Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
from the well-how-about-that dept
When Donald Trump first announced his plans to launch his own Twitter competitor, Truth Social, we noted that the terms of service on the site indicated that the company -- contrary to all the nonsense claims of being more "free speech" supportive than existing social media sites -- was likely going to be quite aggressive in banning users who said anything that Trump disliked. Last month, Devin Nunes, who quit Congress to become CEO of the fledgling site, made it clear that the site would be heavily, heavily moderated, including using Hive, a popular tool for social media companies that want to moderate.
So with the early iOS version of the app "launching" this past weekend, most people were focused on the long list of things that went wrong with the launch, mainly security flaws and broken sign-ups. There's also been some talk about how the logo may be a copy... and the fact that Trump's own wife declared that she'll be using Parler for her social media efforts.
But, for me, I went straight to checking out the terms of service for the site. They've been updated since the last time, but the basics remain crystal clear: despite all the silly yammering from Nunes and Trump about how they're the "free speech" supporting social network, Truth Social's terms are way more restrictive regarding content than just about any I've ever seen before.
Still, the most incredible part is not only that Truth Social is embracing Section 230, but it has literally embedded parts of 230 into its terms of service. The terms require people who sign up to "represent and warrant" that their content doesn't do certain things. And the site warns that if you violate any of these terms it "may result in, among other things, termination or suspension of your rights to use the Service and removal or deletion of your Contributions." I don't know, but I recall a former President and a former cow farming Representative from California previously referring to that kind of termination as "censorship." But, one of the things that users must "represent and warrant" is the following:
your Contributions are not obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, violent, harassing, libelous, slanderous, or otherwise objectionable.
That might sound familiar to those of you who are knowledgeable about Section 230 -- because it's literally cribbed directly from Section 230(c)(2), which says:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable...
That's almost word for word the same as 230. The only changes are that it removes "excessively" from "violent" and adds in "libelous" and "slanderous," -- subjects in which Devin Nunes considers himself something of an expert, though courts don't seem to agree.
Hell, they even leave in the catch-all "otherwise objectionable," even as some of their Republican friends in Congress have tried to remove that phrase in a few of their dozens of "Section 230 reform" bills.
So it's not at all surprising, but potentially a bit ironic that the man who demanded the outright repeal of Section 230 (even to the point of trying to stop funding the US military if Congress didn't repeal the law) has now not only embraced Section 230, but has literally baked a component of it (the part that he and his ignorant fans have never actually understood) directly into his own service's terms.
It's so blatant I almost wonder if it was done just for the trolling. That said, I still look forward to Truth Social using Section 230 to defend itself against inevitable lawsuits.
There are some other fun tidbits in the terms of service that suggest the site will be one of the most aggressive in moderating content. It literally claims that it may take down content that is "false, inaccurate, or misleading" (based on Truth Social's own subjective interpretation, of course). You can't advertise anything on the site without having it "authorized." You need to "have the written consent, release, and/or permission of each and every identifiable individual person in your Contributions." Does Truth Social think you actually need written permission to talk about someone?
There's also a long, long list of "prohibited" activities, including compiling a database of Truth Social data without permission, any advertising (wait, what?), bots, impersonation, "sexual content or language," or "any content that portrays or suggest explicit sexual acts." I'm not sure how Former President "Grab 'em by the p***y" will survive on his own site. Oh right, also "sugar babies" and "sexual fetishes" are banned.
Lots of fun stuff that indicates that like 4chan, then 8chan, then Gab, then Parler, then Gettr that have at times declared themselves to be "free speech zones," every website knows that it needs to moderate to some level, and also that it's Section 230 that helps keep them out of court when they moderate in ways that piss off some of their users.
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: content moderation, devin nunes, donald trump, section 230, terms of service
Companies: tmtg, truth social
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
'It's only okay when we use it!'
Imagine that, it's almost as though someone involved might have considered what kind of people are likely to use the platform and are desperately trying to avoid any liability for hosting them by making use of the same legal protections that other platforms use...
I have absolutely no doubt that there will still be a legion of people who both attack 230 and other social media platforms for 'censorship' even as they cheer on Trump's new 'social media' platform for it's dedication towards 'real' free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'It's only okay when we use it!'
Especially when people are being banned for their liberal viewpoints!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I give Trump Social—hey, why hide what this really is?—six months to (at best) a year before it implodes and disappears, and it won’t have anything to do with all the tech issues. It’ll have to do with the service being a legit echo chamber of conservative/alt-right assholes trying in vain to interact with Trump himself (who has nothing but contempt for everyone who isn’t metaphorically kissing his ass). They’ll all eventually get tired of paying for the privilege of posting to T.S when (A) Trump doesn’t interact with anybody and (B) they can’t “own the libs” to their metaphorical faces. Once they see that it’s “Parler but with Trump branding and a pay-to-use fee”, they’ll lose interest and go back to Parler or whatever.
