Trump banned from Facebook until 2023 - Page 5 - 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

#15176498
Juin wrote:Twitter does NOT publish anything. Twitter is a platform. Users ARE the publishers.


How does that statement actually fly given that twitter literally attaches terms and conditions to what people can and can't post on their platform? Isn't that basically the very definition of a publisher?

Or is your argument that they are in fact publishers, but they shouldn't be? In which case the argument isn't really about censorship is it? Its actually should Big Tech online platforms be publishers or not? And moreover, isn't this a pretty futile debate to have - given that the solution surely is to simply create, or encourage others to create, the sort of platform that you would prefer?

Also, I am aware that Big Tech itself speaks from both sides of their mouths on this - talking up the virtues of free, uninhibited speech where it suits, but at the same time vowing to stamp out racists and inciters etc on their platforms.
#15176501
@GandalfTheGrey do you consider Twitter and Facebook are publishers? I'm asking because if they are, then not only they can have an editorial line (which is not nearly the same as just setting standards that ban things like incitement to violence, be it real or imagined, or enforcing of the laws of the country they operate in), but can 1) ban users who post things that go against their editorial line and 2) be sued for libel if someone publishes something slanderous, since they are responsible for making that call given they have an editorial line just like any publisher does.

In that sense, if Trump supporters were smart this is exactly how they'd retaliate: By demanding them to be recognized as publishers and held to the standards of them. Not by alleging some First Amendment violation or something like that.
#15176505
@wat0n Trump supporters are not smart, though, and even that argument wouldn't fly as this would start to infringe on the very private property rights that so many people, of all ideologies, value.
#15176512
Godstud wrote:@wat0n Trump supporters are not smart, though, and even that argument wouldn't fly as this would start to infringe on the very private property rights that so many people, of all ideologies, value.


No, it would not. Under the argument that Facebook is a publisher, it would keep the right to ban Trump for whatever reason (this goes beyond whether he incited the storming of the US Capitol or not, as a publisher can refuse to publish speech for whatever reason they want. No newspaper is under an obligation to publish all the letters to the editor they receive) yet they would also be treated just like any publisher is. Gone would be the days where people would slander others with little action from Facebook, without the latter facing a steep cost.

Facebook though probably can claim that it bans others who incite violence or other lawless behavior through their platform, regardless of their ideology and hence had acted in good faith. It can likely prove it too, as IIRC it banned people who incited looting last year during the George Floyd protests. If it shows it didn't act following an editorial line but did so in good faith then it can get away with not being considered a publisher. But it would then be a long drawn case, and potentially a very uncomfortable one for them even if they won as their policies would be in the spotlight.

If Trumpists were smart, this is the road they'd follow. But as you said, they are not for the most part. And those who are smart and informed enough to understand the above likely don't have the balls to follow through, perhaps because courts would likely be touching on whether Trump incited a riot or not and I doubt they want a judge to look into that.
#15176580
[quote="wat0n"][/quote]


wat0n << GandalfTheGrey do you consider Twitter and Facebook are publishers? I'm asking because if they are, then not only they can have an editorial line (which is not nearly the same as just setting standards that ban things like incitement to violence, be it real or imagined, or enforcing of the laws of the country they operate in), but can 1) ban users who post things that go against their editorial line and 2) be sued for libel if someone publishes something slanderous, since they are responsible for making that call given they have an editorial line just like any publisher does.<<


I agree with your assessment. And my impression is that that was what Big Tech in its earlier stages wanted to be: just a platform.




wat0n << In that sense, if Trump supporters were smart this is exactly how they'd retaliate: By demanding them to be recognized as publishers and held to the standards of them. Not by alleging some First Amendment violation or something like that.<<


I am a Trumpista. But I fail to see the value in retaliation, for retaliation sake. Nor any value in Big Tech pushed, screamin and kickin, into the publisher box. I have a feeling we would wind up in the situation of the treatment being worse than the disease.

What makes you think Trumpistas are dumb? I know many, and they are not dumb. Though it is more accurate to say I am to the right wing. Trumpista is just the flavour of the moment. Before that it was Tea Party. I even was in awe when the flavour was Ross Perot, but at the time I was still in the rightwing periphery of the Democratic Party. I bolted into the Republican camp somewhere during the first two years of Bill Clinton's Presidency.
Last edited by Juin on 11 Jun 2021 22:24, edited 1 time in total.
#15176585
wat0n wrote:Was storming the US Capitol a smart thing to do, @Juin?




