Twitter labels Trump’s tweets with a fact check for the first time

[smltwnrckr]

1 minute ago, NVGiant said:

Why do you hate the First Amendment?

Most people hate the first Amendment, at least some aspect of it. 

[AndroidAggie]

1 minute ago, #1Stunner said:

This isn't just a Trump issue (hard to get that point across).  Yes, I know that this thread is about Trump, but it is a larger issue.

Deplatforming is a problem.  Censorship is a problem.  "Fact Checking" opinions expressed is a problem.

 

but, for some, if you point this out, you (and Joe Rogan) are apparently secret Trump Supporters?!?!?!?!?!

 

i watched/listened to the whole episode, i sympathize with your concerns, but i'm not really that worked up about this particular instance

[DoubleBlueGold]

4 hours ago, AndroidAggie said:

I don't see anything bigoted in stunners position 

That's not a reference to this specific thread. Others.

[NVGiant]

Only in this crazy ass political environment can a fact-check made by a private entity of a lie made by sitting president convince some that the First Amendment is there to protect the president. God help us all.

[Guest #1Stunner]

2 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Why do you hate the First Amendment?

 

 

[Guest #1Stunner]

1 minute ago, AndroidAggie said:

i watched/listened to the whole episode, i sympathize with your concerns, but i'm not really that worked up about this particular instance

I am less comfortable then you are if / when people try to control or limit the exchange of ideas and information. 

[DoubleBlueGold]

2 hours ago, #1Stunner said:

A bigot!?!  Ha!!

Not wanting censorship and advocating for unchecked free speech (for everyone, including that buffoon Trump) is now somehow being a "bigot"?

I don't think you understand the definition of that word.  Keep going, though!

 

2 hours ago, #1Stunner said:

@DoubleBlueGold is not very smart.

As I told AA, it is not in regards to this thread.

[Guest #1Stunner]

1 minute ago, DoubleBlueGold said:

That's not a reference to this specific thread. Others.

If you are going to call someone a bigot, with no cited evidence, then maybe you are the bigot.

[NVGiant]

1 minute ago, smltwnrckr said:

Most people hate the first Amendment, at least some aspect of it. 

I mean is Scientology REALLY a religion? 

[smltwnrckr]

1 minute ago, NVGiant said:

Only in this crazy ass political environment can a fact-check made by a private entity of a lie made by sitting president convince some that the First Amendment is there to protect the president. God help us all.

A lie about the electoral process before an election, no less. Bonkers, just bonkers.

 

[DoubleBlueGold]

2 hours ago, #1Stunner said:

Very deep analysis.

I won't waste time explaining the "very deep analysis". I noticed as I continued in the thread that many have explained it to you already.

[toonkee]

17 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

We regulate TV Networks and Radio Stations who get access to the airwaves.

We regulate all sorts of private companies. 

Time to regulate Social Media.

 

FREE SPEECH!!!

I agree. The case for treating the internet as a utility has been made stronger by the "lockdown".

[DoubleBlueGold]

3 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

If you are going to call someone a bigot, with no cited evidence, then maybe you are the bigot.

Well if I state that water is a fluid, I must be a fluid. Yeah, that is not how is works. Talk about "not very smart".

[smltwnrckr]

5 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

I mean is Scientology REALLY a religion? 

You know, you make a good point. Add me to the list.

It should be re-stated what you said in the last post, though... This is about the president trying to pressure and/or force a private entity to not release particular information. The president wants to restrain this private entity from releasing or publishing particular information prior to its release. Unless I'm missing something.

[Guest #1Stunner]

1 minute ago, DoubleBlueGold said:

I won't waste time explaining the "very deep analysis". I noticed as I continued in the thread that many have explained it to you already.

Got it. 

You simply unfairly accuse people of being "bigots" when you disagree with them on any issue.  (in this case, a discussion on social media and free speech)

And then won't explain yourself if called out.

[Guest #1Stunner]

Just now, toonkee said:

I agree. The case for treating the internet as a utility has been made stronger by the "lockdown".

I'm in complete agreement.

The internet should be a utility and almost free. 

I also strongly disagree with the Trump administration and Republicans who a while back lifted regulations on ISPs.

[AndroidAggie]

10 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Only in this crazy ass political environment can a fact-check made by a private entity of a lie made by sitting president convince some that the First Amendment is there to protect the president. God help us all.

i really agree with this.

[DoubleBlueGold]

Just now, #1Stunner said:

Got it. 

You simply unfairly accuse people of being "bigots" when you disagree with them on any issue.  (in this case, a discussion on social media and free speech)

And then won't explain yourself if called out.

Except I have disagreed with several people on here on a variety of issues and not accused them of being bigots. It's your overall pattern. There's you and a couple of others here. I  am not the only who has noticed that pattern.

[Guest #1Stunner]

1 minute ago, DoubleBlueGold said:

Except I have disagreed with several people on here on a variety of issues and not accused them of being bigots. It's your overall pattern. There's you and a couple of others here. I  am not the only who has noticed that pattern.

You don't understand the words you are attempting to use.

Just because someone is an asshole, doesn't make them a bigot.

[RSF]

12 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

Most people dont even know the first Amendment, at least some aspect of it. 

FIFY.

 

 

Congress shall make no law....