Trump Thinks That The Government Can And Should Sue Internet Companies Because He Doesn't Like The People Who Work There
from the not-how-it-works-don dept
In a move that will surprise absolutely no one, our President once again blindly and incorrectly lashed out at big internet companies and said that they should be sued for what appears to be the illegal action of having employees who didn't vote for him. I mean, that's not what he said, but that seems to be the only real reasoning behind the argument.
President Trump on Wednesday said the U.S. government “should be suing Google and Facebook and all that,” then wagered that “perhaps we will,” in a new broadside against Silicon Valley at a moment when it already faces heightened antitrust scrutiny in Washington.
Trump did not detail the exact basis for such lawsuits, which he raised after assailing European regulators for their investigations into U.S. tech companies.
So... he's against EU regulators investigating the companies, but he wants to have the DOJ do it? On what basis. Apparently, on the basis of a laughable, out-of-context propaganda video from an organization famous for producing misleading, out-of-context propaganda videos.
In doing so, Trump also swiped at Google, claiming the search and advertising giant is “trying to rig the election.” He then claimed that Twitter has made it “very hard” for users to find and follow him. But Trump did not provide new evidence for his latest allegation that the companies exhibit bias against conservatives, which Google and Twitter long have vehemently denied.
The "rig the election" is one that's been making the rounds this week after a group of people deliberately misrepresented Google's ongoing (and very public) efforts to prevent foreign intervention in the US election. If you think that blocking foreign intervention is "rigging the election," well, then you've got much bigger issues.
As for the claim that Twitter has made it "very hard" for users to find and follow him, he currently has 61.4 million followers -- which appears to make him the twelfth most followed account on the platform. He has more followers than Kim Kardashian. I don't think anyone is making it hard to find or follow him. Or, if Twitter is doing that, please, Twitter, make it just as hard for people to find and follow me on the platform.
Look, I get that Trump and his fans don't like the fact that tech company employees overwhelmingly didn't vote for him. But, that's not any basis for making up lies about them and sending the DOJ after them. There may well be legal and regulatory issues that deserve scrutiny regarding these legal companies, but making up fantasy stories only makes it that much harder to sort out what's legitimate from what's utter nonsense.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: antitrust, doj, donald trump, internet companies, social media
Companies: facebook, google, twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It seems to be a specific reference to the recent story where he met with Jack Dorsey and complained that his number of followers had declined following a bot purge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It seems to be a specific reference to the recent story where he met with Jack Dorsey and complained that his number of followers had declined following a bot purge.
Hey he paid Putin good money to get those Russian bots to follow him and had every reason to be upset.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: he paid good money to Putin for those bots...
Are rubles good money these days?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: he paid good money to Putin for those bots...
Rubles? No he paid in gift certificates good for smoozing at Ma Largo and Trump Towers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everything comes out of the blue to MM! No cause at all!
This explicit unequivocal cause for Trump's remarks which Masnick pretends doesn't even exist was censored by the guilty party:
HOUSE.GOV is now Hosting Project Veritas Video Exposing Google's Plans to Rig the 2020 Election Against Trump courtesy of Rep. Gohmert
https://gohmert.house.gov/uploadedfiles/google.mp4
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: out_of_the_blue
If you read the article Trump was complaining about his Twitter numbers but hey. Twitter, Google, all the same thing. Especially if you rely on Veritas and InfoWars for your news about the latest Pizzagate.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/21/donald-trump-lies-factcheckers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: out_of_the_blue
But Gary. Orange man good. Google bad. Masnick bad. Can rebut?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: out_of_the_blue
El Cheetos "The Donald" slammed with sanctions on Reddit. Because it's filled with toxic assholes. Who are already crying about censorship and melting like the snowflakes they are.
But it's "Proof of bias." LOL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everything comes out of the blue to MM! No cause at all!
I really don't understand why republicans just don't go fuck off somewhere and create their own search engines! Personally, I think too much anti-science focus in schools has resulted in a generation of conservatives who are too goddamn stupid to create anything on their own. Perhaps they should just pray for Google to host their content?
Why oh why do you insist on forcing your beliefs on companies like a mildly retarded form of the Taliban?
If you only built your own damn shit, instead of insisting on using someone else's shit. It really makes you seem like socialists. Why should Google have to dedicate any of its resources to host your content? Why should paying users of Google services have to pay more because you leeches are demanding equal time to your half-assed, 1950's era ideas?
