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

banie01

Lithium93_ wrote: »

Did a bit of browsing on Reddit earlier, and stumbled on r/Parlerwatch - and found this, apparently Parler was really rattled, and explains how various law enforcement agencies have been able to quickly create no fly lists/find those who participated in the Insurrection last Wednesday.

Safe to say that Parler users really aren't the sharpest tools in the garden shed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/comments/kuqvs3/all_parler_user_data_is_being_downloaded_as_we/giu04o6/

They really aren't the sharpest bunch.
I spotted this floating around yesterday on same subreddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/comments/ktxjse/seems_legit/
I remember years ago Westward cables ran a similar scheme to catch people tapping into the cable :pac:
People have been responding with their info FFS!

Lithium93_

banie01 wrote: »

They really aren't the sharpest bunch.
I spotted this floating around yesterday on same subreddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/comments/ktxjse/seems_legit/
I remember years ago Westward cables ran a similar scheme to catch people tapping into the cable :pac:
People have been responding with their info FFS!

Oh dear, oh dear.

It's also worth noting, that in the aftermath, that Josh Hawley had his book deal with Simon & Schuster cancelled due to his part in the incitement, and he complained about his book being cancelled as Orwellian, again not the sharpest bunch, as a quick Google would've shown him that Orwell did actually indeed get published.

Timberrrrrrrr

Lithium93_ wrote: »

Oh dear, oh dear.

It's also worth noting, that in the aftermath, that Josh Hawley had his book deal with Simon & Schuster cancelled due to his part in the incitement, and he complained about his book being cancelled as Orwellian, again not the sharpest bunch, as a quick Google would've shown him that Orwell did actually indeed get published.

The way the Trump supporters keep saying its "Orwellian" really has me in stitches and it's proof that they haven't a clue who Orwell was or read any of his books.

One guy recently said of Trumps Twitter ban that it was akin to Orwell's 1984.

He wasn't impressed when I pointed out that if that was true then as per Oceania's bias Twitter would not have banned Trump, they would have forced Twitter to post everything dear leader said.

Lithium93_

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The way the Trump supporters keep saying its "Orwellian" really has me in stitches and it's proof that they haven't a clue who Orwell was or read any of his books.

One guy recently said of Trumps Twitter ban that it was akin to Orwell's 1984.

He wasn't impressed when I pointed out that if that was true then as per Oceania's bias Twitter would not have banned Trump, they would have forced Twitter to post everything dear leader said.

I've also seen it thrown around that Orwell would've supported Trump, (which as far as I recall from what was covered of him in secondary school history) clashes with reality, as Orwell was Anti-Fascist & being Pro Democratic Socialism.

Lithium93_

Lithium93_ wrote: »

I've also seen it thrown around that Orwell would've supported Trump, (which as far as I recall from what was covered of him in secondary school history) clashes with reality, as Orwell was Anti-Fascist & being Pro Democratic Socialism.

Yep and in contrast to publishing of his day, the freedom to publish via multiple methods is pretty unlimited even if one can't do so on Twitter etc.

rossie1977

check_six wrote: »

I think we can safely say that Pence will not be acting on his responsibility to enact the 25th Amendment today. The time to run the 25th Amendment was last Wednesday as soon as the coup was attempted. To have waited so long is total abject dereliction of duty, but, sure, what's new there?

121 House Republicans voted to object Arizona's certified presidential election results just hours after the insurrection on Wednesday, only 83 Republicans willing to accept them.

Yes there was never any chance Republicans or Pence would enact the 25th.

Tchaikovsky

Lithium93_ wrote: »

I've also seen it thrown around that Orwell would've supported Trump, (which as far as I recall from what was covered of him in secondary school history) clashes with reality, as Orwell was Anti-Fascist & being Pro Democratic Socialism.

