Trump Launches New Communications Platform months after Twitter, Facebook Ban

#451
#451
BowlBrother85 said:
Such as how to change the subject, do spin control and deflect? @NCFisher did not refute ANYTHING from that list of points. He could post a response as simple as "No, he didn't... Obama did!" - but he would still act as though he had performed a complete de-bunking... and the Trump peanut gallery would play along.

There is no way to defend Trump's fealty and deference towards Putin... and it lasted through the very last day of his presidency, with Trump's cowardly and gutless defense of, and non-response to, the Russian SolarWinds hack.
Click to expand...

Maybe if you posted something other than an opinion article, he would reply.

But don't act like Obama didn't kowtow to Putin as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#453
#453
Not all of the sanctions were imposed.., and there wasn't a reason for the lengthy delay for the ones that were.
 
#455
#455
RockyTop85 said:
Here’s the legislative record.
https://www.congress.gov/104/crec/1995/08/04/CREC-1995-08-04-pt1-PgH8460.pdf

Discussion of the Wyden-Cox amendment starts around the middle of the center column in page 10.

Sorry for reading “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.” To express the viewpoint that the current law did not allow them to censor at will and still remain protected.

I do think you’re completely wrong to say that the way “everyone” uses “platform” and “publisher” is consistent with the what the authors said in that article or with the dichotomy that’s actually created by the law, the courts, and the legislative record.

Reality is that those sources all say that unless you create or meaningfully and directly contribute to the illegal portion of the content, then you’re protected.

On the other hand, many of the reality deniers insist that a company was intended to become a publisher of all content on its site by moderating any content in a way that the reality deniers don’t approve of.

This is where these less informed people tend to bring up (c)(2) and it’s good faith requirement. But the courts have all held that (c)(2) has no effect on the immunity granted by (c)(1). It doesn’t contribute to the dichotomy at all. It simply indemnified service providers from civil liability they might incur from the act of censoring a content provider.

Here’s what the 7th circuit, the only circuit whose opinion re: (c)(1) might be read to allow for the outcome preferred by reality deniers, says about (c)(2):

Doe v. GTE Corp., 347 F. 3d 655 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2003 - Google Scholar



Again, they read it to encourage a robust pattern of censorship and to allow the market, rather than the government, to decide what is objectionable content. Which is exactly what the congressional record indicates it was intended to do. And that is exactly what happened.

That said, as long as it’s evident that you’re saying “this is what I think it should be” and not “this is what it is” I don’t have a huge problem with it. But that’s clearly not all that much of what happens here.
Click to expand...

No disagreement; S.230 makes no provision for fairness/equity and platforms may censor content as they wish, aside from legal obligation to prohibit types of illegal content. I refer solely to what I think should be the state of things.

I think there are two other principles at play. One, I don't think these businesses should be allowed denial of service exemptions not afforded other businesses; it's certainly not equitable legal treatment of property, association, or religion/creed rights when a party is exempted because "gosh, they're so big and XX part of the economy." Yes, and they got that large due to:

Principle two: Aside from 230's legal, philosophical intent, the public's intent and arguments for three decades have been to preserve the internet as a public square serving as a classically liberal platform for expression. They have prospered to near or at monopoly status under the public faith protections expressed legally as 230. Then, when our data was sufficiently monetized and they were not only profitable but unprecedentedly so, they forgot us and began imposing ideological orthodoxy.

If I wish censoring of an HCQ or Ivermectin debate or vax skepticism, I can ignore it but I cannot unignore censored content. With the questions of the Biden business dealings, a contractor would be considered compromised and likely unable to get clearance, but a Praetorian guard coalition of media decides it should be blacked out? It has been entirely plausible - LIKELY - from day one that the virus was a lab leak, and a certainly the CCP was silencing doctors and researchers and for weeks hid the outbreak; this too, was blacked out under the rubric of 'conspiracy, xenophobia/racism, and disinformation'. Wrapped in this single example are a number of concerns, from national health & security, public safety, influence and corruption, and an informed populace.

They forgot their pledges - or pretense - to the public square model and became quasi-governmental, Kafkaesque censors. Just selling out to totalitarian governments globally for market access is not enough; now they import the technautocrat conditioning. Zuckerberg has even encouraged Congress to make them more culpable, which plays to leftist political aspirations and to incumbent giants to continue dominating market share. Nor do I wish to see Republicans (ironically) imposing a fairness doctrine and someone, I guess, ensuring 50/50 ratios of content.

