When the president of the US flies off the handle and spouts false or misleading information, I'm happy it gets tagged with links to the facts.
I think the point is they are free to regulate the speech on their platform, but then they are liable for the speech on there.
Facts according to who? I am going to fact check you and say that we rarely read "facts" in the news any more. We read and hear the journalist's interpretation and analysis of facts. Anyone who interprets and provides analysis/perspective of "the facts" also introduces THEIR BIAS within what they write and speak. Trump also clearly does this all the time. Sometimes he gets that actual facts wrong. Sometimes he makes shit up because it's crazy hard for him to say "I don't know". Sometimes he just calls it like he sees it, and that is contrary to the opinion, analysis, or interpretation of "facts" by others. So what. People who think critically can make up their own mind-- and that conclusion will be influenced by their own biases. I don't know anyone who thinks the President is infallible and his words are absolute truth. The idea is as laughable as "you can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance."
They play it both ways--- they claim to be a "platform" with NO liability for content posted by users. Then when it suits them, they claim to be a "publisher" with the complete right to allow or disallow whatever content they see fit. All of them do this. Zucs comments critical of Twitter yesterday caught me off-guard.
thehill.com
Again. I don't know anyone who can't distinguish between Trump exaggerating, or being sarcastic, or Trump just Trolling... (except for "fact-checkers"...LOL)
One of my favorite bugs bunny cartoons is "Bugs 'n Thugs." Thug didn't used to have a racial component. Now, when used in a racially fraught context, it absolutely does.
I don't think of RACE at all when I hear that word. I think of emboldened mobs gathered for any given cause. I think of ANTIFA. I think of Gangs. I think of old-school Union members engaging in physical intimidation. I think of drunken thuggish bullies just Itching to start a fight in a bar. I think of criminals attempting to use Force in committing their crimes.
It doesn't matter what you or I think of the word. What matters is how the 45-50 Million black people in this country perceive it. They all know the word thug means the N word.I don't think of RACE at all when I hear that word. I think of emboldened mobs gathered for any given cause. I think of ANTIFA. I think of Gangs. I think of old-school Union members engaging in physical intimidation. I think of drunken thuggish bullies just Itching to start a fight in a bar. I think of criminals attempting to use Force in committing their crimes.
When you try to equate "thug" with the absolutely racist N-word, you are attempting to create a new PC standard of speech and I am reminded of my daughters' favorite movie, Mean Girls. Stop trying to make "fetch" happen.
Wrong. Fact-checking your claim shows that you are taking one part of a statement OUT OF CONTEXT and arriving at a conclusion that is unjustified and unsupported.
This was taken out of context. This has been disproven already. He said there were very fine people on both sides of the protest. And there were. Not everyone of course. Not everyone who wanted those historical statues left up were white supremacists. Some people just don't like to see their historical landmarks violently destroyed.
Hah!
OMG--- Obama is a racist!!! LOL
What a racist
