nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

ancapailldorcha

This thread is a continuation of the megathreads for discussing the presidency of Donald Trump and any matters which relate to this.

Please keep discussion civil and constructive and bear the charter in mind before posting.

Update 16/5/20:

Threadbanned users:

Outlaw Pete
everlast75
mcmoustache
BonnieSituation

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Christy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

I assume they arrested the rest of the crew, seems strange they would only arrest the lead guy (correspondent would he be called?)

Yeah they arrested all of them. The correspondent did most of the talking for the group showing ID and clarifying what the group was there for.

The police, potentially due to being on live TV which the correspondent was clear about refused to answer why they were under arrest.

sydthebeat

https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/george-floyd-protest-updates-05-28-20/h_4ed08403663fa4ed3518221d0f2a1552

video of arrest here

aloyisious

banie01 wrote: »

The rub here is that invoking free or protected speech does not in any way guarantee a right to be published.

Many newspapers and periodicals will publish opinion pieces and label them as such, not from a legal obligation but some notion of equity and balance.

Platforms allow users to self publish.
Should platforms become publishers, that will not come with any inherent obligation to publish.
It allows a creep in censorship, and pushes the "responsibility" for it the platforms.

Trump using "free speech" to dictate to a company just how, when and what free speech is?

Is quite ironic in light of the stance taken by Trump and the NFL to simple protest.
Imagine if Kaepernick called for violence?
Or is that just the protected domain of El Presidenté!

I suppose [I'm musing now] that twitter could use computerized controls to regulate whats posted on its platform, recognized words triggering a block on tweets and their contents, in the way that F/B does.

hetuzozaho

Deleted User wrote: »

The implications for the likes of gab could be far more serious. Their platform is associated with terror attacks and mass shootings on a regular basis.

But Gab wouldn't be effected as they are not getting involved with the content?

[Deleted User]

The implications for the likes of gab could be far more serious. Their platform is associated with terror attacks and mass shootings on a regular basis.

salmocab

Blueshoe wrote: »

Yah heard it myself. On Irish news radio. Today FM I believe.

They left out the end of the quote. What a surprise.

Why don’t you just tell us the end in your post, you obviously want to tell us all so just do it.

Leroy42

I assume they arrested the rest of the crew, seems strange they would only arrest the lead guy (correspondent would he be called?)

hetuzozaho

Christy42 wrote: »

Well he has moved them to publisher. I mean it will likely fail but right now they can say they are being cautious of the law. Plus even if they back down their tos is part of their business model. They have to get involved to a certain degree or end up like 4chan.

Yes I don't see how you could run a platform like Twitter if you were not allowed to be involved to stop it ending up like 4chan as you say. And you can't go the other way that being involved would lead you to be libel as the volume of content is too much.

But maybe it is a little cake and eat it for Twitter. They can control the content but also not be responsible for it?

Christy42

sundodger5 wrote: »

https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/george-floyd-protest-updates-05-28-20/h_4ed08403663fa4ed3518221d0f2a1552

Thanks. That is a pretty horrific look. The reporter clearly asked repeatedly where the police wanted them to be standing and identified themselves. Impressively calm throughout the situation.

Quin_Dub

Nody wrote: »

Nah; it's all ground work for Don to launch his own supported Trump TV channel. Fox is no longer good enough and are joining the fake news media in not telling the truth etc. It gives him a chance to have his own channel dedicated to "telling it like it is" and basically become worst of Fox and Breitbart news combined with him always being right.

Of course I think the channel in general will fail in a few years but as so many other Trump investments he'll make sure he's pocketed as much money before the company goes bankrupt.

Yep - OANN

Junior and a few others have bought a stake in the company that owns it.

Blueshoe

salmocab wrote: »

I just heard Trump on the radio saying he’d like nothing more than to give up his Twitter account. If only there was a way to stop using Twitter. Think Don think!

Yah heard it myself. On Irish news radio. Today FM I believe.

They left out the end of the quote. What a surprise.

Nody

trashcan wrote: »

It's really just awful the way "they" keep forcing him to post on twitter isn't it ?

Nah; it's all ground work for Don to launch his own supported Trump TV channel. Fox is no longer good enough and are joining the fake news media in not telling the truth etc. It gives him a chance to have his own channel dedicated to "telling it like it is" and basically become worst of Fox and Breitbart news combined with him always being right.

Of course I think the channel in general will fail in a few years but as so many other Trump investments he'll make sure he's pocketed as much money before the company goes bankrupt.

trashcan

salmocab wrote: »

I just heard Trump on the radio saying he’d like nothing more than to give up his Twitter account. If only there was a way to stop using Twitter. Think Don think!

It's really just awful the way "they" keep forcing him to post on twitter isn't it ?

