Sign in to follow this  
anatess2

Twitter vs The White House

Recommended Posts

Might be time to get your stocks out of Twitter or time to do puts and shorts.  Twitter is not going to win this one.

(In case you haven't heard... Twitter is not just censoring the Donald J Trump account, it's censoring the official The White House account).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one has been a long time in coming, actually. 

There's a history of individual moderators abusing their power to suppress what they don't like and protect what they do. 

It was inevitable that they'd finally poke a hornet's nest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

This one has been a long time in coming, actually. 

There's a history of individual moderators abusing their power to suppress what they don't like and protect what they do. 

It was inevitable that they'd finally poke a hornet's nest. 

They poked the wrong hornet... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Trump's proposed measures make social media companies legally liable for the content created by their users? What, then, would prevent Joe Scarborough or the widower of Lori Klausutis from suing Twitter over Trump's tweets promoting the conspiracy theory around Lori's death? It seems like removing legal immunity for services like Twitter would quickly lead to those companies quickly removing problematic users in order to avoid lawsuits. Am I wrong? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
15 minutes ago, Godless said:

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Trump's proposed measures make social media companies legally liable for the content created by their users? What, then, would prevent Joe Scarborough or the widower of Lori Klausutis from suing Twitter over Trump's tweets promoting the conspiracy theory around Lori's death? It seems like removing legal immunity for services like Twitter would quickly lead to those companies quickly removing problematic users in order to avoid lawsuits. Am I wrong? 

If Obama did this, the right would go into cardiac arrest, though they won't admit it now. And, in fairness, the left would say "Nothing to see folks, move along." 

All politics. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

If Obama did this, the right would go into cardiac arrest, though they won't admit it now. And, in fairness, the left would say "Nothing to see folks, move along." 

All politics. 

One thing Trump and Biden can agree on: neither of them like Section 230. Though I suspect Biden won't be advertising that stance now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
Just now, Godless said:

One thing Trump and Biden can agree on: neither of them like Section 230. Though I suspect Biden won't be advertising that stance now. 

I also guarantee you this: If Covid broke out under Obama, Fox News reporters would be wearing Level 4 Biohazard suits while doing the news, and the left would say that Covid was "no bigger than the flu." 

Again, politics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

If Obama did this, the right would go into cardiac arrest, though they won't admit it now. And, in fairness, the left would say "Nothing to see folks, move along." 

All politics. 

I wouldn't have.  If they're going to be censors, they should be liable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
9 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I wouldn't have.  If they're going to be censors, they should be liable.

Good, that speaks very highly of you @Grunt. I know how passionate you are about politics! 

By the way, I was a big supporter of the FSP when I lived up north. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

If Obama did this, the right would go into cardiac arrest, though they won't admit it now. And, in fairness, the left would say "Nothing to see folks, move along." 

All politics. 

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I also guarantee you this: If Covid broke out under Obama, Fox News reporters would be wearing Level 4 Biohazard suits while doing the news, and the left would say that Covid was "no bigger than the flu." 

Again, politics. 

On this particular type of matter, you're nothing if not consistent, MG. You absolutely insist that the American political left and right are exact mirror images of each other. Whatever one does is precisely that which the other would do in the same (reversed) situation.

I think you are wrong. In fact, I think you are demonstrably wrong, and I think current events prove you wrong.

Consider your first example, about how the response of the right to Trump's threats to force even-handedness on private communications companies is exactly what the left's response would have been under Obama if the situation had arisen. You do not take into account that large numbers of conservatives have openly argued that it's unAmerican to force compliance from private companies. Do you honestly believe that the same percentage of leftists would have argued in favor of free speech in the reverse situation?

If the American political left and right are mirror images of each other, why don't most on the right worship Trump as a savior and God incarnate, as the left (including the press) did to Obama? Where are the large number of leftists who supported Obama on a policy level, despite their personal distaste for him?

