Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mediaite)   Don Lemon destroys Twitter for hiding behind profit and the First Amendment and fact-checking Trump instead of banning him   (mediaite.com) divider line
    More: Hero, Twitter, Stop hiding, first time Twitter tonight, First Amendment, CNN's Don Lemon, CNN, Tuesday night show, President Donald Trump  
•       •       •

2023 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 May 2020 at 12:16 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



136 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-05-27 8:46:53 AM  
The bare minimum that social media platforms need to do:

1) Verify that their accounts are real humans
2) Ban the haters & trolls
 
2020-05-27 9:07:44 AM  

SomeAmerican: The bare minimum that social media platforms need to do:

1) Verify that their accounts are real humans
2) Ban the haters & trolls


1 is a given.

2 ... how, specifically, do you define "haters & trolls"?  Because damn near everyone on the platform has been a hater and/or troll at one time or another, depending on how you specifically define those terms.

What they need to do is be both more direct, and more visible, about calling out bullshiat.  Slapping a small "misleading" tag on Trump's main-in voter fraud tweet?  That's so weak it might as well not exist.  No.  Slap it with a large, bold-font "FALSE INFORMATION" or "LIE" tag or whatever as appropriate.  Don't tiptoe around bullshiat anymore.  Call it exactly what it is in clear and unambiguous language large and bold enough for it to be the first thing the eye is drawn to even before a user reads the tweet it's attached to.  Doesn't matter if it's the president or Fox News or CNN or whatever.  If it's bullshiat, call it bullshiat loud and clear.
 
2020-05-27 9:32:38 AM  
I agree with Don regarding profits and hate speech, but I have to say Twitter fact-checking Trump is going to produce far more anger and spittle from the Orange Menace than a simple ban.

/if we're going down in flames, I want to enjoy the ride.
 
2020-05-27 9:33:39 AM  
I'm starting to think policing Dotard's tweets is having a much more deleterious effect on him than banning him. Banning him would take away the platform & he'd have to have press conferences or televised speeches to rant his shiat.

This way, he's still on Twitter, frustrated as hell, absolutely fuming that someone can exert control over him in any way, and hopefully inching ever closer to that explosive aneurysm.
 
2020-05-27 10:48:42 AM  
Twitter is going to be forced into action by Trump's unhinged blathering about the 1st Amendment. He's going to spin out of control.
 
2020-05-27 10:54:36 AM  

Psychopusher: SomeAmerican: The bare minimum that social media platforms need to do:

1) Verify that their accounts are real humans
2) Ban the haters & trolls

1 is a given.

2 ... how, specifically, do you define "haters & trolls"?  Because damn near everyone on the platform has been a hater and/or troll at one time or another, depending on how you specifically define those terms.


Regarding 2, yeah there is a lot of grey area in that.  Fortunately, Facebook, Twitter, etc. don't need to use their own definitions... there has been a lot of research specifically on this topic.  They could say, we are taking the Wharton definition, or the Harvard definition, or the MIT definition.  I don't think the definition is as important as picking one and applying it consistently in a "blind" fashion, without considering who posted the content.

I actually think # 1 is harder for them.  It would be difficult to verify new accounts.  It would be even more difficult to verify existing accounts.  And purging accounts decreases revenue, which would need to be offset somehow.  This probably needs to be mandated otherwise social media platforms simply won't do it... well unless a "human only" social media platform emerges and users start jumping ship.
 
2020-05-27 11:47:00 AM  

SomeAmerican: The bare minimum that social media platforms need to do:


Need, to what ends?
 
2020-05-27 12:05:35 PM  

abb3w: SomeAmerican: The bare minimum that social media platforms need to do:

Need, to what ends?


To be allowed to continue to operate.
 
2020-05-27 12:17:02 PM  
Stop the Presses!

Are you telling me that Twitter actually made a profit?
 
2020-05-27 12:18:02 PM  

JerkStore: I agree with Don regarding profits and hate speech, but I have to say Twitter fact-checking Trump is going to produce far more anger and spittle from the Orange Menace than a simple ban.

/if we're going down in flames, I want to enjoy the ride.


Agreed. Banning him just makes him a martyr to his dimwitted followers. Adding a note that says, "Hey, this is bullshiat," pisses him off.
 
2020-05-27 12:19:43 PM  
Liberals during covid:  private businesses should be able to require masks and if you don't like their rules then you should leave

Liberals on social media companies:  government should decide a private businesses rules
 
2020-05-27 12:20:54 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Liberals on social media companies:  government should decide a private businesses rules


Who is actually saying this besides the scary liberals in your imagination?
 
