←back to thread

Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

(techcrunch.com)
707 points patd | 9 comments | 27 May 20 12:21 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
djohnston ◴[27 May 20 13:29 UTC] No.23322847[source]▶
The head of integrity has unabashedly showcased his strong political bias on Twitter, and I suspect things will begin going poorly for either him or Twitter shortly.
replies(6): >>23322949 #>>23322950 #>>23322971 #>>23323003 #>>23323336 #>>23323566 #
adwww ◴[27 May 20 13:36 UTC] No.23322949[source]▶
lol what, he is biased for pointing out misinformation from a prominent public figure, after years of Twitter being criticised for allowing false information to proliferate?
replies(4): >>23322994 #>>23323001 #>>23323038 #>>23325325 #
1. plehoux ◴[27 May 20 13:40 UTC] No.23323001[source]▶
I think he is referencing those tweets: https://twitter.com/LevineJonathan/status/126545757821512499...
replies(3): >>23323209 #>>23323281 #>>23323730 #
2. radiator ◴[27 May 20 13:52 UTC] No.23323209[source]▶
Wow! I would say, unless Twitter has double standards, it should fact-check the tweets of its own "head of integrity".
replies(1): >>23323592 #
3. adwww ◴[27 May 20 13:56 UTC] No.23323281[source]▶
ha oh, in that case that's a bit of an own goal from Twitter.

Although I doubt he put that fact checking warning up all on his own, there must have been a policy in place that senior management agreed to, and legal have presumably okayed.

4. shadowgovt ◴[27 May 20 14:15 UTC] No.23323592[source]▶
Twitter obviously has double standards; has for years. Remember when the US elected a troll and Twitter responded to calls they enforce their own TOS by modifying the TOS to have a carve-out for "newsworthiness?"
5. pbhjpbhj ◴[27 May 20 14:21 UTC] No.23323730[source]▶
That's attacking the person rather than the action - were the fact checking moderations wrong?

Sure, their personal political bias should put them up to a greater level of scrutiny; but it they can still fact check without bias.

So, have they?

replies(2): >>23326006 #>>23327007 #
6. free_rms ◴[27 May 20 16:45 UTC] No.23326006[source]▶
The appearance is disqualifying on its own.

They're gonna get dragged for these tweets any time they fact check anything, even if their judgment is always impeccable.

replies(1): >>23326809 #
7. surfpel ◴[27 May 20 17:34 UTC] No.23326809{3}[source]▶
> They're gonna get dragged for these tweets

They’ll get dragged for doing anything that doesn’t align with X party. If not his tweets than something else.

Not saying people shouldn’t have common sense about what they post on a public forum tho...

replies(1): >>23327418 #
8. remarkEon ◴[27 May 20 17:47 UTC] No.23327007[source]▶
I think it's a much greater stretch to pretend that this person's obvious political bias doesn't leak into the "fact checking" they choose to do - or not to do, which is kind of the bigger issue. They may "correctly", ignoring the philosophically charged issue of "correct", fact check a certain politician but choose to ignore a different politician's statements that would otherwise be noted as incorrect under the same or similar standard.
9. free_rms ◴[27 May 20 18:13 UTC] No.23327418{4}[source]▶
Yeah, but why hand them ammo. Like you say.

I'm pretty sure most judges would recuse if they had statements like that surface.

Sections (a) (1) and especially (a) (5) here, for example: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili...