Threads that start with twitter posts are less likely to be productive, and more likely to need retraction (but not get it). I would be happier with less twitter. I would definitely be in favor of not allowing threads to start with a twitter post. I would encourage a rule that any post, not just thread starters, linking to twitter also include a copy and paste of the tweet. The forum software often doesn't display the tweets, so it is just a wasted post.
I'm not in favor of a hard and fast rule. Discretion by the mods to merge/delete topics should be the way.
that would be good however I anticipate it would be difficult to appear unbiased when attempting to apply discretion.
Isn't it what they already do when merging/deleting threads? A "no Twitter thread start" rule potentially becomes just a matter of convenience - I'm not a fan of that method. What about tweets that are legitimately informative? Say "No - rules are rules"? Meh
Then no action should be taken, imo. Thread deletion esp. should require consensus / obviously not belong on the board.
What I see here is a focus on Twitter (X) and we know who owns X. We know X tends to be a haven for right-wing thinkers, freedom of speech. Not throwing darts, but you're targeting a source that's owned by a known Trump backer and you're a known Harris backer yourself. So on the face, it's immediately sus. Also, what is different about posting a tweet versus an article from the Atlantic? Both sources are often laden with propaganda. Twitter is a revolutionary source of news. Banning tweets to start threads here would be a good way to drive Trump / GOP supporters out. If that's what you want to do, just say it and we'll find somewhere else to discuss politics. I agree with a rule that requires some personal commentary on said tweet by the OP. But beyond that, what is the difference in starting a thread with a tweet versus someone's own personal opinion or another media article? It's all susceptible to falsehood and propaganda. One recommendation I would have for both sides of the spectrum is if you're going to post a tweet (especially to begin a new thread), let it be from at least a somewhat credible source (ie they have a sizable following, ie they are not known for creating constant BS ala Laura Loomer). I've seen some tweets that are from amateurs putting their own spin on EV results thus far. But even that is simply forwarding someone else's opinion as your own and I don't see how that's much different than posting your own opinionated hypothesis about a matter. But as for this matter, it reads like you're trying to make it more difficult for posters to use the largest hub of online right-wing media to start threads.
So every time someone posts a thread about someone on X saying Walz is a pedophile, or pizzagate guy saying Biden said a bunch of bad stuff about Harris, the mods have to hold a vote on whether to delete it?
It's a good question. I don't think that should be necessary for obviously crappy threads. Was responding more about not deleting posts when they are questionable. Again, I'm in favor of discretion, not strict rules.
I use X for information such as it is. When using a tweet i try to either use a reputable source or try to chase down the original source to use instead or to verify. i would prefer that things remain as is. I can ignore or sift through the obvious falsehoods (and the frequency of the false ones has increased considerably the closer we get to the election)
I think if something on Twitter/X is valid, there will be other links to confirm it, so why not just start the thread with the other links? Again, we're just talking about starting threads, not posting within an existing thread.
That’s true - however oftentimes the original or source material is behind a paywall and inaccessible to most.
Here's a test case. Matt Wallace has 2.2M followers on X. Evidently is on some sort of Elon Musk council. Could be a dogecoin influencer. He says he's CEO of Titter, which I never heaad of. Here's his post on X that people are talking about. Would this Post (tweet) be banned? Would the subject of the post be banned?
I don't think it should be banned to start a thread. It's a perfectly plausible scenario, given what we've seen unfold over the past months. In a way, even if this is a false report, it's believable because of what we know has happened, so err on the side of free speech given the subject matter's track record.
I have no problem with this as i pretty much discount anything you post given your history of posting wildly false posts
What's good about X (Twitter) is nonsense usually gets debunked pretty fast. The MSM has been saying for 7 years that Trump said nazis were "fine people." A large number of Americans probably still believe t. I can see why Democrats, the MSM, the Deep State, Big Pharma and so many others want to censor X
Twitter post from news sources should be fine. Twitter embeds and displays on here better than any other source. Maybe require a second link to a news source ? (which I try to include) Or twitter video of the original Trump or Harris speech all seem fine. Random twitters like the one that claimed Walz was abusing his students or the ones current claiming Trump fondled a donors daughter are BS thread starters though. No factual basis for them.
I think a better solution would be enforcing the bans. Most of the nonsense comes from two or three posters who have been banned multiple times with multiple names. Truly eliminating him and the moderator work gets easier.
