When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
So, as of an hour ago, the President has officially been perma-banned from Twitter.
I think I said this myself sometime ago: If the President's advisors has taken away his access to Twitter four years ago, I strongly believe that we wouldn't now be facing a socialist being one heartbeat away from the Presidency, and a democrat majority in both houses of Congress.
Trump has done more damage to the Republican party, and by extension to the nation as a whole, than any cold-war-era Soviet operative. Just because he couldn't keep from acting like an ******* on Twitter, and thus raising a hitherto unknown rage and fury which goaded all of the liberal muppets into turning out in record numbers to vote for "literally anything other than this."
That's not sarcasm, it's an objective observation.
Trump is the republican party; he's as popular today as ever today. The Republican party killed the republican party. The Republican party is pretty much a uni party with the Democrats.
He didn't goad a record number of people to turn out against him, a record number of votes were counted against him. There's a huge difference here.
A record number of people voted FOR him.
Look how many people from across the country showed up for him just cause he tweeted to come out.
Joe, I hear what you're saying about the president pissing people off with his comments but that just goes to show how gullible people are. Well, the people that flock to social media like it's the reason why we exist.
It's not just social media. We live in an era in which words are more important than actions. The democrats in Congress know this, which is why on Jan. 1, Pelosi and House Rules Committee Chairman James McGovern announced House Resolution 8.
Among other things, this resolution requires the elimination of gender-specific language in all House rules. One (of many) such excerpts: .
In clause 8(c)(3) of rule XXIII, strike ‘‘father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, half sister, grandson, or granddaughter’’ and insert ‘‘parent, child, sibling, parent’s sibling, first cousin, sibling’s child, spouse, parent-in-law, child-in-law, sibling-in-law, stepparent, step5 child, stepsibling, half-sibling, or grandchild’’
.
It also establishes a House Office of Diversity and Inclusion.
Because democrats aren't stupid. Unlike many Republicans (including the president), they recognize the fact that words and thoughts define reality, and not the other way around.
Joe, I hear what you're saying about the president pissing people off with his comments but that just goes to show how gullible people are. Well, the people that flock to social media like it's the reason why we exist. Instead of looking back and actually seeing what he has done, not what he has said, in the last four years.
More than almost any president in recent history -- despite all the unjust hatred against him from day one, including your own.
He was a political outsider who exposed the swamp, and did more for the American people, while being attacked from all directions constantly.
It's not just social media. We live in an era in which words are more important than actions.
This is not true. Pelosi, and many others on the left (like the next VP President), has been quote numerous times inciting, romanticizing, and supporting riots... not to mention challenging the accuracy/legitimacy of elections.
Great thing is, they can use the spinned "riot" to kill Biden off pretty quickly and blame it on the violent unarmed selfie takers.
I thought it was the conservative viewpoint that the government should not interfere with how private companies choose to run their business. You can't eat your cake and have it too.
There was something along the lines of when you become large enough to be the default public entity, that in itself becomes questioned. Att, Verizon, t-mobile are the primary phone carriers and are private companies. So... they can block xyz from using it if they don't agree with user xyz's views?
Oh wait, better example. In your neighborhood, the only wiring available comes from Verizon. They shut down your service because they found out you don't like Trump. Now you have no internet service. You should be forced to move?
Funny scenario... some rich rightleaning tycoon goes out and buys, Google, Facebook, apple, and decides to block all left leaning users, and everyone would be ok with that?
I thought that was the angle of 230. Years have passed, social media entered uncharted territory. Are you a publisher or a platform? They're the first to become both. And now the question arises, should they be allowed to?
Are you a publisher or a platform? They're the first to become both. And now the question arises, should they be allowed to?
If they are publishing things which I agree with, then yes, they obviously deserve the same protections as any other speaker. This is a silly question, as it's obviously protected by the first amendment. What sort of fascist would even think to question that?
If they are publishing things which I disagree with, then this is proof that they are abusing the constitution, and pose a grave threat not just to our democracy, but to basic human decency. How can we allow this to happen? Why are the [party I oppose] supporting this injustice?
Trump Can’t Block Critics From His Twitter Account, Appeals Court Rules
The decision may have broader implications for how the First Amendment applies to officials’ accounts in the social-media era.
...
“The ruling will ensure that people aren’t excluded from these forums simply because of their viewpoints and that public officials don’t transform these digital spaces into echo chambers,” Mr. Jaffer said. “It will help ensure the integrity and vitality of digital spaces that are increasingly important to our democracy.”
Wasn't facebook and google all up in arms about keeping safe-harbor status going, because the internet can't exist otherwise? Nobody is capable of policing the vast amount of users on the net, so we can't be responsible for hosting stolen content or any stupid things our users do. But ban this stuff because people are posting bad things and you aren't doing anything about it.
Td dot win enters the chat as well 🤣🤣🤣 I wonder when the internet will close that down.
TD is one of the most popular websites on the internet today. It's ranked #410 on Alexa. All within like 6 months of the reddit banning of /r/pol.
Amazon AWS just shut down Parler last night.
It's interesting when there's a clear, coordinated effort between various private companies and Democratic governments to ban the opposition. almost like a coup...almost, but we know Trump tried to coup when a few unarmed boomers took selfies in the statuary then walked out.
In the least it sounds like a very good antitrust lawsuit in a violation of the Sherman and Clayton Acts.
I would also like to point out that Hitler too ran a disinformation campaign against the Jews to sway public opinion against them, and blame them for uprisings/problems/etc, just before he tried to exterminate them all... But Trump is a dictator, a dictator that lost an election to massive cheating, and got kicked off of social media. Not a very good dictator.
If anything, Trump has been the left's greatest scapegoat to do everything and anything they every want--with a free pass--because of the incredibly blind manufactured hatred of Trump.
To add, Google and Apple removed Parler because Parler feels they don't need moderation. However, this has been against Apple's TOS since pretty much forever:
1.2 User Generated ContentApps with user-generated content present particular challenges, ranging from intellectual property infringement to anonymous bullying. To prevent abuse, apps with user-generated content or social networking services must include:
A method for filtering objectionable material from being posted to the app
A mechanism to report offensive content and timely responses to concerns
The ability to block abusive users from the service
Published contact information so users can easily reach you
Apps with user-generated content or services that end up being used primarily for pornographic content, Chatroulette-style experiences, objectification of real people (e.g. “hot-or-not” voting), making physical threats, or bullying do not belong on the App Store and may be removed without notice. If your app includes user-generated content from a web-based service, it may display incidental mature “NSFW” content, provided that the content is hidden by default and only displayed when the user turns it on via your website.
01-09-2021, 10:25 AM
0