Why didn't all those media types who openly despise and undisguisedly attack Trump do the same to Obama? Well, because Obama wasn't as offensive, obviously! Except many times, he was. But he got a pass. Remember how he vowed to be a unifier and work with the political right? Then remember how the Republicans came into his office to talk about compromise, and Obama disdainfully told them, "We [Democrats] won and you [Republicans] lost, and I won't compromise with the likes of you"?

The two sides are not morally equivalent. The left has long recognized this, and instead of pretending otherwise, they seek to demonize the political right. Murdering a child before birth is a RIGHT! It's all about women's AUTONOMY! Republicans want to ENSLAVE them!

The Republican Party is corrupt, perhaps irretrievably so. But to morally equate the Republican Party with the Democratic Party is a clear falsehood. The Democrat Party is far past the point of mere corruption. It openly works for the destruction of traditional American values, casting them as "racist" or "sexist" or whatever other term they can pervert into meaninglessness. That's why they call themselves "progressive".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vort said:

"We [Democrats] won and you [Republicans] lost, and I won't compromise with the likes of you"?

When did he say that?

Quote

The left has long recognized this, and instead of pretending otherwise, they seek to demonize the political right.

Isn't that what  you are doing below?:

Murdering a child before birth is a RIGHT! It's all about women's AUTONOMY! Republicans want to ENSLAVE them!

Concerning abortion, you are correct that the political left supports abortion rights. How is this more evil than the right's support of allowing corporations/industries/sometimes even individuals to murder tens of thousands of American men, women, and children though excessive pollution and lack of pollution controls?   Further, allowing excessive pollution, such as what the right supports, actually forces women to have abortions.  How is forcing a woman who wants a child to have an abortion (such as the right wants to do) somehow morally superior to allowing abortions among women who want one voluntarily?  

Forced abortions from pollution:

  https://www.deseret.com/2018/12/27/20662077/u-study-yields-upsetting-results-linking-miscarriages-with-spikes-in-utah-air-pollution

Studies vary from an absolute minimum of 30,000 US citizens to over 100,000 US citizens a year are killed by pollution under current protections.   And the political right not only wants to allow the current death rates, but wants to make the deaths far worse by loosing the protections which will cause many times more deaths.   If abortion is murder, then this is definitely murder and terrrorism on much more evil scale because we are talking of humans who can feel pain and will suffer greatly.   

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-04-08/100-000-americans-die-from-air-pollution-study-finds

As much as I despise the Democratic party, I will never support the Republican party as long as they support loosening protections on the American people.

It's time we ditch the two party system.  

 

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, anatess2 said:

They poked the wrong hornet... 

Over on Twitch there's someone who bills themself as "Ferocious Steph"

It's a transgender individual who thinks video gamers are latent white supremacists and legitimately believes that they're a deer in a human body. 

Oh, they're also a moderator at Twitch, and they made an entire video saying how they have free speech but no one else does, and as such their decisions as a moderator are not to be challenged. 

Yeah...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Godless said:

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Trump's proposed measures make social media companies legally liable for the content created by their users? What, then, would prevent Joe Scarborough or the widower of Lori Klausutis from suing Twitter over Trump's tweets promoting the conspiracy theory around Lori's death? It seems like removing legal immunity for services like Twitter would quickly lead to those companies quickly removing problematic users in order to avoid lawsuits. Am I wrong? 

You are completely correct.  And that's exactly the point.  Twitter, by acting like a publisher instead of a platform, has opened themselves up for revocation of their platform protections exposing themselves to unending lawsuits.  Because the "Nick Sandmanns" in the USA wouldn't bother suing some blue checkmark independent journalist but would go full bore on Twitter.  If you remember Gawker... I wouldn't be surprised if you don't because they've been dead for years... that was exactly the reason for their demise.

