Trump banned from Facebook until 2023 - Page 4 - 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

#15176062
noemon wrote:Facebook bans black people, women, immigrants and religious people ALL the frigging time. I highly doubt you will find a single person that is political active that has not been banned or censored at some point in facebook. People who break its TOS get banned by the droves.

The one and only black person in here has been banned more times you have got a warning for.

Obviously, I'm talking about a class of people, not individual cases for individual reasons. "Terms of service" is often used as mere artifice for banning people whom they disagree with, usually politically.

noemon wrote:Second I see some people still insisting that the BLM are as guilty as Trump for inciting people to insurrection.

Perhaps. I think the more salient point is that many Democrat politicians and many media talking heads insisted that riots were merely incidental and that what we saw throughout 2020 was "mostly peaceful protests" even when we were seeing businesses and police stations burned and federal court houses mortared.

noemon wrote:You have made similar arguments from what I recall and once again it simply betrays the extreme bias of these people.

I think people have the right to protest. I don't think they have the right to break the law.

noemon wrote:The BLM fight for the right of Black people to a life free from racism, Trump and his supporters were fighting for sedition.

BLM is also known for marching around saying, "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want them? Now!" Trump's supporters were protesting what they sincerely believe is a stolen presidential election.

noemon wrote:The BLM Leaders do not rally people to seditious activities, they rally them to protest.

Sure. And agent provocateurs infiltrate and engage in violence. The leaders never get arrested, because they never actually break the law. Trump didn't break the law either.

noemon wrote:Some protests get out of hand either because of the police or because of the protesters, that has been true for all protests in history and across the entire world. It does not justify sedition in any way, shape or form nor does it undermine the constitutional right to protest.

Sure. However, plenty of politicians have come quite close to calling for physical violence--Maxine Waters is a fine example. She will not get arrested for it. She will not be kicked out of Congress for it. She will not even be criticized by members of her own party or left wing pundits for that behavior. I understand you dislike Donald Trump, but he has always told his supporters to respect law enforcement. You don't always hear that from BLM or a lot of Democrat politicians. How many Democrat politicians have been met with physical violence lately? Steve Scalise got shot by a Bernie Sanders supporter and almost lost his life. Rand Paul has been assaulted twice. People in support of BLM and Antifa have blocked freeways (which is unlawful), have launched mortars into federal court houses, set police precincts on fire, and took over parts of cities, declaring them autonomous zones. How you see launching mortars into a federal court house as a protest that got out of hand, or taking over parts of cities and calling them autonomous zones, and contrasting people protesting at the capitol because they sincerely think an election has been stolen as sedition suggests your political passions govern your perceptions.

wat0n wrote:Facebook did ban people who were inciting violence (e.g. looting) back in 2020, regardless of their ideology (if they even had one). Also, Trump wasn't banned due to his ideology but for something a lot more concrete than that.

They should take down any material that is a clear violation of the law. However, they need to be careful how they do that, because they can also open themselves up to suit if they slander or libel people by extension when those people haven't broken the law.

wat0n wrote:That's complicated, I think, because it could say it's being compelled to allow that speech on its platform - also a First Amendment issue.

It's not that complicated. Your telephone company cannot refuse you service, because they don't like how you vote. That sort of regulation is probably coming to social media at some point.

noemon wrote:Really? and who will have the power to determine who is allowed in the other's private property?

Public utilities commissions. It's the same as governing telecommunications networks, electrical and gas utilities, internet service providers, etc.

Admin Edit: Rule 3 Violation, Extreme institutional racism.

Rugoz wrote:Claiming the election was stolen is not some random "political claim", it goes at the very heart of the system. It legitimizes political violence.

Again, this is sort of an interesting thing. You people only seem to be concerned about it when people on the right say such things. Every single Republican president since Nixon has been subject to claims by Democrats in Congress and in session that they stole the election. Sheila Jackson Lee said that about George W. Bush in 2004, and now calls him a patriot because Trump and Bush don't get along and she now thinks it's a smart thing to call someone a patriot who she earlier accused of stealing an election. Trump was subjected to a dossier financed by Hillary Clinton's campaign, compiled by Christopher Steele and fed to the FBI in order to get an independent counsel appointed to vex the Trump administration and make a public case that Trump was working with the Russians who interfered in the US elections thereby making Trump president. Have you forgotten that so quickly? Are you saying that the Democrats were attacking the very foundations of democracy? Are you saying the Democrats have been attacking the foundations of democracy for the last 30 years?

Rugoz wrote:but it's quite hilarious to see Republicans whine about that decision, when they are generally opposed to regulating private companies, and even think there should be no limit to their campaign contributions (Citizens United).

That's corporate lawyers on the Supreme Court. There are lots of Republicans who think companies should not be allowed to make unlimited contributions. They are not a majority, however. Did you ever hear of John McCain? Citizens United was overturning aspects of McCain-Feingold--legislation written in part by a Republican. You people really need to learn to rely on primary sources and not get your information from the media or social networks. McCain-Feingold should be your first clue that your statement is materially false.

