The Stuff removed / changed / pulled relating to Trump

bluegate

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,569
207
68
After the months of inflammatory rhetoric beforehand and the end result being a violent storming of the Capitol building, that would be incorrect
Not just the rhetoric in the months leading up, on the very day Trump and buddies were talking about a trial by combat, having to show strength lest you lose your country.

Only a disengenious person would claim that Trump and buddies called for a peaceful march.


And we feel it's unfair that someone was 'silenced' because he couldn't follow guidelines after [years and years of the company bending to appease him?
Although pretending to be the party of personal responsibility, a lot of Republicans lack this very ability and will blame everything but themselves for their mistakes.

It would be really bad if companies gave in to these new temper tantrums. Break the rules of a platform, you get penalized, no crying about it.
But that's what you get when people go unopposed and have their way all their lives.
 

Dreiko

Elite Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
1,628
454
88
CT
Country
usa
Gender
male, pronouns: your majesty/my lord/daddy
The alternative to the Plutocrats having this power is giving it to the government... which has the potential to be way worse. Imagine Trump or Biden being allowed to determine what is bannable. I'd prefer breaking up some of these monopolies
That's quite a right-wing, pro small government talking point I see here. Are my eyes playing tricks on me? Because I'll have to tell you, all those good social programs and public healthcare and so on, the government is supposed to do those TOO.

Are we now all for the private sector? Does this mean we have to support privatization of healthcare and policing and parks and so on? Or is it JUST with free speech that corporations should hold power over the government? And why is that?


I'm not calling you inconsistent. I'm calling the Republican Party inconsistent. That's why I posted things from the party.

The party has done nothing more but post unprovable accusation to unprovable accusation to unprovable accusation. What BLM really stands for, Vote stolen, Mob is really Antifa, etc.

But how DO you install actual systems for determining things? It was censorship to allow posts but say this is unproven. People look for Twitter for news. And people don't have any legal reason to be honest. But they have every reason to say thing for views and clicks. Monetary gains.

What system could possibly be put into place that keeps the Company from enforcing the rules it sets about, keeps truth on the platform all the while letting people say whatever they want?
You just put a law in that allows people to sue for wrongful cancellation and puts the burden of proof to the canceller to make their case and have the regular court system process it. It's really not that hard lol.

Remember, corporation, profit is their only incentive, by law. If they see that being anti-free speech is costing them dozens of millions of dollars a month, they'll start being pro free speech.



Why should they be forced to host him? These are private platforms that make themselves open to the pubic, do they suddenly lose the right to decide what can be hosted on their own platform?
Same reason why the telephone company shouldn't be able to switch off your number if you called prank calls to the neighborhood pizzaria. In the modern world having access to these new technologies is more relevant than having a phone line, the laws just haven't caught up with it yet and lots of boomers don't know how to use them properly so there's not been much legislative action in recognizing this.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,754
1,157
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
That's quite a right-wing, pro small government talking point I see here. Are my eyes playing tricks on me? Because I'll have to tell you, all those good social programs and public healthcare and so on, the government is supposed to do those TOO.


Are we now all for the private sector? Does this mean we have to support privatization of healthcare and policing and parks and so on? Or is it JUST with free speech that corporations should hold power over the government? And why is that?
Maybe you've misunderstood my personal ideology. Maybe I'm more nuance than you think I am. Eg. My country has both private and public health, a mixture. I don't want to change it much it works reasonably

Also, talking about general concept, something like communism isnt anti-government. Libertarian was all lefties until someone in the 1930s coopted it. Most lefties are very much into small government as in the government having small power to influence people and the expansions must be on the grounds that it helps the workers.

As to Free Speech, its all to do with the First Admendment. There are things like Free Speech and Freedom of the Press that government shouldn't touch otherwise you're turned yourself into China

Edit: Just an addon with education. I personally think the best system is a mixture. I find it really stupid that the US pretty much banned private schools until Charter schools were a thing and Charter schools generally arent much better.
 
Last edited:

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
11,934
1,212
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Same reason why the telephone company shouldn't be able to switch off your number if you called prank calls to the neighborhood pizzaria. In the modern world having access to these new technologies is more relevant than having a phone line, the laws just haven't caught up with it yet and lots of boomers don't know how to use them properly so there's not been much legislative action in recognizing this.
There is a difference. You have to have phone access so you can contact emergency services in the event of an emergency. Phone lines are still the first thing restored in a disaster because of old laws regulating them. If a social network was forced to host content they didn't agree with then that infringes upon their freedom of speech.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,129
322
88
There is a difference. You have to have phone access so you can contact emergency services in the event of an emergency. Phone lines are still the first thing restored in a disaster because of old laws regulating them. If a social network was forced to host content they didn't agree with then that infringes upon their freedom of speech.
I still find it weird corporations are treated as humans with their own corporate right to free speech. Like some big corporate face mask anyone can wear and whatever is said is protected as long as it's legal.

