Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

omerin

The whole tv crew are now being arrested, lol by the state police

Leroy42

It really makes no sense to me. He got peed because they put a marker on one of his tweets. They didn't remove it, then didn't suspend him, just marked that maybe it was correct.

But the EO seems to place the burden on the Twitter on who is responsible should false information be published. So, any rational company will now have to place a review system in place to try to limit any chances of being sued.

1st, they need to deal with the bots, as they cannot even be sued by Twitter, don't would be a good thing for everyone, although not one suspects the likes of Trump who would lose a large base of retweets etc.

2nd, based on analysis of a users previous postings, they should place certain posters in risk categories, with all tweets having to have some sort of review prior to being allowed on the stream. Trump would, naturally, have to fall into one of the higher risk categories and as such many of his tweets will never now be published, or their will be a delay in publishing them.

I can't see how that helps Trump.

THe US really needs to have a look at this whole EO business. It was meant as an emergency, or when it wasn't possible to get something through the congress, but it has effectively been turned into a autocratic device (and Trump is not the first). The POTUS is effectively allowed to make sweeping changes without any recourse to any other branch of the executive. At the very least the Congress and Senate should be allowed to review and vote on any EO before hand to at least give a view from the Congress.

hetuzozaho

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Basically -Yes

Under current laws , Social Media can't really be sued for something that someone posted on their platform - There are obviously some exceptions but the burden of proof makes it almost impossible for Social Media to be found guilty for something someone else did.

For example , right now Joe Scarborough couldn't sue Twitter for Trumps posts accusing him of Murder , he can sue Trump , but not Twitter.

It Trump got his way , Scarborough could then also sue Twitter and any other Social Media platform that displayed the Trump accusation.

The upshot of that law change (which will never actually happen BTW)- Twitter would simply delete Trumps account (and many many others) as he has a proven track record of stuff that could get them sued, to avoid future litigation.

But I think what he wants is for Twitter to not get involved.

Like they can get involved if they want but that will move them to publisher status and then goodbye to their protection.

But if they want to be protected and just the carry our messages they need to stop get involved in the messages.

Leroy42

hetuzozaho wrote: »

But I think what he wants is for Twitter to not get involved.

Like they can get involved if they want but that will move them to publisher status and then goodbye to their protection.

But if they want to be protected and just the carry our messages they need to stop get involved in the messages.

Ah is that it. OK, that makes sense then. Start to do anything and you fall under be held responsible for everything. In that case it is basically far easier to do nothing at all.

Christy42

hetuzozaho wrote: »

But I think what he wants is for Twitter to not get involved.

Like they can get involved if they want but that will move them to publisher status and then goodbye to their protection.

But if they want to be protected and just the carry our messages they need to stop get involved in the messages.

Well he has moved them to publisher. I mean it will likely fail but right now they can say they are being cautious of the law. Plus even if they back down their tos is part of their business model. They have to get involved to a certain degree or end up like 4chan.

The only way out for them (presuming the law doesn't fail in the courts which it likely will) is to go over the top moderation.

Christy42

omerin wrote: »

The whole tv crew are now being arrested, lol by the state police

Can you link to details? What it is for etc.?

Quin_Dub

Christy42 wrote: »

Well he has moved them to publisher. I mean it will likely fail but right now they can say they are being cautious of the law. Plus even if they back down their tos is part of their business model. They have to get involved to a certain degree or end up like 4chan.

The only way out for them (presuming the law doesn't fail in the courts which it likely will) is to go over the top moderation.

Well - He hasn't really , he has "asked" that the various Federal authorities "look at" doing that. He hasn't personally done a thing (story of his Presidency to be honest).

They'll look , tell him it can't be done because of a whole host of legal implications that make it impossible and that will be that.

But by the time that response comes back the world will have moved on to the next thing Trump is outraged by and he hopes that no one will notice that it was just a petulant, pointless temper tantrum and sadly , he'll mostly be right because his supporters won't notice that like virtually everything he says he's going to do - Nothing actually happens

sundodger5

Christy42 wrote: »

Can you link to details? What it is for etc.?

https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/george-floyd-protest-updates-05-28-20/h_4ed08403663fa4ed3518221d0f2a1552

Nody

sundodger5 wrote: »

https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/george-floyd-protest-updates-05-28-20/h_4ed08403663fa4ed3518221d0f2a1552

Will not be surprised if Trump tweets about that positively along lines of "Fake news reporters finally arrested by police" or similar...

trashcan

salmocab wrote: »

I just heard Trump on the radio saying he’d like nothing more than to give up his Twitter account. If only there was a way to stop using Twitter. Think Don think!

