Trump To Sue Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey (axios.com) 435
Former President Donald Trump, who has complained about censorship by social media giants, plans to announce class action lawsuits today against Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Axios reported Wednesday. From the report: It's the latest escalation in Trump's yearslong battle with Twitter and Facebook over free speech and censorship. Trump is completely banned from Twitter and is banned from Facebook for another two years. Trump is scheduled to make an announcement at a press conference today at 11 am. Trump's legal effort is supported by the America First Policy Institute, a non-profit focused on perpetuating Trump's policies. The group's president and CEO and board chair, former Trump officials Linda McMahon and Brooke Rollins, will accompany him during the announcement. Class action lawsuits would enable him to sue the two tech CEOs on behalf of a broader group of people that he argues have been censored by biased policies. To date, Trump and other conservative critics have not presented any substantial evidence that either platform is biased against conservatives in its policies or implementation of them.
Trump reverts to previous tactics of Sue, Sue, Sue (Score:5, Insightful)
tRumpy poo has his feelings hurt, so he is calling his lawyers. He has never grown up and will never stop lying.
Re:Trump reverts to previous tactics of Sue, Sue, (Score:5, Funny)
irony.
when a pseudo billionaire sues real billionaires.
the real question is.
does mango unchained use linux
Re:Trump reverts to previous tactics of Sue, Sue, (Score:4, Insightful)
"They even impeached him without any strong evidence"
Lol, wrong.
I'd like some of what you're taking, but in a smaller dose.
Re:Trump reverts to previous tactics of Sue, Sue, (Score:5, Insightful)
>You don't have to agree with me. The US government already has.
The US government agreed with you through a dysfunction on the US Senate where Republicans voted for their Party instead of their Country.
Regards.
Re:Trump reverts to previous tactics of Sue, Sue, (Score:5, Informative)
Now, let's put the shoe on the other foot: If Biden did anything similar, and provable, as president, do you really believe that 90% or better of Democrats would vote against impeachment? We're talking about a party that booted Al Franken, and rightly so, even though the charges would've been scoffed at if he were Republican.
So, no, he's not making your point. Republicans show, time after time, that they put party ahead of country, and both sides are not nearly the same.
Re:Trump reverts to previous tactics of Sue, Sue, (Score:5, Informative)
Those of us with more than one functioning brain cell know that an impeachment is only an indictment, it's not a judgement. Those of us who have a memory remember that the Republicans said during the House phase that evidence should be introduced in the Senate phase...and then didn't allow it.
Re:Trump reverts to previous tactics of Sue, Sue, (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a seriously interesting interpretation of what happened.
The second impeachment vote was the most bipartisan impeachment in US history. However, it didn't meet the constitutional requirement of 67 senators voting to convict.
That's hardly "without any strong evidence". In fact, I would say the evidence was there for a majority vote which was only stopped from reaching the required threshold due to hyper-partisanism. You know, the same hyper-partisanism that has the GOP continuing to crawl up Trump's ass en masse out of fear for their own seats in Congress.
They had their chance to cut him loose, and decided to double-down yet again. And now we get to see a major political party die in real time unless they wise up and realize that continuing to move further towards extremism will further alienate moderates and independents, in which case the White House may as well be painted blue and have the logo of the Democratic Party bolted to the door.
Re:Trump reverts to previous tactics of Sue, Sue, (Score:5, Insightful)
Ugh, Trump was impeached (twice). Since it is a civil matter we aren't using the term indicted. Republicans even admitted Trump actually did the things he was accused of doing but didn't think it deserved removal from office which is within their rights. New evidence was submitted at his trial after he was indicted because that is exactly has it traditionally works, there is no "law", only rules in the senate in regards to how everything is handled during the trial. These rules are negotiated only AFTER Congress has impeached the President.
This revisionist history crap has to stop.
