Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Call me Al

kowloonkev wrote: »

Yes one is a PR exercise written to make an old guy with dementia look good and the other is a fight for free speech.

In case you hadn't noticed Twitter isn't stopping trump from saying what he wants.
His profile is active and he still tweets many many times a day.

Christy42

peddlelies wrote: »

Can of worms will be opened with that twitter situation, they should have left it alone.

Don't like Trump then vote him out in November, selectively policing speech or statements on social media platforms will have much broader implications in the long run.

You can see the confirmation bias already in some of the replies here defending the guy who implemented it and his tweets. His twitter is full of hostility towards Republicans, it's not exactly a good look for a supposed neutral platform.

I was reading earlier there's some statute that protects social media companies from being sued for censorship or libel and that Republicans are planning to repeal it. Like feck sake, how many false statements were made about Russia from Blue check marks on twitter, probably millions. You cannot enforce something like that equally across the board.

Republicans are not trying to repeal it. It would instantly cut off Donald from twitter if they did. How many people has he made up lies about? Imagine if we had a nice big court case all about false murder accusations? How do you think that would go over?

Twitter has been policed for years. Many people are banned from twitter. That is actually being policed as opposed to having a little note attached. You are absolutely right that it isn't equal across the board given Donald would have been banned from twitter years ago if he wasn't president.

What we have is Trump being treated with kids gloves and still complaining he doesn't have enough preferential treatment.

StringerBell

Overheal wrote: »

WH says Trump plans to sign an executive order tomorrow “pertaining to social media”

https://www.mediaite.com/news/white-house-says-trump-plans-to-sign-executive-order-pertaining-to-social-media/

I’m not sure what he could do. Nothing comes to mind.

Twitter shall not ever interfere with or edit a presidential tweet due to matters of national security.

That's about it.

It's almost funny, but it's mostly just a really sad part of our current reality.

StringerBell

kowloonkev wrote: »

Yes one is a PR exercise written to make an old guy with dementia look good and the other is a fight for free speech.

True, Trump is big on free speech and people's right to express themselves as his big support of the NFL players showed even though it would have been more politically expedient (given how many of his supporters would have racist leanings) for him to dogwhistle and rail against them asserting their rights to free speech and free expression.

And when Twitter removed tweets by other world leaders he was right there defending them and demanding they be reinstated. He wouldn't ever let it be thought that his lies were worthy of more credence than any other head of state, he would never let it be said that he was receiving preferential treatment from Twitter. No, truly a man who always been on the right side of a debate.

How you can tell that Twitter is censoring him so disgracefully and denying his right to free speech is easy, they have altered the text in his tweets and in fact have already suspended his account so as to stifle him from fighting for the people on that platform. For shame.

Penn

StringerBell wrote: »

Twitter shall not ever interfere with or edit a presidential tweet due to matters of national security.

That's about it.

It's almost funny, but it's mostly just a really sad part of our current reality.

Even if that was passed, I'd say it could still be argued that what Twitter's doing at the minute doesn't violate that, or even then they could program it so the fact-checking link goes under (but technically separated from) Trump's tweet itself.

Same way they keep having those "Add people from your phone contacts" or "Here's random tweets from people you don't follow you might be interested in" that they keep putting in my feed even though I keep clicking "See Less Often" and they keep f*cking reappearing even though I'm clearly not interested but there's no way to stop them altog....

Sorry.... My point is, if that's the best Trump's team could come up with, I still don't think it'd work, it'd be easily challenged or changes made to the existing system to easily bypass it. It's just Trump making empty threats as per usual.

Carfacemandog

peddlelies wrote: »

Can of worms will be opened with that twitter situation, they should have left it alone.

Don't like Trump then vote him out in November, selectively policing speech or statements on social media platforms will have much broader implications in the long run.

Here's the thing - if Trump were anyone else, Twitter would have banned him from their platform a long time ago. You are complainjng that the preferential treatment Trump gets simply isn't preferential enough

StringerBell

Edit: @penn


Oh I agree completely, it's the usual bold child empty threat.

That's all he is, smoke, mirrors and hot air.

Quin_Dub

Overheal wrote: »

WH says Trump plans to sign an executive order tomorrow “pertaining to social media”

https://www.mediaite.com/news/white-house-says-trump-plans-to-sign-executive-order-pertaining-to-social-media/

I’m not sure what he could do. Nothing comes to mind.

Apparently it's going to be an executive order instructing the FTC to "look at" changing the rules around Social Media.

Changing the rules would require congressional approval , so as you might expect it's utterly meaningless.

It's a temper tantrum on headed notepaper.

kowloonkev

Nody wrote: »

Since we're all love to hump the constitution and deplore anything beyond exact wording being taken as judicial activism please highlight what part of the below quote from the constitution you think twitter falls foul on in terms of freedom of speech.