I saw nothing that came anywhere close to "stormin". :lol: Funny thing is I had the tv at work all day that January 6th and it was just like any other day with Trump growlin over his loss. To tell you the truth it was boring, since at that point Trump was like a broken record. I had at that point long reached the point of lets move on. So I was not impressed at what was going on. I was astonished the following day to see what amounted to nothing more than a tempest in a teapot being blowing up into the Storming of the Bastille.
#15176588
Juin wrote:I saw nothing that came anywhere close to "stormin". :lol: Funny thing is I had the tv at work all day that January 6th and it was just like any other day with Trump growlin over his loss. To tell you the truth it was boring, since at that point Trump was like a broken record. I had at that point long reached the point of lets move on. So I was not impressed at what was going on. I was astonished the following day to see what amounted to nothing more than a tempest in a teapot being blowing up into the Storming of the Bastille.


Well, you might want to tell that to the DC officer who was crushed by a door and was hurt badly. If that's not storming, then it was sunny in a forceful way. There were damaged doors, broken windows, some theft. Just because only a few people died, doesn't diminish the severity of the event. It was an invasion.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/09/us/offic ... index.html

https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/01/0 ... e-capitol/
#15176594
@MistyTiger

It was an act of treason is what it was. See, people revolt due to a sense of entitlement that they have. They feel entitled to something like privileges and status. When they feel that that their sense of entitlement is being violated or that they think something they feel entitled to is being taken away from them, they revolt. So, injustice is not the reason for many revolts. It is when a sense of entitlement to something is violated that most people revolt. So, in this case, it is important to remember that the United States was founded on white supremacy, white privilege, slavery, genocide and colonialism. This is a historical fact that any rational or logical person cannot deny. The facts of history demonstrate this and the actions of those rioters further reinforce those historical facts and illustrate why such a revolt occurred on January 6th.

Freedom and democracy is not this concept of only white males owning property being allowed to vote. Freedom and democracy is the notion of power being shared equally among all citizens, white, black, Asian, Hispanic, male and female all being allowed to vote. Nobody is better than anybody else. So, when white people saw this feeling of entitlement to their excessive privilege, power and status being violated due to the fact they are more and more having to equally share power among those who are not white or wealthy property owners, they revolted and stormed the capital.

If it was any other group that did this, they would have been branded traitors and hung from the highest trees. But this was done by whites so they get a free pass and special treatment. This is what educated people see and understand as white privilege that many of these same whites deny exist despite the facts proving otherwise. Right now, those same white republicans are trying to take away the right to vote from democrats and minorities who are American citizens. They don't believe in freedom and democracy. They believe ONLY IN POWER.

They are not interested in freedom and democracy and never have been. They are interested in one thing and one thing only: POWER and MAINTAINING THEIR EXCESSIVE PRIVILEGE. That's the only thing republicans are interested in. They are not interested in governing or running a country or serving the American people. Their actions demonstrate it. That's the reason why January 6th happened. It was all about POWER and PRIVILEGE and had nothing to do with freedom or democracy. They have no moral ground to stand on or any moral authority. Trump deserved being banned from Facebook and deserved every last bit of it. He did it to himself and he has only himself to blame and nobody else.
#15176599
[quote="GandalfTheGrey"][/quote]


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


GandalfTheGrey << How does that statement actually fly given that twitter literally attaches terms and conditions to what people can and can't post on their platform? Isn't that basically the very definition of a publisher?

Or is your argument that they are in fact publishers, but they shouldn't be?<<



My argument is that Twitter and the rest are not publishers, and shouldnt be. They are platforms. And my impression is that after all is said and done they will settle down as platforms.




GandalfTheyGrey << In which case the argument isn't really about censorship is it? Its actually should Big Tech online platforms be publishers or not?<<



It is same thing. Whether they are platforms or publishers determines whether they have a right to censor or not. If they are platforms they do not have the right to censor. If they are publishers they have the right to.




GandalfTheGrey << And moreover, isn't this a pretty futile debate to have - given that the solution surely is to simply create, or encourage others to create, the sort of platform that you would prefer?<<


That will not solve the problem Twitter is having with the Republic of Nigeria. The Federal Government of Nigeria has opened up an account with some Indian outfit called Kookoo, or something like that. But that is besides the point. Twitter stays shutdown in Nigeria. It is not that other platforms are not available. I suspect it is about an alien, unfettered power operating in the Nigerian realm.