Trump remained in office because Republican leadership has shown time and again that they are party over country instead of country above all else. That is the same reason they didn't support a bipartisan commission to investigate January 6th which certainly had a lot more evidence of wrongdoing than Benghazi which was tragic but certainly not deserving of more investigations than 9/11.
Re:Trump reverts to previous tactics of Sue, Sue, (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Trump reverts to previous tactics of Sue, Sue, (Score:5, Insightful)
Really?
I'm pretty sure I still hear Republicans whining about Hillary and Benghazi hearings. Did you have as much to say about that bullshit as you have to say about this?
At least with Trump there are ongoing questions as to dereliction of duty and corruption that actually should be investigated in order to protect from future bad-faith actors in high government office.
Examples:
Why did it take so long on January 6 to get any form of help to the Capitol Police, especially when the Governor of Maryland said he had national guard units ready to deploy, if he only got permission.
Why was the Justice Department pulling phone metadata about the most outspoken critics of this administration in the Congress?
Why was the Justice Department acting as Trump's personal law firm, in multiple actions against Trump in a personal (not governmental or official) capacity?
Why did he last-minute pardon all of his convicted cronies? It couldn't have been to buy their silence, could it? It couldn't have been to build a firewall against further investigation into foreign influence given known contacts with said highly-placed felons?
Don't you want to know if the previous administration was severely compromised and corrupted, in order to prevent it from happening again?
Re:Trump reverts to previous tactics of Sue, Sue, (Score:5, Interesting)
Wonder who is representing him? Giuliani lost his law license and Trump appears to be stiffing him on payment! https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]
Re:Trump reverts to previous tactics of Sue, Sue, (Score:5, Insightful)
Zactly. Who will represent him, since he makes a point of not paying debts/bills?
Re:Trump reverts to previous tactics of Sue, Sue, (Score:5, Insightful)
Zactly. Who will represent him, since he makes a point of not paying debts/bills?
There are always sycophants who will do pretty much anything to curry favor with a powerful person. A future favor might be more valuable to them than money.
Heck, we've seen a bunch of sycophants in Congress, and a lot of Congresscritters are lawyers. And the ex-President doesn't seem to care if he has *good* lawyers or not... just that they're loyal.
Re:Trump reverts to previous tactics of Sue, Sue, (Score:5, Interesting)
After the "kraken" lawyers all got into deep trouble for proceeding with his BS I think they may finally start to think twice.
Then again apparently you don't have to be that smart to be a lawyer so maybe not.
Re:Trump reverts to previous tactics of Sue, Sue, (Score:5, Informative)
Wonder who is representing him?
According to https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/07/trump-says-he-is-suing-facebook-google-twitter-dorsey-zuckerberg-pichai.html [cnbc.com] , the attorney representing Trump in the lawsuits is Matthew Lee Baldwin from the law firm of Vargas, Gonzalez, Baldwin, Delombard [vargasgonzalez.com] which is being backed by America First Policy Institute.
America First Policy Institute is a non-profit run by [thehill.com] Trump loyalists [axios.com]
Re:Trump reverts to previous tactics of Sue, Sue, (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, those who can do, those who can't sue.
Re:Trump reverts to previous tactics of Sue, Sue, (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Trump reverts to previous tactics of Sue, Sue, (Score:5, Insightful)
My two thoughts:
1. Looks like Twitter actually managed to find something this guy genuinely cares about, and by taking it away has had more of an effect than all of the speeches and press statements that every politician in history has ever come up with, combined.
2. I hope the lawyer bringing this action demanded a REALLY big retainer as well as a firm establishment that without future payments as necessary the work stops immediately, what with Trump's history of stiffing his lawyers on the bill. No lawyer should work for this guy without advance payment for services, or you're working pro bono without knowing it.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. An overgrown child throwing a tantrum. The sad thing is that so many people see themselves in him, which does not speak well of them.
He will lose (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if Twitter were found to be biased against conservatives, he wouldn't have a case, as they are allowed to be.
