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

48 comments

  1. [8]
    Thrabalen
    Link
    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...

    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.

    37 votes
    1. Omnicrola
      Link Parent
      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.

      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.

      21 votes
    2. [4]
      JXM
      Link Parent
      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.

      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.

      8 votes
      1. [3]
        vakieh
        Link Parent
        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.

        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.

        1. [2]
          JXM
          Link Parent
          Trump's followers all think Twitter is trying to silence conservatives political views. I'd say that's a negative impact for Twitter.

          Trump's followers all think Twitter is trying to silence conservatives political views. I'd say that's a negative impact for Twitter.

          3 votes
          1. vakieh
            Link Parent
            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.

            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.

            2 votes
    3. [2]
      bleem
      Link Parent
      to add to this yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater isn't covered under free speech.

      to add to this yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater isn't covered under free speech.

      1 vote
  2. [7]
    Deimos
    (edited )
    Link
    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...

    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:

    Press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters that Trump would sign an executive order relating to social media companies but provided no further details. White House strategic communications director Alyssa Farah said Trump would sign it Thursday.

    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:

    QUESTION: Could Trump make good on his threats to regulate or even shut down social media companies? Could Congress or the Federal Communications Commission help him do this?

    ANSWER: It’s highly unlikely.

    Jack Balkin, a Yale University law professor and First Amendment expert, said any attempt to regulate social media companies for the content on their site would likely need congressional input and approval — and would almost certainly face strong legal challenges. The FCC, meanwhile, has no jurisdiction over internet companies like Twitter.

    What is clear, Balkin said, is the limit on Trump’s authority to impose his own rules. While the president could ask for an investigation or issue some type of executive order, he can’t override laws written by Congress and rooted in the constitution. But that’s not the point, he said.

    “This is an attempt by the president to, as we used to say in basketball, work the refs,” Balkin said. “He’s threatening and cajoling with the idea that these folks in their corporate board rooms will think twice about what they’re doing.”

    Former federal judge Michael McConnell, who now directs Stanford Law School’s Constitutional Law Center, also said Trump lacks the legal power to back up his threat. “He has no such authority,” he said in an email. “He is just venting.”

    14 votes
    1. ohyran
      Link Parent
      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.

      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.

      6 votes
    2. [5]
      MonkeyPants
      Link Parent
      The draft executive order certainly has some teeth. https://twitter.com/klonick/status/1265850206396076033?s=21
      4 votes
      1. [4]
        moocow1452
        Link Parent
        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...

        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.

        10 votes
        1. [2]
          MonkeyPants
          Link Parent
          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...

          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."

          4 votes
          1. moocow1452
            Link Parent
            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...

            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.

            1 vote
        2. Kuromantis
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          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...

          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.

          2 votes
  3. [20]
    MonkeyPants
    Link
    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...

    The specific tweet is in violation of a brand new Civic integrity policy.

    The following are listed as banned

    misleading information about requirements for participation, including identification or citizenship requirements; and

    misleading claims about process procedures or techniques which could dissuade people from participating

    The following is listed as allowed

    broad, non-specific statements about the integrity of elections or civic processes (such as unsubstantiated claims that an election is “rigged”);

    The tag leads you to a tweet specific page that says Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud.

    Trump falsely claimed that mail-in ballots would lead to "a Rigged Election." However, fact-checkers say there is no evidence that mail-in ballots are linked to voter fraud.

    Trump falsely claimed that California will send mail-in ballots to "anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there." In fact, only registered voters will receive ballots.

    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."

    8 votes
    1. [19]
      Algernon_Asimov
      Link Parent
      Why? Is there evidence that using mail-in ballots has led to a rigged election?

      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.

      Why? Is there evidence that using mail-in ballots has led to a rigged election?

      8 votes
      1. [5]
        spit-evil-olive-tips
        Link Parent
        There is one example in recent history, of a single Congressional seat (of which we have 435) being tampered with via mail-in ballots. But ironically, the fraud was committed with the aim of...

        There is one example in recent history, of a single Congressional seat (of which we have 435) being tampered with via mail-in ballots.

        But ironically, the fraud was committed with the aim of benefiting the Republican candidate in the race, so it's rarely brought up as an example by the (mostly Republican) people who want to restrict mail-in voting.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_North_Carolina%27s_9th_congressional_district_election#Refusal_of_certification

        https://www.npr.org/2019/07/30/746800630/north-carolina-gop-operative-faces-new-felony-charges-that-allege-ballot-fraud

        https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/7/18128973/north-carolina-9th-district-voter-election-fraud-mccrae-dowless

        8 votes
        1. bloup
          Link Parent
          This is actually election fraud, which is a much worse thing than voter fraud. Voter fraud is when an individual fraudulently casts a ballot. Examples could include taking payment for your vote or...

          This is actually election fraud, which is a much worse thing than voter fraud. Voter fraud is when an individual fraudulently casts a ballot. Examples could include taking payment for your vote or casting multiple votes or casting a ballot for someone else. Election fraud is when the actual electoral process itself is tampered with, like destroying or modifying cast ballots after the fact.

          8 votes
        2. [3]
          Algernon_Asimov
          Link Parent
          But that's only one instance in how many elections? It's not like it's common practice.

          But that's only one instance in how many elections? It's not like it's common practice.

          3 votes
          1. [2]
            spit-evil-olive-tips
            Link Parent
            Right, that's my point. It's extremely rare - the Trump administration also had a blue-ribbon commission that had the goal of finding instances of voter fraud (largely to find some shred of...

