Trump banned from Facebook until 2023 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15175738
Facebook is banning former President Trump from its platform for at least two years, after finding that his posts on January 6 stoked violence and posed a risk to public safety.


And, as part of a new enforcement policy for public figures, the social media giant isn't guaranteeing that Mr. Trump will be allowed to return at the end of the ban.

"At the end of this period, we will look to experts to assess whether the risk to public safety has receded," Nick Clegg, Facebook's vice president of global affairs, wrote in a blog post. "If we determine that there is still a serious risk to public safety, we will extend the restriction for a set period of time and continue to re-evaluate until that risk has receded," he added.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-b ... two-years/

I find this rather amusing.

If there's a Congressional "red wave" in midterms, I'd give Facebook credit for it. This kind of spits in the face of anyone who believes in basic freedoms in America, as well as identifying overreaching and postulating.
#15175743
Goranhammer wrote:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-bans-trump-for-at-least-two-years/

I find this rather amusing.

If there's a Congressional "red wave" in midterms, I'd give Facebook credit for it. This kind of spits in the face of anyone who believes in basic freedoms in America, as well as identifying overreaching and postulating.

"Basic freedoms in America"? Facebook is a privately owned platform. They can ban anyone they want from it, for any length of time they want, for any reason they want, or for no reason at all. Or do you believe that Facebook is a public good which should be nationalised and taken under public ownership...? :eh:
#15175746
Potemkin wrote:"Basic freedoms in America"? Facebook is a privately owned platform. They can ban anyone they want from it, for any length of time they want, for any reason they want, or for no reason at all. Or do you believe that Facebook is a public good which should be nationalised and taken under public ownership...? :eh:


Facebook and Twitter are beginning to lose market share. Twitter just ham-fisted themselves into a "premium subscription" model because they're going broke, and Facebook pandering to the Democratic Party is similar to the early-90s situation involving CNN pandering that saw the creation of Fox News.

Trump will just use his Family's accounts as proxies. Eric, Ivanka and whatnot will represent his views anyway on Facebook. Simply result in more fans for the young Trump....
#15175747
Potemkin wrote:"Basic freedoms in America"? Facebook is a privately owned platform. They can ban anyone they want from it, for any length of time they want, for any reason they want, or for no reason at all. Or do you believe that Facebook is a public good which should be nationalised and taken under public ownership...? :eh:


At absolutely no point did I say that Facebook doesn't have the right. They are a private company, as of today. They have that right.

I will say this, however. It is starting to appear that these tech giants are being at least partially nationalized. When it becomes an extension of a political party, then I will find fault in this kind of silencing.
#15175752
Goranhammer wrote:At absolutely no point did I say that Facebook doesn't have the right. They are a private company, as of today. They have that right.

I will say this, however. It is starting to appear that these tech giants are being at least partially nationalized. When it becomes an extension of a political party, then I will find fault in this kind of silencing.


Ya but he also kept lying by saying that the election was stolen and rigged, and then tons of people believed him and some stormed the Capital. So fuck him, he's no victim he's a dictator.
#15175754
Potemkin wrote:"Basic freedoms in America"? Facebook is a privately owned platform. They can ban anyone they want from it, for any length of time they want, for any reason they want, or for no reason at all. Or do you believe that Facebook is a public good which should be nationalised and taken under public ownership...? :eh:





I have always grappled with the evolving cyber world, trying to see how best to relate to it with examples from the tangible world.

No, a closer look has to be taken at Big Tech cyber companies. They are wielding far too much.

A thought that came to my mind on reading this thread: how is Big Tech any different from the East India Company of the past?

Is the cyber world any different a "new world" to the world of today from the "new world" of yore?

I see say Facebook as no different from the East India Company. The latter an entity that became almost a sovereign entity itself in India; carrying on profitable trade; which trade necessitated force to protect, which force grew from mere guards to Armies running into the hundreds of thousands: conducting aggressive wars, setting up civil administrations, in effect all the powers, rights and prerogatives of a sovereign power without actually being one. I say something odd here. If not something wrong.

I say the likes of Facebook are the equivalent of the ole East India Company. They dominate the cyber space the way the East India Company dominated India. A tight monopoly. A person venturing into cyber space comes under the Law of Facebook. Should the United States be the Law in cyber space or should cyber space remain a colony ruthlessly run by Facebook? Whose laws are wanton, derived from no regular authorities, against which there is no appeal?

I think not. Or I believe it should not be so.

In the future I envision if a Trump gonna be shut down it will be under rules set by regular constituted authorities. It will be like say a private company owns a highway which it makes available to the public for profit. It does not get to decide who uses it. That decision should by by regular constituted authorities. The Sheriff's on that highway answer to regular constituted authorities, not to the private company.

