May 28, 20205 yr 18 minutes ago, RPeeteRules said: Yes and no. That is what is said in the video. The guy in the video saying politically, not physically, or as he says, not biblically. So he wants the party to die out, not the people. Terrible thing to say. He couched it after knowing he couldn't let that statement stand on its own. The explanation was weak sauce. "I can already see the cameras now saying I am calling for the murder of Democrats so let me say that I mean that politically." Stop it. He knows exactly what he was trying to do. When he tells psychopath conservatives that the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat, he means it and they love it. Did you not hear how they responded when he said it? They cheered uncontrollably even before he clarified the statement.
May 28, 20205 yr 1 minute ago, DEagle7 said: I'm impressed by your optimism. We'll see... I'm interested in the topic and I want to see what this thing says BUT in any case Vikas is spot on (as is usually the case) in that this manner of going thru an EO is completely unacceptable. So let him throw it out there and people can chew on it and then let SCOTUS strike it down and we can push the concept thru Congress as should be the case and hopefully (here is where the real optimism comes in) get it right.
May 28, 20205 yr 4 minutes ago, vikas83 said: Here it is: https://kateklonick.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DRAFT-EO-Preventing-Online-Censorship.pdf Guess what -- all it does is threaten the companies IF they dare to edit content. The rules had given them immunity, saying they aren't responsible for the content posted on their sites by users. Further, if they edit content because it violates the TOS or is obscene or wrong, they still aren't deemed a publisher and can't be sued. Fat Donnie is mad though, so now he wants the FCC to review the rules and say they CAN be found liable as a publisher if they edit content. Oh, and he also demands every federal agency review their ad spending on these platforms because they hurt his feelings. Basically, the outcome of this would be -- none of these companies would police content at all and expose themselves to liability. Fake news would proliferate unchallenged. And...Russia wins. Yeah, this seems like good policy. Stop with the attempts at equivocation. This is a debacle in all ways -- both the means and the ends. Ok, I'll read it later as I'm in the middle of a conf call. Anyway, working to ensure that free thoughts flow even across large and powerful (and few) services like FB, Twitter isn't a bad thing BUT does of course need some mechanism to deal with the fake news. A tricky and possibly impossible set of items to reconcile successfully.
May 28, 20205 yr 4 minutes ago, mayanh8 said: Terrible thing to say. He couched it after knowing he couldn't let that statement stand on its own. The explanation was weak sauce. "I can already see the cameras now saying I am calling for the murder of Democrats so let me say that I mean that politically." Stop it. He knows exactly what he was trying to do. When he tells psychopath conservatives that the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat, he means it and they love it. Did you not hear how they responded when he said it? They cheered uncontrollably even before he clarified the statement. But isn’t that exactly what happened, someone in the media the first part of his quote and made it the headline, leaving people to believe that’s what he meant when that’s not what he meant?
May 28, 20205 yr 27 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: I'm interested in the topic and I want to see what this thing says BUT in any case Vikas is spot on (as is usually the case) in that this manner of going thru an EO is completely unacceptable. So let him throw it out there and people can chew on it and then let SCOTUS strike it down and we can push the concept thru Congress as should be the case and hopefully (here is where the real optimism comes in) get it right. Procedural/timing awfulness aside, in your mind how would they get it right? The structure of the order appears to be related to making social media platforms liable for editing or censoring content on their sites and encouraging government oversight over funding/censorship of these platforms. I'm fine with limiting the power of oligopolies but I'm just having a hard times seeing how the essence of this order as we understand it right now, even if done through proper channels, could be a good thing. But of course there is a very real chance I'm missing something.
May 28, 20205 yr Just now, DEagle7 said: Procedural/timing awfulness aside, in your mind how would they get it right? The structure of the order appears to be related to making social media platforms liable for editing or censoring content on their sites and encouraging government oversight over funding/censorship of these platforms. I'm fine with limiting the power of monopolies but I'm just having a hard times seeing how the essence of this order as we understand it right now, even if done through proper channels, could be a good thing. But of course there is a very real chance I'm missing something. I mentioned the possibility of this adding value BEFORE we saw the actual EO. Purely hypothetical. The topic deserves review and ultimately regulation. As we all suspected it appears this EO falls woefully short of adding any value (procedures aside).
May 28, 20205 yr 5 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Ok, I'll read it later as I'm in the middle of a conf call. Anyway, working to ensure that free thoughts flow even across large and powerful (and few) services like FB, Twitter isn't a bad thing BUT does of course need some mechanism to deal with the fake news. A tricky and possibly impossible set of items to reconcile successfully. I couldn't disagree more. These are PRIVATE companies. They can block and censor comments as they choose. Don't like it? Don't use Twitter. There is no right to free speech on a communications platform provided by a private enterprise.