Hell, Gargron confirmed that T.S can’t federate with other Mastodon/Masto-like instances. Not that I was looking forward to hearing about T.S shitting up the Fediverse, but the fact that T.S users can’t reach out to and interact with other conservative Fediverse instances is hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So long as there are enough people on the site agreeing with every utterance of the orange one, I think the site will be kept up. It will become a praise Trump and whine about the stolen election site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like I said, I’d give T.S a year at best before it crashes and burns. By the time it does, it will be filled only with hardcore Trump supporters; even Trump himself will have likely abandoned it out of boredom because he didn’t get enough attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I imagine it will crash and burn in short order for just the reason you noted but until that point it will undoubtedly be a font of entertainment and hypocrisy as the very family-unfriendly Trump cultists infesting it both blatantly violate the rules with little to no repercussions and defend it even as their own and people who just sign up to troll face the much more restrictive moderation rules the site has.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I truly believe that it was never meant to succeed. It is nothing more than a grift owned by one of the biggest con-men ever, and will be run into the ground by the person who is suing a fictional twitter cow.
Once the money dries up, they will close up shop because at that point, Trump will have fleeced it for everything it had in terms of liquid money, leaving everybody else holding the bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
100% agreed, given the fact that the pay-to-use scheme was only recently revealed (so far as I know).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Damn, I was looking forward to Gab users making friends with the wine mom republicans. 'I like Donald, freedom and punishing people for their skin colour, why am I being called gay/racist/antisemitic slurs all the time?!'
Kinda suspect Gab links may happen down the line when they need to pretend there's a big bump in active users to soothe Donald's ego, and it'll be a genie they can't get back in their bottle when that time comes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think it will implode because 80% of the people trying to sign up now are just waiting to troll the site itself. The site will spend 95% of its time banning users and the other 5% recovering from crashes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm gonna love how stupid Kolby will come across in trying to justify these terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Rent free! Thanks for reserving the space.
Anyhow, it It looks to me like Truth is aimed more towards shutting down obscenity, as opposed to banning speech based on political difference. The original hope of the 1996 CDA was to shut down indecency, not to block political speech.
(In b4: Dr Robert Malone, Thin Blue Line comic, Defiant Ls.)
The catch-all "otherwise objectionable" part is kind of concerning. The loophole is apparently so large that lawmakers know that it needs to be eliminated. I guess option #2 is to create a parallel communications system, and use leftists objections against them. I hope this isn't the case. If run better than twitter, we could see another monopoly panic like the 2021 parker scare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You mean the "scare" that started because Parler was too inept to follow the AWS terms of use and didn't have proper moderation policies to the point where Google and Apple didn't want to be associated with it? That scare?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But yet, you have never provided even the slightest shred of evidence that this is actually happening.
Do you actually believe this is happening? You must have some basis of fact that leads you to believe this, so why is it that you can never seem to provide the facts and background that makes you believe this to be true?
I mean otherwise, it is you admitting that you are a racist, homophobic, xenophobic, bigoted asshole.
Or are the Russian rubles so good that you just lie everyday to get a paycheck?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only to bigots, assholes, and people with no experience in moderation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also:
What speech qualifies for that label, Koby? Be exhaustively specific.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh look, time for you to make yourself scarce again
as opposed to banning speech based on political difference.
Which speech is being banned for 'political difference' and as always be specific.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hehe, I knew someone would fall for it. We'll read what I said, again--
Go look them up on an unbiased search engine. We witness a prominent social media censorship event about every week nowadays. Those listed are just the recent ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Go look them up on an unbiased search engine.
And which one would that be, Koby? Since you've already done it, amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who has Twitter prevented from speaking their mind outside of Twitter, and what speech caused that to happen? Be very fucking specific.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah, so it’s another case of the “I have been silenced” fallacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly, Dr. Malone was punished by twitter for saying something on a different platform, not for violating twitter rules. They didn't tolerate his opinion, so they banned him.
Also, it's an attack on Joe Roegan. It's a chilling effect that anyone with a controversial take who appears on the show, now risks censorship, thereby making it more difficult for Roegan to get guests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a chilling effect that anyone with a controversial take who appears on the show, now risks censorship, thereby making it more difficult for Roegan to get guests.
Well, now that there's Gab, Telegram, Rumble, Parler, GETTR, FrankSpeech (someday), and now Truth Social, there's plenty of places for you poor, disenfranchised victims to fuck off to.
I mean, at some point the complaining gets old. And with all those choices, if you're still whining about nowhere to freeze peach, it begins to look like all you'll do is complain no matter what.
Being reliant on portraying yourself as a perpetual victim is really a stupid look for you people. Must be your use of the word 'snowflake' was just another example of projection, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good point. There’s no sense in demanding to preach to people who don’t want to listen. Go where they want to listen instead. There a plenty of services that won’t drop you for your political opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Twitter, facebook/meta, Youtibe, Amazon, and Google, to name a few that fit that description
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I disagree with your opinion on Twitter.
