Big Tech Silencing Conservative Voices

[CanadianJudo]

@DougBH

I gave a hypothetical. One poster claims X is a thief. Another poster claims X is not a thief. The media removes the statement that X is not a thief as misinformation. The media is by that stating that it is true X is a thief.

That isn’t defamation, you need to prove damages.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@DougBH

I gave a hypothetical. One poster claims X is a thief. Another poster claims X is not a thief. The media removes the statement that X is not a thief as misinformation. The media is by that stating that it is true X is a thief.

Well, no. They aren’t. That’s not how defamation works.

[CanadianJudo]

@DougBH

Fine. X lost his job because it was said he was a thief.

You need to prove it was because that person directly lead to them being fired.

[DougBH]

And my jury says they are guilty of libel, just as much as the editors of the Wash Po made their paper liable. They have become editors of what is true and not true.

[CanadianJudo]

@DougBH

And my jury says they are guilty of libel, just as much as the editors of the Wash Po made their paper liable.

your case would never make it to jury, because you can’t directly link them to damages.

[DougBH]

Your Canadian. You can’t be a US judge.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@DougBH

I gave a hypothetical. One poster claims X is a thief. Another poster claims X is not a thief. The media removes the statement that X is not a thief as misinformation. The media is by that stating that it is true X is a thief.

How about a more clear cut, real-world example?

Like, say…Sandy Hook was faked and they were all plants and actors?

How a bout a potential one from this site right now: Ray Epps is a F.B.I. plant. Do you think all the speculation over there flies? I don’t.

[CanadianJudo]

@DougBH

Your Canadian. You can’t be a US judge.

to sue someone for defamation in America is next to impossible, you need to really say something incriminating like Sandy Hook was fake and those kids didn’t exist.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@DougBH

And my jury says they are guilty of libel, just as much as the editors of the Wash Po made their paper liable.

What you’ve described would never get anywhere near a jury.

Defamation requires, among other elements, a false statement purported as fact.

[DougBH]

@Supreme_War_Pig

@DougBH

I gave a hypothetical. One poster claims X is a thief. Another poster claims X is not a thief. The media removes the statement that X is not a thief as misinformation. The media is by that stating that it is true X is a thief.

How about a more clear cut, real-world example?

Like, say…Sandy Hook was faked and they were all plants and actors?

How a bout a potential one from this site right now: Ray Epps is a F.B.I. plant. Do you think all the speculation over there flies? I don’t.

This forum does not represent itself as editors of what is true information and what is misinformation and must be removed. Twitter does do that, and that is the difference.

[Mountain_Soldier]

@PurpnGold

@thinkingman

nice childish response

first day back and already trolling

It’s amazing to me that conservatives still don’t understand 230. Do you know what happens if 230 is repealed tomorrow? “Censorship” would increase exponentially.

So nothing would change. At least for conservatives.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@DougBH

This forum does not represent itself as editors of what is true information and what is misinformation and must be removed. Twitter does do that, and that is the difference.

No, they don’t.

[CanadianJudo]

@DougBH

@Supreme_War_Pig

@DougBH

I gave a hypothetical. One poster claims X is a thief. Another poster claims X is not a thief. The media removes the statement that X is not a thief as misinformation. The media is by that stating that it is true X is a thief.

How about a more clear cut, real-world example?

Like, say…Sandy Hook was faked and they were all plants and actors?

How a bout a potential one from this site right now: Ray Epps is a F.B.I. plant. Do you think all the speculation over there flies? I don’t.

This forum does not represent itself as editors of what is true information and what is misinformation and must be removed. Twitter does do that, and that is the difference.

Twitter is free to define what is a violation of their TOS.
You agreed too it.

[DougBH]

Yes, they do. Constantly.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@DougBH

Yes, they do. Constantly.

Link to Twitter “representing itself” as an arbiter of truth?

They are, on the other hand, the sole arbiters of their own Terms of Service.

[CanadianJudo]

@DougBH

Yes, they do. Constantly.

who is allowed to moderate “Misinformation”

[CanadianJudo]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@DougBH

Yes, they do. Constantly.

Link to Twitter “representing itself” as an arbiter of truth?

simply because Twitter flag something as “Misinformation” doesn’t define it as fact.
they are allowed to moderate their content as publisher and remove content they view is harmful.

[DougBH]

Yes, they have that right. The editors of the NYTs have the right to state what is true about a person and what is not. As long as they check their facts before claiming something is misinformation, neither should have a problem.

[CanadianJudo]

@DougBH

Yes, they have that right. The editors of the NYTs have the right to state what is true about a person and what is not. As long as they check their facts before claiming something is misinformation, neither should have a problem.

I’m asking you who in your opinion define “Misinformation”.

[DougBH]

“It is misinformation that X is not a thief”.