Obviously the constitution needs updating to specify the use of social media and companies as influential as twitter ought to be almost like an essential service or right.

Personally I don't use twitter and avoid the main social media platforms but unfortunately they are hugely prevalent in today's society and therefore I think they shouldn't have the right to de-platform anybody regardless of their political or social views. That is going against free speech or the spirit of the constitution in my opinion for reasons explained above.

Now I don't agree with a lot of the people who are banned and such but I believe they have the right to say what they want, and even though Trump's reasons are selfish it is dangerous to have these huge media companies choosing which opinions to censor.

kowloonkev

Leroy42 wrote: »

If it's free speech he is worried about, then why is he trying to shut down Twitters right to comment on his tweets?

Also, do you have proof that he has dementia, I mean like medical reports and the like. Since, as we all know, it is not right that medical professionals should comment on a persons mental health without personally examining them, so I assume you have examined him yourself or tht you have access to his medical records?

I have common sense and it's quite clear Biden is not mentally capable of being President. He is being used.

salmocab

kowloonkev wrote: »

Obviously the constitution needs updating to specify the use of social media and companies as influential as twitter ought to be almost like an essential service or right.

Personally I don't use twitter and avoid the main social media platforms but unfortunately they are hugely prevalent in today's society and therefore I think they shouldn't have the right to de-platform anybody regardless of their political or social views. That is going against free speech or the spirit of the constitution in my opinion for reasons explained above.

Now I don't agree with a lot of the people who are banned and such but I believe they have the right to say what they want, and even though Trump's reasons are selfish it is dangerous to have these huge media companies choosing which opinions to censor.

Even if they were censoring what Trump says which they clearly aren’t how is how they do this any different to how say fox or CNN report what he says? People have the right to say what they want in a lot of the world but I don’t think there is anywhere were they can do it without any consequence. Free speech isn’t what people think it is.

BonnieSituation

kowloonkev wrote: »

Obviously the constitution needs updating to specify the use of social media and companies as influential as twitter ought to be almost like an essential service or right.

Personally I don't use twitter and avoid the main social media platforms but unfortunately they are hugely prevalent in today's society and therefore I think they shouldn't have the right to de-platform anybody regardless of their political or social views. That is going against free speech or the spirit of the constitution in my opinion for reasons explained above.

Now I don't agree with a lot of the people who are banned and such but I believe they have the right to say what they want, and even though Trump's reasons are selfish it is dangerous to have these huge media companies choosing which opinions to censor.

Really?

So then you disagree with moderation of message boards and how the editor of the Irish Times doesn't print every "Letter to Editor" in its pages?

---

Media always censor for many many reasons. In this case he's not even being censored. He can still say what he wants, they've just tagged it to highlight that he's talking crap. I really don't see how its an issue for any "free speech absolute" advocates

BonnieSituation

kowloonkev wrote: »

I have common sense and it's quite clear Biden is not mentally capable of being President. He is being used.

Oh really?

Used by who?

salmocab

kowloonkev wrote: »

I have common sense and it's quite clear Biden is not mentally capable of being President. He is being used.

Just nonsense

BonnieSituation

kowloonkev wrote: »

Obviously the constitution needs updating to specify the use of social media and companies as influential as twitter ought to be almost like an essential service or right.

Personally I don't use twitter and avoid the main social media platforms but unfortunately they are hugely prevalent in today's society and therefore I think they shouldn't have the right to de-platform anybody regardless of their political or social views. That is going against free speech or the spirit of the constitution in my opinion for reasons explained above.

Now I don't agree with a lot of the people who are banned and such but I believe they have the right to say what they want, and even though Trump's reasons are selfish it is dangerous to have these huge media companies choosing which opinions to censor.

FIRST AMENDMENT wrote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is the text. It's managed to deal with Radio and Television which were arguably more revolutionary than the Internet which could be construed as an amalgam of all three media arms really.

So explain what needs to be updated?

banie01

salmocab wrote: »

It’s close enough They are early 300s we’re mid 300s per million but we’ve slowed deaths right down I’d say they’ll be higher by the end our farcical handling of old people in care really made a mess of our numbers.

They will be far, far higher even now if any actually accurate count was undertaken.

Our number is including many excess deaths suspected of Covid. Ourselves and Belgium are counting in a similar count everything unless it's definitely not, fashion.

The US is actively suppressing Covid reported deaths in many states.
A curious comparator is the current number of pneumonia related deaths in March/April/May versus previous 5 year average for the same cause.
Pneumonia, outside flu season but during a respiratory pandemic that's not being counted as Covid.

The numbers in Florida and Georgia for instance, are IMO as reliable as Wuhan at this point

The post pandemic accounting in the US will unfortunately see a quite drastic upward revision IMO.

Christy42

kowloonkev wrote: »

Obviously the constitution needs updating to specify the use of social media and companies as influential as twitter ought to be almost like an essential service or right.