Funny thing is Twitter is now in talks with the Nigerian Government. I am not sure what the point is.




GandalfTheGrey << Also, I am aware that Big Tech itself speaks from both sides of their mouths on this - talking up the virtues of free, uninhibited speech where it suits, but at the same time vowing to stamp out racists and inciters etc on their platforms. <<


A post of yours yesterday has pushed me towards the view that in the end it may not be Big Tech's fault. Powerful political forces in the US pushed them to act to stamp out "racists" and "inciters". And as equally powerful powerful forces are gonna come back at them again if and when Republicans take Congress.
#15176603
[quote="Politics_Observer"][/quote]



Politics_Observer << It was an act of treason is what it was. See, people revolt due to a sense of entitlement that they have. They feel entitled to something like privileges and status. When they feel that that their sense of entitlement is being violated or that they think something they feel entitled to is being taken away from them, they revolt. So, injustice is not the reason for many revolts. It is when a sense of entitlement to something is violated that most people revolt. So, in this case, it is important to remember that the United States was founded on white supremacy, white privilege, slavery, genocide and colonialism. This is a historical fact that any rational or logical person cannot deny. The facts of history demonstrate this and the actions of those rioters further reinforce those historical facts and illustrate why such a revolt occurred on January 6th.

Freedom and democracy is not this concept of only white males owning property being allowed to vote. Freedom and democracy is the notion of power being shared equally among all citizens, white, black, Asian, Hispanic, male and female all being allowed to vote. Nobody is better than anybody else. So, when white people saw this feeling of entitlement to their excessive privilege, power and status being violated due to the fact they are more and more having to equally share power among those who are not white or wealthy property owners, they revolted and stormed the capital.

If it was any other group that did this, they would have been branded traitors and hung from the highest trees. But this was done by whites so they get a free pass and special treatment. This is what educated people see and understand as white privilege that many of these same whites deny exist despite the facts proving otherwise. Right now, those same white republicans are trying to take away the right to vote from democrats and minorities who are American citizens. They don't believe in freedom and democracy. They believe ONLY IN POWER.

They are not interested in freedom and democracy and never have been. They are interested in one thing and one thing only: POWER and MAINTAINING THEIR EXCESSIVE PRIVILEGE. That's the only thing republicans are interested in. They are not interested in governing or running a country or serving the American people. Their actions demonstrate it. That's the reason why January 6th happened. It was all about POWER and PRIVILEGE and had nothing to do with freedom or democracy. They have no moral ground to stand on or any moral authority. Trump deserved being banned from Facebook and deserved every last bit of it. He did it to himself and he has only himself to blame and nobody else.<<





That is quite a handful you have put out there, Political Observer. :lol:

I doubt I can match your high rhethoric. Nevertheless, as a Trumpista, I believe I should attempt a rebuttal. Now Trumpistas are not noted for their brilliance. I disagree. But many whom I consider brilliant in the threads have emphasised with certitude that Trumpistas are not smart. It may very well therefore be the case that that Trumpista that is pointed out as dumb is me, but I am so dumb that I do not know that it is me. Whatever.

I will start with treason. Objecting to an election outcome amounts to treason? Last I looked Democrats objected to the election of Bush Sr. Democrats also objected when Trump was elected. Was Rep John Lewis a traitor when he, with much tears, and with much piety and sanctimony declared, "I dont see Trump as a legitimate President"?

If objecting to election outcomes is treason then I submit that Democrats should also take a seat in the dock alongside us Trumpistas. :lol:

All white people are not previledged. There have been a small class of previledged white people throughout history. But for the most part, and throughout much of history, the vast majority have been at the boot of a small class of previledged whites. The thesis of white previledge is an insult to those whites who were slaves under Romans, Turks, etc; it is an insult to the serfs- quasi slaves- under Czardom.

Nor do I see anything all that previledged about some of the ruffians on January 6th. They looked very much to me like the sans culottes of the French Revolution. From the way your rhethoric flowed one would be forgiven if one is left with the impression that a crowd of limousine, chauffeur driven whites assaulted the Capitol.

