Twitter permanently bans Trump
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2021, 14:15 last edited by
But then you can also argue that anyone who is smart would not want to make any deal with Trump, for Trump’s track record is to eventually burn just about everyone he “works with.” Cohen, Sessions, Barr, Pence ... the list is long.
-
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/08/trump-reacts-to-twitter-ban-456785
In a statement issued by the White House, Trump said he’d been “negotiating with various other sites” while “we also look at the possibilities of building out our own platform in the near future.” But aides did not reveal what plans were in the works. When Trump’s eldest son, Don Jr. offered up a URL to those hoping to keep tabs of his father’s whereabouts, it was a site that had been purchased in 2009 and, in recent years, a place where his books were sold. For those who did sign up, an email was sent, plugging his latest work: “Liberal Privilege”.
I hope he builds his own platform.
wrote on 10 Jan 2021, 14:46 last edited by@axtremus said in Twitter permanently bans Trump:
I hope he builds his own platform.
Separate but equal, is that it?
Next, they won't let him eat at Woolworth's lunch counter.
Are Facebook and Twitter public accommodations?
They might be someday soon.
If they are, they would have to have even-handed application of the rules.
Rules that would be enforced by the Civil Rights Division of Mr. Biden's Justice Department.
-
If Trump were smart he’d be negotiating a financial stake in Gab or Parler in return for him to make it
the center of his culthis communications hub moving forward.wrote on 10 Jan 2021, 15:03 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Twitter permanently bans Trump:
If Trump were smart he’d be negotiating a financial stake in Gab or Parler in return for him to make it
the center of his culthis communications hub moving forward.72 million is a helluva cult.
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2021, 15:39 last edited by
Nope. The cult is a small subset of his voters. I mean the True Believers. Not the ‘close your eyes and think of Gorsuch’ voters.
-
Nope. The cult is a small subset of his voters. I mean the True Believers. Not the ‘close your eyes and think of Gorsuch’ voters.
wrote on 10 Jan 2021, 16:10 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Twitter permanently bans Trump:
Nope. The cult is a small subset of his voters. I mean the True Believers. Not the ‘close your eyes and think of Gorsuch’ voters.
I agree with this @jolly. You keep mentioning that the 70+ million people like they are all homogenus that all believe the same thing, listen to the thing, follow the "orders" from the same people, etc.
That is as bad as saying the 80+ MM who voted for President Biden are all the same.
There are some on the edges of each party who are extreme, but they are definitely in the minority.
That is one of the problems with news sources and the internet today. If you (general you, not anybody specifically) start following, for example, a far right news source, the internet starts steering you towards other far right news sources. After a while, you think that those sources represent the majority of thinking in the US because that is all you see.
(Another reason I like this forum board. Good variety of opinions and allows me to see different view points.
) -
Nope. The cult is a small subset of his voters. I mean the True Believers. Not the ‘close your eyes and think of Gorsuch’ voters.
wrote on 10 Jan 2021, 21:07 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Twitter permanently bans Trump:
Nope. The cult is a small subset of his voters. I mean the True Believers. Not the ‘close your eyes and think of Gorsuch’ voters.
Exactly. I know plenty of folks who voted for Trump. Every single one does not buy into the fraud/stolen lie. Obviously a small sample size but I think represents most folks who voted for Trump.
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2021, 21:11 last edited by
Twitter bans President Trump.
48 hours later Amazon bans Parler.
A "virtual impeachment".
Surely it's a coincidence, right?
-
Twitter bans President Trump.
48 hours later Amazon bans Parler.
A "virtual impeachment".
Surely it's a coincidence, right?
wrote on 10 Jan 2021, 21:15 last edited by jon-nyc 1 Oct 2021, 21:16I wonder how much liability concerns enter into it. They probably have liability when there is open planning and encouragement of violence on their platform and they don't take reasonable steps to suppress it.
