Facebook Oversight Board’s Trump Ban Decision
-
@axtremus said in Facebook Oversight Board’s Trump Ban Decision:
Hot off the press:
https://oversightboard.com/decision/FB-691QAMHJ/I pasted that post into Word just to count pages
41 pages
-
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-ban-conservatives-facebook-break-up-big-tech
Trump ban: Republicans threaten to break up Facebook after Oversight Board decision
Conservatives blasted Facebook and its Oversight Board for upholding an indefinite ban on former President Trump on Wednesday.
"It is a sad day for America. It’s a sad day for Facebook because I can tell you, a number of members of Congress are now looking at: Do they break up Facebook, do they make sure that they don't have a monopoly? And I can tell you that it is two different standards, one for Donald Trump and one for a number of other people that are on their sites," Trump's former chief of staff Mark Meadows told "America's Newsroom."
-
@george-k said in Facebook Oversight Board’s Trump Ban Decision:
It will be interesting, to say the least, if Trump decides to run in 2024.
Will FB actually prevent a presidential candidate from being on the platform?
The January 6 attack on the Capitol was really really unfortunate and Trump was in the neighborhood making unfortunate noises. I guess if he is advancing unproven conspiracy theories and insurrection he should be banned but I am thinking outloud about possibly legit reasons.
-
@loki said in Facebook Oversight Board’s Trump Ban Decision:
@george-k said in Facebook Oversight Board’s Trump Ban Decision:
It will be interesting, to say the least, if Trump decides to run in 2024.
Will FB actually prevent a presidential candidate from being on the platform?
The January 6 attack on the Capitol was really really unfortunate and Trump was in the neighborhood making unfortunate noises. I guess if he is advancing unproven conspiracy theories and insurrection he should be banned but I am thinking outloud about possibly legit reasons.
Well, what's interesting about the Capitol riot is that a lot of it is pure horseshit.
- It was not an armed insurrection, as we were told.
- Calling the riot an insurrection is stretching the word a mite. There was never an attempt to overthrow the government. There were some people who thought the government wasscewing around with the vote franchise.
- Trump never called for any type of violent insurrection or riot. He never used words that had not been used by his opposition many, many times.
- The only person killed because of the riot was an unarmed protester shot by Capitol Police. Look at the bright side, if she had been BLM, the ensuing crowd would have burned the Capitol to the ground.
-
@jolly said in Facebook Oversight Board’s Trump Ban Decision:
@loki said in Facebook Oversight Board’s Trump Ban Decision:
@george-k said in Facebook Oversight Board’s Trump Ban Decision:
It will be interesting, to say the least, if Trump decides to run in 2024.
Will FB actually prevent a presidential candidate from being on the platform?
The January 6 attack on the Capitol was really really unfortunate and Trump was in the neighborhood making unfortunate noises. I guess if he is advancing unproven conspiracy theories and insurrection he should be banned but I am thinking outloud about possibly legit reasons.
Well, what's interesting about the Capitol riot is that a lot of it is pure horseshit.
- It was not an armed insurrection, as we were told.
- Calling the riot an insurrection is stretching the word a mite. There was never an attempt to overthrow the government. There were some people who thought the government wasscewing around with the vote franchise.
- Trump never called for any type of violent insurrection or riot. He never used words that had not been used by his opposition many, many times.
- The only person killed because of the riot was an unarmed protester shot by Capitol Police. Look at the bright side, if she had been BLM, the ensuing crowd would have burned the Capitol to the ground.
Watching the Capitol invaded changed my point of view on a number of things. Anti covid vaxxers reinforced it. I’ve been around a long time, most things don’t move me much.
-
I don't understand how this stuff works, I don't have a Facebook account, no twitter, and I still don't have enough hours in a day.
Couldn't Trump open fake accounts, say what he likes, and when he gets the John Trump facebook account closed for example, he then opens up yet another, like Delbert Ho. He could hire someone to do nothing but open up fake accounts on all social media sites day after day.
Would it work, if he wanted to do something like this? AFAIK, it doesn't take a social security number to open an account. What am I missing?
-
@rainman said in Facebook Oversight Board’s Trump Ban Decision:
Couldn't Trump open fake accounts, say what he likes, and when he gets the John Trump facebook account closed for example, he then opens up yet another, like Delbert Ho. He could hire someone to do nothing but open up fake accounts on all social media sites day after day.
Would it work, if he wanted to do something like this? AFAIK, it doesn't take a social security number to open an account. What am I missing?
It won’t work if the objective is for Trump to get the message out to his followers because a large portion of the followers of Trump are a cult of personality, not a cult of idea or ideology. They follow Trump even when Trump contradicts himselves from one day to the next, and they ignore anyone who says the same things that Trump used to say as long as that someone is not Trump.
-
I think Ax is pretty much right. People follow Presdient Trump because of who he is more than what he says. His policies are not the "brand", he is the "brand".
-
@taiwan_girl said in Facebook Oversight Board’s Trump Ban Decision:
I think Ax is pretty much right. People follow Presdient Trump because of who he is more than what he says. His policies are not the "brand", he is the "brand".
Trump is a disgusting fool, and everybody who supported him should be ashamed of themselves.
-
Democrats insist they are not attacking free speech, just combating “disinformation.” After all, they say, private companies have every right to control speech — unless you are, say, a bakery opposed to preparing a cake for a same-sex wedding, or a company contributing to political causes. The current mantra defending Facebook’s corporate speech rights seems strikingly out of sync with years of Democrats and political activists demanding the curtailment of such rights.
(Senator Elizabeth) Warren felt that one company (Masterpiece Cakeshop) can be forced to speak while another corporation (Facebook) should be able to stop others from speaking. When Facebook barred Trump, Warren declared: "I'm glad that Donald Trump is not going to be on Facebook. Suits me.” House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) also celebrated and added: “Facebook must ban him. Which is to say, forever.”
Obviously, these politicians would insist that the Masterpiece Cakeshop case is about discrimination while the Facebook controversy is about disinformation. However, some of us have long viewed all of these controversies as about free speech. Indeed, taking a free speech approach avoids the hypocrisy on both sides.
Under a free speech approach, cakeshop owners have a right to refuse to prepare cakes that offend their deep-felt values, including religious, political or social values. Thus, a Jewish cakeshop owner should be able to decline to make a “Mein Kampf” cake for a local skinhead group, a Black owner to decline to make a white supremacist-themed cake, or a gay baker to decline to make a cake with anti-LGBT slogans. While these bakers cannot discriminate in selling prepared cakes, the act of decorating a cake is a form of expression, and requiring such preparation is a form of compelled speech.
In defending Big Tech’s right to censor people, University of California at Irvine law professor Richard Hasen declared that “Twitter is a private company, and it is entitled to include or exclude people as it sees fit." That is clearly true under the First Amendment. It also should be true of others who seek to speak (or not speak) as corporations, from bakeries to sports teams.
Yet, when the Supreme Court sent back the Masterpiece Cakeshop case in 2018 for further proceedings, an irate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared: “Masterpiece Cakeshop is a commercial bakery open to the public, and such services clearly must be made available to the public on equal terms … No business or organization open to the public should hide their discriminatory practices behind the guise of religious liberty.” But Pelosi applauded when social media companies barred some members of the public based on viewpoint discrimination on subjects ranging from climate change to vaccines to election
