42
votes
US President Donald Trump has accused Twitter of "completely stifling free speech" after the social media company flagged some of his tweets with a fact-check warning
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- For the first time, Twitter has flagged a US president's tweet with a fact-check warning
- Published
- May 27 2020
- Word count
- 849 words
It's worth mentioning that the head of the government is crying "Free Speech!" (i.e., First Amendment) when a private company is doing something that isn't even stifling it. I mean, the average person has a problem understanding that the First Amendment doesn't apply to non-governmental entities, that I get. But I think a basic understanding of high school civics should be a prerequisite to running arguably the most powerful nation on Earth.
Yea, we all thought so too. We thought a lot of things in 2016. And now here we are in 2020 and every day it's a Brave New Tweet.
I would put forth that he is willfully misunderstanding. He knows that he can cry about this, get his base fired up and keep Twitter from doing this again.
What negative impact has Twitter had from this? There's literally zero chance of effective legislative controls here, and they've had enormous positive publicity out of it.
Trump's followers all think Twitter is trying to silence conservatives political views. I'd say that's a negative impact for Twitter.
Hasn't stopped them from using the platform, which means Twitter isn't seeing any reduced revenue - and isn't likely to in the future.
to add to this yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater isn't covered under free speech.
It's used often, but it's not a good example and has no connection to the actual law: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
The press secretary and communications director said today that Trump will sign an executive order about social media companies tomorrow. I don't think there are any details about what it will actually say or do yet:
That's from the AP's article. They have a "What's Next?" article as well that includes opinions from some experts that don't think he can actually do anything significant:
You got to give the man the fact that it is the ultimate Karen-move though. Twitter adds a notification to your tweets saying you're talking crap - tries to change the fundamental laws in the country.
The draft executive order certainly has some teeth.
https://twitter.com/klonick/status/1265850206396076033?s=21
My understanding of the draft is that that "editorial oversight" via fact checking is not cool bro, federal cash will not be spent on websites that do it, and federal resources will be spent investigating bias on such websites.
If the FCC is responding to complaints on internet bias, I have some websites that provide comment sections that they might be interested in. But more importantly, Twitter can just turn around and say, "Sorry Mr. President, we cannot in good conscience host your Tweets as they violate our ToS, and by executive order, we cannot clarify them for our audience" as whatever their arrangement is for politically relevant figures is a courtesy, and presumably be retracted at any time.
In less words, this is rash, per usual.
Trump is saying he is going to sic his attorney general on twitter, encourage states attorneys to go after twitter, and encourage "his" judges to basically create a new case law that will allow twitter to be prosecuted for any illegal content twitter users create because they "editorialize" via fact checking.
He is not deleting his twitter account however.
I dont think Twitter wants to delete Trump, he brings in a lot of eyeballs, and he will just move to another platform taking all those eyeballs with him.
I wonder if Twitter can't tag Trumps overall account as a liar, or post their fact checks as retweets (not sure if that is the term) that get elevated to the top, without being considered "editors."
Makes sense, Twitter doesn't want to lose Trump, and Trump doesn't want to lose Twitter. Having promoted replies specifically and exclusively on Trump's tweets would probably be the most petty way to solve this issue, but it would also be a declaration of war that I'm not sure a kiss and make up sesh would fix.
Am I misinterpreting something or does that actually seem... kinda effective? Delete his tweets and you're deleting his lies for him, remove his account and he will move to thedonald.win or whatever and bring the entire Republican party's audience, and turn it into a giant echo chamber for GOP voters and effectively creating a twisted social media equivalent of Fox news where all 60 million Republicans can effectively gather in the largest circlejerk in history, and this would also encourage every other right-wing regime to do the same and work together.
The specific tweet is in violation of a brand new Civic integrity policy.
The following are listed as banned
The following is listed as allowed
The tag leads you to a tweet specific page that says Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud.
The tweet is clearly in violation of "requirements for participation", but I think Twitter overstepped with the correction to the statement that mail-in ballots would lead to a rigged election.
On Fox News, they quote twitter Twitter acknowledged Trump's tweet "is not in violation of the Twitter Rules as it does not directly try to dissuade people from voting — it does, however, contain misleading information about the voting process, specifically mail-in ballots, and we’re offering more context to the public."
Why? Is there evidence that using mail-in ballots has led to a rigged election?
But that's only one instance in how many elections? It's not like it's common practice.
As even more confirmation and information about this, Federal Election Commission commissioner Ellen Weintraub posted a very long Twitter thread last night about voting-by-mail with a ton of resources: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1265841303012638725.html
@Algernon_Asimov
Why would that matter?
Per twitters own policy, "broad, non-specific statements about the integrity of elections or civic processes (such as unsubstantiated claims that an election is “rigged”)" are allowed.
Twitter hasn't disallowed this tweet. It's still there. I can read it, you can read it, everyone can read it. It hasn't been removed or censored in anyway.
However, Twitter has the right to flag any tweet as requiring fact-checking, which they have done in this case.
In earthier language, Twitter lets you spout bullshit on their platform, but they reserve the right to call you out on your bullshit.
Twitter can't fact check everything.
They can't even fact check everything that Trump tweets. E.g. the horrendous Lori Klausutis tweets.
A clearly defined and well followed policy, in theory, should shield Twitter from claims of political bias.
I think that history shows that, even if Twitter comes up with a clearly defined policy, following it regarding tweets by Trump or other high-ranking Republicans would result in Fox News and others getting angry about perceived "anti-conservative bias". Any action taken against them, even if it's applied equally to everyone on the platform, will be used as an excuse to rile up the Republican base.