Yeah, they'd be shocked to find out which side Orwell fought on in the Spanish Civil War. Although, in saying that, they'd probably be shocked that there was a Spanish Civil War.

pixelburp

It's tangential to Trump's little coup - and more than a little bit off topic, but there is something worth discussing IMO, regards those that scream "censorship" when Twitter delete their account or de-platform their app of choice. As with much in life, legislation is lagging behind technology and perhaps we need to start considering freedom of expression in a world where corporations basically gatekeep that expression. A cheap press & access to paper isn't enough anymore, media now arguably more gatekept than ever.

There's no two ways about it: we are living in a much more corporate-oriented world, with Private business accounting for fundamental expressions of the self like never before. Yes, it's true that actual censorship and 1st Amendment Rights explicitly relate to government interference - but where does that leave Private Enterprise? The court of public opinion and ... eh, I dunno. I don't shed any tears for Parler being shuttered, or the various idiots getting caught out live-streaming their own criminal acts - but there's an increasingly grey area going on here that might get tricky down the line.

I'd be the last person to be one of these Die Hard "free speech" types who think you should be able to say whatever you like; you shouldn't, and real-world consequence for Hate Speech or other hostile acts is important. As far as I'm concerned abuse online, including death threats, should be treated like real-world equivalents. But our lives are increasingly dictated by the whims of corporations like Twitter, who are free to define the limits of how we express our ideological or social lives (correct me if I'm wrong, but TikTok itself has been caught censoring or hiding China-critical videos, so the thin end of the wedge is there, as far as I can see).

Maybe the mods reckon this is a thread unto itself, but the more I've thought on this, the less we can simply go "Censorship is only for the government, shut up" as a quick response to those much easier to dismiss (by dint of being bigotted insurrectionists, or contrarians who might try to justify it). The Internet as an open, free exchange of ideas is dead, in effect, what has replaced it is deeply flawed at the same time.

Detritus70

Tchaikovsky wrote: »

Yeah, they'd be shocked to find out which side Orwell fought on in the Spanish Civil War. Although, in saying that, they'd probably be shocked that there was a Spanish Civil War.

They would be shocked to find out how the American civil war turned out and that they are waving the wrong flag.

Detritus70

Tchaikovsky wrote: »

Yeah, they'd be shocked to find out which side Orwell fought on in the Spanish Civil War. Although, in saying that, they'd probably be shocked that there was a Spanish Civil War.

They would be shocked to find out how the American civil war turned out and that they are waving the wrong flag.

Dohnjoe

rossie1977 wrote: »

121 House Republicans voted to object Arizona's certified presidential election results just hours after the insurrection on Wednesday, only 83 Republicans willing to accept them.

Yes there was never any chance Republicans or Pence would enact the 25th.

Absolutely shocking and at the same time, par for the course. They've spent years creating and cultivating an uninformed (and as we've seen unhinged) electorate that they now have to pander to.

listermint

The thin edge of the wedge is not when hate speech and insurrection calls are made using a platform.

It's playing into the narrative the pretend that is the thin edge of the wedge.


The thin edge of the wedge comes if they start banning social accounts or minorities. Not soapbox fascists

Bizarre time to start shouting about such things.

Gbear

pixelburp wrote: »

Maybe the mods reckon this is a thread unto itself, but the more I've thought on this, the less we can simply go "Censorship is only for the government, shut up" as a quick response to those much easier to dismiss (by dint of being bigotted insurrectionists, or contrarians who might try to justify it). The Internet as an open, free exchange of ideas is dead, in effect, what has replaced it is deeply flawed at the same time.

I think an obvious thing to do would be to make a sort of virtual street corner.

Allow any adult citizen or permanent resident access to a public forum managed by the government. It would require a non-anonoymous account, tied to their social security number (PPS in our case), but in return they would have access to a non-moderated space to freely express themselves in, with the only limit being the laws of the land.

It'd circumvent the issue of corporate control of the online public sphere.

The devil would be in the detail, with respect to the creation of functional spaces that wouldn't just get drowned in chaff, but I think it's an idea worth exploring.

pixelburp

listermint wrote: »

The thin edge of the wedge is not when hate speech and insurrection calls are made using a platform.

It's playing into the narrative the pretend that is the thin edge of the wedge.

