What's the protocol on posting tweets? or any links with hate content?

[floppyboo]

Lately I've noticed a huge rise in the re-posting of tweets, that in themselves, could be considered fairly neutral, yet the comments (and I'm going to guess because of the followers) are full of hate.

Is this sort of thing going to get around the 'support democrats' rule because of the first amendment, and if so, are rules of engagement here so easily corrupted?

Is it cool to report on someone who posts a tweet where the comments are 100% anti-democratic? Or slamming a Democratic Presidential candidate? Or should I just not read? Should this hate be in my face here at DU?

[emulatorloo]

1. Pretty much any prominent Democrat who tweets gets vile hateful comments

If a Democrat tweets out something that is worth sharing, I want to know about it. I generally avoid the comments.

Sometimes I have seen tweets posted here that are dishonest attacks on Democrats.

Usually the poster who posts a tweet like that is highlighting the dishonesty, and noting the smears that dishonest “Twitter Opinion Makers” are trying to make go viral/push into mainstream media.
Imho it is good to know that as well, to be aware of what talking points are being floated.

[floppyboo]

4. I wasn't talking about tweets from prominent Democrats. Tweets from this DU community

who are posting opinion tweets from talking heads from things like buzzfeed etc.

[emulatorloo]

19. Yes see my third paragraph above.

Also if you think the poster is reposting a lie tweet to promote it rather than critique it try this in a replay

- push back on the Tweeter’s smear (note: the tweeter, not the poster)
- post the real facts which shows the Twitter person is wrong

You can also alert on the original post if you believe they are promoting the smear.

[hlthe2b]

2. Context is everything...

That said, when I see posts with embedded tweets there are rarely comments included. Are you talking about following the link to see the comments?

[floppyboo]

3. yes - following the link. Not doing it anymore. Was too sad and mean!

I felt like I was being thrown into watching a bad show that, if there had been a warning, I would have avoided. Now I avoid all tweet links, which is sad, because there could be something useful there?

[hlthe2b]

5. that's why the admins made it possible to embed tweets. Stick with those posts that do, I guess.

[floppyboo]

8. explain please. So if there is just a link, but no text, that is ok and embedded?

I'm such a luddite

[hlthe2b]

11. Here is a post of my own that includes an embedded tweet

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2288164

[floppyboo]

6. I would be totally cool with someone posting the tweet and not the link

otherwise, it seems like the poster is just re-directing you to another group.

Is it difficult to copy paste from a tweet? I didn't think that would be a problem.

Is it cool to re-direct to other 'chats' that are un-Democratic?

This seems to be a cheat around all the rules that keep this place civil.

Sowing division.

[hlthe2b]

7. It is content on DU which is juried not content elsewhere.

[floppyboo]

10. so if the content is posted to DU, then it can be juried here? nt

[hlthe2b]

13. If what is posted breaks the TOS rules for the site, yes, but again context is everything.

There is generally no rule against deriding RW comments against Dems in a post that includes an example. That could cross the line if there was some intent to disrupt with it, however.

[floppyboo]

14. what about deriding LW comments against some Dems?

That is more my experience here. Although I wouldn't call them LW. More centrist.

[hlthe2b]

15. well, it is against the rules to attack (not just criticize) but attack DEMS, but I'd try to be sure

the post wasn't merely including comments critical of one or more candidates, for instance.

[floppyboo]

16. But this is exactly the problem I'm having!

The comments are more often than not 100% critical, and would NEVER be allowed here. It's like its become a proxy way of subverting the rules.

[hlthe2b]

17. Well, you could include some posts/links to recent posts in a question to 'Ask the Administrators'

and ask them to weigh in. I've not seen (or at least I don't think I have) what you describe.

[floppyboo]

18. I have asked a # of questions. 2 months and waiting...

[tblue37]

9. If people don't remove the "mobile." from the link, they just get the link, not

The embedded tweet.

[floppyboo]

12. this makes sense to me, as I don't have a phone and have to go through some steps

to read them. So, there is no way of knowing if they are just posting the initial tweet or are just redirecting you to a hate site if the poster doesn't remove the "mobile"?

question: shouldn't there be a way to disallow using mobile links if they are potentially (and inadvertently is some cases I assume) leading to hateful comments?

[floppyboo]

20. Is the new question in the age of twitter: What is a moderated site?

Everywhere you go is filled with divisive crap. You think you are coming to a safe place for some optimism about moving forward with democratic principles, but by the very nature of online discussion and links and hyperlinks, you are outside and flailing like most of the media who got 45 elected.

Crises!

Is staying on track staying in a safe-like bubble? I'm beginning to think - YES. We all need a place to come together in common purpose.

This Democratic Underground is in danger of being undermined by unmoderated opinion that does not make the cause for equality and fairness.

I'm getting really sad and scared about the future. This was an oasis of positivity.

[PeeJ52]

27. You want to be in a bubble? Do you think that is possible? Do you think that is wise?

Too many people living in a "bubble", for too long is what got us in the position we are in today. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not, it may be too late.