Personally I don't use twitter and avoid the main social media platforms but unfortunately they are hugely prevalent in today's society and therefore I think they shouldn't have the right to de-platform anybody regardless of their political or social views. That is going against free speech or the spirit of the constitution in my opinion for reasons explained above.

Now I don't agree with a lot of the people who are banned and such but I believe they have the right to say what they want, and even though Trump's reasons are selfish it is dangerous to have these huge media companies choosing which opinions to censor.

Note that Trump has not been censored. They stuck a little note on it. That is in no way censorship. Trump is being treated with preferential treatment and complaining it isn't enough.

Also the state does not have resources to police all of social media and therefore has pretty heavy responsibilities on them to counteract speech that are not protected by law such as racism, inciting violence etc. and things like slander.

You also have to draw the line over what counts as influential. Does stack exchange count? Does a forum for a video game count? Should reddit be able to move posts?

Penn

kowloonkev wrote: »

Obviously the constitution needs updating to specify the use of social media and companies as influential as twitter ought to be almost like an essential service or right.

Personally I don't use twitter and avoid the main social media platforms but unfortunately they are hugely prevalent in today's society and therefore I think they shouldn't have the right to de-platform anybody regardless of their political or social views. That is going against free speech or the spirit of the constitution in my opinion for reasons explained above.

Now I don't agree with a lot of the people who are banned and such but I believe they have the right to say what they want, and even though Trump's reasons are selfish it is dangerous to have these huge media companies choosing which opinions to censor.

No one has the right to say what they want. Even freedom of speech isn't the absolute freedom people seem to think it is. Either way, Twitter is a private company, they can implement rules as they see fit within the law, and nothing they've done has been unlawful.

As for de-platforming someone for their political or social views, people regularly, regularly, regularly point out how lax Twitter can be with enforcing the rules on certain groups or entities even when there are clear violations of Twitters own rules. Rule breaking usually results in temporary bans, or account being locked until you've removed the offending tweet. Then they're allowed back on. You have to be a regular or extreme rule-breaker to actually be removed from the site.

There are several pro-Nazi (like, actual Nazi's) accounts, white supremisist, outright racist, homophobic, transphobic, all the other phobics's accounts operating on Twitter. Once they stay loosely within the rules of the site, they're allowed to stay. As much as I hate that, that's the way it should work.

The President gets extremely special treatment. He practically challenged Kim Jong-Un to Nuclear War.... on Twitter.... And nothing was done about it. Now they're simply adding a small fact-check to demonstrably proven lies he's making about items of extreme national importance (Coronavirus and the Election), just by linking to news sources as unbiasedly as possible and I'm sure they're dying for the chance to do the same to Biden to show impartiality.

None of that violates the first amendment or the spirit of same.

duploelabs

Twitter's bot problem is a far bigger than any of this

pixelburp

Screaming "censorship" over what amounts to a little virtual post-it note linking to some clarifications is ludicrous, and really demonstrates have low political discourse in America & online has fallen - the fault lying with Twitter itself mind you.

Newspapers and biographies have been adding editorial clarifications for decades, yet the current President & his acolytes are so thin-skinned - snowflakes, if you will - seem to lack the intellectual curiosity or intelligence to see this. That the merest hint of similar behaviour on a service used for official national declaration being "censorship!". Yet again, those who'd most cry to be kicking against the PC Police are themselves the most brittle.

Timberrrrrrrr

StringerBell wrote: »

Twitter shall not ever interfere with or edit a presidential tweet due to matters of national security.

That's about it.

It's almost funny, but it's mostly just a really sad part of our current reality.

And 2 minutes later his account gets disabled

Oh how I would laugh if that happened.

Christy42

pixelburp wrote: »

Screaming "censorship" over what amounts to a little virtual post-it note linking to some clarifications is ludicrous, and really demonstrates have low political discourse in America & online has fallen - the fault lying with Twitter itself mind you.

Newspapers and biographies have been adding editorial clarifications for decades, yet the current President & his acolytes are so thin-skinned - snowflakes, if you will - seem to lack the intellectual curiosity or intelligence to see this. That the merest hint of similar behaviour on a service used for official national declaration being "censorship!". Yet again, those who'd most cry to be kicking against the PC Police are themselves the most brittle.

It does amaze me that those who cry most about first amendment rights and censorship seem to have the least idea of what either means.

How anyone can claim Trump is being censored when his messages are still up there is beyond me. It is a nonsensical

duploelabs

Post by Jack Dorsey, personal threats being made

https://twitter.com/jack/status/1265837138114830336?s=19

aloyisious

kowloonkev wrote: »

Obviously the constitution needs updating to specify the use of social media and companies as influential as twitter ought to be almost like an essential service or right.