Fuck you republicans! You're socialist/communist scum right to your inbred core! And your god is a good-for-nothing, impotent, lazy figment of your imagination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Everything comes out of the blue to MM! No cause at all!
Hey, be fair. Records show at least one child, so impotence doesn't seem to be a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Everything comes out of the blue to MM! No cause at
I hope you don't get what you want when the lights go out. Makes for a fairly useless life. I'm not sure what happens in the end, but I sure hope it's more than nothing. If nothing is what it is, then what was the point of all this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Everything comes out of the blue to MM! No cause
This reply was for the guy above you :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Everything comes out of the blue to MM! No cause
Makes for a fairly useless life.
It's actually the opposite - knowing this is all I get makes me live every day like it's my last. And who says there actually needs to be a point of all this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Everything comes out of the blue to MM! No cause at all!
Hmm... Why don't conservatives create their own websites?
Surely they didn't see what happened to Gab and how that site was treated.
And SURELY there isn't a TON of evidence coming out PROVING censorship.
No, keep in your little bubbles and ignore the censorship that's going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Everything comes out of the blue to MM! No cause at
It’s just the free market at work bro. Why do you hate capitalism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Everything comes out of the blue to MM! No cause at
"Why don't conservatives create their own websites?"
They do... they're just usually horrible pieces of crap because they're made by angry ideologists rather than people with knowledge and talent (if you want a laugh, look at ReaganBook (deceased, but it's a funny story) and Conservapedia).
This is the problem - they know they will fail, so they instead wish for the competent platforms to be forced to host them (as in, removing an important part of their free speech without understanding the irony)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Everything comes out of the blue to MM! No cause at
Surely they didn't see what happened to Gab and how that site was treated.
Free market at work, pal! Don't be a hypocrite who hates socialism when it comes to taking care of the poor, but loves it when it comes to companies being forced to host their nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Everything comes out of the blue to MM! No cause
Not free market at work when corporations collude together to stifle competitors.
You really don't know anything about free market, capitalism or socialism, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everything comes out of the blue to MM! No c
Where are people stifling competitors? Twitter telling white supremacists to GTFO their private property does not stop them using Gab or any other competitor, unless said competitor also wishes to exercise their freedom of association. Payment providers saying they don't want to supply Nazis with funding has nothing to do with competition either.
Sorry, but you being unpopular for your hideous views does not mean that people are being unfair when they say they don't want to associate with you. You can use the property of those who will accept you. The fact that the group of people who wish to associate with murderous scum is very small does not mean that anyone was abusing power to make it that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everything comes out of the blue to MM! No c
[fact-based citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Everything comes out of the blue to MM! No cause at
"what happened to Gab"
Ok, what happened? Am I supposed to be clairvoyant?
A ton of evidence huh, where might I find at least a few pounds of this evidence proving censorship. btw, you might want to include your definition of censorship because many times that word is used in a fast 'n loose manner.
I am not in a bubble, are you? How does one tell when they are in a bubble and then what can they do to get out of it? Inquiring minds want to know.
Yes, there are many cases of censorship occurring at an alarming rate but conservative voices are not being stifled any more than those of other political opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Everything comes out of the blue to MM! No cause
"Ok, what happened? Am I supposed to be clairvoyant?"
After it became known as an openly welcoming haven for Nazis, major payment processors decided they'd rather not do business with them. They then had to stop taking credit cards altogether when it was revealed that the company they moved to was being run by a man convicted of financial crimes. For some reason, making sound business decisions is wrong.
You will notice, however, that the site is still operating. It's just another of them trying to insist that other people exercising their right to free association is wrong, because they refuse to act in the way the rest of society accepts. The irony of Nazis whining about persecution is thick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everything comes out of the blue to MM! No c
They charged for membership? - lol
I will admit my ignorance on many topics, that's why I ask.
The antics and pretzel logic was astonishing, now it is frightening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everything comes out of the blue to MM! No c
Openly welcoming haven for Nazis?
And this, right here, is how I know that you're a fool.
I bet you think Ben Shapiro is a Nazi as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because they are able to read?
