Trump Launches New Communications Platform months after Twitter, Facebook Ban

[RikidyBones]

They are private companies, so it’s not the same at all.

You're right, it's not the same thing. One banned the US President from their platform while he was in office and the other is a private citizen calling for a ban. Twitter and FB look worse.

 

[tvolsfan]

You're right, it's not the same thing. One banned the US President from their platform while he was in office and the other is a private citizen calling for a ban. Twitter and FB look worse.

Considering he clearly seems interested in a return to politics, your argument holds no water.

 

[RikidyBones]

Considering he clearly seems interested in a return to politics, your argument holds no water.

His interest in a return is inconsequential. He is a private citizen.

 

[BowlBrother85]

They banned him while he was president. You can't get mad at words but be fine with actions of the same idea.

Why doesn't Trump start his own blog? Nobody as famous and universally beloved and well-respected as Donald J. Trump should need a third party social media platform to get their message out. Why not just add another section to Trump's existing official website? That way, he can post whatever he wants without any concerns over his opinions being edited, or follow-up, contradictory, fact-checking addendums being attached by a biased forum administrator with an opposing political agenda. I dare say that in less than a month, a Trump blog could achieve such traffic as to render both Facebook and Twitter as obsolete as MySpace became in 2010.

Problem solved, right?

 

[RockyTop85]

His interest in a return is inconsequential. He is a private citizen.

Guess you’ll be supporting Beto in whatever he runs for next.

Sure, he said he wanted to violate the second amendment, but he was just a private citizen so it’s inconsequential.

 

[BowlBrother85]

You're right, it's not the same thing. One banned the US President from their platform while he was in office and the other is a private citizen calling for a ban. Twitter and FB look worse.

As President of the United States in October of 2017, Donald Trump tweeted a plea to the FCC, in which he called for them to revoke the broadcast licenses of NBC and CNN, just because they had aired reports which were critical of him. That looks as bad as anything that either Facebook or Twitter have done, and it serves to emphasize Trump's hypocrisy whenever he complains of censorship.

 

[RikidyBones]

Guess you’ll be supporting Beto in whatever he runs for next.

Sure, he said he wanted to violate the second amendment, but he was just a private citizen so it’s inconsequential.

If Trump runs as wanting to ban Facebook and Twitter, I will disagree with it. I can choose to vote for him or someone else. There are plenty of people I disagree with on topics. That's the point of an election. But it's nonsense to bitch about Trump saying that but celebrate his ban that began while he was President.

 

[RikidyBones]

As President of the United States in October of 2017, Donald Trump tweeted a plea to the FCC, in which he called for them to revoke the broadcast licenses of NBC and CNN, just because they had aired reports which were critical of him. That looks as bad as anything that either Facebook or Twitter have done, and it serves to emphasize Trump's hypocrisy whenever he complains of censorship.

"as bad" but you keep arguing like it's one sided. Trump is out of office. Twitter and Facebook still do it but I don't see the same energy about them doing it. Only Trumps complaint. Hm.

 

[n_huffhines]

"as bad" but you keep arguing like it's one sided. Trump is out of office. Twitter and Facebook still do it but I don't see the same energy about them doing it. Only Trumps complaint. Hm.

Trump was elected to be the most powerful person in the world and he was threatening a free press. Facebook is providing the world with a free service and in some cases, they say, "we don't want that on our platform."

In terms of the proper role of government and the proper role of business, I don't think the two are remotely comparable.

People want Facebook and Twitter to not be biased. This is an incredible ask. Who isn't biased? Imagine asking Trump to act without bias. Imagine asking the mypillow guy to act without bias. Imagine asking the DNC, CNN, Fox, etc. to act without bias. Who thinks it's realistic for anybody to pull that off?

I know we want the social media platforms to be fair, but we also need to understand the reality that these platforms will tend to reflect their values. It's just the nature of human beings to design their own stuff that way. Only the right incentives can change this.

