Trump Launches New Communications Platform months after Twitter, Facebook Ban

#276
#276
BowlBrother85 said:
I don't believe that Biden has dementia. I don't think Trump does either... but he does put protecting his ego above doing what is right. No president who has lost his re-election bid, has ever gone to the extremes that Trump has with sour grapes. I am old enough to remember the Republicans who called Al Gore a sore loser in 2000... that seems like a joke right now.
Click to expand...
Remember when Al Gore presided over the election certification (of which at the time was the most controversial election in a generation) that certified W as the winner and Gore as the loser? Good times.
 
#278
#278
BowlBrother85 said:
Trump thinks he is going to be "reinstated" as the President of the United States by the end of this summer. That's definitely not a well functioning mind either.
Click to expand...

Another anonymous source says Trump believes he will be reinstated. Never in the history of the US press has so many sources been anonymous yet given credibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#279
#279
BowlBrother85 said:
I'm not taking the time to post that laundry list on here again... that has been thoroughly covered in the past. It takes you six words to ask for it... but it takes a half an hour to post every which way that Trump did Putin's bidding.
Click to expand...

You’re not taking the time because you can’t list how .
 
#280
#280
hog88 said:
You’re not taking the time because you can’t list how .
Click to expand...

Oh, he can definitely list for the "hundredth time."

And I can definitely rebut for the hundredth time.

Suddenly, Democrats now in power and actually having to deal with a nuke-armed opponent, seem to have lost that Russiaaaah! zeal, with Biden's statement that Putin was not involved in the Colonial Pipeline hack.

As Maddow, Clinton, Schumer, or Pelosi might speculate: "what does Putin have on Biden, hmmm??"
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#284
#284
NCFisher said:
They can either function as platforms - the basis they alleged to operate under for Section 230 protections - or cease to have that protection and censor at will.


What ******* propaganda is that, exactly? I think if you answer that, we may find that it's not propaganda that offends you, but Trump, and that we won't find similar censorship of similar 'propaganda' nor that you've a distaste for ******* propaganda generally.
Click to expand...

Let’s try a section 230 primer.

TL;DR: there is no publisher/platform dichotomy in section 230. Section 230 protects all websites (and their users) from being liable for content that appears on the site but that the site did not produce. A website can still be liable for content it produces. A user can still be liable for content they produce. In that situation, they are a content provider. The operative question in determining liability is “who is responsible for the unlawful character of the content?”

A more thorough explanation:
First, the language of section 230, itself. Note the complete absence of the term “platform.” (Seriously, click the link and ctrl+f). It uses content provider and service provider, defined terms, that have absolutely nothing to do with content neutrality, unbiased moderation, algorithms, etc. etc.. You can click the links below to see their definitions, but having given a rough outline above, I’ve only quoted the statute’s operative language, here:

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker

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.
Click to expand...

Here is the fourth circuit’s 1997 opinion, which came out a year after the law was published and is still settled law and generally observed by all circuits:
Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F. 3d 327 - Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit 1997 - Google Scholar

Kenneth Zeran brought this action against America Online, Inc. ("AOL"), arguing that AOL unreasonably delayed in removing defamatory messages posted by an unidentified third party, refused to post retractions of those messages, and failed to screen for similar postings thereafter.

. . .

Section 230, however, plainly immunizes computer service providers like AOL from liability for information that originates with third parties.

. . .

The relevant portion of § 230 states: "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." 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).[2] By its plain language, § 230 creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service. Specifically, § 230 precludes courts from entertaining claims that would place a computer service provider in a publisher's role. Thus, lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher's traditional editorial functions — such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content — are barred.
Click to expand...

As you can see, the current legal framework does not create a platform/publisher dichotomy and does not allow for any liability for merely hosting content. This is because neither the plain language of the statute (see above) nor the legislative intent support such a reading.

Again, the relevant inquiry is to determine who imbued the content with its wrongfulness. Whether the service provider moderates, amplifies, or removes content (even if it does so with bias) is irrelevant.