From wikipedia's entry from the site:
Rita Katz, a researcher and analyst of terrorism and extremism, wrote on Politico that Robert Bowers' extreme antisemitic postings are "anything but an anomaly" on the website, and "[they highlight] concerns about its growing facilitation of white nationalism and other far-right movements." Gab user profiles often contain Nazi symbolism, and Stormfront users have praised the site as a place to post antisemitic content. Katz found that many Gab users were celebrating immediately after Bowers' massacre against the Tree of Life synagogue, and wrote that far-right communities' rise to popularity on Gab is "remarkably similar" to the rise of ISIS on social media.
No, you're right, I'm sure that's just a complete coincidence...
On a more humorous note from the same page, apparently Gab's owner likes to pretend his super-duper club is much more popular than it apparently is.
Unlike other social media companies, Gab did not publish the count of its active users in 2018, and only reported registered accounts. Social media intelligence company Storyful found 19,526 unique usernames had posted content during a seven-day period between January 9 and January 16, 2019, far lower than Gab's claimed 850,000 registered users. Users of the site commonly mocked Torba for the site's emptiness, with some accused him of inflating user numbers. In a December 2018 filing, the company reported that 5,000 users were paying for its subscription services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everything comes out of the blue to MM!
"Openly welcoming haven for Nazis?"
Yes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/us/gab-robert-bowers-pittsburgh-synagogue-shootings.html
https:/ /www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/28/how-gab-became-white-supremacist-sanctuary-before-it-w as-linked-pittsburgh-suspect/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-30/gab-an-online-haven -for-white-supremacists-plots-its-future
There are many, many other resources for you to browse if you wish, but the fact that you don't like that Gab is a Nazi haven does not mean it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You pretty much answered your own question but just for clarity: it's because they don't understand technology or how it works, so there's no way they could create something even as basic as a search engine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
While 'it would take work which might be beyond them' is probably part of it, I suspect a bigger reason is because no-one would use the new alternative, and it's much easier to try to force the current platforms(and their large user bases) to host them rather than attempt to convince people to jump ship and move to whatever platform/service they came up with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly. It's not the platform they want, it's the audience, and they know there's no way they can build that on their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They have plenty of money, why do they not spend some on their dream website(s)? Certainly there are at least a few website coderz that lack scruples.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everything comes out of the blue to MM! No cause at all!
Rep Gohmert (R) would is a TRUE UNBIASED individual that vets all videos. RIGHT?
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Everything comes out of the blue to MM! No cause at all!
Ah, so it's not HOUSE.GOV that's running the video, it's a specific representative's small slice of HOUSE.GOV that's running the video. That makes a lot more sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Everything comes out of the blue to MM! No cause at
Sadly it helps morons solidify their confirmation bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everything comes out of the blue to MM! No cause at all!
Rep. Gohmert == just another Fake Representative
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everything stupid comes to out of the blue
Remember when you promised to leave bro. That’s the smartest thing you’ve said in years. Too bad you’re a liar and a racist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everything comes out of the blue to MM! No cause at all!
"HOUSE.GOV is now Hosting Project Veritas Video"
Intelligence is not a requirement to hold office, and there are people there who fell for the same naked fiction as you did. So?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical Trump
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Rigging the election" as in publicly asking Wikileaks and Russia for dirt on Hillary and the dems?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or, more recently, leaving an open invitation for anyone to send him dirt on his opponents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, because Wikileaks didn't go "Hey, we have information from Hillary's emails that was given to us" days before that, right?
Surely it's collusion and corruption on Trump's part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fake President
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fake President
HEY don't disrespect the White House or El Cheetos will get upset. (Picking on Obama didn't count, because he wasn't born in the states, am I right?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Already outdated
Welp, that didn't take very long...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/06/27/twitter-adds-labels-tweets-that-break-i ts-rules-putting-president-trump-companys-crosshairs/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3d8dce43a7f2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already outdated
Huh? How does any of that change anything stated in this article?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look, I get that Trump and his fans don't like the fact that tech company employees overwhelmingly didn't vote for him.
That's because tech company employees have a brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You run a business and don't want to use your time and effort to make a cake celebrating homosexuality?
How dare you, you worthless, piece-of-shit bigot!
You run a business and don't want to use your time and effort hosting content you don't like?
Why, that's admirable and we need to silence people we don't like!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And the comedy in that word salad is that republicans and conservatives want to allow said cake baker to be able to freely discriminate while not allowing twitter/google/et al to freely discriminate.
Thanks for proving exactly nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you don't want to deal with someone you don't like, the government shouldn't be forcing you to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then don't sell to 'the public'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you don't want to deal with someone you don't like, the government shouldn't be forcing you to.
