I think many factors have gone into it. 2008 and 2012 were back to back rough years for republicans which lead to rank and file voters wanting something different and someone to tell them what they wanted to hear on immigration etc unlike party leaders at the time. Cultural and educational homogeneity also make republicans more prone to disinformation. 2 Educated people can be wildly different from each other in terms of knowledge on various subjects. 2 uneducated people will always be the same in that they know nothing about everything. Becoming a party that wins 80 percent of non college whites while doing worse with college whites than Romney/McCain did has made the platform highly susceptible to nonsense.

This is one of those jokes that may be too close to the truth to be funny.

Is there any evidence that Twitter is planning on changing their moderation policy under the new CEO?

The whole comparison to an Publisher is specious and wrong unless we completely change that definition and meaning.

Again the Publisher is FIRST checking every word written, back checking sources and verifying content with the credibility of their platform (NYT) and because that can lend such an air of credibility to what is posted online or in print they are legally liable for it.

You CANNOT have a Journalist reporting made up stuff and the publisher putting their stamp on it and not hold them liable.


Nothing in the chat word between users compares to that except the words on a page part.

So this conflation is deliberate and wrong as it CANNOT be done.

You CANNOT require FB or Twitter to take the role of a publisher and check, research and verify every post between users before posting or hold them legally accountable. Any such requirement would simply shut them down. And that is the threat or game being played here.


We, as witnesses to this need to stop conflating these things as if there is a path to them being Publisher as there is not. There is simply shut down.

Does that mean that the gov't cannot maybe look at some TOS limitations? Sure. But don't again conflate that by saying 'see there you go 'Publisher' as that is not what would happen.

Unless super advanced AI Moderators come on the scene there will be no pre screening (publisher function) of discussions before posting and there will only be shut down if that is required.

I want people to understand, really understand what would be required by FB or a site like 2+2 to pre screen every post and edit and approve before posting them to avoid legal liability by just thinking about how many Mod's this site would need to deal with just my volume only???

1 user and I would probably require 3 user mods to keep up unless they wanted a massive delay between posts.

It is just not technically possible to make them Publishers and to hold them to that standard and i think people who think this is just a matter of opinion do not understand that.

probably a good idea to asume that those who want to make them more like publishers are not driviling idiots. The context is responsibity for content, we dont have to require some impossible standard for that.

If you want some new word rather than 'publisher' then I care not a jot either way.

I completely disagree as I think these things are being conflated very deliberately and most people who engage this discussion are not making the distinction.

Every time you see this engaged you see the comparison to the Publisher when no such comparison is apt. That misunderstanding (by most) is key here.

What you seem to be arguing for Chez is a more uniform standard for TOS and possibly throw in some privacy rights for users. I am fine with that and understand that discussion can be engaged.

It does nothing, NOTHING, for the Trumpster complaint as no such uniform standard will require a site to publish CT's, Lies or other such misinformation so they will stick to pushing the 'Publisher' misinformation line and pushing for people who DO NOT UNDERSTAND the distinction to keep pushing gov't to legislate in that area too.

Cuepee, obviously you're quick to frame everything as a right wing or left wing agenda point. Put down that lens for a minute and think of things from a perspective that's less clean on the political spectrum.

Let's say Twitter and FB decide they don't like Palestine. Is it fair for them to be able to start removing any pro-Palestine content? Can they remove links to any articles discussing how Israel might have prompted a recent attack? Ban anyone who implies Israel might be at fault?

What about on the history side? Because the history of that conflict is murky depending on what you read, Twitter, FB, & Google have the power to control what people believe. If they decide to bury pro-Palestine history it will be gone. Before long, the overwhelming majority of their userbase will be pro-Israel.

Maybe you are pro-Israel, I don't care. You can flip the above and come up with the same issue. Either way, whichever side the leaders of Twitter, FB, & Google choose can be pushed to dominate the thoughts of the masses.

If something is being pushed by an element of the pollical extremes it is proper to label it as such. And that is all I have done.






That is not the right question at all.

First off I think any privately owned site should be able to have whatever TOS they want generally.

So if 2+2 says 'Poker Talk only, no politics' you should not complain when they remove your Palestine content. Do you agree, yes or no?

If a site decides to allow politics they absolutely can set limits in their TOS such as no conspiracy theories or out right lies. So if someone wants to jump in a talk about WW2 and say the Holocaust did not happen they can ban that person and remove that talk. DO you agree, yes or no?

Because the latter is what FB and Twitter do and they are not the strawman you are trying to stuff to indict them.

Not allowing Stop the Steal lies =/= allowing only one side of a Palestine debate.


Nonsense strawman.

Most sites have rules about Truth, Accuracy and CT's, and until the avalanche of Trump lies that was never an issue.

Stop playing around with strawman and just say 'we think Trump lies need to have a place in SM' and agree to disagree with those who do not.

I’m not super worried about that when we can’t even get “Biden won” or “vaccines work” to dominate the masses even though tech leaders choose those views.

No the idea is to make them responsible for the content even if sometimes it's after the fact. You may see some huge distinction in fast removal of bad content vs pre-modding but it's still responsibility - regualtion will be guided by what is possible. There's also pressure on identifying users, how content is pushed to the users etc etc

This is real and important politics that will unfold over many years.

Stuff like this https://www.politico.com/news/agenda...nt-laws-518514

What happens when the Hunter Biden laptop turned out to be real?

"Oops, sorry about that, our bad? Oh, that had a big impact on the election? Sorry, it's not like we did that on purpose."

"At least we rightfully stopped those Wuhan lab leak theories from spreading."

Up next from CP...yeah FB & twitter only got a few major things wrong a few times, no big deal.