An Orwellian Newspeak society is not what I or most people signed onto as proponents of a free internet from the early '90s onward. Unless they revert to a model in which users have control of the content they wish to consume, I'm hard-pressed to care what happens to them legislatively.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RikidyBones
#459
#459
hog88 said:
Yeah they were implemented.
Click to expand...
Not all.... but even for the sanctions which were finally imposed, it shouldn't have taken as long as it did. You don't want to believe that Trump has been defensive when it comes to Putin and Russia, but even some Republicans in Congress acknowledge that he has been. He hates when Russian misconduct is making news. The SolarWinds hack is a prime example of this. Trump refused to even be briefed on the matter. He just impulsively and in a very defensive tone, announced that it was China, even though both Pompeo and Barr had said otherwise. Trump takes it personally whenever Russia is being accused of wrongdoing. Why? It makes no sense.
 
#465
#465
NCFisher said:
No disagreement; S.230 makes no provision for fairness/equity and platforms may censor content as they wish, aside from legal obligation to prohibit types of illegal content. I refer solely to what I think should be the state of things.

I think there are two other principles at play. One, I don't think these businesses should be allowed denial of service exemptions not afforded other businesses; it's certainly not equitable legal treatment of property, association, or religion/creed rights when a party is exempted because "gosh, they're so big and XX part of the economy." Yes, and they got that large due to:

Principle two: Aside from 230's legal, philosophical intent, the public's intent and arguments for three decades have been to preserve the internet as a public square serving as a classically liberal platform for expression. They have prospered to near or at monopoly status under the public faith protections expressed legally as 230. Then, when our data was sufficiently monetized and they were not only profitable but unprecedentedly so, they forgot us and began imposing ideological orthodoxy.

If I wish censoring of an HCQ or Ivermectin debate or vax skepticism, I can ignore it but I cannot unignore censored content. With the questions of the Biden business dealings, a contractor would be considered compromised and likely unable to get clearance, but a Praetorian guard coalition of media decides it should be blacked out? It has been entirely plausible - LIKELY - from day one that the virus was a lab leak, and a certainly the CCP was silencing doctors and researchers and for weeks hid the outbreak; this too, was blacked out under the rubric of 'conspiracy, xenophobia/racism, and disinformation'. Wrapped in this single example are a number of concerns, from national health & security, public safety, influence and corruption, and an informed populace.

They forgot their pledges - or pretense - to the public square model and became quasi-governmental, Kafkaesque censors. Just selling out to totalitarian governments globally for market access is not enough; now they import the technautocrat conditioning. Zuckerberg has even encouraged Congress to make them more culpable, which plays to leftist political aspirations and to incumbent giants to continue dominating market share. Nor do I wish to see Republicans (ironically) imposing a fairness doctrine and someone, I guess, ensuring 50/50 ratios of content.

An Orwellian Newspeak society is not what I or most people signed onto as proponents of a free internet from the early '90s onward. Unless they revert to a model in which users have control of the content they wish to consume, I'm hard-pressed to care what happens to them legislatively.
Click to expand...
I disagree with a good bit of this, but it’s well reasoned and mostly just a difference of priorities or opinions. I appreciate that you’re not just endorsing defamation liability as retaliation for perceived unfairness and calling it a day.

My disagreement breaks down along three main arguments that dovetail along the government’s inability to foresee consequences.

The first is that the only companies that are broadly prohibited from denying service are utilities and common carriers. I just don’t see the similarities between those services and social media.

In terms of unforeseen consequences, note that the broad discretion afforded these companies was intended to prevent worries of repercussion from overriding their willingness to quash indecent content. Denying social media companies the ability to refuse service would severely temper the exercise of that discretion and effectively neuters terms of service. I think the idea that the companies would just shut down or become a free for all is probably not an exhaustive list, but the exact outcome of how that ends isn’t really known.

The second main argument is that I think it’s a tough sell to say that these companies aren’t living up to public expectations given that their domination of a free market is what causes concerns over their ability to tamp down speech.

What the imposition of government regulations would do to that market is another unforeseeable outcome.

And that unforeseeable outcome affects the property rights of shareholders who likewise haven’t intervened to change the management of these companies.

The reason for that, IMO, is that the companies are not selectively targeting conservatives purely due to political ideology, but are doing so to preserve market viability under difficult conditions. While the examples you’ve given are somewhat compelling in a vacuum (even if a few are overstated), it is less so if one refuses to ignore the context of the 2016 election where these companies caught truck loads of grief from both sides for allowing their property to be used to spread election misinformation. The companies had a heightened interest in avoiding those charges during the next election cycle (and during public crises).