Ganeshas Rat wrote:Ok, which one? There's no market of social networks. And Facebook is used not because it provides better quality than its competitors, or lower price than its competitors, or something totally different from its competitors, but just because it has no competitors.

Use minds.com. It's open source. Facebook is an In-Q-Tel creation. It's CIA. It's basically used for spying on the entire world. It's best to steer clear of Facebook, etc.

MistyTiger wrote:Trump has never been a good person.

He was when he was giving money to Democrats. Here's Trump with Rosa Parks and Mohammed Ali.
Image
Guess who encouraged Donald Trump to run for president. His good friend Bill Clinton. Oooffff! I'll bet Bill Clinton regrets that day.

MistyTiger wrote:Then why is election day on the first day in November?

It's not. It's on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November. Why? Democrats would call that voter suppression. The founders did not want idiots to vote. So if you couldn't keep that formulation straight, you would not know which day election day was. That's how they kept idiots from voting in early America.

MistyTiger wrote:Business owners have a right to make decisions on who gets to be using their services and goods. They have a say in who is on their property, they are property owners.

Publicly traded companies, companies that sell to the general public, companies with over 50 employees and so on are subject to all sorts of regulations. It is not even remotely the sort of libertarian argument you're making.

Politics_Observer wrote:It's not OK in my book either Misty. Well said!

I thought you were going to single-handedly save black people from discrimination. Don't you support Republican civil rights legislation that requires businesses to serve blacks? You haven't become a segregationist now too, have you?

MistyTiger wrote:Some of you do not remember that the founders were concerned about the government taking freedom away from the people.

Or property... like their slaves. They also were for uniform excise taxes and apportioned capitations as the only way of funding government operations so that everybody paid the same amount in taxes, rich or poor.

MistyTiger wrote:The government actually has no business imposing decisions on member banning.

Really? You would have them run a health care system and then say that they have to business with something much less trivial?

MistyTiger wrote:The government should only be concerned about monopolies and anti-trust legislation.

Oh, ok. So we should get rid of workplace safety regulations then? Right? We should allow mines and steel furnaces to operate in an unsafe manner, because the government shouldn't be involved, right? I guess you were a big fan of all the regulations Trump removed, right? Trump removed more than twenty five thousand pages of regulations from the Federal Register. You agree with what Trump did in terms of deregulation, right?
#15176094
blackjack21 wrote:Again, this is sort of an interesting thing. You people only seem to be concerned about it when people on the right say such things. Every single Republican president since Nixon has been subject to claims by Democrats in Congress and in session that they stole the election. Sheila Jackson Lee said that about George W. Bush in 2004, and now calls him a patriot because Trump and Bush don't get along and she now thinks it's a smart thing to call someone a patriot who she earlier accused of stealing an election. Trump was subjected to a dossier financed by Hillary Clinton's campaign, compiled by Christopher Steele and fed to the FBI in order to get an independent counsel appointed to vex the Trump administration and make a public case that Trump was working with the Russians who interfered in the US elections thereby making Trump president. Have you forgotten that so quickly? Are you saying that the Democrats were attacking the very foundations of democracy? Are you saying the Democrats have been attacking the foundations of democracy for the last 30 years?


Who the fuck is Sheila Jackson Lee? Trump was the bloody POTUS.

Here's Al Gore's concession speech, and he had 1000x more reason to believe he might have won that Trump ever had:



Also, your comparison to the Russian interference is stupid and as usual half-way between truth and conspiracy crap. The accusation against Trump was that he collaborated with a foreign power to get dirt on a political opponent (something Trump Jr. more than welcomed in his email).

blackjack21 wrote:That's corporate lawyers on the Supreme Court. There are lots of Republicans who think companies should not be allowed to make unlimited contributions. They are not a majority, however. Did you ever hear of John McCain? Citizens United was overturning aspects of McCain-Feingold--legislation written in part by a Republican. You people really need to learn to rely on primary sources and not get your information from the media or social networks. McCain-Feingold should be your first clue that your statement is materially false.


McCain, seriously? I thought he was a RINO and traitor :lol:.

Fact is, the Republicans have blocked the constitutional amendments introduced to overturn the SC decision.
#15176098
blackjack21 wrote:You people only seem to be concerned about it when people on the right say such things.

It cracks me that he considers blocking a political leader and their followers on unprecedented scale, reminding of Black Mirror, as something totally natural for the democracy, the manifestation of private companies natural right to own the data. But the idea that elections can somehow be rigged, it's so ridiculous, it's so heretic, even thinking it, much more speaking it loudly is the act of terrorism.

The guys find new and new proofs of elections in Russia being stolen for last 20 years, even despite there's a developed identification system and other measures like webcams. But America, the God blessed America, where the voting is more or less "I give my honest word I can vote here" is totally protected from election meddling, nothing like that ever happened here, nothing like that will ever happen, people who dare to say that are political terrorists spreading misinformation, they should be shot. "It can't happen here".
#15176096
blackjack21 wrote:Obviously, I'm talking about a class of people, not individual cases for individual reasons. "Terms of service" is often used as mere artifice for banning people whom they disagree with, usually politically.