I don’t know enough to opine on facebook.
It’s rather difficult to get banned from YouTube outside of copyright.
I wasn’t aware that Amazon had a social platform. Link or name?
And didn’t google shut down G+/hangouts?
But it doesn’t really matter what your or my opinions are. These are private businesses. Thus private property with private rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm curios, who's being banned for their political opinions and what were those opinions exactly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where is the internal Twitter memo that states this to be fact? Or are you just pulling shit out of your ass to make a point that can easily be disproven?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[citation needed]
And that is Twitter’s right, unless you want to argue that it has no right to do so, in which case you’re gonna be arguing in favor of a whole lot of shitty opinions about marginalized peoples.
No, it isn’t.
Can the dude you’re claiming was censored still say what he wants on other platforms and outlets, including Rogan’s podcast? If so, the dude hasn’t been censored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dr Malone was suspended because of claims that other medical professional said where wrong and no basis in fact.
Malone said: On average, between one in 2,000 and one in 3,000 children that receive these vaccines will be hospitalized in the short term with vaccine-caused damage
Available data says: No fucking way! (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/recs/grade/covid-19-pfizer-biontech-vaccine.html, https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2022-02-04/02-COVID-Das-508.pdf)
Malone said: Only the passage of time will we know what long term damage may occur to these children
Science says: Any side-effects of a vaccine shows up within the first month and in very rare cases up to ~45 days after vaccination.
Malone said: Sudden deaths in high-performing athletes that are being observed all over the world, particularly in footballers where they're just suddenly dropping, is it because they've been infected or because they've been jabbed? And I think it's a mixture of both
Facts says: Wtf are you blabbering about? There are zero reports of athletes dying because they where vaccinated, zero!
Malone said: Ivermectin must be initiated immediately for people in high-risk categories in the United States and worldwide. This includes individuals with one or more co-morbidities and the middle-aged or elderly. Our 'design-to-fail' government-funded clinical trials for early treatment and governmental obstructionism regarding life saving treatments to patients must end now
Available studies say: Wtf are you blabbering about? All studies show that Ivermectin have no practical use in relation to COVID, and some studies show it's actually harmful.
Malone said: Neither masks nor vaccines prevent infection, replication or transmission of the Omicron strain of SARS-CoV-2
Facts say: While technically correct it, it's like saying that seatbelts doesn't stop accidents with the implied meaning that the use of seatbelts are unnecessary.
Malone said: Each of the major vaccines can cause a wide range of serious side effects — or kill people outright. Yet, the FDA's system to monitor such 'adverse events' appears to undercount such events dramatically. In contrast, the European Union's far more accurate system yields alarming statistics: As of July 31, 2021, the Eudravigilance10 database has recorded 20,525 deaths and 1,960,607 injuries
Facts says: Every reported death in that database is registered because someone died after taken the vaccine, regardless of the cause of death - like playing chicken with a train, competitive glass-eating or apoplexy caused by reading stupid comments on internet.
It's almost like Dr Malone willfully distort facts, doesn't understand data and statistics while glossing over things and take other things out of context. Why is that? It's one thing to have an opinion, it's something altogether to present it as facts that are easily debunked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Paging Koby, please pick up the white courtesy telephone and respond to the above ass whipping.
Rocky so thoroughly debunked your claim that Malone was banned from Twitter because of his "conservative opinions" that I wonder how long it will be before you show your face again here claiming the same debunked talking points.
Does it ever get tired getting your ass whooped so thoroughly every time you post your audacious claims?
Gone to any KKK Nazi rallies lately?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Remember that vaccine disinformation is officially a "Conservative value" accprding to Texas Republicans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As are “not teaching kids about slavery” and “fuck queer people”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the contrary Rocky made a pretty solid case that Malone was indeed banned from Twitter due to his 'conservative opinions' given that texas republicans made crystal clear that anti-vax is on that list(alongside pro-terrorism and holocaust denial), so I'm sure Koby will be back soon to rightly boast about how he actually did provide an example of someone being banned for political reasons for once and confirm that that's what he meant when he pointed to Malone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's kind of funny every time someone screeches about "conservative opinions" being "censored", a cursory search turns up information that those "opinions" have very little to do with factual reality and some of those "opinions" are just pure lies, misinformation and/or just plain "assholish".
Who in their right mind think that lies and misinformation are conservative values? No the real conservatives anyway which these days are very few and far between since they don't dare speak up - because those who dare speak up are instantly attacked and ostracized by their fellow "conservatives". Koby may think he is a "conservative" but in reality he is just another idiot taken in by the grifters and the gadflies who are fighting to grab power and staying relevant with any means necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, if you insist that's what it means...