2020-05-27 12:21:08 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Liberals during covid:  private businesses should be able to require masks and if you don't like their rules then you should leave

Liberals on social media companies:  government should decide a private businesses rules


Trump is liberal now?  Since when?
 
2020-05-27 12:21:44 PM  
The hypocrisy is mind boggling.  CNN should farking ban Trump instead of bleating about Twitter not banning him.  FFS
 
2020-05-27 12:22:13 PM  
My concern with banning the Idiot is that he and/or his followers would up the ante from mere "victim" to out-and-out martyr status.
Shrines, pilgrimages, relics, the lot.  There's not enough Pepto-Bismol in the world to counter-act that.
A simple graphic, like the one that follows would suffice (and be intelligible to the least literate of his cult):
zoywiki.comView Full Size
 
2020-05-27 12:22:15 PM  

Psychopusher: SomeAmerican: The bare minimum that social media platforms need to do:

1) Verify that their accounts are real humans
2) Ban the haters & trolls

1 is a given.

2 ... how, specifically, do you define "haters & trolls"?  Because damn near everyone on the platform has been a hater and/or troll at one time or another, depending on how you specifically define those terms.

What they need to do is be both more direct, and more visible, about calling out bullshiat.  Slapping a small "misleading" tag on Trump's main-in voter fraud tweet?  That's so weak it might as well not exist.  No.  Slap it with a large, bold-font "FALSE INFORMATION" or "LIE" tag or whatever as appropriate.  Don't tiptoe around bullshiat anymore.  Call it exactly what it is in clear and unambiguous language large and bold enough for it to be the first thing the eye is drawn to even before a user reads the tweet it's attached to.  Doesn't matter if it's the president or Fox News or CNN or whatever.  If it's bullshiat, call it bullshiat loud and clear.


Possibly by amount of flags a comments gets.
 
2020-05-27 12:22:39 PM  
If Twitter banned Trump, Fark would go out of business.
 
2020-05-27 12:22:44 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Liberals during covid:  private businesses should be able to require masks and if you don't like their rules then you should leave

Liberals on social media companies:  government should decide a private businesses rules


Twisted, like one of them bendy straws you'd die for when you were a kid.
 
2020-05-27 12:22:51 PM  
Sure, on one hand it's an awful, embarrassing failure as we watch in real-time as the impotus crashes and burns as hard as he can...

...on the other hand we get to watch it. In real-time. Pros and cons.
 
2020-05-27 12:23:10 PM  

Psychopusher: SomeAmerican: The bare minimum that social media platforms need to do:

1) Verify that their accounts are real humans
2) Ban the haters & trolls


1 is a given.

2 ... how, specifically, do you define "haters & trolls"?  Because damn near everyone on the platform has been a hater and/or troll at one time or another, depending on how you specifically define those terms.


Spoken like a true hater. Prepare yourself for a 'dog-walking'.
 
2020-05-27 12:23:38 PM  

Karma Chameleon: If Twitter banned Trump, Fark would go out of business.


Naw, there'd still be plenty of people to talk about how MCU movies have sharp knees.
 
2020-05-27 12:24:08 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Liberals during covid:  private businesses should be able to require masks and if you don't like their rules then you should leave

Liberals on social media companies:  government should decide a private businesses rules


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-05-27 12:24:22 PM  

Karma Chameleon: If Twitter banned Trump, Fark would go out of business.


Green links are a little heavy on the orange today, aren't they?
 
2020-05-27 12:26:47 PM  
*checks internet*

I'm sad to report that, after much investigative journalism, it turns out that Twitter is very much intact and operational.
 
2020-05-27 12:27:58 PM  
Not that this matter, but I would like to ask something.

There is a law (that Trump has already ignored) that makes any paper the President signs, or writes a matter of national record.  This law also applies to tweets.  (I am paraphrasing the law, as I forget what it is called)

My question is: In removing these tweet, wouldn't Twitter be breaking the law?

I am NOT condoning Trump or Twitter in asking this...I am just curious.
 
2020-05-27 12:27:58 PM  

SomeAmerican: Psychopusher: SomeAmerican: The bare minimum that social media platforms need to do:

1) Verify that their accounts are real humans
2) Ban the haters & trolls

1 is a given.