Nody

sundodger5 wrote: »

https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/george-floyd-protest-updates-05-28-20/h_4ed08403663fa4ed3518221d0f2a1552

Will not be surprised if Trump tweets about that positively along lines of "Fake news reporters finally arrested by police" or similar...

sundodger5

Christy42 wrote: »

Can you link to details? What it is for etc.?

https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/george-floyd-protest-updates-05-28-20/h_4ed08403663fa4ed3518221d0f2a1552

Quin_Dub

Christy42 wrote: »

Well he has moved them to publisher. I mean it will likely fail but right now they can say they are being cautious of the law. Plus even if they back down their tos is part of their business model. They have to get involved to a certain degree or end up like 4chan.

The only way out for them (presuming the law doesn't fail in the courts which it likely will) is to go over the top moderation.

Well - He hasn't really , he has "asked" that the various Federal authorities "look at" doing that. He hasn't personally done a thing (story of his Presidency to be honest).

They'll look , tell him it can't be done because of a whole host of legal implications that make it impossible and that will be that.

But by the time that response comes back the world will have moved on to the next thing Trump is outraged by and he hopes that no one will notice that it was just a petulant, pointless temper tantrum and sadly , he'll mostly be right because his supporters won't notice that like virtually everything he says he's going to do - Nothing actually happens

Christy42

omerin wrote: »

The whole tv crew are now being arrested, lol by the state police

Can you link to details? What it is for etc.?

Christy42

hetuzozaho wrote: »

But I think what he wants is for Twitter to not get involved.

Like they can get involved if they want but that will move them to publisher status and then goodbye to their protection.

But if they want to be protected and just the carry our messages they need to stop get involved in the messages.

Well he has moved them to publisher. I mean it will likely fail but right now they can say they are being cautious of the law. Plus even if they back down their tos is part of their business model. They have to get involved to a certain degree or end up like 4chan.

The only way out for them (presuming the law doesn't fail in the courts which it likely will) is to go over the top moderation.

Leroy42

hetuzozaho wrote: »

But I think what he wants is for Twitter to not get involved.

Like they can get involved if they want but that will move them to publisher status and then goodbye to their protection.

But if they want to be protected and just the carry our messages they need to stop get involved in the messages.

Ah is that it. OK, that makes sense then. Start to do anything and you fall under be held responsible for everything. In that case it is basically far easier to do nothing at all.

hetuzozaho

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Basically -Yes

Under current laws , Social Media can't really be sued for something that someone posted on their platform - There are obviously some exceptions but the burden of proof makes it almost impossible for Social Media to be found guilty for something someone else did.

For example , right now Joe Scarborough couldn't sue Twitter for Trumps posts accusing him of Murder , he can sue Trump , but not Twitter.

It Trump got his way , Scarborough could then also sue Twitter and any other Social Media platform that displayed the Trump accusation.

The upshot of that law change (which will never actually happen BTW)- Twitter would simply delete Trumps account (and many many others) as he has a proven track record of stuff that could get them sued, to avoid future litigation.

But I think what he wants is for Twitter to not get involved.

Like they can get involved if they want but that will move them to publisher status and then goodbye to their protection.

But if they want to be protected and just the carry our messages they need to stop get involved in the messages.

Leroy42

It really makes no sense to me. He got peed because they put a marker on one of his tweets. They didn't remove it, then didn't suspend him, just marked that maybe it was correct.

But the EO seems to place the burden on the Twitter on who is responsible should false information be published. So, any rational company will now have to place a review system in place to try to limit any chances of being sued.

1st, they need to deal with the bots, as they cannot even be sued by Twitter, don't would be a good thing for everyone, although not one suspects the likes of Trump who would lose a large base of retweets etc.

2nd, based on analysis of a users previous postings, they should place certain posters in risk categories, with all tweets having to have some sort of review prior to being allowed on the stream. Trump would, naturally, have to fall into one of the higher risk categories and as such many of his tweets will never now be published, or their will be a delay in publishing them.

I can't see how that helps Trump.

THe US really needs to have a look at this whole EO business. It was meant as an emergency, or when it wasn't possible to get something through the congress, but it has effectively been turned into a autocratic device (and Trump is not the first). The POTUS is effectively allowed to make sweeping changes without any recourse to any other branch of the executive. At the very least the Congress and Senate should be allowed to review and vote on any EO before hand to at least give a view from the Congress.

omerin

The whole tv crew are now being arrested, lol by the state police

omerin

Cnn reporter just arrested live on tv, you couldnt make it up

banie01

aloyisious wrote: »

If he succeeded in that, the platforms would probably have to go the way of the print media statement with disclaimers like "the opinion stated in this item does not reflect that of the platform - We are, under the 1st amendment right to free speech, obliged to publish the writers opinion-piece".

The rub here is that invoking free or protected speech does not in any way guarantee a right to be published.

Many newspapers and periodicals will publish opinion pieces and label them as such, not from a legal obligation but some notion of equity and balance.

