Trump Wants To Regulate Google

[Gene Frenkle]

4 hours ago, Reality Check said:

Your wife says no.

 

Not married. I win!

[Buffalo_Gal]

The dailymail has lots more on the head of twitter's "fact checking" department:
 

 

[Gene Frenkle]

Do you guys see the absolute hypocrisy of small-government conservatives screaming about the urgent need for the tight government regulation of private businesses?

You should just start a conservative social media platform. Too bad MySpace didn't work out for ya.

[Buffalo_Gal]

Just now, Gene Frenkle said:

Do you guys see the absolute hypocrisy of small-government conservatives screaming about the urgent need for the tight government regulation of private businesses?

I hope they go all Ma Bell-break-up on Facebook, Google, and Twitter.

But, oh wait... I am not a small-government conservative, so I am allowed to think what I like. Am I doing that correctly? ?

[Gene Frenkle]

Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:

I hope they go all Ma Bell-break-up on Facebook, Google, and Twitter.

But, oh wait... I am not a small-government conservative, so I am allowed to think what I like. Am I doing that correctly? ?

 

So you're a big-government conservative?

[GG]

3 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

Do you guys see the absolute hypocrisy of small-government conservatives screaming about the urgent need for the tight government regulation of private businesses?

You should just start a conservative social media platform. Too bad MySpace didn't work out for ya.

 

You haven't really thought through this too much, have you?

[B-Man]

 

Only 11??

 

 

11 Democrats Who Lied, on Twitter, About ‘Fine People’ in Charlottesville

by Joel B. Pollak

 

Original Article

 

Twitter applied a fact check to President Donald Trump on Tuesday because he claimed that voter fraud was more likely under the Democrats’ proposed nationwide vote-by-mail system — something even Democrats once believed.

 

Yet Twitter does not apply the same standard to inaccurate or speculative statements by Democrats. Case in point: the “very fine people” hoax, claiming Trump praised neo-Nazis who rioted in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August 2017.As  has demonstrated extensively, Trump never praised the neo-Nazis, but in fact said they should be “condemned totally”

 

 

[Gene Frenkle]

Also, good luck. I don't think we're at a point where any government can effectively regulate these entities. It's a joke when talking about these worldwide platforms.

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

So you're a big-government conservative?

I'm a hard core leftie. That means I get to say, think, and do whatever I like! Amirite!? ?

[billsfan1959]

22 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

Not married. I win!

 

I think anyone that might have been Mrs. Frenkle wins...

[Gene Frenkle]

Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:

I'm a hard core leftie. That means I get to say, think, and do whatever I like! Amirite!? ?

 

No, it's because you're 'Merican. We all have these freedoms.

Just now, billsfan1959 said:

 

I think anyone that might have been Mrs. Frenkle wins...

 

I'm sure your wife can stop telling everyone how great you are.

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

No, it's because you're 'Merican. We all have these freedoms.

{checks skin tone} Nope, Mexican I ain't. But I can knit a stupid pink hat! That counts for something, right!?

 

[Gene Frenkle]

Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:

{checks skin tone} Nope, Mexican I ain't. But I can knit a stupid pink hat! That counts for something, right!?

 

 

Of course! I'm sure they're very nice hats. You should do whatever makes you happy. ?

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

Also, good luck. I don't think we're at a point where any government can effectively regulate these entities. It's a joke when talking about these worldwide platforms.

 

If you take some time to read through the thread, you'll see that there's a lot of debate about how to solve the issue -- with no clear answer. While there are no clear answers yet, from any partisan camp let alone the "gov't", what is clear is that the power and influence of social media and the technology behind it are both here to stay. An algorithm and a few lines of code can effectively influence a huge swath of consumers in a way the television or phone never could. 

 

There's no easy answer, but the only wrong answer I can see is to pretend that it's not rife for abuse and corruption. 

[Doc]

Libs should be happy.  Hell, a couple million in Facebook adds was enough for Russia to get Trump elected. 

 

Ah but wait.  It's only an issue when it helps them.  Never mind.

[B-Man]

 

Not surprised at all?

 

 

Twitter exec in charge of effort to fact-check Trump has history of anti-Trump posts, called McConnell a 'bag of farts'

by Gregg Re

 

Original Article

 

Twitter's "Head of Site Integrity" Yoel Roth boasts on his LinkedIn that he is in charge of "developing and enforcing Twitter’s rules," like the one that led Twitter to slap a new warning label on two of President Trump's tweets concerning mail-in balloting on Tuesday -- posts that Twitter conspicuously deemed "misleading," even though bipartisan panels of experts have agreed with the president that absentee balloting increases the risk of voter fraud. However, Roth's own barrage of anti-Trump, politically charged tweets seemingly calls into question whether he should be creating rules for the president and other Twitter users, especially when Twitter is under fire for its alleged left-wing bias.

 

 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

(added)

An example that has nothing to do with partisanship (or shouldn't) -- Iran, one of the world's most brutal and despicable regimes, is allowed to spout off unchecked (including pushing terrorist propaganda). Trump's tweets about mail-in voting don't threaten the lives of any innocents, but Iran's regime often tweets information, propaganda, and disinformation which is designed to threaten the lives of innocents. 

 

Twitter says one is a danger, while giving the other a pass. 

 

Why? I can't be sure. Maybe it's money. Maybe it's some ***** up sense of PC gone wrong. Either way, it's problematic. 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

[Gene Frenkle]

38 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

If you take some time to read through the thread, you'll see that there's a lot of debate about how to solve the issue -- with no clear answer. While there are no clear answers yet, from any partisan camp let alone the "gov't", what is clear is that the power and influence of social media and the technology behind it are both here to stay. An algorithm and a few lines of code can effectively influence a huge swath of consumers in a way the television or phone never could. 

 

There's no easy answer, but the only wrong answer I can see is to pretend that it's not rife for abuse and corruption. 

 

We could firewall our country like China.

35 minutes ago, Doc said:

Libs should be happy.  Hell, a couple million in Facebook adds was enough for Russia to get Trump elected. 

 

Ah but wait.  It's only an issue when it helps them.  Never mind.

 

How do you rationalize supporting the same candidate as Russia? Not an attack at all, just a question.

[Deranged Rhino]

6 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

We could firewall our country like China.

 

We could, but that does nothing to address the issues from within our own borders. Plus, putting up barriers to information, regardless of its quality, seems deeply problematic to a country like ours which values free speech, expression, and thought.