2 ... how, specifically, do you define "haters & trolls"?  Because damn near everyone on the platform has been a hater and/or troll at one time or another, depending on how you specifically define those terms.

Regarding 2, yeah there is a lot of grey area in that.  Fortunately, Facebook, Twitter, etc. don't need to use their own definitions... there has been a lot of research specifically on this topic.  They could say, we are taking the Wharton definition, or the Harvard definition, or the MIT definition.  I don't think the definition is as important as picking one and applying it consistently in a "blind" fashion, without considering who posted the content.

I actually think # 1 is harder for them.  It would be difficult to verify new accounts.  It would be even more difficult to verify existing accounts.  And purging accounts decreases revenue, which would need to be offset somehow.  This probably needs to be mandated otherwise social media platforms simply won't do it... well unless a "human only" social media platform emerges and users start jumping ship.


1 absolutely is difficult.  Incredibly so.  Even creating an AI to help deal with it is hardly perfect. Destin from Smarter Every Day visited Twitter HQ to talk about that exact problem last year, so you get a pretty good idea of the scope of the problems dealing with bot accounts.

But 2 isn't that much easier.  To create rules you need to define the problems they are designed to eliminate or, at least, mitigate, as clearly as possible, or else you get loopholes. More to the point, you're not dealing with something concrete like misinformation, where you can have AI search for keywords and phrases and links to questionable source materials.  You're dealing with behaviour, a nebulous concept at best.  How do you teach an AI how to recognize certain types of behaviour, especially when online interaction is stripped of all context we would normally roll into our understanding of how an exchange is to be taken in person -- no tone of voice, body language, facial expressions, etc.  Sure, you could pretty easily implement algorythms to search for easy stuff like death threats or other explicitly illegal or shady behaviour -- but then people could just speak euphemistically and the AI would fail.

I'm not saying they shouldn't try just because it's really hard, but I am saying that we shouldn't even remotely expect that they'd be able to completely eliminate the scourge of fake news and nefarious Twitter bots, because it's a hell of a lot easier for humans to slightly alter their behaviour or language to beat an AI trying to stop them than it is for an AI to recognize those alterations for what they are and change tack accordingly.
 
2020-05-27 12:28:20 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Liberals during covid:  private businesses should be able to require masks and if you don't like their rules then you should leave

Liberals on social media companies:  government should decide a private businesses rules


"Government" decided about Twitter's rules a long time ago. As a prívate business, they can label what they want, how they want, and there's not a damn thing Trump can do about it.

He can piss and moan, but to actually do anything would require strategic and legal planning that he isn't capable of. He'll never abandon Twitter because that's where his followers are.

It's glorious.

Although I would love to try to see him establish a White House 'tweet' line on his own platform. It would be about as popular as those MAGA face masks and the North Korea meeting commemorative coins.
 
2020-05-27 12:29:24 PM  
I almost prefer the fact check.  Banning Herr Cheeto from the platform at this point would let him play the eMartyer and would push the narrative that Teh Libz r trying to supress fredoms or whatever.

BTW, for the Trumpist hypocrites in the audience, a private company banning or flagging your posts isn't a violation of any right you have.  For the millionth time.  The rest of us "normies" would absolutely love it if you lived by your own standards just one damn time.
 
2020-05-27 12:29:45 PM  

shootsright: Psychopusher: SomeAmerican: The bare minimum that social media platforms need to do:

1) Verify that their accounts are real humans
2) Ban the haters & trolls

1 is a given.

2 ... how, specifically, do you define "haters & trolls"?  Because damn near everyone on the platform has been a hater and/or troll at one time or another, depending on how you specifically define those terms.

What they need to do is be both more direct, and more visible, about calling out bullshiat.  Slapping a small "misleading" tag on Trump's main-in voter fraud tweet?  That's so weak it might as well not exist.  No.  Slap it with a large, bold-font "FALSE INFORMATION" or "LIE" tag or whatever as appropriate.  Don't tiptoe around bullshiat anymore.  Call it exactly what it is in clear and unambiguous language large and bold enough for it to be the first thing the eye is drawn to even before a user reads the tweet it's attached to.  Doesn't matter if it's the president or Fox News or CNN or whatever.  If it's bullshiat, call it bullshiat loud and clear.

Possibly by amount of flags a comments gets.


Unpopular speech is not forbidden speech. This has already been settled in the Courts.
 
2020-05-27 12:29:56 PM  
Well, "fact checking" is better than nothing, but yeah, they should nuke his twattings the same way they'd nuke anyone who violates their terms of service (whatever the fark those are).

