whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Hard to argue with some points on the Fox website
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If Twitter if subsidized by federal funds should it have balanced policies not left biased?
- Thread starter whirlingmerc
- Start date
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
The same kind of "subsidised" big tech will almost certainly be hosting the Fox News website (and all the other major news sites too) so wouldn't the same principle mean they should all be politically neutral too?
And if people with any political lean shouldn't be allowed to implement rules, doesn't that exclude all politicians by definition?
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
The problem is, Trump has said some really controversial things on Twitter, he has been given more leeway and benefit of a doubt in Twitter's policies than anyone else. He could use the platform to attack people all day, and so long as it isn't random American citizens, it's unlikely he'd get in trouble.
Augustus
…
In what way are they 'subsidised' by taxpayers?
I didn't see the basis for the claim of subsidy.
Twitter is a private company, & many serve
whatever political agenda it wants...especially
since I have no use for their service.
Twitter is a private company, & many serve
whatever political agenda it wants...especially
since I have no use for their service.
Regarding Twitter, I would say that I have never seen any tweets from Trump directly from Twitter itself. I don't participate in Twitter myself, so I don't know who's tweeting what at any given time. The only reason I am aware of what Trump is tweeting is because others are choosing to report it.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Sad that we live in a world where deleting dishonest and/or bigoted posts is regarded as "unfair and biased". Such policies wouldn't exist if people were critical thinkers.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
Most of it's the same each day. One post accusing Hilary, two posts attacking Jeff Sessions, etc.
If Twitter were subsidized then it would have even more of a responsibility to act in a way that is in the best interest of the American people. Fact checking the dangerous lies from the President seems qualify.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
When one attacks another through a barrage of potentially damaging lies, much like Trump has recently unleashed against Joe Scarborough, doncha think this should be either removed or at least fact-checked?
Words can cause a lot of damage, as one should be aware of by now.
Is there such a thing?
I'll wager that those exhibiting the nastiest bigotry here
would consider themselves critical thinkers if asked.
Critical thinking is certainly possible, but only occasional.
What it boils down to is us vs them.....IMO.
Such falsity comes from the fact free zone.
And we agree much too much these days.
Great....I'm sharing a dog's brain.
But I must leave now....there's a mailman heading my way.
Look what I'm sharing. Shudder.
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
Until such time as it is shown that Twitter is "subsidized" by federal funds.
Perhaps you can link to something that actually shows it to be true?
Otherwise, all you got is a butt hurt Republican making bold empty claims....
Heyo
Veteran Member
Twitter is a big corporation. So it must be subsidized because politicians of both side have made sure of that.
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
"must be" does not mean "is"...
And if it "is", there would be something somewhere that shows that it "is", right?
Yet we have not been presented with anything but bold empty claims based upon assumption that it "is"...
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Twitter is privately, not publicly, owned, thus is covered by the 1st Amendment. Therefore, Trump should honest-up and realize that he's not the only one covered by the 1st Amendment.
BTW, where's all those "2nd Amendment people" coming to the aid of the Constitution and its 1st Amendment?
Notanumber
A Free Man
As Dr Steve says, if Big Tech companies want the privileges of being classed as utilities they should act like utilities.
For example, AT&T listens in to your telephone conversation and decides to terminate your account because they do not like what you are saying.
"Big business can be just as damaging to society as big government"
For example, AT&T listens in to your telephone conversation and decides to terminate your account because they do not like what you are saying.
"Big business can be just as damaging to society as big government"