The thin edge of the wedge comes if they start banning social accounts or minorities. Not soapbox fascists

Bizarre time to start shouting about such things.

If that's aimed at my post, I explicitly say that Hate Speech should be actioned, I thought I made that very clear. Parler should have been junked for facilitating Hate Speech and bigotry. Donald Trump should have been banned months ago but the political fallout made Twitter etc. chicken out. Online speech should be treated as speech from the physical self.

What I'm spitballing I'll say again: is that that Freedom of Expression as a legal defence against claims of "censorship" is effectively lagging behind the reality that those freedoms now often sit in the lap of corporate interests - which becomes equally murky when one of the most popular social media platforms is Chinese owned (and apparently itself censoring state criticism). It's hardly "shouting" to at least have a conversation about where the law goes to make sure that tech companies can't dictate the nature of "reasonble" discussion (which, as if I should even need to say it, the DC insurrectionists cannot claim to be). Twitter saw the political and monetary reality in skirting any bans for Trump, long after he arguably deserved it.

Our ability to make ideological expressions are now in the hands of the tech industry - and as has been seen, rather than some kind of liberal bias, there's evidence the bias swings towards a conservative one.

Christy42

pixelburp wrote: »

If that's aimed at my post, I explicitly say that Hate Speech should be actioned, I thought I made that very clear. Parler should have been junked for facilitating Hate Speech and bigotry. Donald Trump should have been banned months ago but the political fallout made Twitter etc. chicken out. Online speech should be treated as speech from the physical self.

What I'm spitballing I'll say again: is that that Freedom of Expression as a legal defence against claims of "censorship" is effectively lagging behind the reality that those freedoms now often sit in the lap of corporate interests - which becomes equally murky when one of the most popular social media platforms is Chinese owned (and apparently itself censoring state criticism). It's hardly "shouting" to at least have a conversation about where the law goes to make sure that tech companies can't dictate the nature of "reasonble" discussion (which, as if I should even need to say it, the DC insurrectionists cannot claim to be). Twitter saw the political and monetary reality in skirting any bans for Trump, long after he arguably deserved it.

Our ability to make ideological expressions are now in the hands of the tech industry - and as has been seen, rather than some kind of liberal bias, there's evidence the bias swings towards a conservative one.

Facebook, twitter and Google's power is something that needs to be examined. Along with Murdoch's media empire as well. However the big issue you will find is that all of the people currently complaining about don't give a f.

It is also a tough balance between allowing far too much and far too little. It is a far more complex issue than is relevant to Trump. Indeed I would argue none of it is relevant given how badly he stepped over the line. Thry just need something to talk about that isn't their pet nazi coup.

Nody

pixelburp wrote: »

Maybe the mods reckon this is a thread unto itself, but the more I've thought on this, the less we can simply go "Censorship is only for the government, shut up" as a quick response to those much easier to dismiss (by dint of being bigotted insurrectionists, or contrarians who might try to justify it). The Internet as an open, free exchange of ideas is dead, in effect, what has replaced it is deeply flawed at the same time.

That goes both ways though; on the one hand you can't have a government (or public) holding a corporation responsible for what's being published (practical example see how boards have to react to defamation for example) and on the other hand say they should have to post what a user posts. Either you say it's ok that I post what ever I want, how ever I want from denying the holocaust, child porn, beheading, revenge porn (already close to impossible to get rid off once it's out there) etc. and the company has zero liability for it or if companies have to be held accountable for what's posted then they have the right to limit up front.

With VPNs being a thing you can't say "It's user's own responsibility" because anyone half way competent person will never have a trail that leads back to them with a throw away e-mail address. So how do you then expect people to be held accountable for the above as you state "it should have real life consequences" but the internet makes it perfectly possible to be 100% anonymous all the time with basically zero cost and how to guides on youtube?

StringerBell

The thing is, at least to my understanding, its a private site. A private platform, much like nobody is entitled to a boards.ie account nobody is entitled to a Twitter account are they?

It is definitely a wide issue that I'd need to educate myself better on before having a firm opinion but that is what sticks out to me initially and correct me if that's wrong.