If the private companies don't like it then they can be nationalised, broken up, or some other bad things as some regular constituted authority sees fit.

something like that.....
#15175755
Unthinking Majority wrote:Ya but he also kept lying by saying that the election was stolen and rigged, and then tons of people believed him and some stormed the Capital. So fuck him, he's no victim he's a dictator.




There is the Department of Justice and FBI to deal with that. Facebook should refer everything to them.

Any individual should be free to "lie"; unless we are to live in a world where only cnn lies but Trump cannot lie.

Those who stormed the Capitol, as you put; but which in actuality was nothing more than some vandalism accompanied by political rhetoric, are being tried by the DOJ. And what the hell is Facebook supposed to be doing: protecting us from "damaging speech"? Good Lord! So the age of enlightenment liberated us from medieval censorship only for 21st Century to restore censorship in the person of Facebook?
#15175756
Most likely outcome is that conservative social media outlets are going to become more commonplace.

Or in the case of Twitter, it's becoming Paid Premium Democratic Member vs Free Republican Member.
#15175767
Potemkin wrote:"Basic freedoms in America"? Facebook is a privately owned platform. They can ban anyone they want from it, for any length of time they want, for any reason they want, or for no reason at all. Or do you believe that Facebook is a public good which should be nationalised and taken under public ownership...? :eh:

You're mistaking private companies for private individuals. It's only the latter that can "ban anyone they want from it, for any length of time they want, for any reason they want, or for no reason at all"

Private companies that offer their services or products to the public are subjected to all kinds of rules and regulations so that they don't do harmful or illegitimate things that can affect the public. Like spreading misinformation or censuring correct or subjective information, while falsely claiming that you "fact checked" something - lot's of ideas can't even be proven true or false, but ideologues will take sides and claim the contrary! For example no one can prove that global warming is caused by humans - it would necessitate some experiments that are impossible today! But ideologues will spread misinformation like "scientific consensus is that..." - while in actual reality science is absolutely never based on "consensus"(which means "we don't really know..")

Wanna promote some ideology or some political ideas? Set up a political party and make your beliefs and intentions clear!

Companies should be banned completely from supporting political or ideological stances, whatever those may be!
#15175768
colliric wrote:Most likely outcome is that conservative social media outlets are going to become more commonplace.

Yep. I remember one (privately owned) social network that become the point of exodus after more popular (and privately owned) social networks evaluated their persional privately owned opinion by starting to ban trampists. And this privately owned social network, it was banned by privately owned app providers (based on their privately owned weighted decision) in 24 hours or something? It cracks me how people heroically defend the right of private owners to not serve blacks.
#15175769
ccdan wrote:You're mistaking private companies for private individuals. It's only the latter that can "ban anyone they want from it, for any length of time they want, for any reason they want, or for no reason at all"

Private companies that offer their services or products to the public are subjected to all kinds of rules and regulations so that they don't do harmful or illegitimate things that can affect the public. Like spreading misinformation or censuring correct or subjective information, while falsely claiming that you "fact checked" something - lot's of ideas can't even be proven true or false, but ideologues will take sides and claim the contrary! For example no one can prove that global warming is caused by humans - it would necessitate some experiments that are impossible today! But ideologues will spread misinformation like "scientific consensus is that..." - while in actual reality science is absolutely never based on "consensus"(which means "we don't really know..")

Wanna promote some ideology or some political ideas? Set up a political party and make your beliefs and intentions clear!

Companies should be banned completely from supporting political or ideological stances, whatever those may be!

The law says that privately owned corporations are indeed individuals. This is why corporations are allowed to lobby politicians - it is defined as "free speech", and is therefore protected by the Constitution. And, regarding Facebook, the individual in question is the android from Star Trek - and not even the good android either, it's the evil twin - Lore, I think his name was. Lol.

Nah, corporations can do pretty much anything they like to anyone they like. If you don't like that, then take it up with the Supreme Court. Good luck. :)
#15175773
Millennials hate free speech. They don't want hearing opposite views. It is the problem with social media.

But let's face it that Trump intended to start a riot. If such things occur, we cannot have fair and free elections becayse everytime loser side might revolt.
#15175775
Unthinking Majority wrote:Ya but he also kept lying by saying that the election was stolen and rigged, and then tons of people believed him and some stormed the Capital. So fuck him, he's no victim he's a dictator.


He did not dictate that anyone should storm the Capitol. He did not suggest it. He did not organize it. His speech that day also did nothing to further that, as it was proven that this attack was premeditated days, if not weeks, ahead of time. Every possible link that the left has tried to make between Trump and what happened on the 6th has been refuted.

If you remember a while back, there were two mass-killings in a span of a few days. One was in a Texas town where some racist fuck started plinking at Mexicans in a Walmart. The other was in Ohio where some whitebread son of a bitch started to unleash. That guy? Self-described ANTIFA member who was openly and ardently supporting both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Refresh my memory - did either of those 2 get banned from any social media platforms? Right, thought not.