It's really just awful the way "they" keep forcing him to post on twitter isn't it ?

Nody

trashcan wrote: »

It's really just awful the way "they" keep forcing him to post on twitter isn't it ?

Nah; it's all ground work for Don to launch his own supported Trump TV channel. Fox is no longer good enough and are joining the fake news media in not telling the truth etc. It gives him a chance to have his own channel dedicated to "telling it like it is" and basically become worst of Fox and Breitbart news combined with him always being right.

Of course I think the channel in general will fail in a few years but as so many other Trump investments he'll make sure he's pocketed as much money before the company goes bankrupt.

Blueshoe

salmocab wrote: »

I just heard Trump on the radio saying he’d like nothing more than to give up his Twitter account. If only there was a way to stop using Twitter. Think Don think!

Yah heard it myself. On Irish news radio. Today FM I believe.

They left out the end of the quote. What a surprise.

Quin_Dub

Nody wrote: »

Nah; it's all ground work for Don to launch his own supported Trump TV channel. Fox is no longer good enough and are joining the fake news media in not telling the truth etc. It gives him a chance to have his own channel dedicated to "telling it like it is" and basically become worst of Fox and Breitbart news combined with him always being right.

Of course I think the channel in general will fail in a few years but as so many other Trump investments he'll make sure he's pocketed as much money before the company goes bankrupt.

Yep - OANN

Junior and a few others have bought a stake in the company that owns it.

Christy42

sundodger5 wrote: »

https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/george-floyd-protest-updates-05-28-20/h_4ed08403663fa4ed3518221d0f2a1552

Thanks. That is a pretty horrific look. The reporter clearly asked repeatedly where the police wanted them to be standing and identified themselves. Impressively calm throughout the situation.

hetuzozaho

Christy42 wrote: »

Well he has moved them to publisher. I mean it will likely fail but right now they can say they are being cautious of the law. Plus even if they back down their tos is part of their business model. They have to get involved to a certain degree or end up like 4chan.

Yes I don't see how you could run a platform like Twitter if you were not allowed to be involved to stop it ending up like 4chan as you say. And you can't go the other way that being involved would lead you to be libel as the volume of content is too much.

But maybe it is a little cake and eat it for Twitter. They can control the content but also not be responsible for it?

Leroy42

I assume they arrested the rest of the crew, seems strange they would only arrest the lead guy (correspondent would he be called?)

salmocab

Blueshoe wrote: »

Yah heard it myself. On Irish news radio. Today FM I believe.

They left out the end of the quote. What a surprise.

Why don’t you just tell us the end in your post, you obviously want to tell us all so just do it.

The implications for the likes of gab could be far more serious. Their platform is associated with terror attacks and mass shootings on a regular basis.

hetuzozaho

Deleted User wrote: »

The implications for the likes of gab could be far more serious. Their platform is associated with terror attacks and mass shootings on a regular basis.

But Gab wouldn't be effected as they are not getting involved with the content?

aloyisious

banie01 wrote: »

The rub here is that invoking free or protected speech does not in any way guarantee a right to be published.

Many newspapers and periodicals will publish opinion pieces and label them as such, not from a legal obligation but some notion of equity and balance.

Platforms allow users to self publish.
Should platforms become publishers, that will not come with any inherent obligation to publish.
It allows a creep in censorship, and pushes the "responsibility" for it the platforms.

Trump using "free speech" to dictate to a company just how, when and what free speech is?

Is quite ironic in light of the stance taken by Trump and the NFL to simple protest.
Imagine if Kaepernick called for violence?
Or is that just the protected domain of El Presidenté!

I suppose [I'm musing now] that twitter could use computerized controls to regulate whats posted on its platform, recognized words triggering a block on tweets and their contents, in the way that F/B does.

sydthebeat

https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/george-floyd-protest-updates-05-28-20/h_4ed08403663fa4ed3518221d0f2a1552

video of arrest here

Christy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

I assume they arrested the rest of the crew, seems strange they would only arrest the lead guy (correspondent would he be called?)

Yeah they arrested all of them. The correspondent did most of the talking for the group showing ID and clarifying what the group was there for.