            Right, that's my point. It's extremely rare - the Trump administration also had a blue-ribbon commission that had the goal of finding instances of voter fraud (largely to find some shred of evidence to back up Trump's bullshit claim that he only lost the election because of 3 million illegal immigrants casting votes). They found nothing and were disbanded after a court order required the Republicans running the committee to share documents with the Democrats who were on the committee to provide some fig leaf of bipartisanship.

            More reputable studies, by people without as large and obvious a political axe to grind, also find very little evidence. My favorite data point is 31 credible incidents (not all of which were even prosecuted) out of one billion ballots cast.

            The most notable / high-profile example of voter fraud is the North Carolina election I mentioned, because it actually involved felony criminal charges and a do-over election. And that example tends to make the opposite point that the people who are fear-mongering about voter fraud would like to make.

            9 votes
            1. Deimos
              Link Parent
              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...

              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

              6 votes
      2. [13]
        MonkeyPants
        Link Parent
        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”)"...

        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.

        1. [12]
          Algernon_Asimov
          Link Parent
          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...

          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.

          7 votes
          1. [11]
            MonkeyPants
            Link Parent
            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,...

            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.

            1. [2]
              sqew
              Link Parent
              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...

              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.

              6 votes
            2. [8]
              Algernon_Asimov
              Link Parent
              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.

              Twitter can't fact check everything.

              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.

              2 votes
              1. [6]
                MonkeyPants
                Link Parent
                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...

                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.

                1 vote
                1. [5]
                  Algernon_Asimov
                  Link Parent
                  What would that look like? I"m really not following what you're trying to say.

                  I think they need to go "buy the book" when fact checking the president

                  What would that look like?

                  I"m really not following what you're trying to say.

                  2 votes
                  1. [4]
                    MonkeyPants
                    Link Parent
                    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...

                    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

                    Trump falsely claimed that mail-in ballots would lead to "a Rigged Election." However, fact-checkers say there is no evidence that mail-in ballots are linked to voter fraud.

                    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

                    broad, non-specific statements about the integrity of elections or civic processes (such as unsubstantiated claims that an election is “rigged”);

                    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.)

                    1 vote
                    1. [3]
                      Algernon_Asimov
                      Link Parent
                      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...

                      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.

                      There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed.

                      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.

                      3 votes
                      1. [2]
                        MonkeyPants
                        Link Parent
                        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...

                        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

                        “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service;

                        1. Algernon_Asimov
                          Link Parent
                          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...

                          because their terms of service explicitly allow unsubstantiated claims about elections being rigged.

                          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.

                          Trump's recent executive order specifically calls this out

                          “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service;

                          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.

                          3 votes
              2. Kuromantis
                Link Parent
                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...

                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.)

  4. CALICO
    Link
    A bit of an update from Jack Dorsey:

    A bit of an update from Jack Dorsey:

    Fact check: there is someone ultimately accountable for our actions as a company, and that’s me. Please leave our employees out of this. We’ll continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally. And we will admit to and own any mistakes we make.

    Per our Civic Integrity policy (https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/election-integrity-policy), the tweets yesterday may mislead people into thinking they don’t need to register to get a ballot (only registered voters receive ballots). We’re updating the link on
    @realDonaldTrump’s tweet to make this more clear.

    This does not make us an “arbiter of truth.” Our intention is to connect the dots of conflicting statements and show the information in dispute so people can judge for themselves. More transparency from us is critical so folks can clearly see the why behind our actions.

    7 votes
  5. [3]
    moocow1452
    Link
    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...

    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,

    To summarize my generic point, the problem is never the post. Trump railing on mail fraud? It would probably be helpful to get more information. Maybe even more so on these Joe Scarborough killed an intern tweets. But from where? Ah! Let's find a universally understood fount of knowledge that survives politically partisan criticism? I'll wait...

    What's more? Now retroactively do it for every other post that might deserve it. And continue to maintain that standard for every new piece of content produced.

    Twitter is now a political issue. The conservative narrative of Silicon Valley trying to rig the election is in full bloom.

    5 votes
    1. [3]
      Comment deleted by author
      Link Parent
      1. [2]
        moocow1452
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        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...

        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.

        3 votes
        1. ohyran
          Link Parent
          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...

          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.

          4 votes
  6. DanBC
    Link
    Personally I'm glad he's fighting with Twitter, because (as far as I know) Twitter do not own nukes.

    Personally I'm glad he's fighting with Twitter, because (as far as I know) Twitter do not own nukes.

    1 vote
  7. [8]
    skybrian
    Link
    I'm not sure that "Trump says another crazy thing" articles are worth posting? Anyone who wants that can read it elsewhere.

    I'm not sure that "Trump says another crazy thing" articles are worth posting? Anyone who wants that can read it elsewhere.

    11 votes
    1. CALICO
      Link Parent
      It's a change in Twitter's mode of operation w/r/t Trump's tweets. For a man who's been getting away with posting content against their TOS for years, Twitter doing something at all is a change....

      It's a change in Twitter's mode of operation w/r/t Trump's tweets. For a man who's been getting away with posting content against their TOS for years, Twitter doing something at all is a change. Being posted in ~Tech focuses the article towards what Twitter is doing, rather than the blather. In fact, the article itself spends more time talking about Twitter than what POTUS said. It's more informative than it is clickbait.

      31 votes
    2. Algernon_Asimov
      Link Parent
      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...

      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.

      21 votes
    3. moocow1452
      Link Parent
      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...

      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!?"

      6 votes
    4. Grzmot
      Link Parent
      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...

      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.

      5 votes
    5. [3]
      Death
      Link Parent
      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...

      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.

      5 votes
      1. [2]
        skybrian
        Link Parent
        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...

        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.

        3 votes
        1. Death
          Link Parent
          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.

          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.

          9 votes