What he is asking the court to do is violate Twitter's first amendment right not to be forced to carry speech they don't want to publish. In less democratic countries, companies are frequently forced to publish things praising the government. That is not permitted in the USA.
No, he will win (Score:5, Insightful)
His fanbase will lose. They'll give him millions of dollars they can't afford. Also Televangelists will lose, as Trump and them are going after the same base of desperate, frightened and confused people who can't afford to be giving what little money they have but do so anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stupidity should be painful.
Re:No, you're being a jerk (Score:4, Insightful)
pauljlucas sneered:
Stupidity should be painful.
No, foolish behavior should be painful. Arrogant ignorance should be painful. Bigotry should be painful.
Stupidity is, unfortunately for the stupid, an incurable, inherent defect. You don't achieve stupidity, you're born with it. Punishing humans for birth defects is pointlessly evil, just like punishing them for physical characteristics over which they have no control - red hair, for instance, or ingrown toenails.
It'd be nice if people were capable of curing their mental defects just by wanting to do so, just as it would be nice if they could cure physical ones. Unfortunately for the magical thinkers of the planet, wishing does not, in fact, make it so.
Fortuitously for you, however, empathy and compassion are learnable skills ...
Re:No, you're being a jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
pauljlucas explained:
While I get your point, being stupid and acting stupidity are linked. That plus my sympathy runs out for people who support someone who pretty much tried to overthrow the government.
Again, you're conflating stupidity with foolish behavior - which is what supporting Presidente Ex-Twitter Troll, even after he incited an armed, violent insurrection against the legislative arm of the very government he was elected to serve amounts to. Yes, as evidenced by their statements and post-indictment behavior, many (if not most) of the actual insurrectionists are self-evidently as dumb as a cardboard box full of concrete blocks. Some of them (the so-called "QAnon Shaman" being a prime example) barely even qualify as sentient beings.
But, again, they can't help being stupid. It's a birth defect - and one that affects as much as 40% of the population. Any population, anywhere.
The actual problem is that our society allows individuals and political, commercial, religious, and national organizations to prey on these people's gullibility with pretty much total impunity. That is what pisses me off. Stupidity isn't going away any time soon. (Not unless the kind of people who espouse active eugenics programs, complete with forced sterilization and/or still worse "solutions" are allowed to come to power.) But, if we had the collective will, we could rein in the exploiters: con men, sociopaths, authoritarians, and the organizations they run and represent.
But we don't. And we won't, because FR-R-R-EEEDOM!
You know: the freedom to spam people with car warranty scams, the freedom to publish outright, boldfaced lies about everything from gun control legislation to health insurance to abortion under the umbrella of "voter education" (and enjoy tax-free, non-profit status while doing it!), the freedom to purposefully misinform fearful, frustrated people about public health issues, because of deliberate, profit-driven social media policies designed to "increase user engagement." And all the other excuses we accept for scumbags treating people who were born suckers as fair game, so long as the liars and manipulators get to make a buck, or more firmly grasp the levers of power, or simply enjoy bullying and needling other people.
Or, y'know, destabilizing western democracies.
My point is that you're blaming victims who don't even realize they're victims, instead of putting that blame where it rightfully belongs: on the victimizers ...
Re: (Score:3)
because he'll do a massive fund raising push off this, bringing in millions of dollars of free money from his fanbase.
His fanbase will lose. They'll give him millions of dollars they can't afford. Also Televangelists will lose, as Trump and them are going after the same base of desperate, frightened and confused people who can't afford to be giving what little money they have but do so anyway.
I wonder how effective will his fundraising will be now that he's off Twitter and Facebook.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, yes. Either that or face a country slowly sliding into darkness. Most of the rest of the world needed to do this to find out it is an exceptionally bad idea. Guess the US is due.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations != Free market (Score:2, Interesting)
This only applies when the free market exists; These are corporations managed to remove all competitors. They could be considered as public goods, in this specific case they are required to enforce the first amendment.