We get it - serving blacks, jews and irish goes against the teaching of the nazi party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When you view the world solely by race...you might be a racist.
Congratulations! You're a racist!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Congratulations! You're a racist!
Nice deflect - but you are still saying it's wrong for the government to make you serve blacks, chinese, jews, and the dirty irish so what's your nazi point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe I just want to keep arrogant idiots like you out of my store?
Since you're a racist, you brought race into the mix, I didn't.
Plus, I might be one of those black Jews you look down on. Do you think we can't take care of ourselves? We can only get along in life with your (or the government's) help?
How racist and condescending of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Projection much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since you're a racist, you brought race into the mix, I didn't.
You are the one that said it was wrong for the government to make you serve minorities. I'm just pointing it out. Shouting "racist" back at me while crying about it doesn't make me a racist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Shouting "racist" back at me while crying about it doesn't make me a racist."
I'm not crying about it. Just pointing out how racist and condescending you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congratulations?
“Just pointing out how racist and condescending you are.”
All you’re proving is you’ve got no argument and are a thin skinned bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What a useless back and forth. "You're racist!" "You're racist for calling me racist!" "I know you are but what am I?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If these guys had matured since kindergarten, they wouldn't be these guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He's racist because he doesn't want stores to be racist.........okaaay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's the classic 'I'm rubber and you're glue' strategy, made famous by past philosophers and more recently by grade-school children, where anything someone accuses you of you simply accuse them of, expertly deflecting any criticism and turning it on your opponent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know you are but what am I?... Or am I too late?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe I just want to keep arrogant idiots like you out of my store?
Fair enough. Fuck you and your store.
Since you're a racist, you brought race into the mix, I didn't.
Is this even a sentence?
Plus, I might be one of those black Jews you look down on. Do you think we can't take care of ourselves?
Sure. But it's certainly within my purview to think someone's a douchebag for not serving a black Jew.
We can only get along in life with your (or the government's) help?
In some places like the inbred south and midwest, that's correct. There's too many dimwitted white fucktards to handle on your own.
How racist and condescending of you.
Like I care what you think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
'Like I care what you think.'
Then why did you respond?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then why did you respond?
So that you read it.
And responded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
.. but its certainly within my purview..
Oh, now you're going to bring them up! I am so glad I am impurvious, but if you want to start that discussion..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And if social media tells conservatives to go fuck goats because of "company values", they are free to do so. Just like Hobby Lobby can deny certain types of health care because their imaginary man told them it's right.
I see no problem with companies doing whatever it takes to make these "god people" reap exactly what they sow. Sometimes in order to point out a leak in boat, you've got to let that fucker sink.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You know how I know you’ve never read the Constitution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"If you don't want to deal with someone you don't like, the government shouldn't be forcing you to."
Interesting that you simply ignore the point made in the post to which you responded. Just as a reminder, it pointed out that you are a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Bake the cake, you bigot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would rather excercise my own right to refuse service to anyfuckingone I want for anyfucking reason. Or I'm shutting down the whole kitandkaboodle and moving out of this country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What a patriot. Willing to ditch the entire country because someone told his he can't be a bigot. I'm nobody would miss you, but it would be hilarious if you actually did it and people refused to serve you because they don't like Americans. I bet you wouldn't even realise the hypocrisy when you started ranting about how unfairly treated you were.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One discriminates against a protected class..the other....doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet
Give it time, with the push by certain parties to require 'political neutrality' it wouldn't surprise me if someone tried to add 'political party/beliefs' as a protected class, at which point the various losers will likely try to hide behind that even if it requires them to create a 'political party' that just so happens to match their bigoted beliefs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet
And once they have political neutrality enshrined the next step is to redefine what neutrality means. Do not underestimate these people, just look at what they did to the word "literally".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You run a business and don't want to use your time and effort to serve blacks
There, I fixed it for you!
Not that you understand the difference between open accommodations and hosting hate speech, you racist POS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You make a lot of assumptions for someone who doesn't know me, at all.
There is no such thing as 'hate speech,' by the way. There's only 'free speech' and 'direct incitements to violence.' Any other speech you think exists is a delusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You make a lot of assumptions for someone who doesn't know me, at all.
You are an AC. You were born five minutes ago and will go away forever soon.