Obviously, you are simply repeating your racist prejudice and expect from others to take it as fact. You believe that Black people, Minorities and Religious people are protected species in facebook but this is simply not true. What is clearly true, is that your racist prejudice considering yourself(or your group) as a victim compared to Black people is obvious and transparent. And please do not start being a victim again. You have not qualified your argument and as such there is nothing else to be said, no argument to argue. Just the unsubstantiated racist assertions of a broken record.

blackjack21 wrote:However, plenty of politicians have come quite close to calling for physical violence--Maxine Waters is a fine example. She will not get arrested for it.


Donald Trump incited people to violence because he was upset for losing the election. Why don't you bring forward what Waters said so we can compare it with what Trump has said. If Trump said worse, I presume you will publicly call for his arrest?

blackjack21 wrote:Perhaps. I think the more salient point is that many Democrat politicians and many media talking heads insisted that riots were merely incidental and that what we saw throughout 2020 was "mostly peaceful protests" even when we were seeing businesses and police stations burned and federal court houses mortared. BLM is also known for marching around saying, "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want them? Now!" Trump's supporters were protesting what they sincerely believe is a stolen presidential election.


BLM protests in the US were 99.9% peaceful protests indeed. And in the few cases that they were not peaceful, we saw police instigating violence. BLM protests in the US were far more peaceful than normal protests in Greece, France and Europe. Once again you exemplify your transparent racist prejudice by trying to render the BLM as 'criminal' and as usual change the topic with tired and boring whataboutism.

You claim that Trump and white people are poor victims that are being discriminated against by the "pro-Black establishment". Your claim is unsubstantiated, totally ridiculous and extremely racist.

blackjack21 wrote:I think people have the right to protest. I don't think they have the right to break the law.


You believe that only white people have the right to protest and to life. You believe that Black people do not even have the right to protest the unjust murder of members of their community. Spare me the possible denial please, you will not convince me otherwise even if you scream it at the top of your lungs. Your words quoted here speak for themselves.

blackjack21 wrote:I understand you dislike Donald Trump, but he has always told his supporters to respect law enforcement.


I don't care what you pretend to believe about me for rhetorical purposes, I couldn't give a toss either about your beliefs about me or about Trump.

Trump incited the crowd to a seditious insurrection. That much is a fact.

blackjack21 wrote:You don't always hear that from BLM or a lot of Democrat politicians. How many Democrat politicians have been met with physical violence lately? Steve Scalise got shot by a Bernie Sanders supporter and almost lost his life. Rand Paul has been assaulted twice. People in support of BLM and Antifa have blocked freeways (which is unlawful), have launched mortars into federal court houses, set police precincts on fire, and took over parts of cities, declaring them autonomous zones.


Police made over 10000 arrests at BLM protests and yet here you are pretending that the US, facebook and the world more generally discriminate against Donald Trump who has not been arrested or otherwise muted and the white racists that stormed Capitol Hill on his behalf.

The irony is that you do not even see your massive double-standards. You whine that the world is discriminating against you once again, but you have totally failed to qualify that discrimination and frankly I am astounded by your persistence. You have attempted this over 20 times over the past few years and have lost the argument every single time.

The reason is simple, white people like yourself are not being discriminated against anywhere near as Black people, minorities, gay people and others. So no matter how hard you try, you will never convince anybody other than hair-brained acolytes because you lack real facts and instead rely on your own imagination and prejudice.

It's boring and uninteresting.

Ganeshas Rat wrote:It cracks me that he considers blocking a political leader and their followers on unprecedented scale, reminding of Black Mirror, as something totally natural for the democracy, the manifestation of private companies natural right to own the data. But the idea that elections can somehow be rigged, it's so ridiculous, it's so heretic, even thinking it, much more speaking it loudly is the act of terrorism.


It cracks me that you think Trump getting banned by facebook for saying stupid things is 10000 times worse than George Floyd getting murdered in broad daylight. It cracks me that you honestly believe that you are the victim and Floyd the oppressor.

It cracks me up even more that you are a Putin supporter who openly defends the imprisonment of all the Russian opposition.

At some point, you and the rest in here just lost all sense of measure.
#15176101
noemon wrote:It cracks me that you think Trump getting banned by facebook for saying stupid things is 10000 times worse than George Floyd getting murdered in broad daylight. It cracks me that you honestly believe that you are the victim and Floyd the oppressor.

Why Floyd? Let's play big cards here. Genghis Khan conquered cities and built walls of its inhabitants. 6,000,000 Jews went into the gas chambers to be vaporized into thin smoke, ALL OF THE DINOSAURS DIED FOR YOUR SINS with Earth still covered in their bones, and you still think banning Trump is a bad idea?!

noemon wrote:It cracks me up even more that you are a Putin supporter who openly defends the imprisonment of all the Russian opposition.