But they won't because Twatter is owned by a racist, sexist asshole and he loves President Flag Humper, apparently. I guarantee that farker probably owns a MAGA hat and wears it in secret, gazing at himself in a full-length mirror, like the serial killer in "Silence of the Lambs."
 
2020-05-27 12:30:06 PM  
Twitter? Excuse me but this is a problem across ALL media platforms. The US doesn't have a mechanism to control the breeding of misinformation fueled by profiteers.
 
2020-05-27 12:32:11 PM  

SomeAmerican: The bare minimum that social media platforms need to do:

1) Verify that their accounts are real humans
2) Ban the haters & trolls


See, there's some bots that should absolutely be permitted to remain on social media.  But those bots have to be clearly self identified, like if a research project is suing a twitter bot, have the bio say it's a bot, what school or researcher is working on it, and their professional contact, or like a Daily Show bot, should clearly say it's a bot run by the Daily Show for comedic purposes.  Make bot accounts have to identify as such like Satire accounts tend to do already voluntarily, and add a "Bot" tag either under their profile picture or before the username, so it's clear "this isn't a person"
 
2020-05-27 12:32:16 PM  
As much as Twitter is pretty hypocritical about enforcing their terms of service, they do have a point. It is important when the President says things, and for better or worse, this is his chosen medium. Keeping his feed active lets you see what's going on inside, and everyone should see it. I can't help 40% of the population somehow agrees with it, as vile and repulsive as it is, but everyone should see it.
 
2020-05-27 12:32:25 PM  
Here is Trump commenting on Twitter and standing funny. Look at the guy behind him to the left.  When Trump stands like a moron, it sometimes gets contagious.

Lincoln project should do an ad all about Trump standing funny.

washingtonpost.comView Full Size
 
2020-05-27 12:32:37 PM  

shootsright: Psychopusher: SomeAmerican: The bare minimum that social media platforms need to do:

1) Verify that their accounts are real humans
2) Ban the haters & trolls

1 is a given.

2 ... how, specifically, do you define "haters & trolls"?  Because damn near everyone on the platform has been a hater and/or troll at one time or another, depending on how you specifically define those terms.

What they need to do is be both more direct, and more visible, about calling out bullshiat.  Slapping a small "misleading" tag on Trump's main-in voter fraud tweet?  That's so weak it might as well not exist.  No.  Slap it with a large, bold-font "FALSE INFORMATION" or "LIE" tag or whatever as appropriate.  Don't tiptoe around bullshiat anymore.  Call it exactly what it is in clear and unambiguous language large and bold enough for it to be the first thing the eye is drawn to even before a user reads the tweet it's attached to.  Doesn't matter if it's the president or Fox News or CNN or whatever.  If it's bullshiat, call it bullshiat loud and clear.

Possibly by amount of flags a comments gets.


Lunatics flag posts that deliver facts that make them uncomfortable. With the American-right completely nuts, sane posts are the ones most likely to be flagged.
 
2020-05-27 12:32:47 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Karma Chameleon: If Twitter banned Trump, Fark would go out of business.

Green links are a little heavy on the orange today, aren't they?


The presedent of the United States is talking about censoring a private company because he doesn't like what they're doing. It's sort of a big thing.
 
2020-05-27 12:34:00 PM  
"I wish someone would come up with another platform, honestly, so that everybody could just delete their accounts on Twitter and go to the other platform because this is outrageous, disgusting behavior."

Come on Don, don't be an idiot. Nobody needs an alternative platform in order to delete Twitter, and any alternative platform is destined to become just as bad as Twitter anyway.

Dear adults of the world,
Just farking delete your Twitter and your Facebook and get back to real life. Social media is overwhelmingly detrimental to humanity, and any bit of actual good it does can easily be done in a million other ways. Suck it up and quit being a bunch of entitled titty-babies. There are more important things than the mild (and mostly imagined) "convenience" afforded by social media.
 
2020-05-27 12:34:26 PM  

geom_00: Not that this matter, but I would like to ask something.

There is a law (that Trump has already ignored) that makes any paper the President signs, or writes a matter of national record.  This law also applies to tweets.  (I am paraphrasing the law, as I forget what it is called)

My question is: In removing these tweet, wouldn't Twitter be breaking the law?