It makes for an interesting long-term own-goal that so many people trying to defending being assholes of various flavors by claiming that anyone criticizing them are attacking them for 'political/anti-conservative reasons' results in those around them coming to the conclusion that 'conservative = asshole' and having that as the first thing they think of when they hear the word 'conservative' rather than anything of a more classically political bent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obviously, we can't change what Koby and the people on his side of things will misrepresent, but my understanding is that the objection to Malone isn't really that he presents an anti-vaxx position. The problem is that because he was involved in some very early mRNA research, that he's claiming to be the inventor of all modern mRNA vaccines and taking undeserved credit for the progress made by all the colleagues who came after him.
So, the problem isn't simply that he's spouting nonsense, but that Rogan and his parade of muppets are pretending that he has more credibility than other medical experts while asserting the opposite of modern medical advice. So, of course he's being kicked off sane platforms for such misrepresentation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nah, you made the claim so you can go find a link, and make sure it has specific examples and not just someone whining about how 'conservative' content keeps getting pulled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're clever enough to use a search engine to find these specific examples that your echo chamber "news" sources probably never mention.
You got caught not reading the comment, and your argument got pre-owned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So then your 'unbiased search engine' is just another well-kept secret so that you can pretend to be smarter than everyone else without having to put anything out.
Funny when given the choice of 'I stand by my sources, and here they are' versus 'I stand by my sources, now go figure out what the fuck I did' you guys always seem to fucking punt.
Care to hear why I think that, Koby?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh how very sad/funny, you've been reduced to the 'I bet you can't do my homework for me' gambit. Sadly for you that's not how it works, the one who makes the claim is the one with the obligation to back it up, however if you disagree then I'm still not doing your work for you as I've got ironclad evidence that your claim is complete and utter garbage and to prove that I invite you to do a few searches for the evidence to see why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You made the claim first; that means you have to back it up. That you haven’t been able to do so tells me you’re completely full of shit—not that I didn’t already know that, but it’s nice of you to confirm it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Come at me bro!
Koby fucks goats, I have proof!
Prove me wrong, dO yOuR oWn rEseArCh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Does that mean that you are not....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
(Remember, the echo chamber model is exclusively followed by only right-wing media)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Keep dreaming, dufus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Note: In the real world, Malone is being criticized for his being an Ayyadurai-style fraud, not for anything "political."
And, of course, there's zero censorship of or around him, as always in Koby's false examples.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Anyhow, it It looks to me like Truth is aimed more towards shutting down obscenity, as opposed to banning speech based on political difference.
It looks like it? That's all you got? Is that the smell of 'goddammit, I bought their bullshit again' in written form, Koby?
I guess option #2 is to create a parallel communications system, and use leftists objections against them.
Do you honestly think that apart from expressing jubilation that all you assholes have migrated to your own 'special people club,' that any 'leftists' are going to give anything remotely resembling a shit that you're gone?
Apart from the laughs it gives me watching 'conservatives' self-immolate to 'own the libs', you will not be missed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If anything, “leftists” would celebrate the voluntary departure of all the bigots and assholes, then go right back to bitching about Biden and the Dems being a bunch of centrist dipshits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do believe we will through the whole song before Koby answers
Bravely bold Sir Koby
Rode forth from the internet.
He was not afraid to die,
Oh brave Sir Robin.
He was not at all afraid
To be killed in nasty ways.
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Koby.
He was not in the least bit scared
To be mashed into a pulp.
Or to have his eyes gouged out,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"f run better than twitter, we could see another monopoly panic like the 2021 parker scare."
The panic where, after having given multiple warnings to get their act together in order to comply with the terms of service, Amazon were finally compelled to act after they were implicated during Jan 6th - and a bunch of people with the kind of smooth-brained intellect you demonstrate here decided that everyone reacting to the same event were in on a conspiracy?
Yes, I am actually sure that when Trump's new grifting scheme eventually collapses under the weight of hatred and incompetence, you people will come up with some conspiracy theory about how facts apply to reality and there are consequences for actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, now. I may like Sugar Babies, but I am no candy-sexual!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't wait for the bi-weekly mass exodus of high profile rightwing figures from twitter, none of whom actually stop posting because they can't stand the thought of losing their audience as most of humanity want nothing to do with places where racists can go unfiltered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The same thing has happened with other high-profile “conservative Twitter” wannabes: Lots of big-name right-wingers all threatened to leave Twitter for [x], but stayed on Twitter anyway because even they knew they had a bigger potential audience there (and they didn’t want to lose their account names).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's telling that no oppressed conservative if note was prepared even to deactivate their accounts for 29 days and pretend they're serious when they were totally leaving for Getter/Gab/Parler. They want to be where the people are, not just screaming into the void on a right wing dead end mastodon fork, waiting for the time the dozen nazis that makes up the bulk of their followers take a dislike to something they've said and turn on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Awkward
Devin: Umm...so...President Trump, you have literally violated every term of service of the website, we are going to have to suspend your account for (checks notes): obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, violent, harassing, libelous, slanderous, and objectionable material....maybe Facebook will take you back now?
