How do consumers fight back Ryan?
-
-
-
As voters and citizens. Nationalize it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"Oh noes! When I was clamoring for this stupid idea of social media platforms giving fact checkers the ability to censor content, I meant the people I disagree with should be censored but my bullshit should go unchecked!!! I did NOT see this coming!!!" -Idiots
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
First they came for Alex Jones, now Think Progress. Censorship of ANYONE is unacceptable. A lot of left wingers cheered when Alex Jones was censored, but they aren't cheering now, are they?
-
@jordanbpeterson@GadSaad@clairlemon@thinkprogress Left wing website gets bit in the arse by the same malevolent forces promoting censorship that martyred Alex Jones and tried to defund David Horowitz's "Freedom Center" -
There have been PLENTY of Progressive sites and individuals that denounced the entire idea of censorship. You just haven't seen them because they are being deplatformed, deranked, and demonetized.
-
Name three.
-
The other thread, posted here. https://twitter.com/Mr_Cryonic/status/1039741513461362689?s=19 …
This Tweet is unavailable. -
Three, I believe, that have gone on the record as pro free speech. Jimmy Dore
@jimmy_dore Ron Placone@RonPlacone Stef Zamorano@miserablelib Graham Elwood@grahamelwood Abby Martin@AbbyMartin Jamarl Thomas@theProgSoapbox That's more than three. Sorry. -
No, we’re happy to have your company. I was testing for hyperbole.
-
While not happy with the circumstances, hopeful to unite against this clear assault on users of what was purported to be an open platform.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
TP wrote a headline "Y said X," when they meant "Y HEAVILY IMPLIED X." This is what happens when people who flunked "figuratively vs. literally" start writing headlines. You can't infer a trend from this and a news organization would have issued a correction, not a screed.
-
I think it would be accurate to write a headline saying "We inferred Y from what X said".
-
And if that is the game, play it. We are all better for it. It is exactly the kind of honesty and de-escalation of outrage that everybody needs RN, and I hope that isn't taken as partisan (as I am not a partisan).
-
If that's the goal, fine. But then you can't give what amounts to censorial power to partisan publications.
-
Facebook has given "censorial power" to third parties vetted by https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/know-more , which include WaPo, Snopes and Politifact. You assume that they are choosing partisan publications because a partisan publication told you that.
-
And because a partisan publication exercised that power. The other three you mentioned are all fine. But The Weekly Standard has always been a partisan publication, and they really shouldn't be doing that kind of fact checking.
-
I wouldn’t have much faith in a third party arbiter who wouldn’t allow a conservative to check facts because they were conservative.
-
Of course not. But if a publication shows a clear partisan agenda in terms of what they choose to cover, how they cover it, and in where they choose to employ their fact-checking powers, I wouldn't have much faith in a third-party arbiter that allowed them to continue.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.