You seem to be a fan of that radical race theory that Tucker Carlson raves against all night long :lol:

And what are you talking about? America. And God Bless America is an experiment that has been quite successful. The road ahead is long, but there is an increasing class of previledged blacks, asians, hispanics. This here Republic has elected a black President. Kamala Harris may make it to President. She, at the very least, has the inside track in a future race for the White House.
#15176604
@Juin

Ohh I don't think Trump supporters are dumb at all. They are selfish. They know exactly what they are doing and they know it's wrong but don't care. Trump supporters believe in serving themselves and not a higher purpose greater and more important than themselves. Trump supporters believe that those who serve something greater and more important than themselves are suckers. But I'll tell you what, those who only care about themselves and only their self interest all the time and don't care about anything that is far greater and more important than themselves are pretty pathetic and quite frankly, losers in the end. And we see that with Trump right now. He's pathetic and a loser and a weak man.
#15176685
MistyTiger wrote:Well, you might want to tell that to the DC officer who was crushed by a door and was hurt badly. If that's not storming, then it was sunny in a forceful way. There were damaged doors, broken windows, some theft. Just because only a few people died, doesn't diminish the severity of the event. It was an invasion.




Actually the severity of an event can be diminished by the casualty level.

Each death is regrettable. Nevertheless, here are the findings for five who died on January 6th

- Three of them died of natural causes: Officer Brian Sicknick, Benjamin Philips, Kevin Greeson.

- One, Roseanne Boyland, died by accident from acute amphetamine intoxication.

- Unarmed Ashli Babbitt was shot to death by an officer for climbing through a window. [I thought liberals are decriminalising harmless crimes like climbing through a window]



Given all the above I will say describing the outing at the Capitol on January 6th as a storming is a stretch. There is more action at a rock concert than took place at that boring Tea Party at the Capitol.


The whole attempt at building up that Tea Party at the Capitol into a Storming of the Bastille is a farce. No one individual better illustrates that than one clearly mentally deranged Jacob Chansley, aka Jake Angeli, aka Yellowstone Wolf, a Qanon Shaman according to others, in horned headgear, body paints. But a true patriot nonetheless, Qanon Shaman aka Jake Angeli floated a giant Stars and Stripes on a pike. That this character was hauled before the Courts is clear proof of the farcical nature of his legal ordeal.

Frankly the Prosecution of Jacob Chansley, aka Jake Angeli, aka Yellowstone Wolf, Qanon shaman is like something conjured straight from the pages of Miguel de Cervantes' Don Quixote of La Mancha.
#15177274
wat0n wrote:@GandalfTheGrey do you consider Twitter and Facebook are publishers? I'm asking because if they are, then not only they can have an editorial line (which is not nearly the same as just setting standards that ban things like incitement to violence, be it real or imagined, or enforcing of the laws of the country they operate in), but can 1) ban users who post things that go against their editorial line and 2) be sued for libel if someone publishes something slanderous, since they are responsible for making that call given they have an editorial line just like any publisher does.

In that sense, if Trump supporters were smart this is exactly how they'd retaliate: By demanding them to be recognized as publishers and held to the standards of them. Not by alleging some First Amendment violation or something like that.


Sorry I missed this before.

I'm not sure how Trumpists retaliating like that would help them - wouldn't it just strengthen facebook and twitter's stance that they have a right to ban them?

But I agree they have both been hypocrites on this issue - especially facebook. But I see this as them simply being clueless about how to deal with this properly, rather than a big conspiracy to censor people and control everyone's mind.

Also, I would argue that both facebook and twitter already act as if they are legally liable for content. In Australia there is a rather disturbing case involving facebook, of a youtube vlogger who has been pursuing a deputy premier of our largest state over corruption allegations. He is now being sued for defamation by the deputy premier, and in an alarming escalation, his associate was arrested by (get this) an anti-terrorist squad, and released on some pretty draconian bail conditions. How does this relate to facebook? The vlogger had created a facebook group to support his cause, but days after his associate was arrested, the group was banned on some BS "anti-extremism/anti-incitement" policy. The crime? a post was uploaded of a photoshopped deputy premier standing next to Mussolini and Hitler. Needless to say, equivalent or far worse content has and continues to be accepted on facebook by others - including the far right.

The point being, this case absolutely reeks of facebook either being leaned on, or feeling obliged to "get with the program" and do the government's bidding. To me, a classic case of facebook feeling terrified of the possibility of being sanctioned by the government as a result of what they allow to be posted. And quite frankly, I see little difference in the way they behave vis-a-vis Trump - they felt the breeze, guessed which way the wind was blowing (away from Trump), and didn't want to be caught on the wrong side of the law (when Biden/dems take over and clamp down on Trumpists), or for that matter, history.
#15177275
GandalfTheGrey wrote:Sorry I missed this before.