Trump: Typical liberal tech company can't handle the truthiness, fake news! I'm going to start a second social network that will be a beacon of free speech!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'I don't know how but you violated more rules than we have.'
Unless they really screwed up I've no doubt that Trump's account will be flagged as exempted from the moderation system(automatic and manual) from day 1, as there's no chance he'd make it even a week at most before violating a whole slew of the platform's rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'I don't know how but you violated more rules than we have.'
Well, that just leaves it up to the heroic libs to register for accounts, and monitor Trump's spewings for TOS violations and broadcast them as widely as possible. (which, of course, may not be very widely as they'll no doubt violate the TOS of any more sane social media site, but we'll have to burn that bridge once we reach it)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"your Contributions are not obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, violent, harassing, libelous, slanderous, or otherwise objectionable."
So no posts from Trump or his inner circle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You folks don't get it...
The problem for our snowflakes are not overly restrictive or extensive rules. The problem is who gets to selective apply them. They needed to revert to lynch justice only once juries got infested with the wrong people or judges ceased to make reliable sentences, or appellate procedures took all the fun out of things.
They do like the semblance of rules and laws but don't want some independent institution for applying them: that's not the kind of indiscriminate blindfold they like to see upon their Iusticia. Their Iusticia gets to make an informed choice just when to look the other way, and the more rules are in place, the more power you wield by being able to choose whether to look the other way or not.
So the semblance of Section 230 is just that: it looks good. But they get to make the calls of when to apply their purportive rules which gives them the proper means to tilt the table. After all, they paid the carpenter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You folks don't get it...
No no, we get it. That's fascism in a nutshell: there is an in-group that the law protects, and an out-group that the law doesn't. In this case, it's Trump cultists as the in-group, and everybody else as the out-group.
The point is to keep calling it out and making sure that it's stated, loudly and clearly, that these behaviors and expectations are bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tiring
Closed minds are a terrible thing to waste.
Those that can think of things in 1 way, can never expand and learn to understand NEW things, new ways.
And I can cast blame on an assortment of things, from schools not explaining Politics past this is good and thats bad, to NEWS/OPINION pieces that dont explain What this is good or bad. Its not to protect the Children its to protect the Rich over inflated corps.
A site learning that People have to say something, is fantastic. Limiting expression in 1 form or another ISNT being a free open site. freedom of expression depends on Who you want to express themselves, which is Censorship. If all you listen to is a monkey drooling, all you are used to is listening to a monkey Drool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One of the problems all these sites that claim to be for free speech is that is just what pedo's want to hear. They'll come till they learn their activities are frowned on and gets them banned.
But of course this isn't the real issue here. The real issue is that those that want to bitch and moan about their con man, impulsive lair, and excessively greedy, orange orangutan don't want to have to prove anything other than on their say-so, just like our resident troll here is doing. They should be taken as their word is law, both moral and right.
The reality is they are indeed the snowflakes. They are always hunting that place that won't stifle them for their bullshit. The courts have already laid to rest the issue of 'stolen election'. A place that requires facts, backed by evidence. In all 60 attempts in court to reverse only those places that voted against it idiot in power, either it came up there was NO EVIDENCE of such, or the lawyers didn't argue about stolen election because they had no factual evidence and went to side issues to try and obtain the same results.
In other-words the whole mess has been nothing but a smoke screen driven by a boy child having a temper tantrum over losing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's hogwash on a strawman. Nobody is interested in free speech platforms for the sake of illegal activities. The potential for abuse focuses around undesirable activities. Those where people want to slap the bullhorn out of your hand because there is no point in just calling the cops and let them deal with it.
Speech is public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not "free speech" if it's only the speech you like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because remember, it's only censorship when you're being moderated, not when you're doing the moderating.
I'd like to think the selfish fit throwing orange man-child has gained some sort of understanding of section 230, but I have a feeling he had absolutely nothing to do with anything remotely related to those protections in the TOS. He probably just ordered some lackey to "make sure I can't be sued" and went "blah blah blah" when they tried to explain that's what section 230 is for.
It would have been absolutely hilarious if he'd gotten 230 repealed and then had every single one of his social projects afterward get dragged through the mud because of it, if only it wasn't for the MASSIVE collateral damage it would have caused to people who actually get how things work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If all
If all you listen to is what you agree/understand with,
you will never hear anything New, interesting, better solutions, Anything.
Except an echo of yourself. And then you wonder What happened to education?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless I'm mistaken, Trump's Pravda (I mean really?) is based on open source code from elsewhere, so it's perfectly possible that Nunes and the other people he hired with such competence and attention to detail just copied the boilerplate and didn't actually read it.