Platforms allow users to self publish.
Should platforms become publishers, that will not come with any inherent obligation to publish.
It allows a creep in censorship, and pushes the "responsibility" for it the platforms.

Trump using "free speech" to dictate to a company just how, when and what free speech is?

Is quite ironic in light of the stance taken by Trump and the NFL to simple protest.
Imagine if Kaepernick called for violence?
Or is that just the protected domain of El Presidenté!

aloyisious

robinph wrote: »

At the moment Twitter and Facebook are considered the equivalent of the telephone or postal system. They just provide the means to transmit the message, but are not responsible for what is in the message they deliver... unless you tell the post office that there is a bomb in the parcel you are sending then they are responsible for not delivering it.

What Twitter and Facebook don't want if to be made the equivalent of newspapers, TV or radio as they are responsible for all the content they print or transmit.

But Trump making Twitter and Facebook the same as TV and print media doesn't change the problems that he has. You then just end up with a Fox version of Twitter where Trump is taking to himself.

If he succeeded in that, the platforms would probably have to go the way of the print media statement with disclaimers like "the opinion stated in this item does not reflect that of the platform - We are, under the 1st amendment right to free speech, obliged to publish the writers opinion-piece". That would enable mud-slinging with complete freedom, in Trump's direction.

robinph

At the moment Twitter and Facebook are considered the equivalent of the telephone or postal system. They just provide the means to transmit the message, but are not responsible for what is in the message they deliver... unless you tell the post office that there is a bomb in the parcel you are sending then they are responsible for not delivering it.

What Twitter and Facebook don't want if to be made the equivalent of newspapers, TV or radio as they are responsible for all the content they print or transmit.

But Trump making Twitter and Facebook the same as TV and print media doesn't change the problems that he has. You then just end up with a Fox version of Twitter where Trump is taking to himself.

Christy42

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Is it that Twitter is not responsible for stuff we say on Twitter as they are not considered a publisher. But then they are kind of getting involved in what can be said on it's platform. So he thinks they should not have the protection if they are getting involved in what can be said?

The executive order is removing their protections against being responsible for things said on their site. Likely to fail in court due to twitters first amendment rights.

It seems weird to force them to moderate more because you dislike them moderating.

Twitter has had to moderate stuff for years. The original act gives does not give the total immunity and requires them to act in good faith. For instance stuff like his recent incitement to violence always needed moderating. Especially given he quoted a racist in encouraging the shooting of black people. All social media platforms have rules about what can be said on their platforms and have done for years. He is just upset because someone decided to apply a rule to him.

aloyisious

MadYaker wrote: »

Yeah the wording of it is a bit ambiguous, can’t really see what actual effects it would have. From Wall Street Journal:

“In essence, the White House order asserts that tech companies should lose their Section 230 protection if they take action to discriminate against users or limit their access to a platform without providing a fair hearing, or in ways that aren’t spelled out in the platform’s terms of service.

The order directs the Commerce Depart-ment to petition the Federal Communica-tions Commission to set up a rule-making proceeding to clarify the scope of Section 230. A key focus of that proceeding would be to determine when platforms have failed to live up to their obligations to act in “good faith” under the law when they police content.“

It has nothing to do with twitter fact checking trumps nonsense.

So the journal think's he'd be relying on the public service and the regulatory body, both of which he's made clear he doesn't like, to set up a committee to rule on what the internet platform Co's can do in terms of regulating content on their platforms?

That's a well thought out plan, if one wanted to merely make a point and pass the buck kick the can down the road. Good on the hidden Deep Stater who came up with it as I don't think Trump came up with it.

Quin_Dub

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Is it that Twitter is not responsible for stuff we say on Twitter as they are not considered a publisher. But then they are kind of getting involved in what can be said on it's platform. So he thinks they should not have the protection if they are getting involved in what can be said?

Basically -Yes

Under current laws , Social Media can't really be sued for something that someone posted on their platform - There are obviously some exceptions but the burden of proof makes it almost impossible for Social Media to be found guilty for something someone else did.

For example , right now Joe Scarborough couldn't sue Twitter for Trumps posts accusing him of Murder , he can sue Trump , but not Twitter.

It Trump got his way , Scarborough could then also sue Twitter and any other Social Media platform that displayed the Trump accusation.

The upshot of that law change (which will never actually happen BTW)- Twitter would simply delete Trumps account (and many many others) as he has a proven track record of stuff that could get them sued, to avoid future litigation.

hetuzozaho

Christy42 wrote: »

On the twitter thing. All it looks more like Trump has forced twitter to moderate his tweets more. I mean if he starts tweeting out further false murder accusations could they see legal action against them by the family if they don't moderate his tweets?

Is it that Twitter is not responsible for stuff we say on Twitter as they are not considered a publisher. But then they are kind of getting involved in what can be said on it's platform. So he thinks they should not have the protection if they are getting involved in what can be said?