If you think FB & Twitter are above choosing sides on Palestine/Israel, you have your head in the sand. At some point, someone will decide what the truth is, and the other side will slowly disappear.

I remember when I was younger and was hearing about all the censorship in China, and how nobody over there really knows what's going on. Everyone was duped by the CCP into certain views of the world. I was thinking how is that even possible, the news has to get through somehow, right. Here we are a couple decades later with our own heads in the sand ready to take whatever version of history FB, Twitter, & Google says is real.

Explain to me what the bolded means in a practical sense.


I QP, as a poster say something scandalous, blatant false, and clearly defaming of you or someone else or a company, etc.

Facebook or twitter, as you note get to it 'after the fact' as I think we agree without advanced AI Moderators it would be impossible for them to preclear every post.

So now what? Explain very specifically what legislation might be doing to punish FB or Twitter for what I wrote and what they may or may not have deleted in a set amount time???

Explain how it might impact the 'bad users', explain what FB or Twitter could have done differently to not be punished?

Republicans will win landslides with huge majorities in House and Senate next year. The first thing Kevin McCarthy is going to do is go after left wing tech. Biden will veto but he'll be replaced by Trump after 2024 and you know what Trump will do then.

No site has to entertain Flat Earth or any CT you think they should.

We had that back in the early days of the Rotten Tomato's chat forum, at the time one of the earliest and biggest and it got flooded by CTers. It almost killed RT as regulars were all quitting. They then banned CT's and people came back.

You seem to think as long as one person holds a different view any business, and every business ,should be forced to post everyone's opinion.

If I want to start my own SM site tomorrow and want no Hunter Biden CT's or no Wuhan leak stuff then of course I, THE OWNER, should get to make that call.

If it turns out I was wrong and the Hunter Biden or Wuhan stuff proves out, so what. I, THE OWNER, was wrong. Business owners have ALWAYS made that call and they do sometimes get it wrong.

Suddenly when it comes to Trump Derp stuff people say 'the business owner should have no say, the users should'.

Your argument is the same one used by every single CT believer. What if they, in fact, got it right and everyone else is wrong. What if 9/11 was an inside job?

So what. Yes if 9/11 proved later to actually be an inside job I still support sites like 2+2 being able to ban such talk prior and if they are wrong later, so what?

Tell me why you think the owners should have that discretion taken away and that customers instead should dictate TOS?

If things get slanderous do you then support legal immunity for the Owners since they are being forced to allow this stuff to be posted?

Fair weather capitalist=commie.

Nope, I don't. What will Trump do then?

I suggest you read some proposed legislation if you want some precise details. They may or may not be how i would do it or how others will do it. From the previous link

McCarthy won't be speaker if the GOP wins.

I would bet any amount of money that Trump will keep teasing McCarthy to gain subservience but then betray him when it comes to the Speaker vote. It will be Jim Jordan or Matt Gate (if he escapes his legal woes) or even Marjory Taylor Greene, if Trump feels like he has broken the back of the party and can force all Republicans to comply or face his wrath.

Trump is on the vengeance and complete subservience path. Vengeance against anyone who dares cross him to send strong signals to others (McCarthy being one of the biggest scalps) and subservience from the rest, no matter how bad Trump actions get lest you end up 'Kevin'd'.

I've skimmed what you linked and it usual gov't type unclear speak. Broad enough that they can pretend they are doing something but not clear enough that anyone can explain what. Then toss it to the courts from time to time. For instance most sites remove clear hate speech now, it is the unclear hate speech that is the problem. How is that defined without a court test first in the grey areas.

Anyway I am asking you to explain in your words since you so clearly think it can be done.

It should not be hard unless you admit it is only theory with no thought out implementation. If you have some thoughts on implementation tell me what it would mean? How it could work?

For instance I can explain the exact mechanism of how it works for traditional media with the editor/publisher function in place. What causes an 'actionable' offense. it is easy.

So what is the comparable in the SM, user to user discussion field with after the fact moderation (which is what they have now btw).???

I expect it will be regulators requiring suitable processes beign followed. That will evolve over time in a best practice type manner. and via precidents in legal cases.

There will also likely be the ability to sue companies if you're a victim and dont believe the company did enough to remove/contain hate speech/etc

It will be imperfect and messy. It is happening

Right so it sounds like we are back to what I said prior that you said 'no' to.

And not really anything more as putting any real definition around this will be a practical impossibility.

Fact is the sites are already doing what you say now. They are using their best practices and removing things after the fact. This will just be ugly court cases of a user saying 'yes you removed it in 3 days but I think you should have removed it in 2 days'.

Because there really is nothing you can do beyond that. You can't stop someone from posting something offensive with after the fact moderation. You can only respond to it once reported or you find it.

Can you image the difficulty in trying to set a time frame to that? Who will be more equipped to deal with prompt after the fact moderation? A site like FB with billions of users but also billions of dollars or a fast growing start up, with no cash resources but only a few million users.

I have a feeling any such legislation just protects FB from growing competitors who will struggle to do active moderation in a timely fashion with scarce resources.

okay. Real legislation to do exactly what I said is now what you said

Glad we agree.

i really doubt it. social media will just be political now. whoever has power will just censor/ban whoever doesn't

Yes we do, which begs the question why you quoted at me first and said no to a few points when we dug deeper and you do agree with me.

This issue is being wrongly conflated with the role of a Publisher which is bears no real resemblance to and will not be handled in any similar legal way in terms of what they are required to do and can do by checking material BEFORE it is published.

There is no means to create anything resembling clear guidelines or laws to define this. At best it is will be gov't gobbledygook for gobbledygook sake, that is really meaningless but allows just enough for a bunch of ugly cases to go to court in the hopes they can define something.