Trump is still butthurt about mail in voting.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,461
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
27 May 2020, 3:38 am
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52815552
And now he is fuming because twitter flagged his post, to recommend people look up the facts on mail in voting. Trump says its stifling free speech, but they didn't even get rid of his post, they just encouraged people look into it before just believing him. If I am not mistaking saying something contrary to what the president says is free speech even if the president doesn't like it.
I don't even see the big deal my state has been doing mail in ballots for years, and it's so much nicer than having to go to a polling station especially for us autistic people no pesky polling station lines or crowds to deal with. I mean Mr. Trump himself might enjoy it, he wouldn't even have to get off his a** to vote, he could just fill it out and hand it to one of his staff to go stick in the white house mailbox. I mean that is why I like it, its a fun lazy way to vote except I don't have someone to go stick it in the mailbox for me.
_________________
We won't go back.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,419
Location: Long Island, New York
27 May 2020, 5:15 pm
If he shuts down twitter's "fact checks" that would be more anti free speech than twitter's "fact checking" and censorship.
Free Speech is being allowed to say what you want(with a few exceptions) and not get arrested for it or shut down by the government for it. Private companies' policy as to what is allowed what is not allowed or what is fact checked is their free speech rights. If twitter wanted every tweet to say "Trump sucks" it their constitutional right to do that.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 27 May 2020, 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
27 May 2020, 6:03 pm
Trump and conservatives love to stylize themselves as the defenders of the freedom of the free market, private enterprise, and non-interference in business. Even if businesses wish to deny equal access to their goods and services based on personal prejudice. Good old voluntary association. This is, of course, until it adversely affects conservatives.
A business refusing to serve queer patrons? A business regulating free speech by those in its employ or on its property? Why, that's just fine. That's good the good old free market at work. That's just private individuals using their property as they see fit. Who are we to tell them what to do with what is theirs?
But a business refusing to serve MAGA-hat wearers? A private university won't let white supremacists use their property to spread their openly bigoted beliefs? A private company takes steps to label posts by conservative politicians that are spreading misinformation? These are grave injustices! These are evidence of a Great Anti-Conservative Conspiracy!
_________________
Diagnoses: AS, Depression, General & Social Anxiety
I guess I just wasn't made for these times.
- Brian Wilson
Δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν.
Those with power do what their power permits, and the weak can only acquiesce.
- Thucydides
28 May 2020, 12:20 am
From what I understand, there have been cases of this very recently, with one involving a mailman altering forms (From Democrat to Republican as a "joke") [1], and another where 3000 (from 19000, or just under 20%) postal ballots were not counted due to discrepencies in signatures on them compared with previous ones from voter in past few years, with a further 800 being set aside due to being bundled [2], so yes, postal ballots are open to fraud.
The interesting part of this, however, will be connected to Twitter "fact checking" an opinion about something someone said could happen in the future (how they can fact check a future possibilty, I don't know) and how this will potentially impact on Twitter's immunity from liability for what is posted on the site: Once they are seen as "censoring", fact checking, or otherwise taking an editorial role on a message left there, they are potentially opening themself up to having this protection removed, meaning they would then either have to stop doing so to regain the protection, check every tweet posted before publication, or risk being held liable for anything someone posts and that they publish (like newspapers, television stations, etc. are already treated).
On a side note, I had also heard a rumor that Twitter had a connection with some group that promotes mail-in ballots [3], which, if true, could also raise problems for them, not disclosing a potential conflict of interest in this "fact check".
And a quick question: What is the story behind the selection of party (or other options) when requesting a postal ballot in the USA? I know over here we can request a postal ballot, but these are neutral, with no party-affiliated material included (We get enough of that rubbish in the post regardless of whether voting in person or by mail).
[1] https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/loca ... 2/2313330/
[2] https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/p ... n/2412302/
and
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/c ... e/2425813/
[3] https://www.newsbreak.com/news/0PAIpDX2 ... in-ballots
28 May 2020, 11:08 am
Mail carrier charged with attempted absentee ballot application fraud
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/west- ... r-BB14Dns4
He is charged with changing "Democrat" votes to "Republican".