I apologize if I've stepped into something where I shouldn't be stepping. This safe zone thing astounds me. There is no safe zone. Everyone is a little different, thank God. We can't think EXACTLY alike.

[msongs]

21. maybe, well not maybe, there should be a forum where all tweets are posted nt

[floppyboo]

23. I like that idea!

[Ptah]

22. Let DU members decide.

Alert on the post and send it to a jury.

Political

Support Democrats

Don't bash Democratic public figures

Don't peddle right-wing talking points, smears, or sources

Don't keep fighting the last Democratic presidential primary



Don't peddle right-wing talking points, smears, or sources. Do not
post right-wing talking points or smears. Do not post content sourced
from right-wing publications, authors, or pundits. Exceptions are permitted
if you provide a clear reason for doing so that is consistent with the
values of this website.

Why we have this rule: News media and the Internet are already awash
with conservative propagandists attacking our candidates and our values --
we're not interested in providing them with another outlet. We understand
that many of our members might hold some conservative viewpoints on
isolated issues, but nobody here should be parroting hateful garbage from
the RNC, the NRA, or the Family Research Council. Forum members should
expect that the only time they'll have to read a right-wing smear or an article
from Breitbart is when someone is pointing and laughing at it.

[lunasmithiam]

24. high level of discussion

Could not understand about this topic and discussion I think it is a high level of discussion about this topic and all of them here seniors. Please, can anyone describe it with some examples and simple way?

[Kurt V.]

26. great question. i hope we get an answer. k & r

[PeeJ52]

28. I'm not understanding... Do we not want to comment on what they post? Do we not want to...

have a unified counter argument to their hate? It seems you're saying you don't want people to bring examples of outrageous right wing crap to criticize, or discuss, or counter, or pick apart, or rant, or scream, or just have a friend to console you because it pisses you off so much. Is that what you're talking about?

I know I was outraged by tRump pinning that crap Ilhan/9-11 video to his twitter feed for a day. I posted about it. I didn't post the tweet or even link it. The first person who hits the post... Do you have a link? Jeebus.. it's the Preznit's twitter... google it. this person has over 50,000 posts too. OK.. I guess I'm supposed to post. So I do. Is that what you're talking about? You don't like that?

It seems like every time I post or comment about a false or nasty tweet or right wing comment, the first reply I get is, got a link? These are long time users to... with thousands of posts. Are they setting me up? LOL.. I don't know.......

Anyway, like I said above, if you're looking to be in a bubble. good luck with that. Also, let me repeat, too many people living in a bubble for too long is what got us in the condition we are today.

OUT!

[floppyboo]

29. Ya - that's part of what I'm talking about

It's like passive aggressive right-wing trolling.

And no, I don't want to stay in a bubble, but I also don't want to click on some twitter link and have hateful, uninformed crap in my face. I can hear that anytime on MSM as they comment on 45's tweets.

If I can get my posts pulled for including an Intercept link, because Stein, Putin, take your pick, I think if you want to have rules here - have rules and stick to them.

[PeeJ52]

30. In my opinion, that's a bad rule. It's usually enforced by mob rule...

There's this thing called mobbing, where a popular person will pick on someone that isn't so popular, and a person will see that the popular person has picked on that unknown, so they will pick on them so to gain favor with the popular person. It soon grows so that others see what's happening and they want to become popular so they pile on. It's a well known social reaction. Happens a lot in the workplace to high performing introverts. Happens a lot in the online community too. So these rules you speak of, are really only guidelines, because they aren't really enforced fairly. It really depends upon who gets mad. If it get's reported to someone who resents someone standing up to authority, then they get hammered. If it gets reported to someone who appreciates independent thought, it usually passes, unless it's clearly abusive.

[floppyboo]

32. thanks for the insights.

Good food for thought. So, do you need rules to help prevent mobbing? That, I think, is what was intended by the TOS. But again - this reposting of right wing tweets seems to get around those rules. Sorry if I sound like I'm repeating myself. I'm probably years away from making my point clear even to myself.
edit: i mean, guidelines for the rules. sounds like censorship - but that is what a closed group is, no?

[floppyboo]

31. more...

So, posting a tweet, which is like posting a quote, in itself should be no problem at all, so long as it isn't hateful, or is reposted here on DU to point out its waywardness. But if you take a screen shot, and that screen shot includes a bunch of comments that clearly break the rules here, and the person re-posting that screen shot is goin' on like: "hey - look at this quote which proves my point" but its pretty obvious by the 'out-of-contextedness' of the quote, and especially by the comments, which are part of the picture that they are posting that the post in its entirety is no worse than allowing right wing neo-con shit to stand here.

And god forbid that you comment on it for fear of being of accused of attacking the poster rather than what they posted! Oy! There was a time when you had to take responsibility for this kind of thing.

Guess ol' 45 has broke the mold. His mission in part has been accomplished. Throw some stars and money up, and then blame it on the original. Bullshit.