Though, I expect this to be like any other right-wing grift platform - they'll have no qualms about banning people they disagree with and will have zero qualms about hypocrisy when they cite their own T&Cs. If you want to see actual "censorship", you don't go to Twitter, you go to one of the right's echo chambers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yep, T.S is based on Mastodon. (I think it’s a Masto fork and not Masto proper; six of one, yadda yadda yadda.) The lead dev of Masto confirmed by looking at the T.S code that the tech team there disabled federation capability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your comment is a little confusing, do you mean that Mastadon disabled federation capability or the Trump Social team did when they copied the code?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I was in a Reddit thread a few days ago where someone looked at the source from the front page and determined that it was from some right-wing focussed fork that's obviously trying to grift morons. But, I forget the name and when I tried to have a look myself earlier, apparently "Truth" is US only and I can't be bothered to use my VPN to jump through hoops to look again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Took a little digging to find the answer, but apparently, T.S uses a fork called “Soapbox”, which was itself forked from Gab’s own Masto fork.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmmm.. that doesn't ring true as being the one I read before. But, I have no doubt that there's probably a bunch of similar forks flying around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So Sugar Babies are banned while Sugar Daddies are not.
Oh, wait, `powerful' Middle Aged White Guys...
Off course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
About that logo
I don't know about a copy but the T of the logo immediately reminds me of the old British Telecom logo which disappeared from use after one of the UK computer rags reported that it had figured out the true meaning of the logo. To see the meaning you have to rotate the T of the logo — no, no, not so fast. There's more to it than that. — You have to rotate the logo successively through 90° and as you do so it comes to represent, successively
The Truth Social logo seems to be ready to represent the same things, especially if you consider Trump is as monorchid as his hero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait…
Has anyone yet been able to show that he has actually done that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you questioning the veracity of what Trump himself said?
It takes a special kind of person to vote for someone who either lies about molesting women or who boasts about actually doing it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes. Because I heard/watched the actual tape. I took it as nothing more than generic bravado.
And if ‘I could bang your sister’ type crap nonsense is that offensive to you… ??
I vote on important things, not getting caught up on frat house jokes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here's the thing, it goes to show someone's character. If you haven't yet managed to notice the pattern of how Trump actually treat women you never will and I cannot fathom why anyone would want someone with a frat-boy mentality in the WH.
It's not offensive to me, all it tells me that the person uttering that is an immature idiot who treats women poorly - and if that someone happens to be 65+ years old we have someone who is emotionally and mentally stunted and I wouldn't rely on that person for anything at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I doubt there was ever a president without fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nobody's perfect and no president have ever claimed to be perfect - until Trump. If you think the character flaws Trump flaunt every fucking day isn't a deal-breaker, what else are you prepared to sacrifice so you can "vote on important things". The enduring legacy of Trump will be his assault on US democracy, the enabling of the idiots, yes men, power hungry grifters and crazies.
This is the man who thinks Putin is a genius for invading Ukraine. How mentally deficient do you have to be to cheer on an autocrat destroying a country?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, we won’t agree on Ukraine as my opinions date back to the early 2000s
And I’m not one who thinks Russia is/should be an enemy.
It’s that simple on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I vote on important things, not getting caught up on frat house jokes."
Yes, which is why we despair at morons like you worshipping at the altar who provides nothing else of value, while he's openly telling you that he's a con artist grifting you and the country for every penny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And are you ok that he would totally bang his own daughter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I’d bang her. Lol.
It’s not socially accepted in this country but incest is not uncommon. I make no opinion or judgement on someone else’s love, romance, or sexual choices.
It’s their decision as consenting adults.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why do self-proclaimed "libertarians" always end up resorting to comments about how incest and age of consent laws are optional? It's a weird trend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A Libertarian is just a Republican who knows the age of consent in all 50 states.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And according to the politics test mr Stone posted I’m left of nearly every single US politician. And many Europeans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whilst you have some reasonable stances, as a centrist European I'd have to call BS on that. Especially the Trump worship and hatred of free and fair elections. Your may be to the left of the US Right, but you take a Right-wing stance to even Mr Right-of-Left Biden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Somehow supporting secure borders and levelling international trade (and right to keep a firearm) became Trump worship? Despite those ideas predating trump by, human history?
On various four point tests I strongly fall left libertarian
How far left or down depends on the questions asked. But always left libertarian.
The only place I fall into line with Republicans is the topic of defence.
And there only partially.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It’s not even the first time he’s said he’d be okay with Trumpian incest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don’t think it’s anyone else’s business besides the parties involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not if it's illegal. And it says a lot about his general "morals".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_incest_in_the_United_States
Or
…/wiki/Legality_of_incest
Homosexuality and anal sex were once illegal as well. Mind you. Doesn’t make it right or wrong.