But he will still win (Score:5, Interesting)
1) It keeps Trump in the news, and we all know he thrives on media attention.
2) It keeps up appearances of "fighting the fight" in a brand of politics where you never back down, never admit defeat, and never compromise.
3) If (when) he loses, his base will become even more energized under the belief that his loss is the result of a liberal conspiracy involving widespread infiltration and corruption of the court system. And, as a bonus, any negative press coverage will only confirm his followers' perception of the "liberal media" being out to make Trump look bad.
Re: (Score:2)
The best part is... Twitter and Facebook both retain all the data they need to win this. There doesn't need to be a whole lot of discovery, and I could totally see them entering into evidence (and therefore publishing) the draft and private messages from tRump that the public hasn't seen yet. Quick! Make some popcorn!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
In less democratic countries, companies are frequently forced to publish things praising the government. That is not permitted in the USA.
Well, if Trump manages to convince the moronic masses to elect him a 2nd time, that is something he will sure try to change. While I doubt he would succeed, if he gets to name enough supreme court judges, he may lay the foundations for that change. The Republicans would not stop him. Most of them do not even pretend to be decent people these days and the few that do or are and dare voice criticism get neutralized quickly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No that's not it and you know it. The claim is that you cannot be compelled by the government to do something that violates your right to free religious practice. Doesn't matter if they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish or some other religion. Same why we have religious exemptions to serving in the military if you are drafted. You can't just make up your own version of the truth because it works for you. Sorry.
Re:He will lose (Score:4, Insightful)
Except there is nothing in the Christian religion which says you are to exclude people because of who they are. In fact, their little black book says the exact opposite.
The baker would have known this if they were a real Christian so all they've done is either a) show the world the bigot they truly are, b) made up shit about their religion which is probably a sin, according to their religion, or c) acknowledging their religion is about exclusion and hatred.
Re: (Score:3)
The claim is that you cannot be compelled by the government to do something that violates your right to free religious practice.
The First Amendment is clear, well sort of. The question at hand is whether it is absolute and if not, what the limitations are. The Supreme Court ruled narrowly in the Colorado bakery case (i.e. [nbcnews.com], "the court said legal proceedings in Colorado had shown a hostility to the baker's religious views") and therefore didn't settle the issue. Recently, the court refused to hear/overturn the Washington State Supreme Court which had ruled a florist didn't have a constitutional right to deny service based on religi
Re:He will lose (Score:5, Insightful)
Where in the bible does it say "thou shall not make a cake for a gay couple"? Not there? How about "thou shall not provide professional services to a gay couple". Still not there? What about "thou shall exclude gay people from society" or even "thou shall be a jerk to gay people"?
Just because the religion has some BS that tells them to not have sex with another man, that doesn't give them a religious imperative to be an asshole to people who don't live according to those arbitrary standards. When was the last time a Buddhist refused to bake a cake for someone because that person eats meat? When did an Orthodox Jew refuse to bake a cake for someone because that other person happened to work on the Sabbath? Writing two men's names on a wedding cake != having sex with another man. Baking that cake would in no way violate their religion, just their homophobic preferences.
Re:He will lose (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. Why wouldn't they? That's the whole point of having civil liberties. Someone gets it finally...I think...
Because Trump supporters don't actually stand for civil liberties (or much of anything else tbh).
That said the OP's analogy is all wrong, because "people who want offensive cakes made" isn't really a minority in a way that gay people are.
Re:He will lose (Score:5, Informative)
You are BOTH WRONG. And it matters.
The crux of the issue was not a refusal to sell a cake. The business was ready to sell any cake in the shop, then and there, no problem. The crux of the issue was a refusal to accept contract work. Selling an already-made cake in an open storefront is entirely different from accepting a contract to do work (which, in this case, was to make a NEW cake).