"The complaint against Cooper says he changed an underline that several voters had placed under "Democrat" to a circle around "Republican."
_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.
Be the hero of your life.
28 May 2020, 11:17 am
The interesting part of this, however, will be connected to Twitter "fact checking" an opinion about something someone said could happen in the future (how they can fact check a future possibilty, I don't know) and how this will potentially impact on Twitter's immunity from liability for what is posted on the site: Once they are seen as "censoring", fact checking, or otherwise taking an editorial role on a message left there, they are potentially opening themself up to having this protection removed, meaning they would then either have to stop doing so to regain the protection, check every tweet posted before publication, or risk being held liable for anything someone posts and that they publish (like newspapers, television stations, etc. are already treated).
On a side note, I had also heard a rumor that Twitter had a connection with some group that promotes mail-in ballots [3], which, if true, could also raise problems for them, not disclosing a potential conflict of interest in this "fact check".
And a quick question: What is the story behind the selection of party (or other options) when requesting a postal ballot in the USA? I know over here we can request a postal ballot, but these are neutral, with no party-affiliated material included (We get enough of that rubbish in the post regardless of whether voting in person or by mail).
[1] https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/loca ... 2/2313330/
[2] https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/p ... n/2412302/
and
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/c ... e/2425813/
[3] https://www.newsbreak.com/news/0PAIpDX2 ... in-ballots
I would think mail in voting could be tracked in a way that would curb any appreciable fraud. Absentee voting by mail has been a thing for many years. Mail in for everyone would be similar but orders of magnitude larger. One thing that wouldn't happen with mail in voting would be near instant results. I could see the norm happening where Nov 2nd voting wouldn't yield results until January given the utter ineptitude of some local voting systems.
Voter fraud laws would just need to be beefed up to have some "teeth" in the punishment. Automatic ten years in prison for each conviction. What would be wrong with that? That sounds reasonable to me.
Also, I think public shaming is underutilized. We have monuments for human accomplishments and remembrances. Why not have a public wall of shame where people convicted of something like voter fraud and serve time have their photo on some sort of monument in a public square?
28 May 2020, 11:20 am
Apparently, Trump is planning on an executive order that would basically allow social media companies to get sued for suppressing his and his supporters' "free speech", including the tweet about mail-in voting.
It's not censorship; it's preventing misleading information from circulating around the Internet. It really is a shame we have this guy as our president...
_________________
I am no longer using WP. Please PM me if you want to talk.
28 May 2020, 11:29 am
It's not censorship; it's preventing misleading information from circulating around the Internet. It really is a shame we have this guy as our president...
This is an interesting thing. Let's remove Trump and the current topic of supposed mail-in-voting problems. Should billion dollar internet companies who control communication and the sharing of information be immune from lawsuits of they did in fact suppress "free speech"? Let's assume theoretically that at some future point such companies did IN FACT suppress speech, information, etc from certain people, certain groups, etc. Should that be allowed? Why or why not?
28 May 2020, 11:42 am
That might depend on the biases that these companies have. Let's say that one company is left-leaning (not giving a particular example). "Free speech" may be defined as anything that fits their political alignment. The same could be said with a right-leaning company and right-leaning material. It's basically just a political battle, and lawsuits would exemplify this.
_________________
I am no longer using WP. Please PM me if you want to talk.
28 May 2020, 11:51 am
That might depend on the biases that these companies have. Let's say that one company is left-leaning (not giving a particular example). "Free speech" may be defined as anything that fits their political alignment. The same could be said with a right-leaning company and right-leaning material. It's basically just a political battle, and lawsuits would exemplify this.
That's where things might need to be readjusted in regard to how internet companies operate. I agree that companies "liberal" or "conservative" should be completely open and up front with the public in how they operate in regard to their decisions to regulate speech. We have a problem now that companies are not doing that. Companies on both sides are falsely misleading the public with the sham that they're objective when they're not. It happens on both sides. Twitter, Google, Facebook, et all have been alleged to be stifling conservative speech for a long time. Fox News has the tagline "Fair and Balanced".