-
@jon-nyc said in Twitter permanently bans Trump:
Nope. The cult is a small subset of his voters. I mean the True Believers. Not the ‘close your eyes and think of Gorsuch’ voters.
Exactly. I know plenty of folks who voted for Trump. Every single one does not buy into the fraud/stolen lie. Obviously a small sample size but I think represents most folks who voted for Trump.
wrote on 10 Jan 2021, 21:17 last edited by@89th said in Twitter permanently bans Trump:
@jon-nyc said in Twitter permanently bans Trump:
Nope. The cult is a small subset of his voters. I mean the True Believers. Not the ‘close your eyes and think of Gorsuch’ voters.
Exactly. I know plenty of folks who voted for Trump. Every single one does not buy into the fraud/stolen lie. Obviously a small sample size but I think represents most folks who voted for Trump.
You also live in the Beltway...
-
@89th said in Twitter permanently bans Trump:
@jon-nyc said in Twitter permanently bans Trump:
Nope. The cult is a small subset of his voters. I mean the True Believers. Not the ‘close your eyes and think of Gorsuch’ voters.
Exactly. I know plenty of folks who voted for Trump. Every single one does not buy into the fraud/stolen lie. Obviously a small sample size but I think represents most folks who voted for Trump.
You also live in the Beltway...
wrote on 10 Jan 2021, 22:05 last edited by Horace 1 Oct 2021, 22:06@jolly said in Twitter permanently bans Trump:
@89th said in Twitter permanently bans Trump:
@jon-nyc said in Twitter permanently bans Trump:
Nope. The cult is a small subset of his voters. I mean the True Believers. Not the ‘close your eyes and think of Gorsuch’ voters.
Exactly. I know plenty of folks who voted for Trump. Every single one does not buy into the fraud/stolen lie. Obviously a small sample size but I think represents most folks who voted for Trump.
You also live in the Beltway...
How the heck do you deal with any genuine belief that Trump actually won that election?
-
@jon-nyc said in Twitter permanently bans Trump:
Nope. The cult is a small subset of his voters. I mean the True Believers. Not the ‘close your eyes and think of Gorsuch’ voters.
Exactly. I know plenty of folks who voted for Trump. Every single one does not buy into the fraud/stolen lie. Obviously a small sample size but I think represents most folks who voted for Trump.
wrote on 10 Jan 2021, 22:23 last edited by Copper 1 Oct 2021, 22:24@89th said in Twitter permanently bans Trump:
@jon-nyc said in Twitter permanently bans Trump:
Nope. The cult is a small subset of his voters. I mean the True Believers. Not the ‘close your eyes and think of Gorsuch’ voters.
Exactly. I know plenty of folks who voted for Trump. Every single one does not buy into the fraud/stolen lie. Obviously a small sample size but I think represents most folks who voted for Trump.
So you think people who voted for Trump are small.
Every single one that I know is big.
-
@89th said in Twitter permanently bans Trump:
@jon-nyc said in Twitter permanently bans Trump:
Nope. The cult is a small subset of his voters. I mean the True Believers. Not the ‘close your eyes and think of Gorsuch’ voters.
Exactly. I know plenty of folks who voted for Trump. Every single one does not buy into the fraud/stolen lie. Obviously a small sample size but I think represents most folks who voted for Trump.
You also live in the Beltway...
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 01:18 last edited by@jolly said in Twitter permanently bans Trump:
@89th said in Twitter permanently bans Trump:
@jon-nyc said in Twitter permanently bans Trump:
Nope. The cult is a small subset of his voters. I mean the True Believers. Not the ‘close your eyes and think of Gorsuch’ voters.
Exactly. I know plenty of folks who voted for Trump. Every single one does not buy into the fraud/stolen lie. Obviously a small sample size but I think represents most folks who voted for Trump.
You also live in the Beltway...
Yes but my point is the same, everyone who voted for Trump does not support the stolen election false narrative.
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 21:22 last edited by
Twitter stock is under a lot of pressure today. They fired their top salesperson so it’s not so surprising.
