Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
This is a perfect example of why i usually don't play along with people acting innocent and asking for an example. It's a waste of time.
I’m pretty sure all that person has to do is present some other government official who told the truth to fire. This is known as the “shiny object”.
Well that was just one example. I chose that one because there's evidence of what Twitter changed and I knew people would dismiss it as just my opinion so I picked an example of what Jack admitted to.
You are making the claims just based on your opinion without anything to back it up. Do you have any issues with all of the misinformation and lies trump has tweeted and retweeted for more than a decade?
What’s hilarious about him not conceding is every day is another in his face reminder how he lost. You’d think he’d just give it up and go golf than having dirt kicked in his face by the court and electors etc every day. But nope.
He’s got a bunch of people sending him money. I still get an email a dozen times a day. As long as they’re willing to keep forking over the green he will keep this up.
Well which part of the tweet are saying WAS factual. You posted a nested tweet of a tweet. Are you saying what trump said was factual or what Huckabee tweeted was factual?
I guess I don't understand how this is cherry picking. Apparently trump claiming a victory is untrue, but that untruth getting flagged proves that twitter is biased?
My original statement was that the way Twitter applies it's fact checking is biased. It's biased both in the way they target conservatives, and also in the way they apply "facts". The Trump tweet was simply one example, but one that demonstrated both of my complaints. Trump tweeted "I won!" and Twitter added a "fact" that the election was officially called for Biden. The election had not been officially called. When Huckabee RTd that with the observation/criticism of the fact check. Twitter later modified their fact check, which also followed onto Huckabees RT, rendering his statement confusing but for screen shots that captured what they had done.
Oh FFS.
Its not being spoonfed...its about backing up claims and assertions being made. And being wrong doing that on one story isn't the same as what you actually claimed....which is part of the point.
Yeah, that explains why the issue with "official" didn't make sense to me.
Yeah, I really wasn't trying to kick a hornets nest here. I just thought it was presented as if twitter constantly stifles the right so it would be easy to provide an example if that was the case.
Agreed. I don't understand the ethic that asking for corroboration or asking for a source is somehow dirty pool.
Was there fraud in 2016? Don't seem to recall you being vocal about election fraud back then. Feel free to correct me.
Wrong again "French benefits" guy. I'm actually fine with a Biden Presidency. I'm not fine with election fraud - even the kind that doesn't change the outcome. You shouldn't be fine with it either, but you do you my man.
Definitely seems to be a hard turn from the guy I remember posting here, but people change.
Twitter was incorrect in the use of the word 'official' in this case. If Twitter would have added a 'fact' that the election was called for Biden by the major networks then it would have been correct. Seems like this one is probably not the best example, as it was just a word error on Twitters part.
This.
Really is testing the guard rails. What's really going to test it is whether we will have a true peaceful transfer of power after all avenues to challenges have been exhausted. Because he's using those. And he's not following punctilio, up to and including the inauguration. He's just not.
I'm definitely not "fine" with it and have attempted to raise it here multiple times in the past as an issue, but everyone (until this election) has been crickets on it replying with "not enough to be meaningful". I even got that response to the issues with the GOP in NC in 2016...from everyone and that fraud DID impact outcomes as the person busted had to step down. That said, 3-4% of the votes in this country are rejected EVERY SINGLE ELECTION and many of those are from these sorts of "fraud" events. I'm trying to understand why people are now claiming they are not ok with it when by all accounts, the "fraud" this election will be WELL within that range (if not less than normal).
Wrong again "French benefits" guy. I'm actually fine with a Biden Presidency. I'm not fine with election fraud - even the kind that doesn't change the outcome. You shouldn't be fine with it either, but you do you my man.
It's odd that the people that wrap themselves up in a shield of personal freedom, even if that stance contributes to a quarter of a million people dying in less than a year, can't just use their personal freedom to avoid using the services of a private company that in their mind is treating them unfairly.
I never said it was. I just predicted (correctly) that it was a waste of time. Especially for something so common and easily verifiable.
Ouch. Again with the personal shots.
Yup. To be fair to platforms like FB - I am not sure it was on their radar that a majority of us would start using them for our news sources. That was just supposed to be for us to see what people we dated in college and HS look like today, not for hard hitting truth about COVID and election procedures.
I have never had a FB account even though I have been pressured by the same folks who say I should have a Netflix account ad nauseam. I have been told it's liked LinkedIn on steroids and LinkedIn is bad enough for me, but I need it professionally. No regrets whatsoever.
I'm sure it wasn't when it was first developed in the aughts, but once the profit potential was identified they adapted. It's still an effective tool for exactly what you described above, but it's on the user. Their average user is a dullard though.
Well they're not exclusive but Twitter is definitely biased against conservatives.
The request was not in bad faith. That is the first mistake...assuming something is in bad faith.
I imagine you know this, but even if the bolded text above is true (I don't know if it is true or not), the italicized/underlined text above is not necessarily a logical conclusion. That is, alternate explanations can account for the bolded. For example, Donald Trump is "fact checked" at a far higher ratio than me. That does not mean that Twitter is biased in my favor in any way. As I have never posted something untrue to Twitter (granted, I have about 5 Tweets total), it has never been necessary for Twitter to fact check me.
You can go ahead and explain how it was election fraud rather than this type of post?
It's along the lines of "NFL Referees are biased. They call more than twice as many penalties per game against Arizona as they do against New England."
I mean, I guess it's POSSIBLE to believe conservatives are shadow banning themselves, suspending themselves, and locking their own accounts and just lying about it.
NB...these are the posts which started the whole link and spoonfed argument. After the first I said I was unaware of such a proven thing and that it was baseless claims by conservatives...your reply was that the head of twitter testified to this. I then asked you for linkes.
