Trump is killing free speech. : whitepeopletwitter

[–] ResoluteCatnap@lemmy.ml 160 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Let me get this straight, CBS is refusing to fact check the VP nominee who, on TV, admitted that if he has to make up lies to get America's attention then he'd do just that?

Eat shit CBS

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 41 points 2 months ago

They should just add "Admitted liar" to his marquee whenever he's on screen.

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 157 points 2 months ago (15 children)

If there is no fact checking, Kamala needs to be ready to ask why Trump nominated someone who isn't allowed in any Ashley Furniture store in the lower 48 states and Alberta.

load more comments (15 replies)

[+] YourPrivatHater@ani.social 102 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 115 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

Yeah, Trump isn't what's killing free speech.

Trump is a symptom, not the cause: conservatism is the real problem here. I keep saying this, but as long as we keep allowing conservatives to reach positions of power, shit like this – and worse – will keep happening.

[–] Orbituary@lemmy.world 39 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

Let's have a talk about social media platform censorship. Tiktok and YouTube members who self censor common words like death or rape in legitimate conversations about the topics are learning to temper their language or face consequences. Unimportant consequences.

It may seem small by comparison, but if you condition it at a low level, each step beyond is easy to swallow. Spread it out over an entire population, and you see huge results.

[–] pfaca@lemm.ee 25 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

You just described Newspeak (Nineteen Eighty-Four novel):

Newspeak, which is a controlled language of simplified grammar and limited vocabulary designed to limit a person's ability for critical thinking. The Newspeak language thus limits the person's ability to articulate and communicate abstract concepts, such as personal identity, self-expression, and free will,[1][2] which are thoughtcrimes, acts of personal independence that contradict the ideological orthodoxy of Ingsoc collectivism.[3][4]

Source

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It's a lot more banal, though. Youtube has to sell advertising, and advertisers don't want to be next to discussions of rape or suicide. These restrictions are enforced algorithmically, hence the self-censorship. And in any case, it doesn't achieve the objective of newspeak, as those concepts are still being discussed.

[–] pfaca@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago

And in any case, it doesn't achieve the objective of newspeak, as those concepts are still being discussed.

Yet.

But I get what you are saying. I just find the similarities, although banal, kind of funny. In a scary kind of way.

[–] DogWater@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

I don't think it's right to divorce the censorship from the result just because the justification is different.

What I mean is that even though that conditioning is taking place for a banal reason it's still true that it's conditioning and will affect the acceptance of moves like this debate fact checking decision that are serious and do have consequences. So therefore it still matters and is still dangerous.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 7 points 2 months ago

Trump is both a symptom, of some deeper underlying issues, and a cause, of feed-forwarding those same issues - e.g. amplifying their power and their spread beyond what they would have done without his help.

Many people thought that Ron Desantis would take Trump's place - that speaks to Trump being a mere symptom. However, Ron had no chance to win the the overall presidential election - that speaks to how crucial Trump is specifically to it, in its current form I mean.

The Alt Right Playbook, by Innuendo Studios, describes conservatism so much better than I ever could though.

load more comments (1 replies)

[+] celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com 94 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

[deleted]

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 53 points 2 months ago (1 children)

When it happens, do you think the Supreme Court is going to side with CBS?

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Yes. Who do you think has more money, trumpler, or Paramount Global (formerly Viacom)?

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 23 points 2 months ago

Depends how much of the rest of the government apparatus Trump's brown shirts manage to take control of

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

In a liberal federal republic that isn't a failed state, no.

In what Republicans want and are actively working towards?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The president absolutely can. Would it be legal? Probably not. Would that matter after federal agents kick everyone out of your studio and lock it? Probably not.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee 12 points 2 months ago

A random person - no.

A person who controls millions of narrow minded gun wielding nationalists - maybe.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 75 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

Don't act like Walz wiping the floor with Vance is a forgone conclusion, it's not. That's what people thought about Biden's debate. Whether we admit it or not, there's intelligent Republican debaters who can't be baited out there, Trump just isn't one of them.