Nobody is a slave. If one is a gig worker, the government cannot force that person to accept a gig. For example, construction workers can refuse to build a building at any time for any reason. Photographers can refuse to show up and take pictures at any time for any reason. They can simply decide they want to take the day off, and not take any contracts that day. Or they can decide they have religious reasons against some proffered contract. The reason doesn't matter at all, because they are negotiating a NEW contract, and nobody is legally required to accept the contract.
Baking a custom cake is contract work. That is what was demanded, and the contractor was within their rights to refuse that contract for any reason at all. They did not refuse to sell an already-made cake, and explicitly offered to do so, as refusing to do that would have been illegal discrimination.
Re: He will lose (Score:4, Interesting)
Baking a custom cake is contract work. That is what was demanded, and the contractor was within their rights to refuse that contract for any reason at all.
No, only for nearly any reason at all. A few reasons are not legal, such as because of the race of the other party. The baker was willing to make wedding cakes, and was willing to make wedding cakes for the two individuals that requested it, he just wasn't willing to do so for their wedding -- and not because he felt that they as individuals were a bad match, but because of their respective genders and sexual orientations.
That's unlawful in Colorado, apparently. The last case got dismissed on the grounds that at a lower level he was treated unfairly, but the actual issue was left up in the air. Apparently another suit is coming up through the courts.
If he wants to refuse, he needs a different reason. Maybe he's busy, maybe he stopped doing wedding cakes, maybe he doesn't like the look of the person ordering it. Maybe he just doesn't feel like it. But it can't be for a few reasons involving discrimination.
Re: He will lose (Score:5, Informative)
I managed to find this link to the actual ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/o... [supremecourt.gov]
I see where it says what you are saying, "Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise
principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil
Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was incon-
sistent with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality."
(and further down)
"Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that
whatever the outcome of some future controversy involv-
ing facts similar to these, the Commission’s actions here
violated the Free Exercise Clause; and its order must be
set aside."
So whatever I read before (and was posting from memory in my prior post) must have been someone's own opinion, and not a summary of the court ruling. Because this ruling is very pointedly refusing to deal with the fundamental issues of religious freedom vs protection of gay rights. All it does is point out reasons why that question is not as easily answered as everyone seems to think it is. The actual ruling was simply that Colorado failed to apply the law correctly in how it arrived at its decision, and therefore that decision had to be rejected.
This sure feels like a cop-out to me. But I am not well-versed in how these things go and what is actually required to get the Supreme Court to take a position on an issue that matters, like this.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the last Supreme Court decision was a punt based on the Commission's mishandling of the case, and the underlying issue is compelled speech; the government (broadly) can't require you to say something, so the baker couldn't be required by law to make (say) a rainbow flag cake saying "gay sex is awesome" or whatever, and bait attempts with obvious messages (from both the left and the right) have been rejected by the lower courts and comissions. But it only counts if it's perceivable as your speech - e.g
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, conservatives claim a bakery should be allowed to refuse service to gay people.
A bakery should be allowed to refuse service to whoever the fuck they want to. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. There are bakeries all over the place.
Re: (Score:3)
Right, so Trump should go somewhere else besides twitter.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember, conservatives claim a bakery should be allowed to refuse service to gay people.
Bullshit. Even if that was true, I don't have a problem with it. No shop should be compelled to take anyone's custom, not even shops run by assholes.
Re:He will lose (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly that's one thing I agree with conservatives on. Don't get me wrong... I'd boycott such a bakery. Personally I think however that IF a store wants to blacklist people... They should have rules up. Just as twitter and face-book have rules posted saying not to post calls for violence etc... A bakery that doesn't make cakes for gay weddings... should have it posted on their web-page, and somewhere in the store. I am not gay, but I would like to refuse to give my dollars, to a business that would not take the money from a gay couple.
anyway are you trying to argue that both people should be allowed to refuse to hire or serve based on religion, BUT twitter or facebook should be required to keep content up. in spite of it being well outside of the rules they have. Especially things like calls to violence etc... where someone like facebook may be considered liable... in the event that they wound up being seen as the fuel for the next january 6th.