If some company wanted to go fully partisan they could go "Vote Democrat and stop [insert next republican candidate] being able to finish Hitlers work" and it would be protected. A user on said network though saying "Yeh no vote [insert next republican candidate] he's a patriot not a traitor like [insert next Democrat candidate]" could be booted without repercussion
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
11,934
1,212
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
I still find it weird corporations are treated as humans with their own corporate right to free speech. Like some big corporate face mask anyone can wear and whatever is said is protected as long as it's legal.

If some company wanted to go fully partisan they could go "Vote Democrat and stop [insert next republican candidate] being able to finish Hitlers work" and it would be protected. A user on said network though saying "Yeh no vote [insert next republican candidate] he's a patriot not a traitor like [insert next Democrat candidate]" could be booted without repercussion
I mean, yeah, why should they not be able to go partisan if they want? We no longer have the fairness doctrine.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
11,934
1,212
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Just weird to me the companies have more protection then the users on them really
I mean, of course they do, its the companies platform. Why would users have more protection then the company that is hosting them?
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,129
322
88
I mean, of course they do, its the companies platform. Why would users have more protection then the company that is hosting them?
Some level of fairness to make sure the freedoms the companies enjoy were also enjoyed by the user to a greater or lesser extent?
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
11,934
1,212
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Some level of fairness to make sure the freedoms the companies enjoy were also enjoyed by the user to a greater or lesser extent?
I really don't understand the point you are trying to make here. Why would users have any more freedom then the platform and what do you mean by that? Cause in many ways users do have more freedom, because of section 230 users don't have to worry about being sued for posting things since the amount someone could seek is so low, but if a company publishes lies then they are more likely to be brought to court.
 

Dreiko

Elite Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
1,628
454
88
CT
Country
usa
Gender
male, pronouns: your majesty/my lord/daddy
Maybe you've misunderstood my personal ideology. Maybe I'm more nuance than you think I am. Eg. My country has both private and public health, a mixture. I don't want to change it much it works reasonably

Also, talking about general concept, something like communism isnt anti-government. Libertarian was all lefties until someone in the 1930s coopted it. Most lefties are very much into small government as in the government having small power to influence people and the expansions must be on the grounds that it helps the workers.

As to Free Speech, its all to do with the First Admendment. There are things like Free Speech and Freedom of the Press that government shouldn't touch otherwise you're turned yourself into China

Edit: Just an addon with education. I personally think the best system is a mixture. I find it really stupid that the US pretty much banned private schools until Charter schools were a thing and Charter schools generally arent much better.
Communism is about replacing god with the state, I'm for just socialism though, which is using the government to make society more prosperous for the most people at the expense of the excess of the uber-wealthy/powerful which they won't even miss anyways.

A mixed system will drain resources from the public system and make it decrepit, and give us a two tier society.

You don't need to be a libertarian to be a liberal. And in modern day, being a liberal has to do with being given the resources to be free by a society that can spare them. Things like being sick or poor prevent you from being free since to do anything it costs money due to more and more things being monetized that didn't used to be back when these philosophies were being thought up, and as a liberal I support all of the systems that can enhance that. At the same time, those that limit freedoms, such as censoriousness and cancelling, go against this philosophy, so I am against those.

In my eyes, it is more right wing to be for a mixed system, so in that context, I am tired of being seen as though I'm defending the right by people who are closer to the right than I am but who have social policy opinions that grant them the mantle of progressiveness, this is what the neoliberals do and now the intersectional lunatics are adopting it and I'm sick of it. (this is not aimed at you personally and is more a general comment on the general discourse around these issues)



There is a difference. You have to have phone access so you can contact emergency services in the event of an emergency. Phone lines are still the first thing restored in a disaster because of old laws regulating them. If a social network was forced to host content they didn't agree with then that infringes upon their freedom of speech.
Your right to safety is not more important than other rights you are also entitled to. Totally arbitrary distinction here.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Bartholen

At age 6 I was born without a face
Legacy
Jul 1, 2020
90
115
38
Country
Finland
Not a "Republicunt" here but I'm very much aware of how this kind of thing could be abused and there are examples of it being abused to hide and cover abuse. All restricting peoples speech does is drive it more underground onto services with more encryption like Signal or special access only forums. It makes it harder to monitor. Harder to track, harder to predict and harder to therefore prevent incidents happening.
It also vastly reduces the information's reach and availability, and therefore reduces the amount of people who end up being radicalized by it. You think ISIS would've gotten to where they were without being allowed on massive platforms like Facebook and Youtube? As we've seen, the people who end up doing things like raiding the Capitol building aren't exactly mega-1337 über hax0r types, so I'm pretty sure 99% wouldn't bother with encryption services and such. And even then, do you think the NSA and their ilk don't have ways of monitoring those as well, at least to some extent?