 

[BowlBrother85]

"as bad" but you keep arguing like it's one sided. Trump is out of office. Twitter and Facebook still do it but I don't see the same energy about them doing it. Only Trumps complaint. Hm.

Donald Trump was still in office in October of 2017 when he sent that tweet imploring the FCC to revoke the broadcast licenses of NBC and CNN for airing reports which were critical of him. If the FCC had followed Trump's directive, that would have been a violation of the 1st Amendment. That tweet should be raised every time Trump whines about the censorship of conservatives by social media and big tech corporations. Trump wanted to do the same thing to liberals, and because he was the leader of the government at the time, it would have violated the 1st Amendment if that federal agency (the FCC) had followed through and actually done it.

... and that tweet by Trump from October of 2017 is NEVER raised by Fox News when they are talking about Trump's Twitter and Facebook bans.

 

[RikidyBones]

Trump was elected to be the most powerful person in the world and he was threatening a free press. Facebook is providing the world with a free service and in some cases, they say, "we don't want that on our platform."

In terms of the proper role of government and the proper role of business, I don't think the two are remotely comparable.

People want Facebook and Twitter to not be biased. This is an incredible ask. Who isn't biased? Imagine asking Trump to act without bias. Imagine asking the mypillow guy to act without bias. Imagine the DNC, CNN, Fox, etc. to act without bias. Who thinks it's realistic for anybody to pull that off?

I know we want the social media platforms to be fair, but we also need to understand the reality that these will tend to reflect their values. It's just the nature of human beings to do design their own stuff that way. Only the right incentives can change this.

For one, It's not free and they also escape liability because of government. Let's meet in the middle, strip their protections and let them do what they want, ban whatever stories, etc

 

[RikidyBones]

Donald Trump was still in office in October of 2017 when he sent that tweet imploring the FCC to revoke the broadcast licenses of NBC and CNN for airing reports which were critical of him. If the FCC had followed Trump's directive, that would have been a violation of the 1st Amendment. That tweet should be raised every time Trump whines about the censorship of conservatives by social media and big tech corporations. Trump wanted to do the same thing to liberals, and because he was the leader of the government at the time, it would have violated the 1st Amendment if that federal agency (the FCC) had followed through and actually done it.

... and that tweet by Trump from October of 2017 is NEVER raised by Fox News when they are talking about Trump's Twitter and Facebook bans.

I disagree with Trump on his 2017 tweet. Your turn.

 

[n_huffhines]

For one, It's not free and they also escape liability because of government. Let's meet in the middle, strip their protections and let them do what they want, ban whatever stories, etc

How much do you and your friends pay Facebook?

They escape liability because we implemented common-sense protections against frivolous law suits for the entire internet. Sorry you don't like the actions of certain websites, but you're talking about ruining the internet just to spite them, because this certainly isn't going to fix anything regarding the media and politics.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I disagree with Trump on his 2017 tweet. Your turn.

Good for you! I have hope for you. Baby steps... but progress is progress.

 

[RikidyBones]

How much do you and your friends pay Facebook?

Is this a serious question?

They escape liability because we implemented common-sense protections against frivolous law suits for the entire internet. Sorry you don't like the actions of certain websites, but you're talking about ruining the internet just to spite them, because this certainly isn't going to fix anything regarding the media and politics.

To spite them? They don't qualify for the protections. They are publishers. Both sides think 230 is outdated. Just in different ways. Common sense that no one believes in lol

 

[RikidyBones]

Good for you! I have hope for you. Baby steps... but progress is progress.

No hope for you though. Sad.

 

[n_huffhines]

Is this a serious question?

To spite them? They don't qualify for the protections. They are publishers. Both sides think 230 is outdated. Just in different ways. Common sense that no one believes in lol

Censoring is not publishing. If they don't qualify then what is the problem?

Both sides wanting change tells you everything you need to know. Zuckerberg will gladly help the liberals and establishment R's write the new laws.