Re:He will lose (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if that was true....
It was the ENTIRE case. The bakery owner didn't want to make a cake for a gay couple. Period. End of story.
....I don't have a problem with it. No shop should be compelled to take anyone's custom[sic],
A black couple walks into a bakery. The owner says, "This is a whites-only bakery. My firmly-held religious beliefs are that blacks are inferior to whites, so I'm not making a cake for you. There's probably another bakery somewhere that caters to [pejorative term for black person]*. Try there. And yes, our water fountains are also whites-only."
Raise your hand if any of this rings a bell.
* Slashdot's lameness filter won't allow the N-word **
** Having to say "N-Word" is fucking stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. But try to have a bakery that refuses service to conservatives and see what happens.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then revise Section 230, Until then, they are able to choose to host whatever they want and they are not liable for others' content they publish like any other publisher.
There is no "providers and not publishers" distinction under current law. They are only liable for content that they themselves create or contribute to creating, and Trump's tw
Re:He will lose (Score:5, Informative)
In fact it says "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.."
You want to treat "provider" and "publisher" as a categorical dichotomy, but they're written as activities that one can choose to conduct (or not), as shown by the language itself: "the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
Thus, a publisher can provide an interactive computer service and not be treated as the publisher of any information provided by another information content provider.
You've declared that, but you haven't shown that it's true. Was this online or in print? Was the columnist an employee or wholly independent? You need to complete an analogy to an online tweet posted by someone wholly independent of the service - which is the situation here.
How do you propose to do that? The statute itself (47 USC 230(f)(2)) says that
Twitter does that. You cannot categorize them otherwise.
My law practice and every final section 230 court decision out there say otherwise. I win.
Only where the scope of the law or the meaning of terms is ambiguous. 47 USC 230(c) and (f) are not ambiguous. Which is why claimants attempting to overcome them inevitably lose. If you're complaining about information submitted by an independent user that does not not within a listed exception under 47 USC 230(e), you lose.
I deny the premise. Prove it [economist.com].
I deny the premise. Calls to violence [twitter.com] are within the moderation abilities of the section 230 exemption.
Hardly. Politicians are arguing about how to change section 230 to limit the exemption, which "kinda proves" that the current exemption is broader. Politicians arguing about whether the current language covers Twitter are irrelevant. The section says what it says, and statutory interpretation is a function of the courts. Who have consistently ruled in precisely the manner that I have described.
And will do so again in this instance.
Re:He will lose (Score:4, Informative)
Downmodders: Game on.
Then revise Section 230, Until then, they are able to choose to host whatever they want and they are not liable for others' content they publish "like any other publisher."
There is no "providers and not publishers" distinction under current law. They are only liable for content that they themselves create or contribute to creating, and Trump's tweets are not that. Nor are they obligated to publish them. End of story.
Keep moving... (Score:5, Insightful)
...nothing to see here but the end of a national embarrassment
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No, you're a liar.
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Biden ain't half as entertaining as Donald Duck was.
Seriously, the caricatures just ain't the same. I mean be honest, just compare Biden [stuttmann-karikaturen.de] to Trump [stuttmann-karikaturen.de] and tell me Biden is any funnier.
Re:Keep moving... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't understand the whole career politician slam either. I recently had surgery and I told the hospital I didn't want any of those career surgeons working on me, no sir.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand the whole career politician slam either. I recently had surgery and I told the hospital I didn't want any of those career surgeons working on me, no sir.
Your surgeon is less likely to be corrupted by power than a politician. It's not a difficult theory to understand. The longer an elected official is in power the more resources they have to put toward staying in power by means other than serving the people.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's see the results of a non career politician being president. https://www.politico.com/news/... [politico.com]
Yep, ranked 41 out of 46.