I can assume whatever the hell I want about your nameless, faceless, and racist comments.
There is no such thing as 'hate speech,' by the way. There's only 'free speech' and 'direct incitements to violence.' Any other speech you think exists is a delusion.
Well the hate speech of the day is The_Donald getting dickslapped for threatening cops so have fun with that.
Companies have and must have TOS and moderation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
'You are an AC. You were born 5 minutes ago and will go away forever soon..'
ACs are going to be outlawed soon? Is that what I'm understanding with that statement? That IS NOT a good thing. That is like when they forced everyone to purchase insurance to drive an automobile on public highways. I always thought if you are worried about someone running into you, go get insurance. I drive cautiously to protect my interests. But now of course I have to pay some behemoth insurance company so I can drive cautiously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Is that what I'm understanding with that statement?"
It might be what you understood, but I don't think that's what he meant.
"I always thought if you are worried about someone running into you, go get insurance"
Yes, and the problem was that too many idiots on the road think they're invincible and caused huge problems when they caused accidents, meaning that something needed to be done to ensure everybody was covered.
"I drive cautiously to protect my interests"
Good for you. But, driving cautiously won't remove every risk on the road, and for that you still need insurance.
"But now of course I have to pay some behemoth insurance company so I can drive cautiously'
So, why don't you use a smaller insurance company? That's much better than going uninsured and being under the delusion that driving carefully will prevent every kind of accident or other issue that can happen with or without you in the car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Which category does child pornography fall under?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evidence of a crime and obscenity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Neither of those were categories that the poster I was replying to listed, so they must be delusions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not so nice try avoiding the question. Would you like to try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No such thing as Hate Speech, moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I hate morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow, it's almost like freedom of speech is different than discrimination!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hi. You made an ignorant comment about a baker and anti-gay discrimination. I suggest reading a comment I posted a couple of weeks ago about the Masterpiece Cakeshop case before you make a similarly ignorant comment in the future. Do you have any more strawmen I can burn, by the way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: being gay is not a choice, being a white supremacists is.
I have no issue with discriminating against people for their choices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: being gay is not a choice, being a white supremacists is
Yup. One example is refusing service to someone because of who they are, the other is because of what they did.
It's amazing how many people don't get this. Or, maybe they do understand but just want to pretend they're not bigots?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: being gay is not a choice, being a white supremacist
I just can't look a man who takes another man's penis into his anus straight in the face. Does that make me a bigot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: being gay is not a choice, being a white suprema
Yes. Unless you have the same reaction to women who do the same thing, you're a bigot. Although, if you obsess that much over what a person may or may not do in private, you have way more of a problem than simply being homophobic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The weird thing is, homophobes seem to think about gay sex more than gay people do.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The gayest thing a man can do is worry about what another man does with his own dick"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's a shame you're too stupid to understand how dumb you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He or she is a victim of a society lacking the sufficient resources to provide an adequate education.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Small wonder.
I mean, who can even keep track of all the Democratic candidates these days? They nominate as many people for the White House as Trump keeps throwing out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Small wonder.
Not close. There were about 26 nominees.
More than 50+ turnover from the WH admin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the unwashed masses will take this as gospel & demand something be done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whats up with that Guy Falkes emo? Are you truly anonymous?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it is hard to follow the Trump on Twitter
First, I'm not a twitter user. The only time I even look at the twits on twitter is when it is linked to in an article. This one said ...
(my quote is completely out of context.)
So, I decided to see just how hard it is. I went to twitter (that's www.twitter.com, right?) and was presented with a login screen with no obvious way to bypass it to find someone. No search, not list of current or trending twits. No way to see if I could find the Trump to even think about following him.
So, I agree with the statement. It is very difficult to find and follow him ... without making a twitter account (at least).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it is hard to follow the Trump on Twitter
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=donald+trump+twitter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it is hard to follow the Trump on Twitter
It is very difficult to find and follow him ... without making a twitter account (at least).
You forgot the /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it is hard to follow the Trump on Twitter
It's funny that he thinks all those followers agree with his silly rants.
Now he wants to postpone the census because they told him he could not add a stupid question - hissy fit time!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump is a lying clown. Twitter should just platform him for his constant violations of Twitter's terms of service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And then Twitter gets slammed into the courts by the government.
Twitter, Facebook and Google are already facing anti-trust lawsuits, want to make it go faster and end up worse for them?