Trump and his surrogates spent the next four years pile-driving their credibility so deep that it could have been used as a footing for the next Trump Tower; and also undermining American Institutions such that we now have people on this forum who will argue that there are only 12 people on earth who can know if a convicted murderer is really a murderer or will argue that the winner of an election may not really be a legitimate president despite multiple audits and a score of losses in court.

Under those conditions, Trump et al, and stories for which they were the source, were always going to be targets for skepticism and they disproportionately contributed to the conditions that set these companies adrift with no rudder, in search of objective truth. Add to that Biden’s campaign strategy of avoiding attention and largely just letting Trump self-immolate and it was inevitable that conservatives were going to catch the heavy end of that hammer.

The fact that Twitter, in particular, chose largely to rely on a media that had begun to lazily assume the falsity of uncorroborated facts presented by Trump et al means that they had some misses, I think you’d be hard pressed to find a better option in terms of serving shareholder interests.
 
#466
#466
BowlBrother85 said:
The case that @Orangeslice13 used above ^^^ was a false equivalency. For the simple fact that Biden did not not rush to Russia's defense, as Trump has consistently done. If a report involved a Russian act of cyber-aggression against American interests, Trump simply wouldn't listen to it. He wouldn't even entertain it as a possibility. Trump would even resort to publicly disputing the conclusions reached by his own appointed Director of National Intelligence (Dan Coats), his Attorney General (William Barr) and his Secretary of State (Mike Pompeo), if it meant defending Putin's honor. Trump's response (or lack thereof) to the SolarWinds hack showed a shameful lack of leadership. It was pure weakness against an American adversary.

The "what-about-isms" that @NCFisher used are just as inapplicable. It's not the act of deflection itself that has been so bad in this thread... it's the execution of them. You can't show me a time when Joe Biden has rushed to the defense of an American adversary following an attack against American interests that was in anyway comparable to what Trump consistently did with Putin and Russia. Trump was pitifully weak on Russia. Period.
Click to expand...

Awww....someone's sweet on me! But complaining about whataboutism while asking for whataboutism is yet more helter-skelter logic. So, first a lesson in logic.

You make claims that are unsubstantiated as doing Putin's bidding except by you, hoping to establish 'a lie told often enough' as truth.
Well, not on my watch, Mister TDS!

A fallacious tactic you repeatedly use is to claim if something is beneficial or less punitive to Russia, it automatically constitutes doing Putin's bidding. That navel-gazing indulgence precludes that two things can be true; an action can not punish Russia in some way and still in the U.S. interest. Following? - good.

Example 1: you argued Trump removed sanction on Deripaska, that benefitted the (hushed whisper) oligaaaaarch, Putin and Russia. Okay, you omit that domestic entities, the EU and other nations were petitioning for relief, in cases near begging for relief. The Treasury reconsidered the sanctions ill-conceived and modified them, keeping sanction on Deripaska and requiring his holdings in the companies drop to 45% just to remove those companies from sanction and give relief to all the FRIENDLY and ALLIED nations asking for it.

That's directly attacking your false argument, not whataboutism.

The second fallacious tactic you use is make unsubstantiated assertion; I can't say they're not true or true because they are (drumroll) unsubstantiated. As example is your claim that because Trump thinks Russia should rejoin the G7, his concern is fulfilling Putin's bidding and Russia's desires. Unless you're a telepath you can't assert your bias as his rationale. I point out Macron wanted Putin at the G7 meeting and Obama had actively lobbied for Russia inclusion into the WTO. How are they not doing Putin's bidding? In the absence of objectively ascertaining Trump's motivation to do Putin's bidding, that is a valid rebuttal spot-checking your bias. You yammering "whataboutism!" is an admission you can't substantiate your claim, nor logically respond to the challenge.

Another example is your claim re: Solarwinds hacking. I even admit I don't like how he handled it, especially with Pompeo's conveying the degree of certainty that Russian government is involved. STILL, it is not an example of doing Putin's bidding, and I'm going to indent so you can focus on the argument:

I have given you multiple examples of pants-pissing weakness by the Obama WH in dealing with Russia. I repeatedly ask "What does Putin have on Obama and why does Obama do Putin's bidding" NOT because I think Obama is Putin's Puppet and doing Russia's bidding - because I don't - but to highlight the psychotic leaps of logic you make in doing exactly that. And repeating them ten times doesn't make it coherent or true.