Wait... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you read that Trump was trying to do that? We have a system that allows publishers to post whatever they want, but then they're also liable for the things they post. How is that a bad thing? This is where Twitter belongs if that's how they're going to operate. Why should they get special treatment over other service providers?
If you think that's OK, then why isn't your ISP allowed to block you from visiting a website that they don't like, such as a politically-loaded news article? If you think tha
Re: (Score:2)
If politicians control the media and the economy it's called dictatorship. If the media and the economy control politicians, we call it democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Wait... (Score:2, Funny)
That's just socialist double-speak.
Socialism purports to be "communal ownership" of the means of production. In practice, any community that sets rules, regulations, standards, and/or societal norms is a de-facto government. Period. So despite the double-speak, it really is government run.
Second, socialism according to the person who practically defined it, Karl Marx, requires the violent takeover of all privately owned assets, and overthrowing existing governments, even democratically elected ones, because
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious if you can define the difference between socialism and communism.
Re: (Score:2)
Property rights (Score:2)
So they are fighting for my right to spam twitter with ads and goatse.cx too? I mean, that's "free speech" too. Twitter and Facebook should have to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Remember these conservatives are the same ones who said a bakery should be allowed to refuse to service to gay people. Twitter should have the right to make their platform only allow ultra-conservative viewpoints. Conservatives don't allow liberals on their right-wing talk shows. Every person should be allowed to make the
Re: (Score:2)
You can't have a rule and it not be subjective -- any spammer with half a brain can work around it. The predefined rules are already in twitter's terms of service.
Re:Property rights (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting that you use 'letting' in your first example and 'forcing' in the other
I did so intentionally.
Are you married? A baker takes on a pretty big role in a wedding, just like a photographer, DJ, officiant, etc.. There are many meetings. Tastings. They personally come to the reception to set up. They come after to take down. It's not like the couple walked into a bakery to buy a box of cupcakes. They intentionally picked a bakery that they knew objected on religious grounds and tried to force the owner to actively take part in their wedding.
Twitter and Facebook "let" Trump use their service. Then they stopped "letting" him use their service when the other party won and they needed to snuggle up to Pelosi and her mob.
Wait... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta fix up that jet (Score:5, Funny)
His jet is the equivalent of a car sitting on up blocks in the driveway now. Need some fast cash to get that baby fixed up. https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/19... [cnn.com]
on't Let Me Overthrow the US Government - Wa Wa (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
C'mon. All he is is a spoiled rich kid in the body of a grown man. That's all. He's just what happens when someone has so much money that nobody ever started saying "no, asshole" to him.
Want to see REAL "censorship"...? (Score:5, Insightful)
(AKA heavy-handed moderation) ...then repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act like Trump wanted to.
This is a textbook narcisist. (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not sure how so many Americans failed to see that Trump is a Textbook Narcissist. Only cares for himself, unable to admit that they did anything wrong, and often will fail to learn from a mistake. The most pain you can do to a Narcissist is to ignore them, and have them be alone with their own thoughts.
However I don't think these companies banned him to punish Trump, but to save their own businesses. Prominent figures like then president Trump would create a lot of traffic on the social media sites, in which Advertisers and give impressions to more people. So if Trump says something untruthful, or encourages people to do criminal or harmful activists, then the Social Media Companies will be profiting off of it, as well their Advertisers may be tied to that message as well.
Thus the advertisers may not want to be responsible for the actions of its followers so they may no longer pay the social media company for Ad's there, and the Social Media company will be out of revenue.
They also don't have any responsibility to aid in anyone first amendment rights, If the Social Media Companies loose, then I could see a lot of lawsuits going to Right Leaning media companies for not covering all the the good stuff that Liberals have done, and no longer allowing being called an Entertainment company as an excuse to allow them to post what they want.
Re:This is a textbook narcisist. (Score:5, Interesting)
The really sad part is that they didn't fail to see it.