Don’t take my word for it, here’s the second circuit, from 2019, in a case involving Facebook:

Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F. 3d 53 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2019 - Google Scholar

The plaintiff here is trying to construe Facebook as the Internet Content Provider (what you would call the publisher). Basically they’re trying a number of theories under which the court could find that Facebook was more than a mere host of third party content. The court says no to all of them (emphasis mine)
The term "development" in Section 230(f)(3) is undefined. However, consistent with broadly construing "publisher" under Section 230(c)(1), we have recognized that a defendant will not be considered to have developed third-party content unless the defendant directly and "materially" contributed to what made the content itself "unlawful." LeadClick, 838 F.3d at 174 (quoting Roommates.Com, 521 F.3d at 1168). This "material contribution" test, as the Ninth Circuit has described it, "draw the line at the `crucial distinction between, on the one hand, taking actions... to ... display ... actionable content and, on the other hand, responsibility for what makes the displayed content [itself] illegal or actionable.'" Kimzey v. Yelp! Inc., 836 F.3d 1263, 1269 n.4 (9th Cir. 2016)(quoting Jones, 755 F.3d at 413-14).
Click to expand...
I suggest that you identify any source telling you that only platforms have protections and stop listening to them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Velo Vol
#285
#285
hog88 said:
You’re not taking the time because you can’t list how .
Click to expand...
I have posted this in response to @hog88 two previous times. They were both in the "2020 Presidential Race" thread. He never replied to either one of those posts.

This is also for the benefit of @Grand Vol (who said I was talking out of my ass again, because I won't back up what I say), @VolStrom, @Orangeslice13, @Orangeburst (who asked for the top 3. I'm posting the top 10) and of course, @NCFisher.

Once again, here it is:

10 Times That Donald Trump Was Either Soft On Russia, or Did Putin's Bidding.

1) Trump and his aides softened the GOP platform on Russia's annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in the Ukraine. Ahead of the 2016 Republican National Convention, Trump campaign aides blocked language from the party platform that called for the US government to send lethal weapons to Ukraine for its war against Russian proxies. While the Trump administration ultimately did supply arms and anti-tank weapons to the Ukraine, this was a hollow gesture, because the Ukrainians can't use the Javelin missiles in the conflict against pro-Russian separatists based on the terms of the sale. A top staffer in the US embassy in Ukraine testified in November of 2019 that the Javelins aren't "actively employed in combat operations right now."

2) Trump repeatedly lobbied for Russia to be readmitted to the G 7, even after intelligence has continued to pile up concerning their cyber attacks against the DNC and American-based businesses.

3) Trump proposed a cyber unit with Russia. After the July 2017 meeting with G 20 leaders, Trump said he had spoken with Putin about "forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit" to combat "election hacking." Trump quickly backtracked after Congressional leaders from both parties said it would be ridiculous to work with Russia on cybersecurity because Russia was responsible for egregious hacks against American targets, including during the 2016 Presidential election.

4) Trump refused to impose new Russian sanctions despite a law passed almost unanimously by the US Congress over election hacking. In January of 2018, the Trump administration announced that it would not impose additional sanctions on Russia, despite the fact that Congress had passed a law allowing the President to do so. Those new sanctions would have required the US Treasury Department to penalize foreign governments and companies doing business with Russia's defense and intelligence sectors. Congress passed a bill in August of 2017, almost unanimously, that punished Russia for its alleged meddling in the 2016 Presidential election, and for their aggression in east Ukraine. Because the bill had passed with a veto-proof majority, Trump had no choice but to sign it into law, but he branded the bill "seriously flawed". Although the bill did allow for sanctions to be delayed or waived, any inaction would have to come with evidence presented to Congress that Russia was making progress in cutting back on cyber meddling. However, with further intrusions into the 2020 Presidential election, as well as the SolarWinds attack, it is apparent that no such progress was ever made while Donald Trump was the President of the United States... and no such evidence was ever presented to Congress as to why these additional sanctions shouldn't be imposed. As it turned out, they were never imposed while Trump was in office. This was in direct defiance of a bill which Trump himself had signed into law.

5) During the Helsinki Summit in July of 2018, President Trump memorably sided with Vladimir Putin's denial of Russian involvement in the hacking of the DNC, against the conclusion of his own appointed Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats. Trump later claimed that he had misspoken... but Trump has sided with Putin's denial since the Helsinki Summit, so that appears to have been another lie.