Outside of age of consent, a wholly different topic, the government should just stay out of people’s sex lived.
Funny, that’s what so many myth believers say about homosexuality. Etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To be fair, that’s not the only time he’s been shitty to or said something shitty about women. But it is the only time he’s ever been on tape being honest about how he feels about women.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait…
Why, are you finally joining us in realising that he's full of shit and that a lot of the things he says or promises will never and have never happened?
Let me guess - now that he's openly boasting about being on Russia's side of the Ukraine issue, you're trying to distance yourself from your previously claimed worship of the man?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wait…
Contrary to your belief I am not a Cult of Trump member.
I happen to like isolationism and self protection. He hit multiple aspects of those issues.
That outweighs the other concerns for me. Including his support of the terrorist government of Israel. Or whatever he feels about women.
I do not know where he stands.
I have zero problem with Russia attempting to reunite previous Russian (predates USSR) territory populated by primarily Russian and related populations of no support Russian, not Ukrainian, governmental control.
I think Ukraine is a dictatorship at far greater risk and threat to the world than anyone else.
And it’s the ties to US politicians that keep me from ever voting for or supporting many who run for office. Be it Clinton or Biden. Ukrainian ties and support make it a no-go.
As I have said since 2015 I blame Clinton for the ethnic murders in Ukraine of Russian, Rus, and Gypsim peoples.
I despise the tax shelter for US politics.
I have a serious dislike for that government.
That is documented in my comments here and elsewhere long before trump took any position on the area.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wait…
I'm only basing my opinion on what you're previously said here.
"I think Ukraine is a dictatorship at far greater risk and threat to the world than anyone else.
"I think Ukraine is a dictatorship at far greater risk and threat to the world than anyone else."
Da, comrade.
"I do not know where he stands."
He's literally talked about it in the last 48 hours.
"I blame Clinton"
Of course you do...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait…
I don’t watch or follow cable TV so I have no way of knowing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait…
Other news sources are available. While it's something of a side note given that he does (currently) have any remaining direct power, it is notable when you see a former US President gushing about how much of a genius the Russian president is for invading a sovereign nation while trying desperately to tie it in with his own election failure.
Not surprising to anyone who was paying attention to the actual evidence of wrongdoing related to Russia during his tenure, but it's a rather notable set of comments in the wider geopolitical sphere that would have been unheard of back when the US elected statesmen instead of reality show con artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The right wing of American politics is entwined with the Religious Right so tightly that they’re basically one and the same. As a result, conservative/Republican politicians tend to lean towards policies, platforms, and leaders that mean to enact authoritarian Christian nationalism. They don’t want to govern a country. They want a strongman leader to rule a Christian empire and put them near the top of the ladder.
That is a big reason they’re all fawning over Putin right now: They see him as the antidote to modern American “weakness”—or “wokeness”, if you prefer—and think anyone who even remotely acts like him is worth propping up. His history of suppressing his opposition with violence, his enshrining anti-queer attitudes into law, his invading a sovereign nation because he wants the USSR back—if anything, these are things conservatives would sooner celebrate than condemn.
And if you think I’m bullshitting on that last point…well, someone said the quiet part out loud on live TV, so it’s hard to argue with that kind of evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wait…
Seems nobody has explained this to you, but isolationism doesn't work when it comes to the US, it needs foreign trade and investments to function and that means it needs to be engaged overseas. Without that the economy would crash and burn worse than all recessions combined.
Let me spell it out for you: He thinks Putin invading Ukraine is a genius move. Have you missed all the gushing words Trump has spilled on behalf of Putin?
WWII called, they want their Nazi diplomacy back. Also, Mexico want Texas back.
Do you even know who is the president of Ukraine? Volodymyr Zelenskyy is literally a comedian that joked about running for president and people voted for him and he got 70% of the votes. If you think that's a dictatorship you are a fucking moron because you can't stop yourself from believing anything Tucker Carlson says. Are you also going to mention the "fact" that Zelenskyy is a Nazi?
What ties? You really need to stop gorging on stupid conspiracy theories. Regardless, you seem to have no problems with Trump borrowing hundreds of millions from Russian Oligarchs...
What ethnic murders? Are you seriously repeating Russian propaganda?
Oh boy, you are in for a surprise when it comes to Trump...
Oh, please tell us why they are so bad. Be specific...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait…
There are levels of isolation. I support fair trade deals. And secure borders where each and every crosser is vetted before being allowed in.
Sorry if you find it offensive that I don’t want other country’s criminals and terrorists coming in. …well, no I’m not.
Since he left office? Yes. In office I wouldn’t call them glowing, so much as strategically complimentary.
Wrong country, the Nazi regime comes from western/Central Europe from Germany. Not Russia.
Mexico could want Texas all they Wish. But the Residents don’t want to be part of Mexico.
