Starting threads with a Twitter post - your thoughts?

Ahh, the crux of the debate / discussion. What sites or publications are "reliable" and who is qualified or acceptable to make those determinations.

 

“Someone could hear free speech and therefore be disposed to crime X or prejudice Y” is a discourse that threatens the existence of free speech in the public sphere of society.

“I’m the government (or a moderator), and I’m here to protect you and save you from dangerous speech” is something that should raise eyebrows and set off alarm bells.

Underneath that proposed solution to save us from the dangers of free speech is the philosophical question of who polices the police or in this instance the very similar question of who fact checks the MSM, which operates as a Ministry of Truth like entity, if we make it the absolute arbiter and standard of truth in political discussions.

Threads about Biden’s mental decline the past couple of years could have have been moderated out of existence or seen as dangerous rumor mongering if Twitter and YouTube were banned.

We know the MSM is not a politically neutral entity. Making them the arbiter of what thread topics can and cannot be started kind of seems like putting the SEC offices in Birmingham IMO.

 

You guys are honestly making this too hard, trying to create a rigid rule for something that can only be subjective.

Some posters just have a propensity to post bs. Does it matter if they “start” a thread or post 40 items of bs inside a thread? I’m mostly ok with letting them make fools of themselves, but I can see some are so over the top (or possibly slanderous) they need to be deleted. It’s mostly just a handful of high volume users and recurrent trolls that do this anyway from what I can tell. I’m sure many have the “usual suspects” blocked and don’t even see them.

I guess if the mods want a “rigid” rule then come up with a strike system. Anyone can be fooled by fake news once. Doesn’t matter if it comes from Twitter or an actual news outlet. But if a person is frequently posting nonsense sources or slanderous or racist stuff so bad it requires deletion or basically just doesn’t do anything but insult (rather than make valid on topic points), then what you have is a troll.

 

Having moderated other political forums, a system that allows for moderator discretion just opens the door for endless whining about how the mods are out to get certain people or certain perspectives. Sometimes we lose out on useful information, but if anything real gets uncovered on twitter or YouTube, it will be on a news outlet within hours. So usually it is just that we don't see the story for a few more hours than otherwise. And for most things we talk about here, time isn't really of the essence.

I would say no to starting threads with tweets or YouTube videos.

If the topic is important enough to the OP, they will find a source that isn't one of those two things. And if it isn't important enough to them to do the work to find a valid source, the rest of us don't need to be bothered by it.

Bling's strike system can work, but so much whining by those who insist on being victims.

 

And so you are a free speech absolutist. You’re not a.one. I want reasonable guardrails, which I believe are essential to help guide us through this novel, unchartered and unforeseen world of faceless propagation. We know with certainty that the Russians and Iranians and Chinese have perfected the mass propaganda bots that infiltrate our collective, ungoverned media. There needs to be a means and a way to filter the harmful trash.

 

I know.. that’s why I put it was the straw that broke camels back.. I figured yall had been looking at it and River just wanted everyone’s input.

 

I am not surprised.

I don't recall deleting any of your posts. Perhaps I did but nothing specifically comes to mind. A good many Too Hot posts on various topics are read, possibly edited or deleted daily.

Verifying your identity claim with a phone call is not a pot I want to stir with people uninvolved in your participation on this website.

Your acceptance and continued participation on this forum is not my decision. Carry on...

 

Lots of Twitter posts are raw videos. Videos that show an event that has taken place. Videos that share the words from the mouth of a person. Videos that the MSM hides. Videos that record what really happened. But I get it. They are a threat to one particular side that consumes and worships the MSM narrative.

Did you know that right now, YouTube is hiding the Rogan/Trump 3-hour interview? It's true. I searched it. The podcast had 20+ million views on the first day. Would the MSM share this? No. That's why Twitter is King and exposes the election interference.

 

You fell for it. The whole post was one of those to make you look and watch.

Sucker (lol)

 

There are times when there is genuine breaking news on Twitter or its equivalents and other more traditional sources havent written up anything yet. Nothing is going to break on YouTube though, and the people that start threads with videos all want you to watch like a 30 minute rant or something. No thanks.

 

The question was should a post start, post number one, with a Twitter, cut and paste or copy and paste

do you know where you can talk about a Twitter post mentioning Biden? ON TWITTER

some sad sack with 10 posts on Twitter? Is that news? Is that a publication? you know the answer

One of the reasons this place is great because it is moderated

of course, there may be exceptions like a Twitter post kid committing to Florida, probably followed up with reporting confirming the very same thing

this thread is the very reason as to why Twitter should not be a forum starting original post.. Posts in comprehension of the original question veered off-topic almost right away

 

This isn’t about the government, the SEC, or squelching free speech. This is a privately run message board, and they’re free to allow only pro-Trump or anti-Trump posts if they choose. This thread is simply if a social media post, specifically from X, should be the basis for op’s. The mods do a great job, and it’s their board—members can’t just post anything they want.

 

I post here more than other less moderated message boards, and I respect the job the mods do keeping discussion civil. However, they did ask our opinions about a policy they have not yet decided to enforce, so opinions on that policy were invited and I gave an opinion on that policy. I think it gives an extremely partisan and prejudiced MSM a lot of power to determine the thread topics on this forum. If the mods and the site ownership want it that way, then it is a free country. They can choose to run their forum that way if they wish. They have legal rights to do so. You are correct about that. My post was not a challenge to their legal rights to run their website how they wish. I am sorry if you took it that way.

 

Good feedback, thanks.