Did you ever see the bit in Interstellar where the teacher claims the girl brought in books that were pushing conspiracy theories?


Beware where you start a fire because it may soon get somewhat out of control and burn things you thought were safe.

Personal responsibility should be speech against speech unless it absolutely cross the lines of the law then it's for the law to decide.

You say fuck peoples feelings. What happens when you feelings of what is right and wrong start to be fucked by people with no real accountability to anyone but governments, or worse when those unaccountable people become the governments because it's deemed democracy can't be trusted lest it give the world another Trump?

How very fitting that you need to go to fictional stories to look for examples to bolster your argument when there's a clear, real-life throughline you can follow with allowing bullshit and conspiracy theories to be spread willy-nilly on the internet leading to concrete harm.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,129
322
88
It also vastly reduces the information's reach and availability, and therefore reduces the amount of people who end up being radicalized by it. You think ISIS would've gotten to where they were without being allowed on massive platforms like Facebook and Youtube? As we've seen, the people who end up doing things like raiding the Capitol building aren't exactly mega-1337 über hax0r types, so I'm pretty sure 99% wouldn't bother with encryption services and such. And even then, do you think the NSA and their ilk don't have ways of monitoring those as well, at least to some extent?
Depends of the data being hidden. I mean at one point MK Ultra was considered a conspiracy theory.

As for reducing spread? No this stuff spread before the social web. Hell South Park exists thanks to being sent round in emails as a silly student project.

Hell you don't need to be a mega haxor type these days to install a TOR browser or similar.

The NSA will have ways to monitor some of them but even those they can monitor it's likely far harder to monitor effectively.


How very fitting that you need to go to fictional stories to look for examples to bolster your argument when there's a clear, real-life throughline you can follow with allowing bullshit and conspiracy theories to be spread willy-nilly on the internet leading to concrete harm.
Well I figured they'd be more culturally relevant but seeing as you want real world ones.

How about the USS Maddox


How about Operation Mockingbird?


Both considered conspiracy theories in their day.

How about some biowarfare experiments that have gone on in the past. They were considered conspiracy theories too in the past

 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,309
3,409
118
Just weird to me the companies have more protection then the users on them really
When you have the money to hire hundreds of lawyers and lobby politicians lavishly, you too will have the same protection as a corporation.

Theoretically we are all equal before the law. But in practice we're only as equal as the lawyers we are able to pay for.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,129
322
88
D'you have a citation for this? I don't think this is true.


 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,833
1,519
118
Country
United Kingdom


In all of these cases, the press briefing was covered. In the first case, they stopped when it had veered wildly off-topic (which seems reasonable), and in the latter two cases they merely chose to broadcast non-live, because of Trump's and McEnany's tendency to lie.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,309
3,409
118
Coronavirus briefings
Can I ask, did you ever listen through an entire Trump coronavirus briefing, or read a whole transcript? I did, back middle of 2020. Several.

They were awful. Truly, truly awful. there are bit where he's reading out important facts and figures off a sheet in front of him, and he could not look more bored or sound more mechanical. He occasionally hands over to some expert, who's usually learnt their brief and does rather more accomplished job. So they're the useful bits. And then there are huge stretches of Trump indulging his worst inclinations. Trump used these briefings to meet his need for attention and approval (i.e. high ratings). Where Trump feels happiest is ad lib grandstanding, boasting, and attacking people he doesn't like, and he's a bullshitter beyond compare who just says what he likes without caring whether it's true or not.

The media were right to switch away. Why should they indulge a fool rambling uselessly, incoherently, pouring out bile and untruths? What public service is that, when people are dying and the public want to know what's going on?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,129
322
88
Can I ask, did you ever listen through an entire Trump coronavirus briefing, or read a whole transcript? I did, back middle of 2020. Several.

They were awful. Truly, truly awful. there are bit where he's reading out important facts and figures off a sheet in front of him, and he could not look more bored or sound more mechanical. He occasionally hands over to some expert, who's usually learnt their brief and does rather more accomplished job. So they're the useful bits. And then there are huge stretches of Trump indulging his worst inclinations. Trump used these briefings to meet his need for attention and approval (i.e. high ratings). Where Trump feels happiest is ad lib grandstanding, boasting, and attacking people he doesn't like, and he's a bullshitter beyond compare who just says what he likes without caring whether it's true or not.

The media were right to switch away. Why should they indulge a fool rambling uselessly, incoherently, pouring out bile and untruths? What public service is that, when people are dying and the public want to know what's going on?
I didn't say it was a public service I said they refused to cover it.