Don't like the sites rules, actions, whatever then don't use it. Nobody is forced to sign up to twitter/facebook etc. If you do sign up and create an account you agree to the terms and conditions of it, but it is a privilege rather than a right in my mind so wouldn't fall under 1st Amendment protections - the SC have ruled on a case about private entities refusing business in the recent past haven't they when the anti-gay cake shop guy refused to bake the wedding cake or whatever it was.

Hurrache

There's basically no such thing as free speech when it comes to using someone else's platform. It's a nonsense that's perpetuated for decades, the simple fact is that you abide by someone else's rules and are at the mercy of whipping their platform from asunder you. There's no entitlement.

McFly85

StringerBell wrote: »

The thing is, at least to my understanding, its a private site. A private platform, much like nobody is entitled to a boards.ie account nobody is entitled to a Twitter account are they?

It is definitely a wide issue that I'd need to educate myself better on before having a firm opinion but that is what sticks out to me initially and correct me if that's wrong.

Don't like the sites rules, actions, whatever then don't use it. Nobody is forced to sign up to twitter/facebook etc. If you do sign up and create an account you agree to the terms and conditions of it, but it is a privilege rather than a right in my mind so wouldn't fall under 1st Amendment protections - the SC have ruled on a case about private entities refusing business in the recent past haven't they when the anti-gay cake shop guy refused to bake the wedding cake or whatever it was.

This is pretty much it. While Trump has been routinely breaking the rules around Twitter, they've stated that as a world leader, it was in the public interest to allow him to keep his account - I suspect he would have been booted on the 20th anyway, but when his posts encouraged a violence then I think Twitter/fb decided he had to go(more out of a desire to not be found culpable I would think).

Free speech doesn't come into it at all, nobody has the right to say whatever they want in any private business. If I started going on like Trump in my job I don't think I would last too long.

seamus

Gbear wrote: »

I think an obvious thing to do would be to make a sort of virtual street corner.

Allow any adult citizen or permanent resident access to a public forum managed by the government. It would require a non-anonoymous account, tied to their social security number (PPS in our case), but in return they would have access to a non-moderated space to freely express themselves in, with the only limit being the laws of the land.

It'd circumvent the issue of corporate control of the online public sphere.

The devil would be in the detail, with respect to the creation of functional spaces that wouldn't just get drowned in chaff, but I think it's an idea worth exploring.

The ACLU had come out and tentatively said a similar thing.

They were obviously not going to say that Twitter shouldn't have banned Trump, but they did point out how much this highlights the private control corporates have over speech, and how important it was that free speech should be available outside of the influence of governments or profits.

It's a very hard to achieve obviously because funds have to come from somewhere. And whoever controls the purse strings, controls the message.

pixelburp

StringerBell wrote: »

The thing is, at least to my understanding, its a private site. A private platform, much like nobody is entitled to a boards.ie account nobody is entitled to a Twitter account are they?

It is definitely a wide issue that I'd need to educate myself better on before having a firm opinion but that is what sticks out to me initially and correct me if that's wrong.

Don't like the sites rules, actions, whatever then don't use it. Nobody is forced to sign up to twitter/facebook etc. If you do sign up and create an account you agree to the terms and conditions of it, but it is a privilege rather than a right in my mind so wouldn't fall under 1st Amendment protections - the SC have ruled on a case about private entities refusing business in the recent past haven't they when the anti-gay cake shop guy refused to bake the wedding cake or whatever it was.

Your not wrong and don't disagree with what you're saying in principle, but hasn't the ship slightly sailed on the "don't like it, don't use it" mentality when there's apparently 2.7 billion people on Facebook? 1/3rd of the earth has an account on something with no accountability equivalent to national legislation re. speech. Then factor into this Faceobok example how they also own whatsapp (2 billion) or Instagram. It's near impossible to avoid these apps these days - IMO "Don't use them" doesn't really wash.