May 28, 20205 yr 10 minutes ago, RPeeteRules said: But isn’t that exactly what happened, someone in the media the first part of his quote and made it the headline, leaving people to believe that’s what he meant when that’s not what he meant? He said it. Everyone cheered. Then he admits he can't let the statement stand on its own because of cameras. Most politicians aren't idiots. They know their audience well enough and he knew the reaction he was going to get from those people when he said it. You're willing to give the benefit of the doubt that he's the only one in the room that doesn't get excited about dead Democrats. Me? I've seen enough over these past four years to take this new breed of Republican at face value.
May 28, 20205 yr I still don't understand why Republicans haven't started an alternative to Twitter that only caters to right-wing snowflakes. That's who Trump's trying to reach anyway. All he would have to do is gravitate to that new platform and they'd immediately have millions of customers. Then he could lie and defame anyone he wants with no repercussions.
May 28, 20205 yr 1 minute ago, DrPhilly said: I mentioned the possibility of this adding value BEFORE we saw the actual EO. Purely hypothetical. The topic deserves review and ultimately regulation. As we all suspected it appears this EO falls woefully short of adding any value (procedures aside). Fair enough. To be fair I don't love the amount of power companies FB/Twitter have over public discourse (listened to a podcast the other day about the effects of the Youtube search algorithm on what content you see and it was pretty Black-Mirrory). But overall I don't think they have done a bad job in self regulation and l love the prospect of either complete lack of oversight due to fear of litigation, or government regulation of those platforms a helluva lot less.
May 28, 20205 yr Just now, vikas83 said: I couldn't disagree more. These are PRIVATE companies. They can block and censor comments as they choose. Don't like it? Don't use Twitter. There is no right to free speech on a communications platform provided by a private enterprise. Yes, I agree 100% EXCEPT in the situation where we only have say a couple that are relevant and viable. It is no different than any other monopoly type situation. The devil will be in determing when that situation exists. I think it is reasonable to assert that there are plenty of options right now for getting information distributed. In that case Twitter and FB should be fully free to block/censor/offertheirownopinon, etc.
May 28, 20205 yr 2 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: I still don't understand why Republicans haven't started an alternative to Twitter that only caters to right-wing snowflakes. That's who Trump's trying to reach anyway. All he would have to do is gravitate to that new platform and they'd immediately have millions of customers. Then he could lie and defame anyone he wants with no repercussions. Trumpter will be launched in 2021, once he is out of of office and can focus on the business. It will be the hugest, most luxurious, most glorious social media platform ever created. Trumpter will file for bankruptcy in 2023.
May 28, 20205 yr 2 minutes ago, vikas83 said: Trumpter will be launched in 2021, once he is out of of office and can focus on the business. It will be the hugest, most luxurious, most glorious social media platform ever created. Trumpter will file for bankruptcy in 2023. Two whole years? No way.
May 28, 20205 yr 2 minutes ago, Paul852 said: Two whole years? No way. Trump University was in existence from 2005-2010. Trump Shuttle (airline) existed for three whole years. Don't underestimate the grift.
May 28, 20205 yr 1 minute ago, mayanh8 said: Trump University was in existence from 2005-2010. Trump Shuttle (airline) existed for three whole years. Wow, people actually had enough time to graduate from Trump U? I had no idea.
May 28, 20205 yr 1 minute ago, DrPhilly said: Yes, I agree 100% EXCEPT in the situation where we only have say a couple that are relevant and viable. It is no different than any other monopoly type situation. The devil will be in determing when that situation exists. I think it is reasonable to assert that there are plenty of options right now for getting information distributed. In that case Twitter and FB should be fully free to block/censor/offertheirownopinon, etc. You, and others making this claim, fundamentally misunderstand a monopoly vs. simply being successful. Standard oil was a monopoly because they controlled the entire supply of refined oil products. The Bell system was a monopoly because they controlled the access to the home through phone lines. Cable companies were monopolies for the same reason and were forced to allow competitors to use their infrastructure. Facebook, Twitter, etc. aren't monopolies because nothing they do prevents competition. Hell, starting an internet site/company is remarkably easy. You could start a social media platform tomorrow with little effort. Just being large and popular does NOT make you a monopoly.
