All Things Kansas.
https://www.kansascrimson.com/boards/
I DON'T want that at all. But there are two issues here: 1.) Can or should he weaken Section 230; 2.) does the behavior exhibited by Twitter cause it to push the bounds of 230 on its own merit.pdub wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 5:27 pm Full on in the poli-talk, if he intends on giving the government more power over the internet by manipulating and then weakening 230, fuck him to the fullest degree more than many of the other degrees.
We want the government to be the ones deciding what we can post on the internet?
Well then it is impressive that somehow Feral still manages to, not only read them all, but, to also post them here.Geezer wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 6:52 pm The problem with both sites is the shear volume of items that would need to be checked. How do you factcheck 100 million tweets?
Search Results
Featured snippet from the web
Image result for number of tweets in a day
500 million tweets
Every second, on average, around 6,000 tweets are tweeted on Twitter, which corresponds to over 350,000 tweets sent per minute, 500 million tweets per day and around 200 billion tweets per year.
Exactly. And if you get into the business of fact-checking some tweets/posts, then you give the impression that those without the fact-check warning are, by definition, true.Geezer wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 6:52 pm The problem with both sites is the shear volume of items that would need to be checked. How do you factcheck 100 million tweets?
Search Results
Featured snippet from the web
Image result for number of tweets in a day
500 million tweets
Every second, on average, around 6,000 tweets are tweeted on Twitter, which corresponds to over 350,000 tweets sent per minute, 500 million tweets per day and around 200 billion tweets per year.
The social media accounts aren't in charge of controlling every single aspect of content. As Geezer said, it's impossible. But as a platform ( or publisher - the lines are pretty thin ), they should, as poli-neutral as they can, link content with extremely high viewership, to content review ( if that's their policy ), and they should be protected for that. In this case, there's a ton of views, and from those views, there's a lot of content generated off of that...a LOT. So of course they should have the right to review that post - and in this case, they aren't editing it, but appending something.DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 7:16 pmExactly. And if you get into the business of fact-checking some tweets/posts, then you give the impression that those without the fact-check warning are, by definition, true.Geezer wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 6:52 pm The problem with both sites is the shear volume of items that would need to be checked. How do you factcheck 100 million tweets?
Search Results
Featured snippet from the web
Image result for number of tweets in a day
500 million tweets
Every second, on average, around 6,000 tweets are tweeted on Twitter, which corresponds to over 350,000 tweets sent per minute, 500 million tweets per day and around 200 billion tweets per year.
This is funny, everyone.TDub wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 7:13 pmWell then it is impressive that somehow Feral still manages to, not only read them all, but, to also post them here.Geezer wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 6:52 pm The problem with both sites is the shear volume of items that would need to be checked. How do you factcheck 100 million tweets?
Search Results
Featured snippet from the web
Image result for number of tweets in a day
500 million tweets
Every second, on average, around 6,000 tweets are tweeted on Twitter, which corresponds to over 350,000 tweets sent per minute, 500 million tweets per day and around 200 billion tweets per year.
I mean, there are loads upon loads of potential political candidates who didn't do something or did something to a certain degree that would give them an 'uh oh'.DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 7:36 pm Uh ohs.
Before she became a senator and a top contender for former Vice President Joe Biden's vice presidential spot, Klobuchar spent eight years as the Hennepin County attorney, in charge of prosecution for Minneapolis. And while in that position, Klobuchar declined to prosecute multiple police officers cited for excessive force, and did not prosecute the officer who kneeled on Floyd's neck as he protested, The Guardian reports.
Ex-Minneapolis police officer Derick Chauvin saw at least 10 conduct complaints during his 19-year tenure before he was fired Tuesday, according to a database that documents complaints against police. In particular, he was involved in the shooting death of a man who had stabbed other people before attacking police, as well as some other undisclosed complaints. Klobuchar did not prosecute Chauvin and other officers involved for the first death, which occurred in October 2006 while she was running for Senate. The case was under investigation when Klobuchar took office in the Senate in Jan. 2007, and later went to a grand jury, which declined to charge the officers. Chauvin was later placed on leave when he and other officers shot and wounded a Native American man in 2011.
https://news.yahoo.com/amy-klobuchar-de ... soc_trk=tw
That's the facade that the Zuckerbergs of the world hide behind. Here's a situation where the right answer is extremely difficult to come by. Perhaps the removal of the liability protection for social media sites may not be bad after all!DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 7:16 pmExactly. And if you get into the business of fact-checking some tweets/posts, then you give the impression that those without the fact-check warning are, by definition, true.Geezer wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 6:52 pm The problem with both sites is the shear volume of items that would need to be checked. How do you factcheck 100 million tweets?
Search Results
Featured snippet from the web
Image result for number of tweets in a day
500 million tweets
Every second, on average, around 6,000 tweets are tweeted on Twitter, which corresponds to over 350,000 tweets sent per minute, 500 million tweets per day and around 200 billion tweets per year.
I'm not sure if that was meant to be a response to me because, if so, almost none of that has anything to do with what I posted.pdub wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 7:54 pmThe social media accounts aren't in charge of controlling every single aspect of content. As Geezer said, it's impossible. But as a platform ( or publisher - the lines are pretty thin ), they should, as poli-neutral as they can, link content with extremely high viewership, to content review ( if that's their policy ), and they should be protected for that. In this case, there's a ton of views, and from those views, there's a lot of content generated off of that...a LOT. So of course they should have the right to review that post - and in this case, they aren't editing it, but appending something.DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 7:16 pmExactly. And if you get into the business of fact-checking some tweets/posts, then you give the impression that those without the fact-check warning are, by definition, true.Geezer wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 6:52 pm The problem with both sites is the shear volume of items that would need to be checked. How do you factcheck 100 million tweets?
Search Results
Featured snippet from the web
Image result for number of tweets in a day
500 million tweets
Every second, on average, around 6,000 tweets are tweeted on Twitter, which corresponds to over 350,000 tweets sent per minute, 500 million tweets per day and around 200 billion tweets per year.
It's completely appropriate in my opinion and smart. You don't have to click the link. His words aren't edited. It's just 'hey, you want more ( actual ) information about this topic, click here'.
It'd be like if a popular poster here said 'Marcus Garrett has died' and made an entire thread about it.
I'd likely take it down because it's a lie. I should have the right to.
But instead, if I cared enough, coded something that would alert the post as likely not factual, that still leaves the content available, but just lets you know, despite the fact this poster gets a lot of attention, well, this post is bullshit.
At the same time, I shouldn't be sued because some poster posted 'Marcus Garrett has died' and left it up for a weekend, and someone got 'really upset about it' and wanted to make money off the trauma it caused them ( emotional trauma, imo, is one of the biggest money makers infested into law but lawyers sure damn love it ).
Otherwise, if this isn't acceptable, the government should create their own social media network, called bullshit.gov, and we can decide if we want to follow that or not. If we like twitter better, well, blame the government for not making something we want to follow/read.