Right now, Big Tech thinks they're indispensable.  They're run by a bunch of socialists who has never had to worry about competition and pleasing customers.  They have a big decision to make - become a publisher and kick every non-conforming ideology off their space drastically reducing their market share and opening up a wide lane for competitiom or remain a platform and quit the sheningans.  Well, there's always the 3rd option... go the way of Gawker and be the first Big Tech domino to fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Scott said:

When did he say that?

Multiple times in his Presidency.  I'm surprised you asked this question.  The mainstream press were pretty proud of this tactic and reported it ad nauseum.

Just 2 examples - Obama told Sen McCain "I won" to shut down GOP negotiation on the Stimulus Package in 2009.  Obama told Eric Cantor (House Republican Whip) "Go win an election" when Republicans tried to propose changes to Obamacare before it got voted on.  Etc. etc.

You can do a google if you want direct sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Vort said:

...Whatever one does is precisely that which the other would do in the same (reversed) situation.

I think you are wrong. In fact, I think you are demonstrably wrong, and I think current events prove you wrong.

Consider your first example, about how the response of the right to Trump's threats to force even-handedness on private communications companies is exactly what the left's response would have been under Obama if the situation had arisen.

We don't have to imagine any "what if" scenario.  We already went through it with H1N1 and Avian Flu under Obama.  Fox News did nothing like the histrionics that we're seeing from CNN today.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-declares-h1n1-flu-national-emergency

It says nothing about any incompetence on Obama's part.  It points out the conditions, the numbers, and the challenges.  It in no way disparages Obama's role in it.  Although there was plenty of cause.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Godless said:

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Trump's proposed measures make social media companies legally liable for the content created by their users?

Here is the EO text.

Quote

What, then, would prevent Joe Scarborough or the widower of Lori Klausutis from suing Twitter over Trump's tweets promoting the conspiracy theory around Lori's death? It seems like removing legal immunity for services like Twitter would quickly lead to those companies quickly removing problematic users in order to avoid lawsuits. Am I wrong? 

You make a very good point.  And I'm not sure if I agree with Trump's action on this.  But I do think I see what correct principle he's applying.

Quote

 When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power.  They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.

This is a good point. 

  • They can be neutral and maintain their legal protections. OR
  • They can be biased and give up their legal protections.

They seem to want it both ways.  That doesn't wash.

I also see the other side of the argument is the private party wishing to establish standards (which they are the sole judge).  One of the most rational arguments I've found was from Forbes.  The author compares a social media platform to a restaurant.  And the analogy hold up quite well.

Quote

...On hearing the complaint, the restaurant owner has a few choices.

The restaurant owner can kick out the group that was causing distress to the other patrons, or the restaurant owner can make the decision that the network of friends are within their rights to say what they are saying, but the owner tells the other patrons to ignore what they are hearing because it’s all fiction. In a private restaurant, the owner has the rights to make this decision.

Certainly, we have no complaint about restaurants having this authority.  So, what is it that we're complaining about? The answer is that there is one glaring difference between what is happening with Twitter vs what happens at a restaurant.  Expected engagement.

In a restaurant, the expectation is that

  • We have mild interaction with both the restaurant staff (who serve our interests as well as others).
  • We also have very limited interaction with other patrons.

Given that expectation, we can complain if the neighboring table is being too loud.

On social media

  • We can keep our conversations to those in our circle of friends.
  • We can block people or ignore posts.
  • We can open ourselves up to the entire range of posts and truly participate in a public square type debate.

If we choose option #3, then we shouldn't be barred from saying anything that wouldn't be considered criminal in a court of law.  If we don't want to, we can easily choose option 1, 2, or hidden option 4, ignore social media.

Thus far, they have been given immunity because they are supposed to be as neutral as the stones which pave a public square or the grass that adorns our parks.  But when they take it upon themselves to effectively police purportedly criminal behavior, this would be akin to policing via their own private security force, not reporting it to the police department.  And if they apply those property rights in a non-neutral manner, they can be held liable for things said that they did NOT take action on.  But if they're being neutral, then they can have a valid claim on that protection afforded them as a neutral platform.

