Jump to content
retrofade

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

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, retrofade said:

Gab is actually very well known as a Twitter alternative. You just don't want to admit it because it undermines your argument even further. Move those goalposts, troll boy.

Hahaha   I simply agree with Elizabeth Warren---these companies are MONOPOLIES.

I have never heard of it.

Maybe Gab is as big in Twitter as you claim.  Do you Tweet on Gab?   Does the President have a Gab account?   Nancy Pelosi?

Please share the link to Nancy Pelosi's Gab account.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SJSUMFA2013 said:

You can’t get covid-19 from anal sex. #science

Fact check:

Only If oral Sex was preformed prior to penetration. You have 3 hours to penetrate before the virus dies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Warbow said:

Fact check:

Only If oral Sex was preformed prior to penetration. You have 3 hours to penetrate before the virus dies.

STOP CENSORING ME

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

 

I am complaining about censorship.  I don't like Twitter banning conservative accounts.  I don't like Youtube banning Michael Moore's film.  I don't like all "big tech" purposing hiding any criticism of China.

So what is your solution to Twitter banning suspending accounts that you don't think should be suspended. How do you regulate it? 

 

Dismantling the internet by dismantling section 230 is not a good solution. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SJSUMFA2013 said:

STOP CENSORING ME

Only @mugtang, lord of the software, can sensor.  

Now you are getting it...  We are learning so much together!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tspoke said:

So what is your solution to Twitter banning suspending accounts that you don't think should be suspended. How do you regulate it? 

 

Dismantling the internet by dismantling section 230 is not a good solution. 

Tell that to the death cult. Twitter was "mean" to Trump by fact checking his statements, so therefore it needs to be dismantled and the rules that allowed the advancement of the internet should be burned to the ground.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SJSUMFA2013 said:

STOP CENSORING ME

Im not censoring you. You said what you wanted to say. I did not change your post. I simply replied with a correction. Let the board posters decide who is right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Warbow said:

Im not censoring you. You said what you wanted to say. I did not change your post. I simply corrected you.

How dare you interfere with my first amendment rights

Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald trump was born in a lab a mile beneath the surface of the earth and is therefore not qualified to be president.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SJSUMFA2013 said:

How dare you interfere with my first amendment rights

It is my right to interfere. I choose to exercise it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tspoke said:

So what is your solution to Twitter banning suspending accounts that you don't think should be suspended. How do you regulate it? 

Dismantling the internet by dismantling section 230 is not a good solution. 

Honestly, 

I'm not sure what the answer is.  I am only able to say that I don't like censorship by a Monopoly platform (Twitter), and others, and do support a government response.  But I am not smart enough, experienced enough, or qualified to come up with the exact solution.

I know people want to silence offensive people's voices on the internet, but I do not agree that silence (or even using the software to "fact check" and put a scarlet letter, linking to CNN, MSNBC, or FOX, on their expressed opinion) is what we should allow these Monopolies to do.

Free Speech.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

What you described is a rebuttal argument...

Only @mugtang has real power to censor on this board, since he has power over the board software.   He could even flag posts he disagrees with, and put label that it is a "lie" next to it (which would carry a lot of weight) 

I disagree with you, and don't think there is a lot of "censoring" on this board...  Mug is pretty open to letting people discuss their views. 

Is mug allowed to censor any posts or ban anyone from the message board ever? If so who gets to say when it's appropriate. 

 

Or maybe since it's mugs website he gets to make that call on his own. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

 

Thanks! 

Now you can see why I had to attend remedial English.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SJSUMFA2013 said:

Donald trump was born in a lab a mile beneath the surface of the earth and is therefore not qualified to be president.

He also murdered his assistant back in 2000.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tspoke said:

Is mug allowed to censor any posts or ban anyone from the message board ever? If so who gets to say when it's appropriate. 

Or maybe since it's mugs website he gets to make that call on his own. 

I don't think that Mug sensors Political Opinions on this board.

Yes, this is Mug's website.  

But surely you aren't saying that the MWC Board is somehow similar in size and influence as Twitter, and Youtube, right? 

 

I will be fun to see Joe Rogan host an episode like this on the MWC Board

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tspoke said:

Is mug allowed to censor any posts or ban anyone from the message board ever? If so who gets to say when it's appropriate. 

 

Or maybe since it's mugs website he gets to make that call on his own. 

All bans go through a review process.  They then are escalated to a committee review where a vote is taken.  It’s usually tabled until the next meeting of the committee, which is set for an unknown and surprise future date. A majority vote is needed to ban somebody.  That person being banned is then presented with the opportunity to address the committee and plead their case why they shouldn’t be banned. After their argument is heard the committee tables the discussion for the next meeting.  At that meeting if a majority vote to ban occurs, Starbucks is ordered and a discussion is held over whether the ban is the right decision.  They rarely reach an agreement and by that time the self imposed statute of limitations expires and the process starts over again. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Warbow said:

It could be but I doubt it. I hear @mugtang is part Guamanian. Although I hear he won’t ever let a minority be a mod here. @slappy Just ask K-5. 

Not sure why I am in the kiddie pool warbow.  If he let a thin skinded guy like halfman mod he should let a darker skinded warbow mod.   I have been pushing for this from day 1.  I dont agree with racism and I am sorry you feel that way.  If I can help let me know.  

  • Cheers 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Never thought I'd see so many people want censorship (from Big Tech---the 21st Century, unchecked Monopolies).

Apparently a lot do.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...