6) Trump eased sanctions on Russian oligarch and Putin confidant, Oleg Deripaska, along with the three companies linked to him. The US Treasury Department sanctioned Deripaska in 2016 over his support for Russian interference in the 2016 election. In a bi-partisan rebuke of the removal of these sanctions, 11 Senate Republicans supported a Democratic Party resolution calling for these sanctions to remain. However, Trump was undeterred, and still removed the sanctions, anyway.

7) Trump's withdrawal from Syria gave Vladimir Putin a key boost. Trump announced in October of 2019 that US troops were withdrawing from northern Syria. This abrupt move cleared the way for Turkey to conquer territories previously controlled by the US and allied Kurdish militias. It also gave Russia a golden opportunity to expand its influence and swiftly take over abandoned US outposts and checkpoints. This has been crucial for Putin's agenda in the region.

8) Trump consistently repeated Kremlin talking points on ISIS. After announcing the Syrian withdrawal, Trump repeated the Kremlin talking point that, "Russia hates ISIS as much as the United States does," and that they are equal partners in the fight. However, those comments don't reflect the reality on the ground. Since intervening in Syria in 2015, the Russian military has focused its airstrikes on anti-government rebels, not ISIS.

9) Trump ordered US troops out of Germany. The plan to remove about one-third of the force drew serious concerns from the Pentagon because it would compromise European-based defenses against Russia. In a letter to Trump, nearly two dozen Republican lawmakers said his decision would "strengthen the position of Russia to our detriment." In retrospect, that seems to have been Donald Trump's main foreign policy objective as President of the United States, however.

10) Finally, this past December, Trump tweeted that the SolarWinds cyber attack was being overblown by the media. He also said that China was more likely to have been responsible for it. Around this same time, Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, said in an interview that Russia was "pretty clearly" behind the attack which hit the State Department, among many other agencies and businesses. Attorney General, William Barr, sided with Pompeo while saying that the SolarWinds hack "certainly appears to be the Russians." Per the Associated Press, White House officials had prepared a statement calling Russia "the main actor" in the SolarWinds attack, but Trump ordered them not to release it.
 
Last edited:
#287
#287
Velo Vol said:
I've tried to point out here what 230 actually says, and you might as well be Copernicus arguing that the earth goes round the sun to these believers.
Click to expand...
That @NCFisher guy is thicker than the new deep dish pizza from Marco's. You can tell when he knows he's whipped in an argument... he will just post some unabridged dissertation as a reply, to either bore you to death, or keep you from furthering the debate, because not many people will take the time to read through it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#289
#289
hog88 said:
Your list is comprehensive, thorough, detail-oriented and rooted in established facts, which withstands scrutiny through an ease of online verification from reputable sources, that well-document their conclusions.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I couldn't agree more.
 
#290
#290
Maybe it’s the 85 in the name that makes then incapable of reading and understanding what was written
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#292
#292
NCFisher said:
@tvolsfan


Here's a sampling:

"You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you," she said to cheers on the Los Angeles stop of her "Evening with the Clintons" tour with her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
"There is no effort to try to have an organized national response to that," Clinton said. "Social media is still an incredible channel to communicate information that is untrue and defamatory about someone else."
Clinton said Americans need to "make sure that the election is not interfered with in that 'sweeping and systemic' way that Mueller found it was in the prior election" and how to "protect our candidates from that."
"Because Trump took up so much of the oxygen if I said one thing about Trump in a speech and then 30 minutes of something about jobs, the one thing I said would be what would be covered," Clinton said of the dynamic in 2016. Hillary Clinton warns 2020 Democratic candidates of 'stolen' election

Hillary Clinton is still bitter about her presidential election loss in 2016.
“I was the candidate that they basically stole an election from,” Clinton said Monday on the New York Times podcast “Sway.”
“I was the candidate who won nearly three million more votes. So no matter how they cut it, it wasn’t the kind of win that people said, ‘OK, it wasn’t my candidate, but OK.’ This election is still front and center in people’s psyches. And people fight about it every day online, because there is a deep sense of unfairness and just dismissiveness toward his victory, and he knows it,” Clinton said.
Clinton blamed her loss in certain key states on former FBI Director James Comey’s letter Congress announcing the existence of emails under investigation. “I absolutely thought I was going to win. So did everybody else. I mean, I know people look back now and say, well, it wasn’t — we were going to win. We were absolutely going to win.”
Four Years Later, Bitter Hillary Clinton Claims 2016 Election Was 'Stolen' From Her