Well, you are both against Turkey and for Ukraine, feel no cognitive dissonance about it and even don't get why it's funny. I guess people work like that.
#15176102
Ganeshas Rat wrote:Why Floyd? Let's play big cards here. Genghis Khan conquered cities and built walls of its inhabitants. 6,000,000 Jews went into the gas chambers to be vaporized into thin smoke, ALL OF THE DINOSAURS DIED FOR YOUR SINS with Earth still covered in their bones, and you still think banning Trump is a bad idea?!
Well, you are both against Turkey and for Ukraine, feel no cognitive dissonance about it and even don't get why it's funny. I guess people work like that.


I am against Turkish aggression in Cyprus and Greece, and against Russian aggression in the Ukraine. Why would I support either of your pathetic expansionism and anti-European terrorism?

Your attempt to convolute the obvious with Ghenghis Khan whataboutism is cute but totally nonsensical.

You whine about Trump getting a facebook ban and lament that people treat the murder of an innocent Black man in broad-day-light as worse than Trump's facebook ban. :lol: According to you and your ilk, people are being "racist against white people" for considering the murder of a Black man as worse than Trump's facebook ban.

It upsets you. Imagine that. :eek:

In the meantime you support Putin imprisoning all the Russian opposition while arguing that Trump's facebook ban is an attack on your people's constitutional rights. :lol: :lol: :lol:

What would Putin have done to Navalny if he had incited people to storm the Kremlin? Wait, he's in prison already for uncovering corruption and you support that!
#15176104
noemon wrote:You whine about Trump getting a facebook ban and lament that people treat the murder of an innocent Black man in broad-day-light as worse than Trump's facebook ban. :lol: According to you and your ilk, people are being "racist against white people" for considering the murder of a Black man as worse than Trump's facebook ban.

No, I actually didn't mention Floyd at all, you did. Maybe it's the new trait of Lib Dems to start each and every topic with "Yeah, but is it worse than the cold-blooded murder of a black person by choking them in broad daylight?". "Guys, I have a new cookie recipe". "Yeah, but what about Floyd?"

But of course political terrorism is worse than murder of George Floyd. Deaths of thousands are more important than the death of one, and given how dictatorships tend to leave thousands of death, the topic of the US turning into a dictatorship as its two-party system destroys itself, is more important one.

noemon wrote:What would Putin have done to Navalny if he had incited people to storm the Kremlin? Wait, he's in prison already for uncovering corruption and you support that!

Well, you see, you think I'm against storming the Kremlin. I'm very much pro it. I just don't mind Navalny being in prison too. Your black-and-white morality doesn't get it how it's even possible, so you wrote me to the dark side. And therefore also into sympathizers of Hitler who glorifies the muder of an innocent Black man.
#15176105
Ganeshas Rat wrote:No, I actually didn't mention Floyd at all, you did. Maybe it's the new trait of Lib Dems to start each and every topic with "Yeah, but is it worse than the cold-blooded murder of a black person by choking them in broad daylight?". "Guys, I have a new cookie recipe". "Yeah, but what about Floyd?"


Your delusion is simply astounding. You and your lot attempted to derail this topic with BLM and Floyd in here. I am trashing your whataboutism. :roll:

You claimed that facebooks's ban on Trump is worse than Floyd's death and the systemic racism of Black people in the US.

Your claim is hilarious, ridiculous, total trash and illustrates your racist prejudice.

Well, you see, you think I'm against storming the Kremlin. I'm very much pro it. I just don't mind Navalny being in prison too. Your black-and-white morality doesn't get it how it's even possible, so you wrote me to the dark side. And therefore also into sympathizers of Hitler who glorifies the muder of an innocent Black man.


Putin and his pro-dictatorship supporters like yourself certainly want to see Trump turn the US into a tin-pot dictatorship like the one you support so that you can then feel a bit better about yourselves.

If you want to steer public opinion to that direction then try using a better argument than "a facebook ban being worse than systemic racist murder".
#15176106
noemon wrote:Your delusion is simply astounding. You and your lot attempted to derail this topic with BLM and Floyd in here. I am trashing your whataboutism.

Where did I wrote anything about Floyd in this topic (before you mentioned it)?

Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation

noemon wrote:If you want to steer public opinion to that direction then try using a better argument than "a facebook ban being worse than systemic racist murder".

The attack on democracy is worse than a racist murder. It's trivial, even if you're a deontologist.
#15176108
Ganeshas Rat wrote:Where did I wrote anything about Floyd in this topic (before you mentioned it)?


If you disagree with the arguments made by blackjack21 and the others that you have already openly defended then say it.

If you claim that I misinterpreted you and that you do not believe what I accuse of, then you can simply say so; but no you actually insist on it:

Ganeshas Rat wrote:The attack on democracy is worse than a racist murder. It's trivial, even if you're a deontologist.


