Trump Launches New Communications Platform months after Twitter, Facebook Ban

[SpaceCoastVol]

We wouldn’t be having this conversation if Trump was just whimpering on TV or complaining in another book he paid someone to write for him.

LOL

 

[utvolpj]

It's pretty clear Twitter considered Trump's use of the platform to be actively dangerous, and said as much. You're not actually comparing that to LeBron's "you're next" tweet, are you?

Again, if you're argument is those guys should be removed, I'm not arguing against that. I'm simply laughing at the idea that Trump is getting some unfair treatment. He isn't. He very much got what he deserved.

Lebron threatened and called for violence. That's abundantly clear. Maxine did the same. Heck even Obama said to get in people's faces which would be comparable to what Trump said.

You are arguing that twitter bans users based on tos violations when it's very clear they do not. They pick and choose based on politics.

 

[utvolpj]

@utvolpj @Weezer. You guys are just mindless Trump supporters
Lol

Maga bitches

 

[Weezer]

You are correct, but this is not the feigned persecution Republicans are pretending it is for their own political fear mongering.

What is it then? Why was Trump removed for behavior others have engaged in? The obvious difference seems to be politics. So if it isn't politics, why hasn't Twitter banned other voices who have said similar things?

I understand why people see it as Twitter targeting Trump, and by default, the GOP.

But I really don't care. I don't Twitter, I don't plan to Twitter, and I hated that Trump was always Twittering.

 

[tvolsfan]

What is it then? Why was Trump removed for behavior others have engaged in? The obvious difference seems to be politics. So if it isn't politics, why hasn't Twitter banned other voices who have said similar things?

I understand why people see it as Twitter targeting Trump, and by default, the GOP.

But I really don't care. I don't Twitter, I don't plan to Twitter, and I hated that Trump was always Twittering.

They explained it.

And if it was politics, they would be silencing a lot more accounts. It's not politics. It's him.

 

[Grand Vol]

I legit didn’t know if there was a different situation. The Colorado guy won. He’s being sued again by someone else but it’s on the same facts that the state of Colorado already bailed on so I don’t think it’s going anywhere.

Was an awesome way to end a game.

One thing to remember about the Colorado situation was the Colorado Attorney General kept at it from multiple angles. Each and every time they lost, they'd go back and try it a different way until they didn't have any more options.

I have this feeling they were trying to financially ruin him by keeping him in court so much.

 

[hog88]

They explained it.

And if it was politics, they would be silencing a lot more accounts. It's not politics. It's him.

The fact they are not "silencing a lot more accounts" points towards it being nothing but politics.

 

[Weezer]

They explained it.

And if it was politics, they would be silencing a lot more accounts. It's not politics. It's him.

Their explanation has a lot of holes. Mainly, why do other tweets that appear to inspire violence not lead to permanent suspensions? More directly, why do tweets that seem to incite violence from figures whose politics are more on the liberal end of the spectrum not face suspension? Words and actions by Twitter do not completely jibe.

 

[Grand Vol]

They're removing dissenting opinions. It seems that is a big goal of theirs

The very fascism the left claims to abhor.

 

[Grand Vol]

What is it then? Why was Trump removed for behavior others have engaged in? The obvious difference seems to be politics. So if it isn't politics, why hasn't Twitter banned other voices who have said similar things?

I understand why people see it as Twitter targeting Trump, and by default, the GOP.

But I really don't care. I don't Twitter, I don't plan to Twitter, and I hated that Trump was always Twittering.

Kinda like the leader of Iran calling for the destruction of Isreal? I remember when Twitter banned him for that.

Oh, wait...

 

[utvolpj]

The very fascism the left claims to abhor.

And it's the right of a private company which the right loves to claim for bakers

I'm not arguing their right, just that the claims they care about the tos are absurd

 

[Grand Vol]

And it's the right of a private company which the right loves to claim for bakers

I'm not arguing their right, just that the claims they care about the tos are absurd

No, I agree it's their "right" to do so. But I continue to fall back on the antitrust laws in regards to Goggle, Facebook and Twitter. Especially in the aftermath when they started deplatforming conservative sites.

Regardless, the banning of one side of political speech is the very definition of fascist behavior. And the left applauds the practice.

 

[RockyTop85]

One thing to remember about the Colorado situation was the Colorado Attorney General kept at it from multiple angles. Each and every time they lost, they'd go back and try it a different way until they didn't have any more options.

I have this feeling they were trying to financially ruin him by keeping him in court so much.

I can’t find any evidence of that.

The first case was originally decided at an administrative proceeding set up by the CO law, which is generally less expensive than a full lawsuit. Masterpiece/Phillips lost and appealed to the Colorado court of appeals. He lost again. I assume Colorado Supreme Court declined to hear it. He appealed to SCOTUS and won.

He was sued again over a second situation. The state took over the claim and then eventually dropped it, but there’s no appellate record for that case so it’s not like they got slapped down and went back after him. He’s being sued again by the second individual whose case was nonsuited by the AG.

The reason he was left open to the second suit was that the Supreme Court only invalidated Colorado’s law as not being neutral towards religion. May have even been as-applied to him? That’s a pretty standard practice for the court to go for the narrowest issue that decides the case, but IMO they should have decided that the state can’t compel his artistic expression and told the state to **** off using its law like that and it would have prevented the second situation.

He is also suing the state for a permanent injunction. He should win that, IMO. Again, the state shouldn’t be allowed to compel his artistic expression.