Trump Lashes Out at Spell-Check for Treating Him Unfairly
Correct.
Are you implying that, if they can't fact-check everything, they shouldn't fact-check anything? I'm not sure what you're getting at.
I'm saying the terms of service clearly lay out rules and policies regarding what can be published on the twitter platform.
While Twitter can do anything they want on their platform, the terms of service give them specific legal coverage for actions covered under the rules and policies.
In this case, they fact checked two items, one was not allowed per TOS, one specifically was allowed.
I think they need to go "buy the book" when fact checking the president, or rewrite the book.
It gives them legal coverage, and is simply the right thing to do.
What would that look like?
I"m really not following what you're trying to say.
In the tag that says Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud.
They should not have fact checked this
The brand new Civic integrity policy should probably force users to click through to acknowledge.
They should also remove this from the "What is not a violation of this policy?" section
Then they can go after unfactual mail-in ballot statements, under the reasoning that these lies will discourage voter participation, with the appropriate legal coverage.
(Not a lawyer, this is a completely uninformed layman opinion.)
So basically, they should go hands-off. Not check the President's facts. Let him say what he wants. And remove the clauses which might possibly prevent him saying what he wants.
You say that Twitter should go after unfactual mail-in ballot statements, but how is this not an unfactual mail-in ballot statement? As far as I can tell from what more informed people have said here, this statement is contrary to known facts.
You say that Twitter should go after unfactual statements about mail-in ballots, but not this unfactual statement about mail-in ballots.
I am all for Twitter calling out all unsubstantiated claims.
I'm saying Twitter needs to clean up their Terms of Service first, because their terms of service explicitly allow unsubstantiated claims about elections being rigged.
Trump's recent executive order specifically calls this out
Like I already said, this tweet has not been disallowed.
I think you're confusing two separate issues:
Allowing a tweet.
Flagging a tweet as requiring fact-checking.
Twitter is allowing these tweets, but is also flagging them as requiring fact-checking. That is not contradictory to their terms of service, nor are the two actions contradictory to each other.
With all due respect to Trump (zero), his tweet was not flagged as inappropriate. Twitter merely added a link to his tweet, directing people to "Get the facts about mail-in ballots". It would be like you posting an article on Tildes which says the sky is yellow, and me posting a comment in your thread with a link to an article explaining that the sky is blue. I'm not flagging your post as inappropriate, I'm not disallowing your post - I'm just adding information to it.
That's all Twitter did to Donald Trump: they added information to his tweet.
The fact that he didn't understand what they did, and threw a presidential tantrum, is irrelevant.
I think what they mean by that is that if they were to fact-check everything they would probably end up fact-checking 90% of all his and Republican party officials' tweets, not to mention people like PragerU and Ben Shapiro. Problem is, that doesn't faze their followers anymore and they do not care if Twitter is correct. (Also this is the moment where we inevitably need to talk about how Twitter is being godawfully reactive to these people.)
I follow Justin Robert Young and he's been pretty insistent on fact checking at the social media level being in his words "a #PortalToHell #HellPortal" and I kinda have to agree. From his most recent newsletter,
That third point though is super important. If Twitter starts fact checking Trump now, in an election year, it means that Twitter has chosen to throw their lot in with the "liberals and censorship" crowd and the Republicans can rally around that. And maybe it's a new equilibrium that can hold, but I don't trust Twitter to hold it.
There is a rather fun comment by a media researcher here who comments on the fact by this Twitter is closer to a Media company than just a random platform.
Granted Twitter was a shitty platform designed for people with a lot of communication to do who really don't want questions (if you're big enough the replies, questions or criticisms gets easily swept away and hidden and many politicians have, successfully - considering how weak the free press is globally - used it to push out their version and hide others) BUT with this the question becomes what role Twitter have in regards to comments in general.
I mean a magazine still have someone responsible for what is written in it, same with TV channels. It doesn't matter if a complete dingbat is the one saying stuff - without critical reporting they can become responsible for that message unless they try to enforce some objective reporting or being clear that "this is just opinion, not fact".
Either way, fascinating stuff.
Personally I'm glad he's fighting with Twitter, because (as far as I know) Twitter do not own nukes.
I'm not sure that "Trump says another crazy thing" articles are worth posting? Anyone who wants that can read it elsewhere.
This is not about "crazy man says another crazy thing". If it was just that, I wouldn't have bothered posting it.
This is about a change in Twitter's treatment of this crazy man's tweets. That's significant.
Which is why during the hydroxychloroquine debacle, I suggested the idea of a "politically relevant gossip" tag so that when person says thing, it can be recognized as politically relevant, but also filtered as gossip.
It also flows a little better than my original suggestion of "Jesus Freaking Christ, I can't, I just can't, I mean what the actual fuck!?"
On one hand, it's not really news, on the other the fact that a crying manchild who cries every time he doesn't get what he wants is in one of the most powerful positions on earth should be called out for being fucking weird.
You're not wrong, but the office of the President still carries with it some political weight. It'd be nice if we could ignore everything Trump says, and really we should ignore most of it, but unfortunately him saying it has ripple effects even if we don't want to hear about it.
I'm asking whether it's worth repeating on Tildes. If it's a front-page story of the day elsewhere then I think we can assume people have seen it? I try to post news stories that might be overlooked.
But if people want to discuss Twitter's response then sure, that makes it a reasonable basis for discussion.
I think both use cases of Tildes are valid of their own, especially since there are means to tailor your own experiences. We don't need to commit exclusively to either overlooked or front-page news.