The police, potentially due to being on live TV which the correspondent was clear about refused to answer why they were under arrest.

aloyisious

In my musing on Trumps sudden interest in protecting his freedom of speech, I got to thinking its about rallying the troops to his cause, that maybe he's aware that there may be a fall-off in support for him from the average GOP voter [outside the ones totally dedicated to him] and he's shaken by the fact that his treatment of the Covid-19 effect on them may have caused the fall-off. He may have split the GOP apart on a personal health issue no one saw coming.

That is why he's come up with this "they all [incl Fox] have it in for me" sh1tstorm, a fake tornado to suck in wavering GOP voters who are disenchanted with the way he's treating the average U.S citizen, trying to disenfranchize them of their vote, they now see themselves as being amongst the numbers there. I'm tempted to go looking for poll figure of GOP voters, even though they would have to have been collated by interested parties.

If that's true, all the Dems have to do is keep quiet, stay united and let him at it.

Gunmonkey

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Yep - OANN

Junior and a few others have bought a stake in the company that owns it.

Yup, a channel whos viewership follow along with his world view, so will accept whatever he says unwaveringly.
While his EO may harm Twitter, and himself, he could possibly be using it as a stick to beat Twitter and other non-OANN media outlets, citing the "censorship" and such he is facing as a reason to pivot to his own, owned news corp as opposed to him bailing and running away when he cant do/say what he wants without repercussion.

"Twitter and Facebook and the other failed deep-state media are trying to censor me....trying to nullify my first amendment rights....backed up by Sleepy Joe and Crooked Hillary *pause for chats on "Lock Her Up!" to subside*...and you what comes after first? Second...so its the same as them trying to take your guns from you...its true people! The fake news media...backed up by CHI-NA....are trying to block your rights as true patriots...covfefe!"

Its possibly a smart business move on his part, much as I hate to admit it. Simply put...what happens to him if he loses in November? he has built up this huge support base and cult of personality but without an avenue to direct it (such as voting support for his policies) what good is it to him right now? I doubt a lot of the rust belt supporters are avid golfers or travel to Florida/New York regularly! Or would be visiting his hotels for week long stays anytime soon (would imagine your almost looking at 4 figure prices per night for most of his hotels). Is there any reason for him to personally run his big rallies if the GOP arent footing the bill anymore, short of sheer narcissism? So a TV station kinda makes sense; run a sub model and he has a fair few million subscriptions almost instantly, his own platform where he can spout his unfiltered message (you can get away with a ton of **** on TV in America it seems...just look at Alex Jones and the gay frogs!), plus free advertisement space for whatever tat with his name/slogan on it (could we see a return of Trump Steaks?)

hetuzozaho

sydthebeat wrote: »

https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/george-floyd-protest-updates-05-28-20/h_4ed08403663fa4ed3518221d0f2a1552

video of arrest here

It seems like they are in an area they should not be in? But he does ask them on the video where he should go, maybe they are replying and because not mic'd we cannot hear them? Would seem odd that they did not say or even gesture where he should go etc.

aloyisious

hetuzozaho wrote: »

It seems like they are in an area they should not be in? But he does ask them on the video where he should go, maybe they are replying and because not mic'd we cannot hear them? Would seem odd that they did not say or even gesture where he should go etc.

If they're state police, brought in like the Guard to assist city force, they may not know the layout or coordinated with the City force or the mayor.

hetuzozaho

hetuzozaho wrote: »

But Gab wouldn't be effected as they are not getting involved with the content?

Yep correct, I mistakenly assumed it was generally classifying social media as publishers.

Christy42

hetuzozaho wrote: »

It seems like they are in an area they should not be in? But he does ask them on the video where he should go, maybe they are replying and because not mic'd we cannot hear them? Would seem odd that they did not say or even gesture where he should go etc.

You can definitely hear them saying he is under arrest. He asks repeatedly where they should go so he would want to have been pretty confident the camera wasn't picking it up if he was simply brazenly ignoring their answers. They definitely don't seem to even be indicating a direction in the slightest. You would expect them to lead the reporters somewhere more sensible at least. He even explains why they ended up in that area.

CNN have obviously called for their release. The state police have a massive pr exercise ahead of them. Right now it looks like they have f'd up baaad.

looksee

According to the studio the crew had explained what they were doing, had asked very calmly where they should go - though they were where they had been told to be by the police - and the reporter, director and cameraman were arrested and the camera left running, lying on the ground. That has to be the strangest thing yet. It would be extremely hard for authority to justify that whole scenario.

Leroy42

I asume all those militias are on their way to the city to protect the people from the over bearing government.

I mean, isn't that the whole point of 2nd amendment?