Outside of US and UK news, most reports show a rather even split in contested-areas or prefer Russian repatriation.
You really have hunk he is the whole of the government? You’re naive. What does Tucker Carlson have to do with anything? Again, my support for Russia and disdain for Ukraine are clearly documented, even here in my comment history, far before any current politicians mad opinions on a threat that didn’t (publicly) exist way back in 2015.
The involvement of American financial interests in Ukraine dates back to the mid-to-late 90s.
You keep trying to falsely conflate some Republican’s opinions with my simply following what they say.
Where in reality I chose to vote for someone who would strengthen ties with Russia and reduce our dependence on China. Someone with no major familial ties to Ukrainian money.
You have the events backwards.
The extreme imprisonment and murder of “criminals” of Russian/Rus and Gypsim peoples. For invented crimes.
The “police” in the area acting like the LAPD.
Because a dead person stops talking and can’t contest.
Please: enlighten me. As to what financial ties Trump has personally in the Ukraine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wait…
Ukraine hasn't been part of "Russia" for a long time now. It may have been part of the USSR but that has been dead 30 years, and invading them under false pretences is not the way to get the territory back. Europe really doesn't want to go back to those days - we don't need another Sudetenland.
Then there is the little matter of Russia taking a dump on its international treaties, specifically the one where it guaranteed Ukraine's independent existence and borders. It made the effort to fake democracy when it stole the Crimea, but this is just a naked power grab because he's made sure that the West is too paralysed with in-fighting to be able to provide a serious threat to him. All those roubles spent on wrecking elections, financing Trump and Brexit and encouraging anti-Covid stances are paying off a hundredfold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wait…
As we see repeatedly and clusively proven over and over, one's agreement with Trump on a subject is inversely proportional to one's competence and understanding of that subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wait…
You’ll need to define what I agree with him on.
If it’s Ukraine, my comment history proves my opinion predates any comments by him on it.
As I pointed to Clinton and her standing by silently during the Ukrainian genocides as one of the reasons I’d never vote for her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait…
Tax and border policy, for starters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait…
And fascist terrorist riots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don’t forget the metaphorical kissing of Vladimir Putin’s ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can support a people without necessarily liking their current leader. Like most head of state, he has his good and his bad. And his bad is worse than his good, here.
But I support the people. The country. If I so choose.
That also predates Trump’s political workings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait…
Border policy yes. It’s one of the reasons I voted for him.
Tax policy not in any way. Not even slightly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait…
"Border policy yes."
Unless the border is with Ukraine, in which case they're optional, apparently....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait…
Borders only need to be secured against brown people, dont'cha know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait…
It’s unfortunate you believe that. I disagree but we all have the right to our own opinions.
I prefer our country secure both the northern and southern borders. And increase naval and cost guard patrols.
I have no problem, personally, with legal immigration and free-but-monitored travel in and through the country
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait…
You sure are hooked on that Russian propaganda. Do you ingest it the normal way or do you snort it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait…
Just because the US and UK refuse to cover it doesn’t make it false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only ones talking about "genocide" is Russian media, which happens to be wholly controlled by Putin and his minions. They have for years churned out propaganda about Ukraine to manufacture "causes belli".
You are free to cite your "evidence" of ethnic genocides...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait…
Just because you are parroting RT doesn't make it anything but utter bollox.
There's more evidence of genocide in the Middle East, and the US always props those people up.
But the closest to an old Soviet ruler? "Oh, he's a genius, he's harmless, he's doing good!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait…
And my absolute abhorrence in that regard is well documented. We are way to involved in other states.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait…
The more a source lies unabashedly, the more lostinlodos trusts it.
Which is also why he trusts Breitbart, that only rarely corrects any of its numerous deliberate lies, over something like the Washington Post, that always corrects its rare error.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait…
I can’t say what BB has done in the last year or so.
With the KS pipe shut down and the boarder ignored I have no reason to read them. They’re too pro-god-people for my general taste.
They were quite good about corrections in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The easiest way to discredit a pathological liar is to quote him.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20211109/10460447910/latest-version-congresss-anti-algorithm- bill-is-based-two-separate-debunked-myths-misunderstanding-how-things-work.shtml#c2288
https://www.t echdirt.com/articles/20211212/11063648109/tenth-circuit-appeals-court-says-fourth-sixth-amendment-ri ghts-are-meaningless-when-national-security-is-line.shtml#c445
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How does the flat tax have anything to compare to the Trump/Republican tax plans of reduction? Anything at all. They’re totally incompatible!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My comments are intended for literate readers, not you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Funny. You dodged the question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Case in point - a literate person wouldn't have used the inaccurate description of "dodged the question" to refer to me shooting down your pathetic attempt at deflection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is not a Republican in congress today that would support the flat tax plan I do. Not one.
And there has never been a Republican tax plan I thought was good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]