That's the way to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If by "slammed by the courts" you mean: "the judges immediately laugh out those utterly meritless lawsuits."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"And then Twitter gets slammed into the courts by the government."
So.. you're saying that the judicial branch should take retribution on the order of the executive branch, because they were offended by someone exercising their freedom of association? An interesting take, but even non-Americans can see the severe legal issues with that...
"Twitter, Facebook and Google are already facing anti-trust lawsuits"
Companies face all sorts of stupid lawsuits all the time. That doesn't mean they have any merit, until a court rules otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
'Trump is a lying clown.'
Those are two ambitious accusations. Can you prove either?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just tune into any fact-based media source and you should see conclusive proof quite quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Handing User Info To French Government So It Can Start Punishing People For Being Stupid"
Please can we send Trumps name??
Address?
All his Officials he gave Jobs to(Pai)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump is a lying clown. Twitter should just de platform him for his constant violations of Twitter's terms of service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seeing how he is using it as an official channel of government communication, I would not. That aspect needs to remain public.
But, on the night of the election, if he loses, I would then cut him off for violation of TOS as soon as the results are in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It makes as much sense as an official channel of government communication as the sewage pipes do, though the latter probably paint a more accurate picture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He would still be The President 'till the swearing in a few months later. So a hard "nope" on that desire 'till the aircraft carrying him is not called AirForce 1.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Good point.
That would have to wait till January 20, noon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When he loses, he will be arrested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When he loses WE WILL ALL BE ARRESTED!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wow - think about that. Twitter is the official channel of governmental communication.
Who made this decision, a consensus of governmental officials? ... nope.
Was any thought put into the choice ... nope.
Does it matter? ... idk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I presume some thought was put into using it as one of many ways to communicate official announcements to reach citizens who might no longer watch TV / listen to radio, through the @POTUS account.
Problems only arose when the orange baby not only refused to use that account, but made official comma through his personal account. Usually sandwiched between insane ranting about whatever Fox happens to be telling him at the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He uses it as an official channel of governmental communication. Twitter, not in of itself, is an official channel of governmental communication. Understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No.
The privatize everything movement says business can do everything more efficiently than government, but they are liars. The recent pharma industry scandals serve as an example. Maybe their definition of the word efficient is in need of correction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The dilemma for Trump is that while he's a hateful asshole, he's also one of their most popular "products". Unfortunately, given the choice between the morally correct decision and not ditching one of their biggest moneymakers, most businesses will choose the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even when those businesses have seen their market destroyed by the stupid and needless trade wars?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fsitness act in broadcasting..
It would codify a 1949 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation that once required broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance." The fairness doctrine was overturned by the FCC in 1987.
WE really need something like this..AGAIN..we also need something better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fsitness act in broadcasting..
Well, be much more discerning about who you elect. Any belief in voting for a third party is a vote for the party you hate is just playing into the hands of the two parties that swap running the country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fsitness act in broadcasting..
DEAR AC...
Iv voted for 4 presidents in my long life..(im 60)
I WILL NOT vote for the better of 2 evils..
AND I wish there was a Vote for none of the above..A vote COUNTED when there is NO VOTE..
But there isnt.
I would rather have a 6 party system LIKE other democracies the USA has created..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fsitness act in broadcasting..
AND THE LAST 10 presidents, 6 repub, 4 demo...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fsitness act in broadcasting..
Look at the reason to remove the fairness act..
It was BECAUSE..
the newspapers didnt have to do the same thing..
Funny that..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“Tonight, on the evening news: Are vaccines are safe for children! Discussing this issue tonight will be Dr. Katherine Von Expert, a pediatrician with over twenty years of experience in the field, and Mr. Jonathan Muckraker, a ditch-digger who says vaccines cause autism and a belief in Satan based on a debunked scientific study that was published a decade ago. Join us at 11!”
“Fairness” here means giving credibility to points of view that don’t deserve it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I suggest that "fairness" might call for an Explain It Like Im Five for all those who dislike the writing style of documentation of scientific research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The problem is that you can tell a lot of nonsense in the "explain it like I'm Five" style. The stories involved Donald Duck and/or Gyro Gearloose contain a lot of very inventive explanations that tend to work at flatearthers' and bible belters' comprehension levels. A five-year old easily discovers that if it follows up any answer with "why?", it will leave the comfort level of most adults within few minutes.