Trump getting banned on facebook is not an attack on democracy. Trump inciting a crowd to insurrection for being a sore loser is an attack on democracy. American citizens getting murdered by police in broad daylight for the colour of their skin is an attack on democracy. Racists publicly accusing people for protesting the violation of the rights of American citizens is an attack on democracy.

Putin imprisoning all opposition is the attack on democracy.

A Russian supporting Navalny's imprisonment while "trying to champion democracy" does not compute. :knife:
#15176198
Juin wrote:
All those powers and prerogative should be shifted from Facebook to regular constituted authorities. It is more than whether Facebook acted justly or not; it is who made Facebook the Judge, the Prosecutor, the Jury, the Sheriff, the Legislator, the Executioner of cyberspace?




Potemkin wrote:Capitalism did. Facebook has by far the largest market share of social platforms on the internet. End of story.




End of story? We are far from the end of the story of cyberspace. I submit that we are actually at the beginning stages of the story of cyberspace. I envisage much growth and evolution down the road. It will become clear down the road, as is already becoming clear, that cyberspace is far too important to be left to Facebook alone.

And does Facebook even want to be left alone?

Not at all. Facebook wants to be protected by Law from liability suits. In place is a so called Section 230 of something something that shields the likes of Facebook, Twitter etc from content published by users.

You point out the dominance of Facebook, but that also opens up Anti Trust issues.

I could go on at length, and we are still dealing only with the US. Increasingly other countries like Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia will weigh in...

It is a work in progress and far from End of Story
#15176202
blackjack21 wrote:Publicly traded companies, companies that sell to the general public, companies with over 50 employees and so on are subject to all sorts of regulations. It is not even remotely the sort of libertarian argument you're making.


But who holds the controlling interest? The CEO usually holds more stock than everyone else, right? There is a governing board of directors as well.

Guess who encouraged Donald Trump to run for president. His good friend Bill Clinton. Oooffff! I'll bet Bill Clinton regrets that day.


Actually, Trump has thought about it since the 1980s. Larry King might have dangled the idea in front of him, you know how talk show hosts are. Oprah and Letterman also added fuel to the fire.

https://www.npr.org/2017/01/20/51068046 ... r-30-years
#15176226
MistyTiger << Free speech applies to people who use their voice for the good, not to harm others or incite violence.<<


If I may ask, who made you the arbiter of what is "the good"? Is what you consider "the good" samething as what a Wahabi considers "the good"? Is what you consider "the good" samething as what a communist may consider "the good"? And what to you is incitement to violence? Is drawing Mahomet cartoons incitement to violence? Should offenses to the majesty and dignity of Mahomet be banned?

I am sorry, it is not as easy as that.



MistyTiger << Trump has never been a good person.<<

There are Courts out there to try and sentence Trump for violations of the law. Facebook, Twitter, etc are not parallel judicial bodies empowered to suppress Trump.



MistyTiger << A lot of people on social media stir the pot and do not deserve attention, yet their drama-seeking ways get them the attention anyway. It seems like good causes are often forgotten because the drama llamas are taking the spotlight. This is NOT okay in my book.<<


Should BLM be censored by Big Tech? Blackjack gave an examples of BLM chants. I ran into a ditty dating back in 2015 which ran something like, "pigs in a blanket, fry'em like bacon". Cops were not thrilled at all.





Juin wrote:
The founding fathers are dead and gone with. The dead do not legislate for the living. Today's populations are increasingly expressing themselves on social media. Regular constituted authorities, and not Big Tech Corporate ruffians, have the duty and obligation to adjudicate matters there.<<


Then why is election day on the first day in November? By that reasoning, then we should choose a different day each year to hold presidential elections. And we do not have to recognize free speech, the right to bear arms or any of the other rights that the Constitution grants Americans because the founding fathers are dead and their Constitution isn't that important.

Business owners have a right to make decisions on who gets to be using their services and goods. They have a say in who is on their property, they are property owners. That would be like saying that a local Walmart can just let any serial killer in the door and start decapitating women and security has no right to lift a finger to subdue the serial killer because they must wait for the local government to come in and stop the murdering of innocent women, even if it takes the government 1 hour to get there? Have I got that right?

Yes, I am being totally sarcastic for those who are wondering why I am typing this outrageous stuff.[/quote]



1. That no man can legislate from the grave is an obvious truism. And that includes American founding fathers. Every article of the Constitution we uphold today is because we the living of today want to. The Constitution is amenable, allowing for future generations to depart as they may wish from the intents of the founding fathers.


2. Business owners.

Walmart is NOT a law unto itself. Walmart stores operate under the laws of whatever countries their stores operate in. A Walmart store in the United Kingdom operates under the laws of that country. And so on. And patrons of Walmart stores have rights that Walmart cannot violate, and if patrons are not satisfied each country has Courts to which aggrieved patrons can resort to. That is the difference.