So this is kinda my (generally wishy-washy) point, divorcing it from Trump; the sheer math of a critical volume makes that rational a little glib. It's like saying "don't like paper, don't use it" before the technology age. Our lives are online now, yet I don't feel like the law reflects that anymore. It seems to be getting better with roping in Hate Speech into the mix, but there's little concerted either. The big tech companies have inserted themselves into every facet of their lives yet oversight feels critically low.

I'm going to report this post so maybe the conversation is moved; I don't think Trump is a good example here being as he is an extreme one that muddies the waters of things.

Gbear wrote: »

I think an obvious thing to do would be to make a sort of virtual street corner.

Allow any adult citizen or permanent resident access to a public forum managed by the government. It would require a non-anonoymous account, tied to their social security number (PPS in our case), but in return they would have access to a non-moderated space to freely express themselves in, with the only limit being the laws of the land.

It'd circumvent the issue of corporate control of the online public sphere.

The devil would be in the detail, with respect to the creation of functional spaces that wouldn't just get drowned in chaff, but I think it's an idea worth exploring.

A government-run online space would introduce its own issues, but then one wonders if the idea of a "free" internet, run for its own sake is even possible.

Retr0gamer

Hurrache wrote: »

There's basically no such thing as free speech when it comes to using someone else's platform. It's a nonsense that's perpetuated for decades, the simple fact is that you abide by someone else's rules and are at the mercy of whipping their platform from asunder you. There's no entitlement.

Allowing what you want and who you want on your platform is free speech. Platform holders are allowed under free speech to allow what they want on their platform. They are also legally responsible for the content on their platform so need powers to be able to police it.

To put it another way you can **** on your neighbours property but you can't expect them to be happy about it and the law backs them up.

The hypocrisy is that all the right wing morons crying out about their right to free speech being attacked are actually crying about the rights to free speech working.

Just because you say something doesn't excuse you from owning it, defending it and facing the reprecussions of what you said. Free speech isn't you can say whatever you want and nobody has the right to question it or act on it.

aloyisious

StringerBell wrote: »

The thing is, at least to my understanding, its a private site. A private platform, much like nobody is entitled to a boards.ie account nobody is entitled to a Twitter account are they?

It is definitely a wide issue that I'd need to educate myself better on before having a firm opinion but that is what sticks out to me initially and correct me if that's wrong.

Don't like the sites rules, actions, whatever then don't use it. Nobody is forced to sign up to twitter/facebook etc. If you do sign up and create an account you agree to the terms and conditions of it, but it is a privilege rather than a right in my mind so wouldn't fall under 1st Amendment protections - the SC have ruled on a case about private entities refusing business in the recent past haven't they when the anti-gay cake shop guy refused to bake the wedding cake or whatever it was.

That ruling may have been the grounds used by the PGA to move away from Trump's golf courses for the next major U.S golf event planned at Bedminster, which will hurt him bad in the pocket. There's a chance that it might activate residents and club members at Mar-a-lago into using clauses in agreements against him.

Enclosed within the debate on Trump now is how to define freedom of speech; word usage can/has been redefined every so often that what the user meant has been interpreted to be/mean something else by another reader, who is an employee of a private industry as a moderator to ensure the private Co doesn't have to answer in court for the word/s used which may/may not have [been likely to] caused offence. I see it as a side issue [temporarily] something Trumpists will love to see us debate here as a distraction to their supporting him. EDIT: I think we should not be distracted by a debate on free speech here while Trump gets away, so far, with what he deliberately instigated against the U.S while the sitting president of the U.S.

Separately [IMO] Trump failed as president as he did not comply with his constitutional duty when the **** hit the fan. He did not go live on public nor private TV or public internet platforms as President and order the insurrectionists to cease and desist their attack on the Capitol building and the Government people there-in. He took no restraining actions after the insurrectionists took spoken and physical action following his speech to them. He just watched the unfolding insurrection safely from the White House. while Pence took the legal steps needed to get the N/G moving to DC to assist the CPD, not Trump despite his attempts to claim he authorized the move. Trump offered a mealy-mouthed statement after the fact to try cover his zero action as president when he was obligated to act against his insurrectionist fanbase members in the Capitol building.