Obama talked tough, but carried a carrot in action. Trump talked carrot but wielded a stick in action. If you think that unfair, read the Brookings piece again.
I think both men tried to give Russia opportunities for thawing relations. The public might want to see a president call Xi or Putin out on the mat and put them in a full-Nelson, but that's how you subdue a neighbor stealing your mower, not a nuke-armed super power. At some point the entire West is going to have to come to terms with the fact that China is the major threat to the West and we've nothing to bridge the vast ideological gulf between us. And we'd better try to wedge between Russia and China.

It was a false narrative created by the vicious and unAmerican Clinton campaign and DNC, that became weaponization of our federal intel, law enforcement and justice
apparatus and painted Trump with a scarlet "R". It eliminated any attempts at thawing relationships, and probably caused Trump to take some actions not justified except as response to claims of being a red agent. That's not what a CinChief should be doing.
​
The only people still doing this shite are mentally unhinged, or simply unAmerican and don't care about the damage you do.
I suppose one could be both.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#467
#467
NCFisher said:
Principle two: Aside from 230's legal, philosophical intent, the public's intent and arguments for three decades have been to preserve the internet as a public square serving as a classically liberal platform for expression..
Click to expand...
The key word. The internet is the public square, not a particular website. The marketplace remedy for "censored" voices, to the extent they exist, would be another website.
 
#468
#468
NCFisher said:
Awww....someone's sweet on me! But complaining about whataboutism while asking for whataboutism is yet more helter-skelter logic. So, first a lesson in logic.

You make claims that are unsubstantiated as doing Putin's bidding except by you, hoping to establish 'a lie told often enough' as truth.
Well, not on my watch, Mister TDS!

A fallacious tactic you repeatedly use is to claim if something is beneficial or less punitive to Russia, it automatically constitutes doing Putin's bidding. That navel-gazing indulgence precludes that two things can be true; an action can not punish Russia in some way and still in the U.S. interest. Following? - good.

Example 1: you argued Trump removed sanction on Deripaska, that benefitted the (hushed whisper) oligaaaaarch, Putin and Russia. Okay, you omit that domestic entities, the EU and other nations were petitioning for relief, in cases near begging for relief. The Treasury reconsidered the sanctions ill-conceived and modified them, keeping sanction on Deripaska and requiring his holdings in the companies drop to 45% just to remove those companies from sanction and give relief to all the FRIENDLY and ALLIED nations asking for it.

That's directly attacking your false argument, not whataboutism.

The second fallacious tactic you use is make unsubstantiated assertion; I can't say they're not true or true because they are (drumroll) unsubstantiated. As example is your claim that because Trump thinks Russia should rejoin the G7, his concern is fulfilling Putin's bidding and Russia's desires. Unless you're a telepath you can't assert your bias as his rationale. I point out Macron wanted Putin at the G7 meeting and Obama had actively lobbied for Russia inclusion into the WTO. How are they not doing Putin's bidding? In the absence of objectively ascertaining Trump's motivation to do Putin's bidding, that is a valid rebuttal spot-checking your bias. You yammering "whataboutism!" is an admission you can't substantiate your claim, nor logically respond to the challenge.

Another example is your claim re: Solarwinds hacking. I even admit I don't like how he handled it, especially with Pompeo's conveying the degree of certainty that Russian government is involved. STILL, it is not an example of doing Putin's bidding, and I'm going to indent so you can focus on the argument:

I have given you multiple examples of pants-pissing weakness by the Obama WH in dealing with Russia. I repeatedly ask "What does Putin have on Obama and why does Obama do Putin's bidding" NOT because I think Obama is Putin's Puppet and doing Russia's bidding - because I don't - but to highlight the psychotic leaps of logic you make in doing exactly that. And repeating them ten times doesn't make it coherent or true.

Obama talked tough, but carried a carrot in action. Trump talked carrot but wielded a stick in action. If you think that unfair, read the Brookings piece again.
I think both men tried to give Russia opportunities for thawing relations. The public might want to see a president call Xi or Putin out on the mat and put them in a full-Nelson, but that's how you subdue a neighbor stealing your mower, not a nuke-armed super power. At some point the entire West is going to have to come to terms with the fact that China is the major threat to the West and we've nothing to bridge the vast ideological gulf between us. And we'd better try to wedge between Russia and China.

It was a false narrative created by the vicious and unAmerican Clinton campaign and DNC, that became weaponization of our federal intel, law enforcement and justice
apparatus and painted Trump with a scarlet "R". It eliminated any attempts at thawing relationships, and probably caused Trump to take some actions not justified except as response to claims of being a red agent. That's not what a CinChief should be doing.
​
The only people still doing this shite are mentally unhinged, or simply unAmerican and don't care about the damage you do.
I suppose one could be both.
Click to expand...
That is pure bull $hit on Deripaska... and that is the only thing you really even try to dispute, amid that whole mess you wrote. In regards to the SolarWinds hack, that is not example of Trump doing Putin's bidding... it is an example of Trump coming to Putin's defense, which he often did.
 