I am NOT condoning Trump or Twitter in asking this...I am just curious.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presid​ential_Records_Act

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVFEF​E_Act
 
2020-05-27 12:34:33 PM  
Imho, accountability is what's needed. Free speech is great as long as it doesn't go unchecked, this is why libel and slander laws are important.. you're fine to have as messed up opinion as you want, but the second you share that opinion in a public forum, be it spoken or 'published' on the internet or elsewhere you should be accountable to anyone that may offend or cause harm to. We shouldn't have to censor folks to get them to use common decency but apparently Twitter and Facebook have caused people to forget to keep their inner monologues to themselves...
 
2020-05-27 12:34:35 PM  
So this is what Net Neutrality was supposed to look like.
 
2020-05-27 12:35:27 PM  

rbuzby: Here is Trump commenting on Twitter and standing funny. Look at the guy behind him to the left.  When Trump stands like a moron, it sometimes gets contagious.

Lincoln project should do an ad all about Trump standing funny.

[washingtonpost.com image 691x461]


His whole family needs remedial standing lessons. I'm not saying they're lizard people in skin-suits, I'm just asking questions.
 
2020-05-27 12:35:36 PM  

geom_00: Not that this matter, but I would like to ask something.

There is a law (that Trump has already ignored) that makes any paper the President signs, or writes a matter of national record.  This law also applies to tweets.  (I am paraphrasing the law, as I forget what it is called)

My question is: In removing these tweet, wouldn't Twitter be breaking the law?

I am NOT condoning Trump or Twitter in asking this...I am just curious.


I don't see how an obligation on government translates to an obligation to private parties.
 
2020-05-27 12:35:42 PM  

SomeAmerican: The bare minimum that social media platforms need to do:

1) Verify that their accounts are real humans
2) Ban the haters & trolls


Absolutely not.  Full bore access is what makes social media work.  I'll agree about the boys, but all the crap with haters is just something were going to have to live with if Twitter is to be anything more than hip hop feudes and cat videos.  If it isn't a threat or incitement to violence, it prints.thus declares fireclown
 
2020-05-27 12:36:31 PM  

palelizard: It is important when the President says things


[citation needed]

Trump has never said anything important, and nobody has ever been better or more well-informed from hearing it. There are a million ways remain informed on national policy or what the White House admin is doing/planning, and none of them require being an audience for Trump's incoherent ramblings.
 
2020-05-27 12:36:57 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: Well, "fact checking" is better than nothing, but yeah, they should nuke his twattings the same way they'd nuke anyone who violates their terms of service (whatever the fark those are).

But they won't because Twatter is owned by a racist, sexist asshole and he loves President Flag Humper, apparently. I guarantee that farker probably owns a MAGA hat and wears it in secret, gazing at himself in a full-length mirror, like the serial killer in "Silence of the Lambs."


You forgot to add 'While beating it to Ben Garrison cartoons of Trumps manliness.'

Hork.

I'll show myself out.
 
2020-05-27 12:38:36 PM  

Cataholic: I have no idea what "net neutrality" actually is but I'm going to make an uneducated opinion about it anyway.


FTFY
 
2020-05-27 12:39:20 PM  

fireclown: Absolutely not.  Full bore access is what makes social media work.


All the hatred and the bigotry and the kooky conspiracies and the tribalism... that is what social media "working" looks like. It doesn't provide any beneficial or necessary service.
 
2020-05-27 12:39:47 PM  
washingtonpost.comView Full Size
 
2020-05-27 12:43:36 PM  

DocUi: Smelly Pirate Hooker: Well, "fact checking" is better than nothing, but yeah, they should nuke his twattings the same way they'd nuke anyone who violates their terms of service (whatever the fark those are).

But they won't because Twatter is owned by a racist, sexist asshole and he loves President Flag Humper, apparently. I guarantee that farker probably owns a MAGA hat and wears it in secret, gazing at himself in a full-length mirror, like the serial killer in "Silence of the Lambs."

You forgot to add 'While beating it to Ben Garrison cartoons of Trumps manliness.'

Hork.

I'll show myself out.


If that's where your mind goes, OK. LOL, I think he just stands there and says, "Look at me, Donald! It's all for you!" Unfortunately, he doesn't go on to hang himself like the nanny in "The Omen."

It's possible I've seen too many horror movies.
 
2020-05-27 12:45:13 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Liberals during covid:  private businesses should be able to require masks and if you don't like their rules then you should leave

Liberals on social media companies:  government should decide a private businesses rules


Conservavictims: so very predictable and boring
 
Displayed 50 of 136 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.