“No, it doesn’t kill me because he knows he’s an illegitimate president,” she said. “I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories – he knows that – there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did.”
In June, former president Jimmy Carter used similar language to diminish Trump’s presidency. Carter said that in his view Trump lost the 2016 election and was put in office by the Russians. Asked if he considered Trump to be illegitimate, Carter said, “Based on what I just said, which I can’t retract.”
Clinton compared her election loss to “applying for a job and getting 66 million letters of recommendation and losing to a corrupt human tornado. And so I know that he knows that this wasn’t on the level. I don’t know that we’ll ever know what happened.”
Hillary Clinton: Trump is an ‘illegitimate president’

In May 2017, then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi tweeted, "Our election was hijacked. There is no question." Democrats aren't innocent bystanders and outright called Trump an illegitimate president in Aug 27 '20.

As did John Lewis: John Lewis captures spotlight after calling Trump illegitimate

As did Joe Biden, agreeing with a babbling woman about 'Russiaaaah!' that Trump is illegitimate: Biden 'absolutely' agrees with woman who blasts Trump presidency by calling it 'illegitimate'

One-third of congressional Dems boycotted the inauguration because 'Trump is illegitimate'.

Jan 6, 2017 - Dems called on VP Biden to not certify electors:


In a Nov. 11-14 2016 YouGov poll, 42% of Dem voters believed the election was rigged and 40% considered him illegitimate. https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...m3vw92us/tabs_HP_Rigged_Election_20161114.pdf
In March 2018, YouGov found 2/3rds (66%) of Democrats say Russia definitely or probably changed vote tallies to elect Trump. Russia's impact on the election seen through partisan eyes | YouGov
No discernible change in 2019; 64% of Dems think Russia changed vote tallies. https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/oo6kz6sf4b/econTabReport.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you not know these things, even as you imply others are silly morons?

Now, ban these "****** propagandist" Democrats or not?
Click to expand...

Again, agreeing with our intelligence services that Russia attempted to influence the election is absolutely not the same as saying the election was rigged, and neither is bitching about the electoral college. And I'm pretty sure Biden went ahead and certified those electors. None of that is remotely the equivalent of literally alleging election fraud by your opponent and the US government.

And I'm not sure what you thought you were gaining by posting those poll numbers, as that doesn't relate to the discussion we were having about using social media to spew propaganda. That said if we are trying to deflect onto silly beliefs by party voters at large, we can certainly go that route.
 
#293
#293
BowlBrother85 said:
LOL. That's a very meaningless swipe. If you can refute anything than do it... petty insults are for 5 year olds.
Click to expand...
Like the one you threw at me we’re not allowed to discuss?
It is a perfect example of what he said and what you heard in back to back posts.
 
#295
#295
BowlBrother85 said:
Yeah... I shouldn't have said the kiddie porn thing. That was stupid, juvenile and obnoxious. Sorry.
Click to expand...

I actually laughed at it at the time.
I didn’t think you meant anything by it really.
And it’s no big deal except I like to poke you about it every now and then. It would not prevent us from having lunch and talking Vols football and having fun doing it.
I even asked if you were ok before it all got nuked but it does go to the point...sort of....
would VN be liable for any results of that conversation if they didn’t take corrective action?( remove or edit those posts)
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
#296
#296
BB85. Let’s extend that to the ridiculous. Person A calls person B a name or says something about B. B is fragile and can’t take the insults so he/she tracks down and shoots A. Does the message board have any responsibility there?
 
#297
#297
Orangeslice13 said:
BB85. Let’s extend that to the ridiculous. Person A calls person B a name or says something about B. B is fragile and can’t take the insults so he/she tracks down and shoots A. Does the message board have any responsibility there?
Click to expand...
See post #284
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top