Trump is the textbook example for the Dark Triad [wikipedia.org]. Which is actually pretty attractive to some people. It looks like the person is assertive and can get shit done. Some people do like that in a leader. Especially in a culture that values ellbow tactics as a means to get ahead and consider the quality of not caring what toes someone steps on as an asset in the personality of a person rather than a character flaw.
The reason why you don't want to be known as a platform for such people is that it rubs off on you. These people tend to be very vocal and don't hold back with their opinions. They are prominent, in every sense of the word. And they will dominate your platform, if you let them. This in turn means that people who do not agree with these people will start to cease using your platform, which in turn makes you more and more dependent on that person.
And the very last thing you would ever want is to be dependent on a person with a Dark Triad personality.
Biased against conservative views? ROFL! (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not saying all conservatives are neo nazis. I'm just saying I've never once seen a Biden flag at a white power rally.
If we've learned about trump legal strategy (Score:4, Interesting)
Court cases are not always about winning. They are just as much about muddying the waters, gumming up the works, and creating buzz. We've seen first hand what his base thinks about cases that are thrown out.
I wish all 3 could loose... (Score:3)
This is a case where I dont want any of them to win...
Re: (Score:2)
Toss in Oracle and then let nature take its course.
Re: (Score:3)
This is America. Trump will lose the case. Dorsey and Zuck will lose money in legal fees. The only winners here are lawyers and sadly Trump's fund, because you know he's going to milk his base for support.
Good Americans Are Biased Against Trump (Score:2)
Florida resident learning from Florida (Score:2)
This has already played out before: (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's how it goes:
1: Come up with a complaint that is going to take lots of money to solve. It doesn't matter if it can be solved in his favor or not.
2: Get his base worked up.
3: See donations roll in.
This isn't about him loosing his political voice. It's about him seeing an opportunity to profit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think twitter is a public square how do you feel about shopping malls?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good! (Score:4, Interesting)
Twitter is not a public square, it's a private company. Allow me to put my political sticker on your lawn. Should I be allowed to give a speech at your Klan rally?
Re:Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
Twitter and Facebook are damn well the public square and you fucking know it. !
Just because you keep saying something doesn't make it true.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that they're not a public square. No more so than, as others have pointed out, the mall. For that matter, the parking lot at your local supermarket is not the public square either. You also might want to be careful about trying to get online locations classified as some sort of public square or we might all start needing to secure permits in order to assemble for the purposes of political speech online.
Personally I've always felt that it was foolish to let facebook or twitter, or what have you be the
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter is not obligated to provide you or any other spammer a platform for your speech. Should conservative TV or radio shows allow liberals on there? Twitter legally obtained its supposed monopoly. People chose twitter and facebook for many reasons including the fact that it had content people wanted and didn't have a crazy amount of spam.
Remember conservatives previously defended positions such as the right to refuse service to gay, and at one time -- maybe even today, to black people.
Re: (Score:2)
What unfair business practices have Twitter and Facebook used against Parler and Gettr?
No more monopoly on social media than porn (Score:2)
Before people shout too loudly that they are private companies and can do whatever they want, consider that between them Facebook and Twitter have an effective monopoly on social media. The question deserves to be asked whether these two corporations should have so much influence over what kind of political discourse is permitted online.
There's a million social media choices. Reddit, 4chan, 8chan, *chan, Parler, Gab, WeMe, etc. All you have to do is be able to run a website competently, which conservatives seem to have issues with, considering all the data leaks, but regardless....it's not that hard to get a basic message board up and running. Look at how many are out there now? Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, plus the failed ones like MySpace, Google+. There are also tons of sex related ones, particularly for those in gay community. T
Re: No more monopoly on social media than porn (Score:3)
There's a million social media choices. Reddit, 4chan, 8chan
That list escalated quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
"Turns out"?
Re: (Score:2)
That's why he was popular. One of us, one of us...
Re: (Score:3)