social media companies, and I suspect his EO will be slapped down in the supreme court. Twitter is a public company (not a private one as an idiot would claim), and Trump should simply walk away from the platform and watch its stock prices fall.

My mistake.

Another example is that video. There is nothing manipulated in it.

It's the first time it happened!!

Does this really need explaining?

If someone points out that what I'm saying is false, and provides a factual source that contradicts me, it's fine. It doesn't matter if it's Twitter that does it, it doesn't matter if it's a forum member that does it. I want people to correct me when I'm wrong.

The fucking POTUS can't handle that so hard he's supporting censorship of social media platforms.

Apparently it does, because Twitter didn't simply "say it was false", as if they made a statement. They altered the code of the website in a discriminatory fashion.

If you had the power you wouldn't use it though.

Of course not. You guys are all adults, aren't you?

You know you're caught in a contradiction, so all you're doing now is trying to reframe all the exchange we've had in terms of you being freedom loving (and supporting Trump's censorship of Twitter) and me being authoritarian (and thinking that's Twitter's call, and I'm glad that they're doing something towards how how terrible its discourse is).

You gave not a single fuck when Twitter was culling Isis propaganda. Not one.

Utterly false. If only I had the power to add a little link to fox news under your misinformation.

Absolutely.

That explains everything.

You'd be fine if someone did that to you?

I do not want to limit their expressions nor dictate how they run their website, and instead of assuming what I want you might as well just ask me.

Now I have the right to use hate speech in the United States. It's protected speech. Do I believe it is right to use hate speech? No. Now because I think its wrong to spew hatred, does this mean I want to interfere with the speech of racists or terrorists? Do I want them to conduct themselves how I see fit? No. I would use my own speech to say why it is wrong.

That’s absurd. That’s like saying the first amendment protects itself.

I do not.

Was there a point in there somewhere?

Is this another little game of questions?

You have my blessing.

The owners of a service should be able to shape it as they see fit. You've used this in argument, passionately, many many times. You are not consistent.

Of course they should. It’s their property. They can do what they want. That doesn’t mean it’s right or wrong. Are you able to make that distinction?

Again, I never said Twitter’s new feature is illegal or not protected by the first amendment, so it’s stupid to keep trying to nail down that irrelevant point, as if someone was disputing it or arguing the opposite. Is this how lawyers argue?

Again, it’s wrong for some pencil-neck in Silicon Valley to interfere with the president’s speech, apply a little label, and link to some CNN article. Pencil-neck is not the arbiter of truth, can dispute Trump like everyone else in replies, comments and articles, and need not abuse his power to apply links, fact-checks or any other nonsense on people’s tweets.

It’s not a comment. It’s a new feature of the system, one designed to combat “misinformation”, which has been demanded by Western governments for the past few years. It’s just weird to me that someone would call it a comment or speech.

It’s a twitter comment. The doublespeak is profound.

If it’s a comment then who made it?

It’s not a comment. There are thousands of comments under his tweets. I would say it’s more like a warning label or addendum.

I never said twitter doesn’t have the right to do what they want with their property. I’m saying it’s wrong to alter someone’s expression and essentially violate their human right.

Nothing to do with law, pal.

Sure it is.

Saying a comment isn’t proven is one thing, but an entity stamping their mark of approval on a comment is another.

Yeah, you might be right as far as “the right” is concerned. I don’t see why a president shouldn’t able to say what he wants. I’d be interested to hear your argument as to why he shouldn’t.

It’s just speech. You could scan the annals of medicine and find not a single person injured by words. If you don’t believe in free speech for everyone, you don’t believe in free speech.

If you left my original text intact and merely added editorialized trimmings of your own, then I wouldn't much mind actually...

Even if you decorated it above and below with shit-emojis, I would still expect my statements to stand or fall on their own merits...

So answer me this: What if you made a post that was factually incorrect (what was the tweet in question even about? I still haven't cared enough to check...), and let's assume that it is something relevant to "politics". Would you feel so-violated if someone merely added a disclaimer stating that it is factually inaccurate?

I would, yes. Like you said, we expect our statements to stand and fall on their own merits. Others can use their own mind and expression to dispute it. I fear for and pity those who need their information to be curated.

Imagine if I edited your post, applied my warning to it, and hijacked it in order to link to contrary information.

The one time trump mentions regulation people immediately turn libertarian. Personally I’m not for regulation, but if a social media company wants to act like a publisher, it should be treated as one.

I know what censorship is.

As twitter has proven, some pencil-neck in Silicon Valley can editorialize on the president’s tweets, alter them, and use the bully pulpit to push his agenda. He get’s to remain unaccountable to both the person whose tweets he alters and the public he means to persuade. This is the kind of censorship that would make the CCP proud, but it has been something demanded by Western officials for quite some time.

Why would you do nothing? Fear? Bystander effect?

I‘m sure others would not hold you responsible for doing nothing, but I suspect anyone with a conscience would have a hard time living with themselves afterwards.

Another recent case of mail-in voter fraud, posted by the DOJ just today.

Thomas Cooper, a mail carrier in Pendleton County, was charged today in a criminal complaint with attempted election fraud, U.S. Attorney Bill Powell announced.

Cooper, age 47, of Dry Fork, West Virginia, is charged with “Attempt to Defraud the Residents of West Virginia of a Fair Election.” According to the affidavit filed with the complaint, Cooper held a U.S. Postal Service contract to deliver mail in Pendleton County. In April 2020, the Clerk of Pendleton County received “2020 Primary Election COVID-19 Mail-In Absentee Request" forms from eight voters on which the voter's party-ballot request appeared to have been altered.

The clerk reported the finding to the West Virginia Secretary of State’s office, which began an investigation. The investigation found five ballot requests that had been altered from “Democrat” to “Republican.” On three other requests, the party wasn’t changed, but the request had been altered.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndwv/pr/pendleton-county-mail-carrier-charged-attempted-election-fraud