#470
#470
LouderVol said:
Hilary literally wrote a book on it.
Click to expand...
It is ridiculous to compare writing a book, to actively trying to overturn the outcome of the election, literally up until the last hour in office, as Trump apparently did. Hillary wrote a book... whooptie damn dee! Trump tried to use the power of his office to intimidate and strong arm the Georgia Secretary of State into overturning the outcome of a state he lost in the election. Trump tried to bully Pence into casting aside electoral votes during the roll call for certification, which he had no authority to do under the Constitution. Trump is still trying to undermine the election, over 4 months after he left office. And you want to talk about a damn book? Holy Mother F***ing $hit.
 
#473
#473
BowlBrother85 said:
That is pure bull $hit on Deripaska... and that is the only thing you really even try to dispute, amid that whole mess you wrote. In regards to the SolarWinds hack, that is not example of Trump doing Putin's bidding... it is an example of Trump coming to Putin's defense, which he often did.
Click to expand...

Nonsense; where I don't directly refute your scattershot attempt to connect dots that YOU are drawing, I directly challenge your logic by showing you how Obama "did Putin's bidding" by actions that "were beneficial to Putin".

Because your post(s) are an absurd stream of conjecture that, to be true, must ignore Trump's many ACTIONS against Russia. Aside from the 52 actions outlined in the Brookings articlehttps://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/09/25/on-the-record-the-u-s-administrations-actions-on-russia/ and the multiple Javelin missile sales to Ukraine (that you purposely mischaracterized or were simply ignorant of), that Senate Armed Service committee and VP Biden wanted to do during the Obama admin:
  1. Trump approved Russia-facing defense systems to Poland and CZR that Obama flipped on providing.
  2. He changed the military rules of engagement in Syria regarding Russian militants, made good on Obama's effete "red line" in Syria telling Russia we're coming in, better get out of the way if you don't want to get it on you in multiple aerial assaults on Syrian forces.
  3. U.S. forces - on the order of Mattis to "Annihilate the force" - wiped out hundreds of Syrian and Russian fighters in Feb 2018. Mattis endorsed the 189 Russians sanctioned by Trump as of April 2018. Mattis on Russian Mercenaries in Syria: I Ordered Their Annihilation
  4. He constantly badgered NATO allies to fund their defenses and at minimum meet their spending obligations - how does that "benefit" Russia??
  5. LIkewise he badgered the EU not to become energy dependent upon Russia, which would be an enormous economic (thus military) benefit to Russia; is that "Putin's bidding"??
  6. "The Trump administration has also replaced Obama’s reticence regarding U.S. troop deployments near Russia with a full embrace of the European Deterrence Initiative. In just more than two years in office, Trump has requested more than $17 billion for EDI compared with just $5 billion requested in Obama’s final three years in office. As a result, thousands of U.S. troops, along with other NATO allies, have deployed to Poland, the Baltics and Norway to deter further Russian expansion." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e88a04-5194-11e9-88a1-ed346f0ec94f_story.html
  7. "I think in general, there isn’t going to be as much difference as people imagine. The Biden folks are pretty tough on Russia, Iran, North Korea. You know, the dirty little secret about the Trump administration was that while Donald Trump had clearly had a kind of soft spot for Putin, the Trump Administration was pretty tough on the Russians. They armed Ukraine, they armed the Poles. They extended NATO operations and exercises in ways that even the Obama Administration had not done. They maintained the sanctions. So I don’t think it will be that different." Fareed Zakaria
and: Trump’s Russia Policy Is Better Than Obama’s Was which I pointed out to you numerous times. If Trump was doing Putin's bidding, Obama was voluntarily bending over a chair and providing the KY jelly. Again, no president since and perhaps including Reagan has taken stronger ACTIONS against Russia.

You have bitten on every single manufactured outrage and hoax regarding Trump. Even now, you cling to the Russia collusion nipple because Treasury issues a statement re: Kilimnik - a trusted source and Ukraine facilitator of the Obama administration, along with Manafort - but gives no information re: why the polling data is "sensitive" or how it might be used. And certainly doesn't imply Trump colluding with Russiaaaahh! Which means, YOU can't either.

You're warped.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DC_Vol and NorthDallas40
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top