 

[RikidyBones]

Censoring is not publishing. If they don't qualify then what is the problem?

Both sides wanting change tells you everything you need to know. Zuckerberg will gladly help the liberals and establishment R's write the new laws.

One side wants more censoring and one wants none.

Determning which ideas, topics, discussions are allowed is publishing. We just need someone to challenge them or a court ruling on it. I believe there are several pending.

 

[n_huffhines]

One side wants more censoring and one wants none.

Determning which ideas, topics, discussions are allowed is publishing. We just need someone to challenge them or a court ruling on it. I believe there are several pending.

No, it's not. If Parler says "we're not going to allow people to talk about being sexually attracted to children", then by your logic they should be considered a publisher, vulnerable to any BS lawsuit that could be potentially thrown at them. That is a ridiculous position.

 

[RikidyBones]

No, it's not. If Parler says "we're not going to allow people to talk about being sexually attracted to children", then by your logic they should be considered a publisher, vulnerable to any BS lawsuit that could be potentially thrown at them. That is a ridiculous position.

Yup. Then they can make that rule and I don't have a problem with it. They just don't get protection from the content. CNN, fox, NYT they are all existing without it.

I can accept banning acts that are illegal. Harassment, threats, child porn, etc.

 

[n_huffhines]

Yup. Then they can make that rule and I don't have a problem with it. They just don't get protection from the content. CNN, fox, NYT they are all existing without it.

It's not the same business model. This is like saying coca cola is existing without it.

I can accept banning acts that are illegal. Harassment, threats, child porn, etc.

You're not talking about banning acts, you're talking about banning ideas.

Making exceptions for harassment, threats, etc. opens up a whole lot of room for subjectivity. If Twitter can ban people for harassment, then they can still silence a pretty big crowd and justify it, while maintaining their designation as a non-publisher. Who could argue they didn't have grounds to ban Trump for harassment?

This stuff is way more complicated than people seem to think, based on the solutions they propose.

 

[Velo Vol]

It's like the First Amendment doesn't exist.

 

[RikidyBones]

It's not the same business model. This is like saying coca cola is existing without it.



You're not talking about banning acts, you're talking about banning ideas.

I'm advocating for the opposite you dolt. Twitter and Facebook can qualify if they stop with the biased nonsense. In order to avoid liability, they need to act as a town square. That simple. Otherwise, they assume the risk of liability. They can choose to be whatever they like.

Making exceptions for harassment, threats, etc. opens up a whole lot of room for subjectivity. If Twitter can ban people for harassment, then they can still silence a pretty big crowd and justify it, while maintaining their designation as a non-publisher. Who could argue they didn't have grounds to ban Trump for harassment?

This stuff is way more complicated than people seem to think, based on the solutions they propose.

Based on laws that currently exist. It's that easy. Trump wasn't harassing anyone under law.

 

[n_huffhines]

I'm advocating for the opposite you dolt. Twitter and Facebook can qualify if they stop with the biased nonsense. In order to avoid liability, they need to act as a town square. That simple. Otherwise, they assume the risk of liability. They can choose to be whatever they like.

I know what you think you want but the point is you cannot have a platform with any decency without the ability to censor. Understand this.

Based on laws that currently exist. It's that easy. Trump wasn't harassing anyone under law.

So as long as it's not illegal, any amount of harassment is fine?

Go back to the drawing board and think all this through a lot more thoroughly.

 

[RikidyBones]

I know what you think you want but the point is you cannot have a platform with any decency without the ability to censor. Understand this.



So as long as it's not illegal, any amount of harassment is fine?

Go back to the drawing board and think all this through a lot more thoroughly.

Harassment is defined already. We don't need to debate this. If a company wants a certain platform, they can have it. Just won't be protected

I'm open to different ideas but the way it is, is not acceptable. Looking at the handling of covid is enough. Until then I'll agree to disagree.