The level where you start relying on third-party expertise to keep your foundations consistent is often surprisingly shallow, and it is basically social expertise that gives you the confidence that you can, as needed, dig deeper without falling into a hole.
And that means that there is a social and civilised duty not to tell bullshit. Because bullshit sticks better than it should.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Agreed, it's not like those seeking this "fairness" would watch it anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why you have to put Bible belters in the same sentence with flat earthers is tell tale of your own comprehension.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why you have to put Bible belters in the same sentence with flat earthers is tell tale of your own comprehension.
Well to be honest, they're both groups of simple-minded rubes, who unequivocally believe in bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Indeed. It speaks quite highly of it, in fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
SOLVEd,
as satan was Chained to a Rock and thrown into hell, never to be released..
So what does that do to Christians, Blaming Satan??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When your tool is a hammer....
One of the only tools in this man's box has been suing people in an attempt to force legal expenses as his pockets are assumed to be deeper than most. Court bullies of his ilk are used to having such but he's not doing this from the seat of The Trump Org - he's trying to do this as Dear Leader.
Let him. And when the DOJ staffers file the papers, compare the actions of the DOJ to the rules DOJ attorneys are supposed to act under and file a grievance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technically, the tool is legal threats, not actual lawsuits. After all, how many of those women who accused him of sexual assault/misconduct did he legitimately sue for defamation after he threatened to sue them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone right of center is at risk of a ban but we're not biased :^) Just make your own website so we can shut it down by denying you access to DNS or the financial system :^) It's private companies bro :^)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Anyone right of center is at risk of a ban but we're not biased"
Any hateful asshole on any part of the political spectrum is at risk of a ban. If you find this affects you more than others, perhaps it's time to examine why you hang around so many hateful assholes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which websites were removed from DNS or had financial issues as a direct result of government direction? Which branch of government provided this direction and why?
Perhaps I missed this news item, from which website(s) did you read about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Epic tactical libertarianism dude!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thank you, but I do not understand the reference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You get it.
One of the few people on this site that understands.
Oh well, once the right is banned from the internet, these morons will be next on the chopping block.
Then they'll cry to Conservatives about how they were banned online and Conservatives will be like "sorry, we warned you, now we won't help you"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, if that were to happen we'd just use the many, many other options available to us and not sit there whining because someone took away our favourite toy.
You have many options, you don't just get to use someone else's property because you like it better than yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
'You have many options...'
Really? There's another video hosting site as popular and useful as YouTube? Where is it? Where is the Facebook-sized alternative? Or the Twitter alternative that's just as popular? Be specific, with URLs.
It's all fun and games until you're on the receiving end of the censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
...and this is where you fail. Popularity is irrelevant as to whether or not you have speech. You are not entitled to an audience, and certainly not one of any given size. You are certainly not guaranteed the use of someone’s property when you have so many other venues. That your actions got you barred from the popular services is on them, not you.
Besides, if you whiny little shits actually did start using the competitors instead of complaining that you can’t force people to host you against their will, they would be larger, right? Maybe even equally large if you manage to attract rather than repel other people. That’s the free market at work and you have that option if you accept that you got yourself barred from the big boys for your own actions.
Stop whining like children and exercise your rights instead of trying to get them removed from others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...and this is where you fail. Popularity is irrelevant as to whether or not you have speech. You are not entitled to an audience, and certainly not one of any given size
Nonsense, everyone knows that it's not a viable alternative if it doesn't have an equivalent audience/users base, and as such a platform dastardly enough to kick someone off of their platform is absolutely taking away someone's free speech(which of course include the ability to use someone else's property to speak from) if there's not an equally large platform for them to go to.
Besides, if you whiny little shits actually did start using the competitors instead of complaining that you can’t force people to host you against their will, they would be larger, right?
Assuming a good chunk of the population agreed with them, sure, but as the ideas and behavior of those paragons of virtue unfairly being persecuted off of the current platforms are totally reasonable and mature I'm sure that wouldn't at all be an issue, and any new service would quickly see a tidal wave of people jumping to the new platform.
