The publisher/platform distinction isn't a real thing legally.m121c wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 3:16 pm You are right, it should not be in the governments power to enforce Twitters TOS fairly. However, I think what I am seeing as a good solution is to revoke their protections and allow the people to demand they apply it equally. Twitter has nothing to worry about if they just stick to their "platforms" core message, outline a detailed TOS, and enforce it fairly. There will be no reason for them to lose that protection. However, I feel if they keep acting more like a publisher with the message of a platform, and not just a platform, they should be held liable like a publisher would. Although Trump is at the center, this is not just Trump being censored. Many conservative publications and media sources that are not loony Trumpers have been fighting this since 2016.
If you think social media is really just a website like any other with no real need to keep a close eye on.. I would recommend the documentary on Netflix about it.
If there was some way to keep him from communicating with the public aside from scripted speeches I bet he would have won easily. Think of all the own-goals that would have been prevented. Not sure it would be a good thing since it'd just be masking the crazy, but it would have been great for his reelection chances.m121c wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 3:16 pm The main way people were able to see Trump's character problem was through his Twitter. You censor that... you think he has a second term? Maybe Twitter not censoring him has it's upside. Crazy ideas are not crazy in darkness... it is not until we can see them can we acknowledge how crazy they really are. What we are seeing though, is the non-crazy is tactilely being labelled as crazy by the left as a political tool, and the social media giants are on board with silencing it. More ideas the better, that one solid measure of what is radical and what is not, is if you have dissenting ideas to use as a scale of comparison. One voice as truth, aka these social media giants and "news" media (those in which they like anyway), leads to possibility of "hidden" radicalism. I think that's really bad. You would be very mistaken to believe that these mega corporations ever want a conservative president, and that they won't do everything in their power and influence to prevent it.
The thing is they did a thorough investigation in Georgia and no one cared. It was clear the only audit that would be acceptable was one that put Trump ahead. That's why the vote objection thing was insane. It would have effectively made Trump president for life. That the republicans in congress went along with it is a deal breaker for me.m121c wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 3:16 pm Absolutely not. I said it from the beginning, my argument on the election was never for Trump to overturn it and win. That's not what I wanted, nor what even the Republican's like Cruz wanted, even though that is the narrative. I honestly believe we have no real I idea where the truth is. I think an independent and thorough investigation was necessary and the let the cards fall where they may. Too late.
The quest for eliminating all fraudulent votes is basically picking up pennies in front of a steamroller. If you eliminate all bad votes you might gain .1% at the most. Now that the fraud circus sacked the capitol the republicans have probably lost 10% of their voters. I'm a lifelong republican voter and *I* couldn't vote for them in their current state. All over fraudulent votes that are barely more than a rounding error.