They can keep saying "public safety" all they want, but this is just proof of Facebook's inscrutable power. Notice how when Facebook was staying...well, somewhat centric? Every major Democrat running for POTUS was talking about dismantling and breaking up the Big Tech companies.

Now they're starting to do the dirty work of Democrats. Hear anything lately about any prominent Democrats stripping down Facebook into smaller parts?

Yeah, me neither.
#15175802
Goranhammer wrote:Every possible link that the left has tried to make between Trump and what happened on the 6th has been refuted.


There's no way you can read Trump's tweets and claim Trump had nothing to do with it.

It's simply fucking delusional.
#15175818
Goranhammer wrote:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-bans-trump-for-at-least-two-years/

I find this rather amusing.

If there's a Congressional "red wave" in midterms, I'd give Facebook credit for it. This kind of spits in the face of anyone who believes in basic freedoms in America, as well as identifying overreaching and postulating.


I'm baffled here. Unless you lived under a rock, you know who bankrolled the start up of Facebook and why. So, BFD, Trump is banned on Facebook. Why doesn't America ban Facebook from their computers? Trump could start up a competitor site like Facebook and not only disseminate his message, but provide good jobs for a lot of patriotic Americans.

Whether Trump had a role in the Capitol march or anything else for that matter, he has an unalienable Right to a Freedom of Speech. Whether Trump had anything to do directly with what happened at the Capitol is irrelevant to me. He said he would be there and instead of leading his flock, he was in the rear with the gear, hiding out in the comfort of his office. That told me everything I needed to know about the guy. If people like him and Joe Biden are the best this country can do, we are totally screwed.

I'm just asking the question as to why Trump (and / or his supporters) can't raise a little money and start a competitor site for Facebook. How come Trump supporters haven't just boycotted Facebook?
#15175820
Trump could just go on Parler and he doesn't seem interested in that. Besides he was Mr Twitter not Mr Facebook. And no he wasn't involved in the Capitol riots given his impeachment trial was on his behaviour during and after the event and not prior to it which is important if you are trying to prove he was the instigator of it. It was a farce and a show trial, not that it matters. Clearly Trump was merely trying to finance his election loss by gaining funds for a bogus lawsuit and his minions hadn't two braincells to pick up on that they got QAnoned into thinking the riots was a calling for his re-election so they stormed the Capitol.
#15175829
@Goranhammer

Goranhammer wrote: This kind of spits in the face of anyone who believes in basic freedoms in America, as well as identifying overreaching and postulating.


Speak for yourself, as a freedom loving American, I believe Facebook made the right call and did the right thing. Freedom doesn't mean you get to incite violence and get to do whatever you want to do without having to follow any rules whatsoever. Freedom requires laws and the rule of law which Trump went against. Hence, why he was banned from Facebook. You still have to protect the public as part of being a freedom loving patriot.

It seems the republicans are wanting to give special treatment and a free pass to Trump given he violated the tenants of the rule of law and sought to destroy the right of the people to decide their own fate by attempting to establish himself as dictator. Does this mean that Republicans don't really believe that nobody is above the rule of law?

Goranhammer wrote:At absolutely no point did I say that Facebook doesn't have the right. They are a private company, as of today. They have that right.

I will say this, however. It is starting to appear that these tech giants are being at least partially nationalized. When it becomes an extension of a political party, then I will find fault in this kind of silencing.


So, then you would agree that when churches preach politics, they should lose their tax exempt status and pay taxes then, right? Besides, I don't see how Facebook is being so called "nationalized." And they pay taxes, paid a ton of taxes unlike churches. So, they are actually contributing to society not only in being a platform for social media where people can connect, but they also pay taxes to fund local, state and federal governments.
#15175832
Potemkin wrote:Facebook is a privately owned platform. They can ban anyone they want from it, for any length of time they want, for any reason they want, or for no reason at all. Or do you believe that Facebook is a public good which should be nationalised and taken under public ownership...? :eh:

You think so? Try banning black people. Try banning women. Try banning immigrants. Try banning people of a particular religion. Try banning homosexuals. Facebook is a publicly traded company. It has to abide by rules. You're watching way too much television if you believe something like that. Congress has plenary authority to regulate interstate commerce.

Goranhammer wrote: It is starting to appear that these tech giants are being at least partially nationalized.

They are probably going to get regulated like public utilities at some point, as shareholders are not going to want to see their equity positions diminished by arbitrary leftists within corporate America.

Unthinking Majority wrote:Ya but he also kept lying by saying that the election was stolen and rigged, and then tons of people believed him and some stormed the Capital. So fuck him, he's no victim he's a dictator.

It was stolen. He's not a dictator. He's a private citizen.

Juin wrote:I see say Facebook as no different from the East India Company.