I genuinely wonder if the best option wouldn't be to refuse the VP debate until live fact-checking is in place for both candidates. That, or correcting simple untruths didn't count toward their time. I love Tom Walz, but if he has to literally spend his entire time refuting very obvious lies continuously spewed by Vance, his time would be better spent campaigning in swing states. How much does a Vice-Presidential debate really matter, anyway?

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

correcting simple untruths didn’t count toward their time

This would be THE BEST rule ever for all debates of any kind.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago

I disagree, that'll be abused by candidates to get more screen time.

We should keep the fact checking ABC did and perhaps deduct time for candidates that are consistently caught out on lies. The fact checkers should be approved by all candidates as well, so they can't just point to the hosts as favoring one or another.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 49 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Part of the problem is that nearly every sentence trump spoke was a lie, so fact checking was not 100%. They just fact checked random things, like, nobody is eating our pets. ProfessorWeKnowDis.gif

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

They fact checked the most obvious stuff on purpose. It's irrefutable. You cannot seriously claim they were biased when their two fact checks were the most basic shit. And yet that highlights just how bad Trump is.

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 45 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It’s not that Trump is killing anything; no more than millenials killed anything. It’s the media that’s the problem. If we’re going to blame anybody for failed media, then let’s blame the appropriate people. Instead of giving them a scape goat, we hold their feet to the fire.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This. They made the choice not because Trump is a whiny little baby, but because they see dollar signs by allowing him to make a spectacle.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 32 points 2 months ago (5 children)

He has no power to shut down a major news network, so one must ask why they decided to change the policy. It is not because of Trump's impotent threats.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 23 points 2 months ago

Because they want a piece of that sweet, lucrative, "insane spectacle" money. The execs don't care, as long as they get paid.

[–] the_tab_key@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

I assume the Trump/Vance campaign privately told CBS no fact checking else Vance drops out of the debate.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Some people are under the mistaken impression that corporate news is not run specifically by republiQans to promote conservatism.

🌎🧑‍🚀🔫👨‍🚀

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] Pavidus@lemmy.world 23 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I kinda wanna see the entire debate evolve into ludicrous, outlandish claims back and forth. Just sheer comedy. I know this isn't the right way to fix anything, but it's what we deserve at this point for letting the situation get this far unchecked.

[–] hOrni@lemmy.world 40 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Imagine a candidate spilling bullshit like "Haitian immigrants are eating the dogs". That would be hilarious.

[–] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 13 points 2 months ago

Oh don't be ridiculous, who would be stupid enough to believe something like that?

[–] Pavidus@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

I can't fathom it.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (3 children)

"No, you have poopy pants!"

This is the level of discourse I've come to expect from presidential debates ever since trumpler entered the races.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] shutz@lemmy.ca 19 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Is the debate being simulcast on all the major networks? I seem to remember seeing the Trump/Harris debate on ABC, CBS and NBC (just with different talking heads before and after).

If so, ABC should broadcast the debate with fact-checking overlays (Pop-up video style?) and advertise the shit out of the fact that they'll be doing this.

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 5 points 2 months ago

Wow, it's Kennedy vs. Nixon all over again, with techno-enhanced augmentation of "facts"!

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Walz needs to make outlandish, unbelievable, rumors. Couch fucking should sound normal.

Vance is technology he's own great-,grandfather/ brother. You know, he's Grafa bro! His pet ladybug is very proud of their accomplish.

[–] Diurnambule@jlai.lu 5 points 2 months ago

That would be so fun if he would use the maga debate technic and go full lie after lie making Vance lose his time refuting everything

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago

he has no power on his own. go after the shadow drivers that hide behind his buffoonery if you really truly want to see clarity

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 6 points 2 months ago

I feel like less people will watch the VP debate but people might still point out that jd vance is lying out of his aaa

[–] ogeist@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

How was Trump's threat successful?

[–] HexadecimalSky@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

CBS says they will not fact check the debate, some people see this is because ABC was threatened and so CBS is caving to Trumps threats

[–] ogeist@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

I get it now, thanks!

[–] xc2215x@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Trump demands networks agree with him.

People Twitter