|
|
|
Welcome to the official home and wonderful world of Pulitzer Prize Winning Political Cartoonist Michael P. Ramirez, daily editorial cartoonist for the Las Vegas Review Journal |
|
Fact check everything equally or face charges of bias.
|
|
|
Twitter Is Once Again Leading the National Debate. Jack Dorsey Says He’s Ready This Time.
By Bill Alpert June 5, 2020 BARRON"S
Twitter went public in 2013 with a bold mission statement to investors. It pledged to enable “any voice to echo around the world instantly and unfiltered.” Unlike many tech start-ups, Twitter lived up to its hype. But over time, its “unfiltered” promise has turned into a political liability.
Last last month, Twitter (ticker: TWTR) angered its most famous user by tagging some of President Donald Trump’s tweets as needing a fact check or glorifying violence. The president dashed off an order aimed at stripping the social platform...
read more
By Bill Alpert June 5, 2020 BARRON"S
Twitter went public in 2013 with a bold mission statement to investors. It pledged to enable “any voice to echo around the world instantly and unfiltered.” Unlike many tech start-ups, Twitter lived up to its hype. But over time, its “unfiltered” promise has turned into a political liability.
Last last month, Twitter (ticker: TWTR) angered its most famous user by tagging some of President Donald Trump’s tweets as needing a fact check or glorifying violence. The president dashed off an order aimed at stripping the social platform...
read more
Josh Hawley: Twitter Should Lose Tech Legal Immunity for Editorializing on Political Speech
SEAN MORAN 27 May 2020. BREITBART
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) sent a letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, questioning why his company should continue to receive Section 230 legal immunity when they editorialize President Donald Trump’s tweets.
Twitter decided to fact check Trump’s tweet on mail-in ballots, which Hawley charged raises “serious questions” about whether the social media giant targeted the president for political reasons.
Hawley wrote to Dorsey:
Twitter’s unprecedented decision to single out the President for disfavor, based on his political speech, is alarming. Yesterday, for the first time ever, Twitter branded the President’s tweets with a “fact check” designed to encourage readers to believe that the President’s political speech was inaccurate. Twitter’s decision to editorialize regarding the content of political speech raises questions about why Twitter should continue receiving special status and special immunity from publisher liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Hawley noted that Yoel Roth, Twitter’s Head of Site Integrity, encouraged people to “fly over” states such as Missouri because fly over states allegedly “voted for a racist tangerine.” Roth also said that people that work for Trump are “actual Nazis.”
Hawley said that Twitter has yet to counter the “outright lies and propaganda by the Chinese Communist Party” and other politicians.
The Missouri populist asked Dorsey if his company plans to fact check former Vice President Joe Biden and other politicians’ potential falsehoods. He asked:
What about other candidates for political office, like former Vice-President Joe Biden? Will Twitter editorialize regularly in response to his comments on social media? Or will Twitter only go after people its employees dislike?
Hawley noted that social media giants such as Twitter enjoy a special legal immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which regulates social media platforms as neutral platforms. He said that Twitter’s decision to editorialize tweets challenges the basis of the company’s Section 230 legal immunity. He explained:
Your company is treated very differently from publishers, as you know. Traditional publishers are liable when they mess up. But under Section 230, Twitter receives a special government carve-out that shields it from liability. That statute tells courts to treat Twitter like a passive distributor of third-party content. Twitter’s decision to affix its own editorial content to users’ posts brings into question the basis for that immunity. read more
SEAN MORAN 27 May 2020. BREITBART
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) sent a letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, questioning why his company should continue to receive Section 230 legal immunity when they editorialize President Donald Trump’s tweets.
Twitter decided to fact check Trump’s tweet on mail-in ballots, which Hawley charged raises “serious questions” about whether the social media giant targeted the president for political reasons.
Hawley wrote to Dorsey:
Twitter’s unprecedented decision to single out the President for disfavor, based on his political speech, is alarming. Yesterday, for the first time ever, Twitter branded the President’s tweets with a “fact check” designed to encourage readers to believe that the President’s political speech was inaccurate. Twitter’s decision to editorialize regarding the content of political speech raises questions about why Twitter should continue receiving special status and special immunity from publisher liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Hawley noted that Yoel Roth, Twitter’s Head of Site Integrity, encouraged people to “fly over” states such as Missouri because fly over states allegedly “voted for a racist tangerine.” Roth also said that people that work for Trump are “actual Nazis.”
Hawley said that Twitter has yet to counter the “outright lies and propaganda by the Chinese Communist Party” and other politicians.
The Missouri populist asked Dorsey if his company plans to fact check former Vice President Joe Biden and other politicians’ potential falsehoods. He asked:
What about other candidates for political office, like former Vice-President Joe Biden? Will Twitter editorialize regularly in response to his comments on social media? Or will Twitter only go after people its employees dislike?
Hawley noted that social media giants such as Twitter enjoy a special legal immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which regulates social media platforms as neutral platforms. He said that Twitter’s decision to editorialize tweets challenges the basis of the company’s Section 230 legal immunity. He explained:
Your company is treated very differently from publishers, as you know. Traditional publishers are liable when they mess up. But under Section 230, Twitter receives a special government carve-out that shields it from liability. That statute tells courts to treat Twitter like a passive distributor of third-party content. Twitter’s decision to affix its own editorial content to users’ posts brings into question the basis for that immunity. read more
Whiskey Politicswith Dave Sussman |
Whiskey Politics with Dave Sussman
|