Cyberspace poses a challenge. It is a work in progress. Who do Big Tech companies answer to? If a patron at a local Walmart store gets kicked out of the store for some reason, he can take it up with the Courts. Walmart understands that and the patron understands that. Those kinds of things are still murky as far as cyberspace is concerned. But it will become clearer with time. It is a work in progress
#15176230
Juin wrote:MistyTiger << Free speech applies to people who use their voice for the good, not to harm others or incite violence.<<


If I may ask, who made you the arbiter of what is "the good"? Is what you consider "the good" samething as what a Wahabi considers "the good"? Is what you consider "the good" samething as what a communist may consider "the good"? And what to you is incitement to violence? Is drawing Mahomet cartoons incitement to violence? Should offenses to the majesty and dignity of Mahomet be banned?

I am sorry, it is not as easy as that.


The good is something that improves life. Trump was firing up his dumb ass followers days and weeks brfore the Jan 6 riot. He may have been in touch with some of the extremist leaders. Is it good that some were shouting about hanging Pence by a noose? In which culture is it good to wish for someone to be dead?



MistyTiger << Trump has never been a good person.<<

There are Courts out there to try and sentence Trump for violations of the law. Facebook, Twitter, etc are not parallel judicial bodies empowered to suppress Trump.


So Trump should be free to spread his verbal poison to millions of stupid Americans who believe his sorry obese ass? He should not be held responsible for innocents being killed? He is the fucking leader of American insurgents. He is like Osama Bin Laden only he is white with a fugly fake tan.



MistyTiger << A lot of people on social media stir the pot and do not deserve attention, yet their drama-seeking ways get them the attention anyway. It seems like good causes are often forgotten because the drama llamas are taking the spotlight. This is NOT okay in my book.<<


Should BLM be censored by Big Tech? Blackjack gave an examples of BLM chants. I ran into a ditty dating back in 2015 which ran something like, "pigs in a blanket, fry'em like bacon". Cops were not thrilled at all.


BLM the organization calls for death to cops. But cops are trained to protect citizens in cities and towns. BLM can publicize their agenda anywhere. They do not have to depend on Facebook or twitter. Cults have found that they can reach youths through marketing, concerts, clubs, etc. How do you think Islamic terrorist groups recruit Americans? They have their ways.


Juin wrote:
The founding fathers are dead and gone with. The dead do not legislate for the living. Today's populations are increasingly expressing themselves on social media. Regular constituted authorities, and not Big Tech Corporate ruffians, have the duty and obligation to adjudicate matters there.<<


Then why is election day on the first day in November? By that reasoning, then we should choose a different day each year to hold presidential elections. And we do not have to recognize free speech, the right to bear arms or any of the other rights that the Constitution grants Americans because the founding fathers are dead and their Constitution isn't that important.

Business owners have a right to make decisions on who gets to be using their services and goods. They have a say in who is on their property, they are property owners. That would be like saying that a local Walmart can just let any serial killer in the door and start decapitating women and security has no right to lift a finger to subdue the serial killer because they must wait for the local government to come in and stop the murdering of innocent women, even if it takes the government 1 hour to get there? Have I got that right?

Yes, I am being totally sarcastic for those who are wondering why I am typing this outrageous stuff.




1. That no man can legislate from the grave is an obvious truism. And that includes American founding fathers. Every article of the Constitution we uphold today is because we the living of today want to. The Constitution is amenable, allowing for future generations to depart as they may wish from the intents of the founding fathers.[/quote]

You are not a student of law. Lawmakers, lawyers, judges, legal experts believe that we should refer to the Constitution for legal questions and issues. It is tradition. It is how we live. It is the bedrock of US society. Judges look at past court cases and decide from there.


2. Business owners.

Walmart is NOT a law unto itself. Walmart stores operate under the laws of whatever countries their stores operate in. A Walmart store in the United Kingdom operates under the laws of that country. And so on. And patrons of Walmart stores have rights that Walmart cannot violate, and if patrons are not satisfied each country has Courts to which aggrieved patrons can resort to. That is the difference.


You glossed over the serial killer scenario I gave, interesting. So you believe that Walmart security should let women get beheaded until the local authorities arrive, even if it is one hour later. Walmart is not bound by the government on store hours or how many types of boxers they can display each month. During this pandemic, stores would turn people away if they were not wearing a mask. The government could not force them to do that, the store management made that decision.

Cyberspace poses a challenge. It is a work in progress. Who do Big Tech companies answer to? If a patron at a local Walmart store gets kicked out of the store for some reason, he can take it up with the Courts. Walmart understands that and the patron understands that. Those kinds of things are still murky as far as cyberspace is concerned. But it will become clearer with time. It is a work in progress


Cyberspace is like a jungle. Tech companies should consider the audience. They should consider their image and the overall customer experience. If users complain, do they bring the complaints to the government? Not usually. All this fuss is caused by Trump psycophants who salivate over every worthless message from their fugly cheating leader.
#15176292
The actual problem is that Trump doesn't yet have such a supernatural or superhuman telepathic, spontaneous, or even intimate perhaps, connection to his people as real leaders do. There's still much for him to learn and develop in that regard at least.