IMO, The Insurrectionists put themselves outside free speech legal protection as they took unlawful physical action to back up their words, becoming willingly involved in a illegal enterprise in the attack on the Capitol building and the federal employees there-in. The Senators and Representatives, as a branch of U.S Government, take federal tax dollar pay for their work there.

Brussels Sprout

Hurrache wrote: »

There's basically no such thing as free speech when it comes to using someone else's platform. It's a nonsense that's perpetuated for decades, the simple fact is that you abide by someone else's rules and are at the mercy of whipping their platform from asunder you. There's no entitlement.

I saw a tweet the other day that went something like:

The 3 most commonly cited sources that the person clearly hasn't read are:

• The Bible
• 1984
• The First Amendment

hirondelle

aloyisious wrote: »

That ruling may have been the grounds used by the PGA to move away from Trump's golf courses for the next major U.S golf event planned at Bedminster, which will hurt him bad in the pocket. There's a chance that it might activate residents and club members at Mar-a-lago into using clauses in agreements against him.
…....

To highjack you post slightly, I think it is particularly delicious that the consequences of Trump's actions are hitting him in his golfing enterprises. He seems to derive a weird amount of pride from his golf empire and to be embargoed like this will hurt not only his bottom line, but far more importantly, his ego.

I hope this boycott extends to all of his golfing facilities globally (I am conscious of the regular people who work in these places so my assumption here is that they will be viable again once he has to sell them).

Headshot

I think the Golf boycott will hurt Trump alot

Trump as the keen golfer himself, that must be a real painful one

spacecoyote

Headshot wrote: »

I think the Golf boycott will hurt Trump alot

Trump as the keen golfer himself, that must be a real painful one

Well a number of the courses he bought had previously hosted majors (like Turnberry). He bought them specifically so he could be associated with the majors and to be on their roster of regulars, so being taken off the roster on both sides of the water will be a major hit to his ego...and likely wallet too

Quin_Dub

spacecoyote wrote: »

Well a number of the courses he bought had previously hosted majors (like Turnberry). He bought them specifically so he could be associated with the majors and to be on their roster of regulars, so being taken off the roster on both sides of the water will be a major hit to his ego...and likely wallet too

That's it exactly - I'll stand corrected but I don't think a Trump course in the US has ever hosted a Major (or even one of the really big) PGA events.

Everything he has done in his entire life has been about gaining prestige and "acceptance" among the elites. Hosting a US Open etc. would have been a lifetime goal for him.

Him now recognising that that will simply never ever happen in his lifetime will absolutely eat him up inside.

Manic Moran

prawnsambo wrote: »

What the Maryland Governor said about the length of time it took the General in charge of their National Guard to get clearance to enter DC is pretty damning. It took ninety minutes, constant calls while they were getting frantic calls from the Capitol from Chuck Schumer and others to get in there quickly. And eventually they got a call out of the blue and not via the normal channels to go in. Remember Trump did a cull of top people at the Pentagon a couple of months ago? This duck sure looks like a duck.

There are a few articles coming out now with regards to the timeline of who asked for what, when, and who kept stalling. Plenty of blame to go around. The reality, though, is that the Guard is not an immediate response force, we aim for four hours from the call-out to '80% of folks ready to go', not counting transit time to wherever it is we're going. Even had the Maryland Governor received immediate approval, it wouldn't have made any significant difference in the Capitol.

With respect to the Guard, the primary errors made were those made in the days before the event, with DC only requesting 300 personnel and Capitol Police refusing to request any at all. The reports indicate that USCP declined any inquiries for support ahead of time from both the DoD and FBI.

aloyisious

Hurrache wrote: »

There's basically no such thing as free speech when it comes to using someone else's platform. It's a nonsense that's perpetuated for decades, the simple fact is that you abide by someone else's rules and are at the mercy of whipping their platform from asunder you. There's no entitlement.

Exactly. It's like your first line when you write an opinion letter to your newspaper. Dear editor.... blah blah blah. You know the letter is going to the EDITOR for proofreading before it MIGHT be published at his/her pleasure. Ditto for Boards.