Also I’m sure people are reluctant to be as open and hopefully less divisive but that isn’t good for eyeballs.
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 21:40 last edited by
LOL...
Here’s a thought: someone who still has a Twitter account should simply tweet Obama’s words–“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”–and see whether the tweet is banned as an incitement to violence.
-
LOL...
Here’s a thought: someone who still has a Twitter account should simply tweet Obama’s words–“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”–and see whether the tweet is banned as an incitement to violence.
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 21:49 last edited by@george-k said in Twitter permanently bans Trump:
LOL...
Here’s a thought: someone who still has a Twitter account should simply tweet Obama’s words–“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”–and see whether the tweet is banned as an incitement to violence.
In what way are the two situations at all the same?
-
@george-k said in Twitter permanently bans Trump:
LOL...
Here’s a thought: someone who still has a Twitter account should simply tweet Obama’s words–“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”–and see whether the tweet is banned as an incitement to violence.
In what way are the two situations at all the same?
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 21:54 last edited by@aqua-letifer said in Twitter permanently bans Trump:
@george-k said in Twitter permanently bans Trump:
LOL...
Here’s a thought: someone who still has a Twitter account should simply tweet Obama’s words–“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”–and see whether the tweet is banned as an incitement to violence.
In what way are the two situations at all the same?
Both involve losing your mind with hatred
Over a couple of harmless quotes taken out of context.
-
wrote on 12 Jan 2021, 15:42 last edited by
A man set up a twitter account where he did nothing but retype in President Trumps tweets to see how twitter would react.
QUOTE
Lazar, who since joined the Arizona Lincoln Project leadership team as a volunteer, encouraged @SuspendThePres’ over 54,000 followers to report rule-violating tweets. Over the course of the last eight months, Lazar previously told HuffPost, the account was flagged four times for posting what Twitter described as tweets “glorifying violence” and “posting misleading information about voting.” In each instance, the offending tweets were deleted by the platform and the account was temporarily locked.However, when they came from Trump’s account, those same tweets were allowed to stay online, some with disclaimers attached, due to Twitter policies that generally leave rule-violating content from world leaders up, since such statements are deemed within the public interest.
UNQUOTESo, just based on this, it cannot be said that President Trump was acted on unfairly by Twitter. If anything, he was treated more fairly.
-
wrote on 12 Jan 2021, 15:50 last edited by
I think Twitter is more comfortable at this point with its clear moderation direction. Nothing much left standing in its way. It would have been kind of a big deal to ban POTUS before, not so much after the Capitol riots and after he is no longer POTUS elect. We all weigh our "moral stands" against the backlash we expect to get for them, though some of us are more aware of that than others.
-
wrote on 12 Jan 2021, 22:09 last edited by
Germany and France oppose the ban:
Germany and France attacked Twitter Inc. and Facebook Inc. after U.S. President Donald Trump was shut off from the social media platforms, in an extension of Europe’s battle with big tech.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel objected to the decisions, saying on Monday that lawmakers should set the rules governing free speech and not private technology companies.
“The chancellor sees the complete closing down of the account of an elected president as problematic,” Steffen Seibert, her chief spokesman, said at a regular news conference in Berlin. Rights like the freedom of speech “can be interfered with, but by law and within the framework defined by the legislature -- not according to a corporate decision.”
The German leader’s stance is echoed by the French government. Junior Minister for European Union Affairs Clement Beaune said he was “shocked” to see a private company make such an important decision. “This should be decided by citizens, not by a CEO,” he told Bloomberg TV on Monday. “There needs to be public regulation of big online platforms.” Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire earlier said that the state should be responsible for regulations, rather than “the digital oligarchy,” and called big tech “one of the threats” to democracy.
Europe is increasingly pushing back against the growing influence of big technology companies. The EU is currently in the process of setting up regulation that could give the bloc power to split up platforms if they don’t comply with rules.
-
wrote on 13 Jan 2021, 17:23 last edited by