ImageClick on!
#15176307
Juin wrote:Cyberspace poses a challenge. It is a work in progress. Who do Big Tech companies answer to? If a patron at a local Walmart store gets kicked out of the store for some reason, he can take it up with the Courts.


I think part of the problem here is that you view this issue as Big Tech acting as a law unto itself in wilful defiance of the laws and values of the country they operate in, as opposed to Big Tech being held hostage to, and responding and catering to, real societal norms and values - and frequently doing so reluctantly and/or against its own agenda.

The way I see it, everything 'big tech' has done vis-a-vis what you would (wrongly) interpret as 'censorship' - has actually been done out of fear that they might otherwise be running foul - if not of actual laws of the countries they operate in - at least of the spirit of certain laws, if not of broader societal values.

Things like incitement to violence and racial hatred.

Even free-speech bastion America has laws that curtail speech in relation to incitement to violence. At the very least there are undeniable societal red lines on what is acceptable and unacceptable speech. You would never, for example, say the n word in America outside a very specific cultural context (ie a black person saying it to another black person). So it therefore stands to reason that facebook and twitter would ban that word on their platforms - not because the respective executives and boards of those companies personally find the word repugnant, but because they are acutely aware of the fierce blowback they will get from society when their platforms inevitably become a notorious bastion for such language. Similarly, twitter bans Trump - not because they unilaterally want to 'stick it' to the Trump supporters, but because they know that on balance, there will be less heat applied to them from society from doing it, than there would have been if they continued to allow the incitement and rampant perpetuation of lies from him.

If somehow our societies suddenly started accepting racism and bigotry, then rest assured facebook and twitter would gladly trumpet and celebrate them on their platforms.
#15176403
Juin wrote:
Cyberspace poses a challenge. It is a work in progress. Who do Big Tech companies answer to? If a patron at a local Walmart store gets kicked out of the store for some reason, he can take it up with the Courts.



GandalfTheGrey wrote:I think part of the problem here is that you view this issue as Big Tech acting as a law unto itself in wilful defiance of the laws and values of the country they operate in, as opposed to Big Tech being held hostage to, and responding and catering to, real societal norms and values - and frequently doing so reluctantly and/or against its own agenda.




I am quite amenable to the situation as you have presented above. With a few caveats, of course.

As far as litigations on this matter goes it is my impression that Big Tech's preferred position is to be a platform, nothing more. To that end Section 230 attempts to protect them from being held liable from publishings by users. But, even though Congress enacted laws to allow Big Tech to just play platform and nothing more, same Congress and other political forces- mostly leftists- have pushed for Big Tech to do more, play Sheriff, Prosecutor, Judge, Jury and Executioner. So, I agree, Big Tech is buffeted from both sides.

But why should that matter to India or Nigeria? Or to Australia? India and Nigeria are in ongoing spats with Twitter; Australia with Facebook. Why should it matter to them that Big Tech, pressured by progressive forces internal to the US, purpotes to assert its own rules on their own fiefs?



GandalfTheGrey<< The way I see it, everything 'big tech' has done vis-a-vis what you would (wrongly) interpret as 'censorship' - has actually been done out of fear that they might otherwise be running foul - if not of actual laws of the countries they operate in - at least of the spirit of certain laws, if not of broader societal values.<<


If the President of the Republic of Nigeria posts something and Twitter takes it down, how is that not Censorship? When Twitter locked out Washington Post over a Hunter Biden story, how is that not Censorship?




GandalfTheGrey << Things like incitement to violence and racial hatred.<<

Should BLM be censored? A ditty was recorded at one of their rallies that went something like, "pigs in a blanket, fry'em like bacon".

Not that I disagree with you that something should not be done about incitement to violence and hatred. But it is always problematic pinning such things down. The one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter comes to mind. While some incitements to violence are clear and obvious, others tend to be excused or explained away as the just uprising of an aggrieved sector.





GandalfTheGrey << Even free-speech bastion America has laws that curtail speech in relation to incitement to violence. At the very least there are undeniable societal red lines on what is acceptable and unacceptable speech. You would never, for example, say the n word in America outside a very specific cultural context (ie a black person saying it to another black person). So it therefore stands to reason that facebook and twitter would ban that word on their platforms - not because the respective executives and boards of those companies personally find the word repugnant, but because they are acutely aware of the fierce blowback they will get from society when their platforms inevitably become a notorious bastion for such language. Similarly, twitter bans Trump - not because they unilaterally want to 'stick it' to the Trump supporters, but because they know that on balance, there will be less heat applied to them from society from doing it, than there would have been if they continued to allow the incitement and rampant perpetuation of lies from him.

If somehow our societies suddenly started accepting racism and bigotry, then rest assured facebook and twitter would gladly trumpet and celebrate them on their platforms.<<



Since no one is in dispute over the impropriety of the use of the "n" word, I fail to see how that address the more intricate challenges that we face as use of cyberspace broadens.