Well, they don't have their own army yet.

Juin wrote:I say the likes of Facebook are the equivalent of the ole East India Company. They dominate the cyber space the way the East India Company dominated India.

They are just another CIA-funded operation that blew back on them in ways they didn't expect. They were hoping to use six-degrees-of-separation type stuff to get to bin Laden, push the Arab Spring, etc. They did not expect that Al Qaeda would use it to radicalize others, or that populists would end up fighting the establishment. So now they are coming up with arbitrary rules and trying to enforce them in hopes that it will shape public opinion. It is. However, like blowback, it's shaping public opinion in a way that they didn't expect.

Juin wrote:In the future I envision if a Trump gonna be shut down it will be under rules set by regular constituted authorities.

It's a bit of a side show. YouTube and their likes induce people into creating content on their platform, and then later make rules in an arbitrary manner. These are considered "adhesion contracts" in other scenarios, where bargaining power is so lopsided as to be manifestly unfair. So I think their ability to make platform rules will come under scrutiny, and they may become liable for damages in some cases.

ccdan wrote:Private companies that offer their services or products to the public are subjected to all kinds of rules and regulations so that they don't do harmful or illegitimate things that can affect the public.

I think he knows that. He's just trolling.

Istanbuller wrote:But let's face it that Trump intended to start a riot.

Yes, but he told them to be peaceful and obey law enforcement. The establishment got a whole lot less than it deserved for the Red Mirage. They are scared now, and they should be. Constitutions are just words on paper. If people don't believe them, they are worthless--like hyperinflated currency.

The Resister wrote:Whether Trump had a role in the Capitol march or anything else for that matter, he has an unalienable Right to a Freedom of Speech. Whether Trump had anything to do directly with what happened at the Capitol is irrelevant to me. He said he would be there and instead of leading his flock, he was in the rear with the gear, hiding out in the comfort of his office.

Even Trump supporters like InfoWars founder, Alex Jones, were out there with bullhorns telling people not to break any laws, not to be violent, etc. Either way, I don't care because I don't like the American political establishment and I find it highly amusing how scared they are now. The protesters weren't even armed. The establishment knows that it's skating on thin ice, but it doesn't know how to course correct.

It's hysterical. Nancy Pelosi is a complete tyrannical cunt in calling for endless investigations of her political dissidents. Meanwhile, Sergey Lavrov makes fun of the Biden administration for obvious human rights violations by keeping peaceful protesters in solitary confinement before trial when they are no danger to anyone. The Democrats hate the US constitution (along with some lily livered Republicans). The establishment has made a joke of the Bill of Rights, while pushing things like men playing women's sports as transgenders. Who wants to be ruled by these clowns anymore? I certainly do not.

The Resister wrote:I'm just asking the question as to why Trump (and / or his supporters) can't raise a little money and start a competitor site for Facebook. How come Trump supporters haven't just boycotted Facebook?

A lot have. They've even boycotted news outlets. Have you seen their ratings? Utterly in the toilet. YouTubers get more views than Don Lemon gets. The only thing holding FoxNews up is Tucker Carlson. Establishment Republicans like Paul Ryan have ruined what FoxNews had in terms of political influence. Mark Dice gets literally twice the views from videos he makes in his kitchen as Don Lemon's ratings backed by the mega broadcasting institutional resources of CNN. It's hilarious.
#15175838
Politics_Observer wrote:@Goranhammer



Speak for yourself, as a freedom loving American, I believe Facebook made the right call and did the right thing. Freedom doesn't mean you get to incite violence and get to do whatever you want to do without having to follow any rules whatsoever. Freedom requires laws and the rule of law which Trump went against. Hence, why he was banned from Facebook. You still have to protect the public as part of being a freedom loving patriot.


The "inciting violence" claim only lives in the hearts and minds of "Orange Man Bad" sheep who have absolutely no ability to think critically. Sorry, but that's how it is.

If your position is to enhance public safety, should we ban all mention of Black Lives Matter on Facebook? They have been responsible for many more incidents, many more deaths, and much more destruction in the way of financial costs. I would say that BLM is a MUCH bigger danger to "public safety", and the numbers back this up objectively.

Also, he broke no laws, plain and simple. He lied (a bunch), but never under oath for reason of perjury.
#15175852
Goranhammer wrote:The "inciting violence" claim only lives in the hearts and minds of "Orange Man Bad" sheep who have absolutely no ability to think critically. Sorry, but that's how it is.


He was the bloody POTUS claiming over and over again that the election was stolen and hence the Biden presidency illegitimate. How the fuck does that not incite violence at inauguration day?

Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation

And once again the Democrats are going to lose.[…]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

I wonder how our Aussies feeling right now, they […]

Is Marxism old-fashioned?

:eh: It's Marxists who constantly make an "[…]

The numbers of vaccines given are rising steadily.[…]