***********************

This could go round and round, on and on.  Like I said, there hasn't been enough legal history to thoroughly establish how we should treat this.  But there are currently decent arguments both ways.  He may have the right to enforce this.  Or it may be a matter of complete government over-reach.  We won't know until sufficient precedent has been established.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2020 at 6:55 PM, MormonGator said:

Good, that speaks very highly of you @Grunt. I know how passionate you are about politics! 

By the way, I was a big supporter of the FSP when I lived up north. 

FSP has failed miserably

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
2 hours ago, Grunt said:

FSP has failed miserably

 

I saw your post on FB about that. Give it more time bro. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

I saw your post on FB about that. Give it more time bro. 

More time?  FSP hit its trigger of 20,000 over FOUR years ago.  NH is importing people from MA at a very large rate.  It's house is so blue we could currently have waiting periods, weapon bans, and a whole ton more if we didn't have a veto happy governor.  Unless something dramatically changes, more time isn't going to help things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
3 minutes ago, Grunt said:

More time?  FSP hit its trigger of 20,000 over FOUR years ago.  NH is importing people from MA at a very large rate.  It's house is so blue we could currently have waiting periods, weapon bans, and a whole ton more if we didn't have a veto happy governor.  Unless something dramatically changes, more time isn't going to help things.

Well, I wish you the best of luck. I can’t really help anymore, living down here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2020 at 11:33 AM, Carborendum said:

I also see the other side of the argument is the private party wishing to establish standards (which they are the sole judge).  One of the most rational arguments I've found was from Forbes.  The author compares a social media platform to a restaurant.  And the analogy hold up quite well.

It really doesn't because of Section 230.  The restaurant has no Section 230, therefore "you have to bake my cake, bigot" became a court case.  Section 230 makes Twitter analogous to the bookstore and not the restaurant.  If they want to be analogous to a restaurant and have a chance at winning the "cake" case, they'll have to declare themselves as not covered under Section 230.

 

Quote

This could go round and round, on and on.  Like I said, there hasn't been enough legal history to thoroughly establish how we should treat this.  But there are currently decent arguments both ways.  He may have the right to enforce this.  Or it may be a matter of complete government over-reach.  We won't know until sufficient precedent has been established.

I don't think this is a matter of precedent.  There are tons of precedent on Section 230 - remember, this is simply the online version of porn in the bookstore.  Where the wedge is on the issue is whether one can establish a "flip side" between Political Bias and Porn on the matter of Free Speech under Section 230... after all, Porn in the Bookstore caused Bookstores to not be liable for any and all problematic material, not just porn and could use the Porn precedent to establish their protections.  At the same time, there are multitudes of court cases on publishers and writers fighting Book Bans against bookstores which is always litigated on whether the content of the book falls under Free Speech protection.  And Catcher in the Rye and To Kill a Mockingbird continues to grace bookstores.

Trump's evidence of Political Bias is easy to establish under Free Speech - just by the "Fact Check by CNN" alone in light of Nick Sandmann and his work to rid the Fed Courts of bench-lawmakers has been successful so far. 

Of course, everything I say here is just my opinion and probably needs the apolitical version of @Just_A_Guy for a proper smackdown.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Corporatism is the enemy of Socialists, not Capitalism.  Unfortunately, Socialists seem to think it's one and the same.  Whereas, the Capitalists think Socialism is Corporatism on steroids.  What these innocent socialist (Bernie Bros) and capitalist (Trumpers) young'uns need to understand is that they are fighting the same entity in government permeating all political parties, especially in the local level.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The common term we tend to use is "Cronyism" or "Crony capitalism".  The latter is not really accurate.  Cronyism is cronyism.  It often exists under capitalist systems.  It ALWAYS exists under socialist systems.

Yep.

The young socialist have this naive belief that if only they're the ones in control, things will be run good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this