 

[Grand Vol]

I can’t find any evidence of that.

The first case was originally decided at an administrative proceeding set up by the CO law, which is generally less expensive than a full lawsuit. Masterpiece/Phillips lost and appealed to the Colorado court of appeals. He lost again. I assume Colorado Supreme Court declined to hear it. He appealed to SCOTUS and won.

He was sued again over a second situation. The state took over the claim and then eventually dropped it, but there’s no appellate record for that case so it’s not like they got slapped down and went back after him. He’s being sued again by the second individual whose case was nonsuited by the AG.

The reason he was left open to the second suit was that the Supreme Court only invalidated Colorado’s law as not being neutral towards religion. May have even been as-applied to him? That’s a pretty standard practice for the court to go for the narrowest issue that decides the case, but IMO they should have decided that the state can’t compel his artistic expression and told the state to **** off using its law like that and it would have prevented the second situation.

He is also suing the state for a permanent injunction. He should win that, IMO. Again, the state shouldn’t be allowed to compel his artistic expression.

Maybe I'm confusing a couple of things, but I thought they were going after him again.

 

[n_huffhines]

No, I agree it's their "right" to do so. But I continue to fall back on the antitrust laws in regards to Goggle, Facebook and Twitter. Especially in the aftermath when they started deplatforming conservative sites.

Regardless, the banning of one side of political speech is the very definition of fascist behavior. And the left applauds the practice.

They don't just ban one side. They just unfairly apply their rules. I posted earlier in the thread list of suspensions and there were plenty that weren't conservative.

We shouldn't expect them to be perfectly fair and we shouldn't be surprised when somebody like Trump gets banned. He has no one to blame but himself. Act like a diplomat, not a faceless troll, and there wouldn't be any problems. Is it too much to ask of a president? I don't think so.

If Trump were going down for being a cop killer, I swear some of you would be saying "But the left kills cops!"

 

[PEPPERJAX]

Maga bitches

Reported!!!!

 

[lawgator1]

As a threshold matter, these are private companies. The frequent allusion to the First Amendment or to its principles as applying to social media is simply incorrect.

FB and Twitter could ban him simply because they don't like his hairstyle. He can launch his own platform and get people to buy stuff off of it. I mean, these products all did so well:

 

[utvolpj]

As a threshold matter, these are private companies. The frequent allusion to the First Amendment or to its principles as applying to social media is simply incorrect.

FB and Twitter could ban him simply because they don't like his hairstyle. He can launch his own platform and get people to buy stuff off of it.

Who here is making a first amendment argument? What is being debated is whether twitter actually believes the bs reasons they used to ban him given the myriad examples to the contrary.

 

[Grand Vol]

They don't just ban one side. They just unfairly apply their rules. I posted earlier in the thread list of suspensions and there were plenty that weren't conservative.

We shouldn't expect them to be perfectly fair and we shouldn't be surprised when somebody like Trump gets banned. He has no one to blame but himself. Act like a diplomat, not a faceless troll, and there wouldn't be any problems. Is it too much to ask of a president? I don't think so.

If Trump were going down for being a cop killer, I swear some of you would be saying "But the left kills cops!"

And the rationale they used for "banning" him was total and complete horseshit. You and I know this. Furthermore, in the aftermath they asking with Goggle, Apple and Facebook started going after conservatives hardcore. Or their platforms. For what reason did Goggle have for removing a firearms related site from their servers? What reason did Apple and Goggle have for banning the Parler site from the play stores? Why did Facebook jump on the bandwagon and ban Trump and furthermore, what reason do they have for keeping it in place?

The quicker you start figuring out social media is the new MiniTrue, the better off you are, Huff.

 

[n_huffhines]

And the rationale they used for "banning" him was total and complete horseshit. You and I know this. Furthermore, in the aftermath they asking with Goggle, Apple and Facebook started going after conservatives hardcore. Or their platforms. For what reason did Goggle have for removing a firearms related site from their servers? What reason did Apple and Goggle have for banning the Parler site from the play stores? Why did Facebook jump on the bandwagon and ban Trump and furthermore, what reason do they have for keeping it in place?

The quicker you start figuring out social media is the new MiniTrue, the better off you are, Huff.

It's so unfair!!!!

But still, the point is Trump deserved to be banned. I would have banned him over threatening North Korea.

 

[Grand Vol]

It's so unfair!!!!

But still, the point is Trump deserved to be banned. I would have banned him over threatening North Korea.

They settled down, didn't they?

You can't pick and choose the people you agree with being banned. Either the standards are upheld across the board or they just admit it's because of political affiliation.

 

[LouderVol]

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.

Hilary literally wrote a book on it.

 

[hog88]

They settled down, didn't they?

You can't pick and choose the people you agree with being banned. Either the standards are upheld across the board or they just admit it's because of political affiliation.

I'm not on twitter but with all of his tweets reposted here I don't remember any that advocated violence. Maybe they're out there I just don't recall any.

 

[n_huffhines]

They settled down, didn't they?

You can't pick and choose the people you agree with being banned. Either the standards are upheld across the board or they just admit it's because of political affiliation.

Why do you expect them to behave any better than anybody else in America? You guys aren't fair to the left. The left isn't fair to you. This is America.

 

[Velo Vol]

Who here is making a first amendment argument? What is being debated is whether twitter actually believes the bs reasons they used to ban him given the myriad examples to the contrary.

Well, he was president, and Lebron isn't. Seems like that makes a difference?