Of course, given the above the question becomes why haven't they spent the time and effort attempting to force the current platforms to host them and theirs instead on making a new platform? Surely they don't suspect that the positions and behaviors that got them kicked off the previous platforms aren't agreed to and supported by a majority of the populations, because really, that would be just silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Nonsense, everyone knows that it's not a viable alternative if it doesn't have an equivalent audience/users base"
Bullshit. If a major publisher doesn't want to publish your book, that doesn't mean your free speech rights are curtailed. If you self-publish and Barnes and Noble don't want to stock it, that doesn't mean your speech has been silenced. If Amazon carry it but remove it from their site after complaints, that doesn't mean there's a conspiracy. It just means that others don't want to be a part of it - which is as much their right as it is for you to speak. Self-publishing is a viable alternative, you have not been removed the ability to speak, and you're not entitled to any particular size of audience.
"which of course include the ability to use someone else's property to speak from"
According to whom? I can put whatever sign I want in your front yard now? Can I put bumper stickers on your car and force you to keep them there even if you find the messages offensive?
"Assuming a good chunk of the population agreed with them, sure"
OK, so they're not popular. So what? I'm sorry if the little snowflakes can't accept that most people have no interest in what they're saying, but nobody's preventing them from saying it. You're guaranteed speech, not a free megaphone to b last it to whoever you want whether they like it or not.
"Surely they don't suspect that the positions and behaviors that got them kicked off the previous platforms aren't agreed to and supported by a majority of the populations"
Everybody is free to use the platform they want to. Nobody is forced to keep using these platforms if they're not behaving in ways people like. The only thing that can and should be changing their behaviour if they behaving in a legal manner (and they are) if the free market. There's plenty of competition, both new and established. If a lot of people don't like what Facebook and Twitter are doing, they have many options. If everybody used their right to choose instead of trying to remove the ability for others to choose for themselves, there wouldn't be a problem.
To use another analogy - if you get kicked out of Walmart and Target for abusive behaviour, and your local Costco decides to also ban you rather than wait for you to abuse people in their store, that doesn't mean your ability to shop has been removed, even if you personally prefer the products they stock. It just mean you're an abusive asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I should have titled it 'A modest reply'
You might want to re-read my comment...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I should have titled it 'A modest reply'
PaulT is so full of hate that he can't even tell when someone agrees with him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I should have titled it 'A modest reply'
Nah, they just got tripped up by the Poe problem, and they're hardly the first. After all the comment they replied to was proposing the ideas I was mocking and they (probably) weren't joking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I should have titled it 'A modest reply'
Satire is dead. But people opposing hatred are still not in the wrong even if the hate they failed against is fake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I should have titled it 'A modest reply'
'But people opposing hatred are still not in the wrong'
Maybe invite someone into your room in parents' basement and you might gain a few social skills and calm your seething anger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I should have titled it 'A modest reply'
Oh dear, again unable to face reality you have to invent something to mock. Do you have any comments that address what I actually do or say, or are you just annoyed that you're been called out on poor behaviour again|?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Targeted fantasy
Isn't that the whole point of his presidency?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Targeted fantasy
Yup, that's the whole point. Baseless accusations, fake news, alternative facts, "truth isn't truth", ... It's just tactics.
Confuse people with a deluge of lies, then count on the authority of the office of the president to make them choose your side.
The lies should not be debunked, they should be ridiculed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Targeted fantasy
I would say debunked, then ridiculed. Ridicule alone will just galvanize the other side. If you debunk first, then ridicule the lie (not the person), it makes it much harder for them to maintain their position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Targeted fantasy
"to make them choose your side"
Like in NK. Maybe that is why donny likes the little fat man.
Even what the Chinese are attempting via their citizen score will not make people believe the governmental bullshit even though they are forced into acting like they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
...more like lean on a company to do 'something' then? https://summit.news/2019/06/28/dem-senator-pushed-for-censorship-of-the-donald-before-it-was-quarant ined-by-reddit/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know what's sad...
Techdirt used to condemn censorship of all forms.
I remember when Techdirt criticized companies for cutting off the comment sections of their website among other things.
Remember Aaron Swartz? I do.
He feared corporate censorship more than government censorship. Because the government could be held accountable in ways corporations couldn't.
Oh well, regulation is coming for big tech, whether they like it or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You know what's sad...
"I remember when Techdirt criticized companies for cutting off the comment sections of their website among other things."
Yes, I also remember the context of that which has absolutely nothing to do with what's happening here.
"Remember Aaron Swartz?"
Yes, and may his ghost haunt you for trying to bring him into an irrelevant situation for emotional scoring.
It's funny. Even when you occasionally stumble across facts, you completely miss what they actually mean...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]