Why dont we deal with examples that actually made news and have aggrieved parties that actually protested Big Tech decisions?

An example will be the Twitter taking down a New York Post article on Hunter Biden; over a story that actually turned out to have been accurate and not a fabrication.
#15176477
Juin wrote:
If the President of the Republic of Nigeria posts something and Twitter takes it down, how is that not Censorship? When Twitter locked out Washington Post over a Hunter Biden story, how is that not Censorship?


It is not censorship, as I keep saying, because twitter is not obliged to publish anything on its platform. It is not censorship because no one is preventing the President of Nigeria from saying those same things on the multitude of other platforms he has at his disposal - like his country's mainstream media.

Look, putting the issue of censorship aside for a moment, its pretty obvious that since the Trump furore reached a crescendo, twitter have been fumbling around in the dark, feebly making up positions and policies as they go. They're constantly sticking their finger in the air in a desperate attempt to gauge which way the wind is blowing. Or in other words, I don't see this as a case of a sinister powerful company throwing its weight around in wilful defiance of the laws of the land - simply because they can. For one thing, twitter did a complete backflip on your Hunter Biden case - as soon as the public blowback became too much for them.

It is a classic case of a big public company staking so much of their 'worth' on how much the public loves them. They crave public affection and respect, and pursue policies that seeks to horde such affection and respect. Thats really what this all comes down to. They read the mood in 2020, at least they thought they did, and judged that ruthlessly stamping out fake news and incitement to violence reflected the public sentiment at the time. And the only thing the public hate more than high profile companies going soft on their pet issue of the day, is when they are hypocritical about it. So of course, they can't be seen to block Trump and his incitement on the one hand, while allowing another President in another country to post posts promising violence against certain enemies. Someone, somewhere, would pick up the blatant inconsistency and twitter would be hounded for it. At least thats how I assume they rationalise.

All of this new public space is, as you say, a work in progress. Everyone is fumbling to work out what its all about and how to deal with it. Not least of all Big Tech itself.
#15176488
Juin wrote:

If the President of the Republic of Nigeria posts something and Twitter takes it down, how is that not Censorship? When Twitter locked out Washington Post over a Hunter Biden story, how is that not Censorship?






GandalfTheGrey wrote:It is not censorship, as I keep saying, because twitter is not obliged to publish anything on its platform. It is not censorship because no one is preventing the President of Nigeria from saying those same things on the multitude of other platforms he has at his disposal - like his country's mainstream media.




Twitter does NOT publish anything. Twitter is a platform. Users ARE the publishers.

And the multitude of media in Nigeria ARE publishers, and NOT platforms.

Meaning a media outlet in Nigeria- in its capacity as a publisher- can refuse to publish a statement by the President of Nigeria. But Twitter as a platform cannot, or should not.





GandalfTheGrey << Look, putting the issue of censorship aside for a moment, its pretty obvious that since the Trump furore reached a crescendo, twitter have been fumbling around in the dark, feebly making up positions and policies as they go. They're constantly sticking their finger in the air in a desperate attempt to gauge which way the wind is blowing. Or in other words, I don't see this as a case of a sinister powerful company throwing its weight around in wilful defiance of the laws of the land - simply because they can. For one thing, twitter did a complete backflip on your Hunter Biden case - as soon as the public blowback became too much for them.

It is a classic case of a big public company staking so much of their 'worth' on how much the public loves them. They crave public affection and respect, and pursue policies that seeks to horde such affection and respect. Thats really what this all comes down to. They read the mood in 2020, at least they thought they did, and judged that ruthlessly stamping out fake news and incitement to violence reflected the public sentiment at the time. And the only thing the public hate more than high profile companies going soft on their pet issue of the day, is when they are hypocritical about it. So of course, they can't be seen to block Trump and his incitement on the one hand, while allowing another President in another country to post posts promising violence against certain enemies. Someone, somewhere, would pick up the blatant inconsistency and twitter would be hounded for it. At least thats how I assume they rationalise.

All of this new public space is, as you say, a work in progress. Everyone is fumbling to work out what its all about and how to deal with it. Not least of all Big Tech itself.<<




I cannot agree with you more. Cyberspace is a weird development. It is real without being real.
#15176494
Juin wrote:I cannot agree with you more. Cyberspace is a weird development. It is real without being real.

In that sense, it is comparable to the development of human language itself about a million years ago. Using language, we can conjure up distant objects or people, construct narratives of events which never happened, and exchange experiences with each other. We forget just how weird this development must have seemed when it first happened. Experiencing things which are real without being real is what distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom.
US Supreme Court Watch

@Drlee Please stop being rude. Thank you. The[…]

The Wuhan virus—how are we doing?

The notion the virus leaked from a lab has been de[…]

The thread was started to incite hatred of "Z[…]

The UK only gives the appearance of being a mul[…]