Personally I don't use twitter and avoid the main social media platforms but unfortunately they are hugely prevalent in today's society and therefore I think they shouldn't have the right to de-platform anybody regardless of their political or social views. That is going against free speech or the spirit of the constitution in my opinion for reasons explained above.

Now I don't agree with a lot of the people who are banned and such but I believe they have the right to say what they want, and even though Trump's reasons are selfish it is dangerous to have these huge media companies choosing which opinions to censor.

Would you have your opinion also apply to boards.ie if some-one came on here and made a totally false statement about a person or a section of society when the statement transgresses against the terms and conditions set by the Co's who have in mind what are seen as acceptable norms of behaviour and what are seen as unacceptable norms of behaviour within the society they are part of or would you say Boards did the right thing if it carded or banned the transgressor?

Retr0gamer

aloyisious wrote: »

Would you have your opinion also apply to boards.ie if some-one came on here and made a totally false statement about a person or a section of society when the statement transgresses against the terms and conditions set by the Co's who have in mind what are seen as acceptable norms of behaviour and what are seen as unacceptable norms of behaviour within the society they are part of or would you say Boards did the right thing if it carded or banned the transgressor?

Freedom of speech also means that platforms have the right to moderate their platforms as they see fit. If you break the charter and they ban you they are well within their rights and did the right thing.

Freedom of speech means you can say what you want but doesn't protect you from the repercussions of what you say.

So Trump telling lies and saying something stupid and then getting shown to be stupid is just another expression of freedom of speech.

aloyisious

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Freedom of speech also means that platforms have the right to moderate their platforms as they see fit. If you break the charter and they ban you they are well within their rights and did the right thing.

Freedom of speech means you can say what you want but doesn't protect you from the repercussions of what you say.

So Trump telling lies and saying something stupid and then getting shown to be stupid is just another expression of freedom of speech.

My point exactly. Trump words his tweets [presidential statements if one likes] carefully knowing full well the cause and effect they will have across all strands of U.S society. It SHOULD GO without saying that as an adult, if he fails to keep within the norms of acceptable behaviour, he gets reprimanded, not mollycoddled.

FatherTed

kowloonkev wrote: »

Obviously the constitution needs updating to specify the use of social media and companies as influential as twitter ought to be almost like an essential service or right.

Personally I don't use twitter and avoid the main social media platforms but unfortunately they are hugely prevalent in today's society and therefore I think they shouldn't have the right to de-platform anybody regardless of their political or social views. That is going against free speech or the spirit of the constitution in my opinion for reasons explained above.

Now I don't agree with a lot of the people who are banned and such but I believe they have the right to say what they want, and even though Trump's reasons are selfish it is dangerous to have these huge media companies choosing which opinions to censor.

Boards.ie is social media and like twitter we agree to play by the rules/charters boards.ie and the mods have in place. I can't call you some slur word and not expect to get banned. Same goes for anyone on twitter, play by their rules, including Trump,

FrostyJack

Half way through David Frums new book Trumpocalypse: Restoring American Democracy, his last book was great and so far this is too. He was just on Sam Harris podcast talking about it if you don't want to buy it. The book goes through in good detail the events under Trump and explains how they are so dangerous. Any sane Republican, Libertarian or someone on the fence would be instantly be jumping ship from Trump if they believed the content. He pointed out the danger we talked about last week, that when Trump is removed he will be worse than ever, riling up conspiracies and hurling from the ditches undermining whoever takes over next, leading to another disaster. Possibly in-sighting violence and polarising the country even more. He will also in the future be held up by some like Mao, revisionists will hark back to the golden age of Trump, so even after his death he will still be a cancer on American society/politics.

Midlife

FrostyJack wrote: »

Half way through David Frums new book Trumpocalypse: Restoring American Democracy, his last book was great and so far this is too. He was just on Sam Harris podcast talking about it if you don't want to buy it. The book goes through in good detail the events under Trump and explains how they are so dangerous. Any sane Republican, Libertarian or someone on the fence would be instantly be jumping ship from Trump if they believed the content. He pointed out the danger we talked about last week, that when Trump is removed he will be worse than ever, riling up conspiracies and hurling from the ditches undermining whoever takes over next, leading to another disaster. Possibly in-sighting violence and polarising the country even more. He will also in the future be held up by some like Mao, revisionists will hark back to the golden age of Trump, so even after his death he will still be a cancer on American society/politics.

Disagree to an extent.

His hardcore will bemoan the days of yore but basically not get involved in politics again. They'll stick to WWF or something.

Republicans will flip on him as soon as he's no longer in with a chance of being electable. Their loyalty will dissappear quickly.

fr336

I'd love Twitter to ban him. So what if he then attempted to close it down, where are his mob going to go which has no much exposure? They will be like hermits shouting into the dark, Twitter gives this idiot so much undiluted oxygen.