What SHOULD happen is that companies like Twitter and Google for example should publicly state something like:
"We are a politically "liberal" company. We will fervently further our political agenda because we believe in it to our core. As such, we will curb, curtail or stifle "speech" we deem to be counter to our shared and unified political beliefs."
What would be wrong with that if it was out in the open? The public would know that about companies, they would know where the companies stand.
28 May 2020, 1:56 pm
That might depend on the biases that these companies have. Let's say that one company is left-leaning (not giving a particular example). "Free speech" may be defined as anything that fits their political alignment. The same could be said with a right-leaning company and right-leaning material. It's basically just a political battle, and lawsuits would exemplify this.
That's where things might need to be readjusted in regard to how internet companies operate. I agree that companies "liberal" or "conservative" should be completely open and up front with the public in how they operate in regard to their decisions to regulate speech. We have a problem now that companies are not doing that. Companies on both sides are falsely misleading the public with the sham that they're objective when they're not. It happens on both sides. Twitter, Google, Facebook, et all have been alleged to be stifling conservative speech for a long time. Fox News has the tagline "Fair and Balanced".
What SHOULD happen is that companies like Twitter and Google for example should publicly state something like:
"We are a politically "liberal" company. We will fervently further our political agenda because we believe in it to our core. As such, we will curb, curtail or stifle "speech" we deem to be counter to our shared and unified political beliefs."
What would be wrong with that if it was out in the open? The public would know that about companies, they would know where the companies stand.
Companies already state what they will and won’t remove. I don’t think there’s any good evidence that they remove things in a politically biased way. Certainly demanding that they all state their political opinions in a single word is completely unrealistic for multinational companies whose first concern is always “what will make us money”.
For all baby Trump’s whining about social media being biased against him, remember that:
1) Twitter has rewritten their own rules to avoid having to ban him (by carving out an exception for world leaders)
2) Every major social network failed to stop an influx of Russian intelligence agents and bots interfering with his election.
28 May 2020, 2:08 pm
Free Speech is being allowed to say what you want(with a few exceptions) and not get arrested for it or shut down by the government for it. Private companies' policy as to what is allowed what is not allowed or what is fact checked is their free speech rights. If twitter wanted every tweet to say "Trump sucks" it their constitutional right to do that.
I agree with your points here
_________________
I am no longer using WP. Please PM me if you want to talk.
28 May 2020, 2:32 pm
And now he is fuming because twitter flagged his post, to recommend people look up the facts on mail in voting. Trump says its stifling free speech, but they didn't even get rid of his post, they just encouraged people look into it before just believing him. If I am not mistaking saying something contrary to what the president says is free speech even if the president doesn't like it.
I don't even see the big deal my state has been doing mail in ballots for years, and it's so much nicer than having to go to a polling station especially for us autistic people no pesky polling station lines or crowds to deal with. I mean Mr. Trump himself might enjoy it, he wouldn't even have to get off his a** to vote, he could just fill it out and hand it to one of his staff to go stick in the white house mailbox. I mean that is why I like it, its a fun lazy way to vote except I don't have someone to go stick it in the mailbox for me.
He’s opposed to it because it allows everyone to vote, and Democrats outnumber Republicans at this point. He’s afraid of two words and two words only: “President Biden”
_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!
Now proficient in ChatGPT!
28 May 2020, 3:34 pm
Perhaps or perhaps not. It sounds like the U.S. is going to look into this in a formal manner. That will give both sides an opportunity to argue their case and/or support their positions.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Republicans Aim to Stop Noncitizen Voting in Federal Electio |
14 Apr 2024, 8:35 pm |
| Donald Trump Likely Going To Prison |
29 Feb 2024, 1:04 am |
| Trump thinks he looks like Elvis! |
13 Feb 2024, 7:54 pm |
| Trump would let Russia attack allies who don't pay enough |
16 Feb 2024, 4:34 pm |