I'm not sure how Trumpists retaliating like that would help them - wouldn't it just strengthen facebook and twitter's stance that they have a right to ban them?

But I agree they have both been hypocrites on this issue - especially facebook. But I see this as them simply being clueless about how to deal with this properly, rather than a big conspiracy to censor people and control everyone's mind.

Also, I would argue that both facebook and twitter already act as if they are legally liable for content. In Australia there is a rather disturbing case involving facebook, of a youtube vlogger who has been pursuing a deputy premier of our largest state over corruption allegations. He is now being sued for defamation by the deputy premier, and in an alarming escalation, his associate was arrested by (get this) an anti-terrorist squad, and released on some pretty draconian bail conditions. How does this relate to facebook? The vlogger had created a facebook group to support his cause, but days after his associate was arrested, the group was banned on some BS "anti-extremism/anti-incitement" policy. The crime? a post was uploaded of a photoshopped deputy premier standing next to Mussolini and Hitler. Needless to say, equivalent or far worse content has and continues to be accepted on facebook by others - including the far right.

The point being, this case absolutely reeks of facebook either being leaned on, or feeling obliged to "get with the program" and do the government's bidding. To me, a classic case of facebook feeling terrified of the possibility of being sanctioned by the government as a result of what they allow to be posted. And quite frankly, I see little difference in the way they behave vis-a-vis Trump - they felt the breeze, guessed which way the wind was blowing (away from Trump), and didn't want to be caught on the wrong side of the law (when Biden/dems take over and clamp down on Trumpists), or for that matter, history.


If Twitter or Facebook were considered to be publishers then anyone would be able to sue them for libel whenever someone published a libel against that person. Anyone.

That means that suddenly they'd be forced to invest a lot more in policing their platforms than they do now, since they'd need to remove potentially libelous content as soon as it were published.
#15177286
wat0n wrote:That means that suddenly they'd be forced to invest a lot more in policing their platforms than they do now, since they'd need to remove potentially libelous content as soon as it were published.


Which they will obviously fight tooth and nail to avoid.

This is why they speak both sides of their mouths on this issue - positioning themselves as the defender of free speech on the one hand, but then pledging, in a pretty hopelessly ad-hoc way - to not tolerate all sorts of anti-social behaviour, including, most problematically for them, this fuzzy notion of "fake news".

To your question of whether or not they are technically 'publishers', and I know this has been a hotly debated topic in mainstream media. Perhaps we are getting too caught up in definitions here. When I say "publisher" I simply mean they have the freedom to pick and choose what they publish. Thats it. I don't really see why the definition must necessarily include a set of editorial standards, or that it must automatically make them legally liable vis-a-vis slander and libel (why wouldn't they already be liable??).

Ultimately, I suppose, the extent of their liability rests in the hands of each government/jurisdiction in which they operate in. And thats really been my point all along: the issue is not about, and never has been about, Big Tech unilaterally deciding to censor people and take away their freedom, its only ever been about the extent to which governments are willing to censor and regulate them.
#15177290
GandalfTheGrey wrote:Which they will obviously fight tooth and nail to avoid.

This is why they speak both sides of their mouths on this issue - positioning themselves as the defender of free speech on the one hand, but then pledging, in a pretty hopelessly ad-hoc way - to not tolerate all sorts of anti-social behaviour, including, most problematically for them, this fuzzy notion of "fake news".

To your question of whether or not they are technically 'publishers', and I know this has been a hotly debated topic in mainstream media. Perhaps we are getting too caught up in definitions here. When I say "publisher" I simply mean they have the freedom to pick and choose what they publish. Thats it. I don't really see why the definition must necessarily include a set of editorial standards, or that it must automatically make them legally liable vis-a-vis slander and libel (why wouldn't they already be liable??).

Ultimately, I suppose, the extent of their liability rests in the hands of each government/jurisdiction in which they operate in. And thats really been my point all along: the issue is not about, and never has been about, Big Tech unilaterally deciding to censor people and take away their freedom, its only ever been about the extent to which governments are willing to censor and regulate them.


I think whether they meet the legal threshold or not is, well, a matter of interpreting the law. Ultimately though they are opening themselves up for that kind of labeling sometime in the future. It would seem their current status as a mere platform, which does not have an editorial line, is a bit shaky in the long run.

And I agree, this is most definitely about how will regulation affect social media giants, not about some abstract concept of free speech - not for these giants at least.
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[…]