May 28, 20205 yr Just now, vikas83 said: You, and others making this claim, fundamentally misunderstand a monopoly vs. simply being successful. Standard oil was a monopoly because they controlled the entire supply of refined oil products. The Bell system was a monopoly because they controlled the access to the home through phone lines. Cable companies were monopolies for the same reason and were forced to allow competitors to use their infrastructure. Facebook, Twitter, etc. aren't monopolies because nothing they do prevents competition. Hell, starting an internet site/company is remarkably easy. You could start a social media platform tomorrow with little effort. Just being large and popular does NOT make you a monopoly. Exactly. I fail to see why people consider these particular platforms a monopoly. They may even be confusing "influential" with "monopoly". I don't know.
May 28, 20205 yr 12 minutes ago, mayanh8 said: He said it. Everyone cheered. Then he admits he can't let the statement stand on its own because of cameras. Most politicians aren't idiots. They know their audience well enough and he knew the reaction he was going to get from those people when he said it. You're willing to give the benefit of the doubt that he's the only one in the room that doesn't get excited about dead Democrats. Me? I've seen enough over these past four years to take this new breed of Republican at face value. I’m not giving him the benefit of the doubt. He shouldn’t have said it, and it was stupid to say. He does clarify exactly what he’s saying, so if you watch the clip and think he wants people to die, then there’s no hope for those people. There are people who have no hope,.
May 28, 20205 yr 10 minutes ago, vikas83 said: Trumpter will be launched in 2021, once he is out of of office and can focus on the business. It will be the hugest, most luxurious, most glorious social media platform ever created. Trumpter will file for bankruptcy in 2023. How long do you give Trump News? What about Trump Nascar Racing? President Trump Pharmacueticals?
May 28, 20205 yr Author Just now, dawkins4prez said: How long do you give Trump News? What about Trump Nascar Racing? President Trump Pharmacueticals? think about all the wacked out, completely unhinged thoughts that cheeto has had...the ones that even he deemed too crazy to tweet out. he'll be free to share those as well once he's out of office. i wouldn't be surprised if he continued to hold rallies once he's out of office...for as long as folks keep showing up. and the tweets will undoubtedly get even worse.
May 28, 20205 yr 1 hour ago, DrPhilly said: Let's see the actual final wording before we reach any conclusions. This could be a really horrible thing or it may actually be a very good thing. The devil will be in the details. You're really optimistic.
May 28, 20205 yr 40 minutes ago, vikas83 said: Here it is: https://kateklonick.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DRAFT-EO-Preventing-Online-Censorship.pdf Guess what -- all it does is threaten the companies IF they dare to edit content. The rules had given them immunity, saying they aren't responsible for the content posted on their sites by users. Further, if they edit content because it violates the TOS or is obscene or wrong, they still aren't deemed a publisher and can't be sued. Fat Donnie is mad though, so now he wants the FCC to review the rules and say they CAN be found liable as a publisher if they edit content. Oh, and he also demands every federal agency review their ad spending on these platforms because they hurt his feelings. Basically, the outcome of this would be -- none of these companies would police content at all and expose themselves to liability. Fake news would proliferate unchallenged. And...Russia wins. Yeah, this seems like good policy. Stop with the attempts at equivocation. This is a debacle in all ways -- both the means and the ends. is adding flair to a tweet indicating it failed a basic fact check "editing content"? Twitter never actually edited the content of the tweet as I understand it. they added flair flagging it as being misleading. there is zero wrong with that.
May 28, 20205 yr 24 minutes ago, vikas83 said: Trumpter will be launched in 2021, once he is out of of office and can focus on the business. It will be the hugest, most luxurious, most glorious social media platform ever created. Trumpter will file for bankruptcy in 2023. two years? you, also, are optimistic.
May 28, 20205 yr 9 minutes ago, mr_hunt said: think about all the wacked out, completely unhinged thoughts that cheeto has had...the ones that even he deemed too crazy to tweet out. he'll be free to share those as well once he's out of office. i wouldn't be surprised if he continued to hold rallies once he's out of office...for as long as folks keep showing up. and the tweets will undoubtedly get even worse. You mean...The Church of Trump?🤑
May 28, 20205 yr 1 hour ago, RPeeteRules said: I’m not giving him the benefit of the doubt. He shouldn’t have said it, and it was stupid to say. He does clarify exactly what he’s saying, so if you watch the clip and think he wants people to die, then there’s no hope for those people. There are people who have no hope,. Do I think he spends his nights in his basement pining on how to kill Democrats? No. But I do believe he meant what he said in the literal context in which he gave it, without his clarification. I believe most MAGA feel the country would be better off with people like me dead. That's not some foreign idea... just listen to them talk every day. That being said, there's clearly a wide gulf between feeling that way and being willing to actually make that reality happen. No, he wasn't calling for the death of Democrats. He was simply musing on the idea of a country without Democrats in the cruel way we've seen Trump Republicans respond to. And that's bad enough.
Create an account or sign in to comment