Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

Options
1…124125127129130…1190

Comments

  • Options
    #3782
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,220 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Deleted User wrote: »
    But you believe that they should be ignored and that people can post whatever they like as long as it's non-violent?
    I don't think Trumps two posts he got banned for amounted to praising the Capitol riots.


  • Options
    #3783
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    biko wrote: »
    I don't think Trumps two posts he got banned for amounted to praising the Capitol riots.

    But you don't think that that matters anyway, right? You believe that if the Facebook mods deem it worthy of a ban, then it is worthy of ban, right? You'd have to ask them, right?


  • Options
    #3784
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,220 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Jack and Mark decided Trump had to go somehow and they leapt on the opportunity after those posts.
    I suspect you are happy with it, not because you agree with how Jack and Mark run their platforms, but because you enjoy getting Trump deplatformed?


  • Options
    #3785
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    biko wrote: »
    Jack and Mark decided Trump had to go somehow and they leapt on the opportunity after those posts.
    I suspect you are happy with it, not because you agree with how Jack and Mark run their platforms, but because you enjoy getting Trump deplatformed?

    That's completely the opposite of what I think.

    The only reason Trump wasn't banned sooner was because he is a public figure. If he was a nobody, he would have been correctly removed much sooner for violating the terms he signed up to.

    It's quite clear that you believe that if a Boards, Reddit etc. mod believes a person should be banned, and the other mods also agree with the ban, that that ban should be upheld. However, you completely switch your opinion if the person who was banned is someone who you don't want to be banned, regardless of why they were banned or if the mods all collectively agree that that ban should be upheld. That much is clear.


  • Options
    #3786
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,712 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    biko wrote: »
    Jack and Mark decided Trump had to go somehow and they leapt on the opportunity after those posts.
    I suspect you are happy with it, not because you agree with how Jack and Mark run their platforms, but because you enjoy getting Trump deplatformed?

    Twitter and Facebook repeatedly said/implied that Trump would have been banned sooner if he wasn't POTUS. Twitter posted a full blog post defending their decision to not ban Trump because of who he is. Twitter had to keep coming up with new ways to allow Trump to keep posting but counter disinformation he was posting regarding the election.

    Trump using Twitter & Facebook to encourage his supporters to go to the Capitol and stop the steal etc were the biggest factor in what caused the riot, and it was the last straw. Trump was going to lose his presidency in a few weeks anyway.

    "Jack and Mark" didn't just decide "Let's deplatform Trump".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3787
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    biko wrote: »
    Jack and Mark decided Trump had to go somehow and they leapt on the opportunity after those posts.
    I suspect you are happy with it, not because you agree with how Jack and Mark run their platforms, but because you enjoy getting Trump deplatformed?

    In fairness, it was known that his account was getting a privileged status on Twitter cause he regularly flouted the rules. He was removed from Twitter at the point where he just brought more and more disrepute to the platform given what he was posting. Inciting violence etc was always against the terms and conditions of Twitter and Facebook.


  • Options
    #3788
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users Posts: 2,038 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    Penn wrote: »
    Twitter and Facebook repeatedly said/implied that Trump would have been banned sooner if he wasn't POTUS. Twitter posted a full blog post defending their decision to not ban Trump because of who he is. Twitter had to keep coming up with new ways to allow Trump to keep posting but counter disinformation he was posting regarding the election.

    Trump using Twitter & Facebook to encourage his supporters to go to the Capitol and stop the steal etc were the biggest factor in what caused the riot, and it was the last straw. Trump was going to lose his presidency in a few weeks anyway.

    "Jack and Mark" didn't just decide "Let's deplatform Trump".

    Both platforms bent over backwards to keep Trump on and posting, he should have been kicked off much sooner than he was. Inciting the insurrection and praising the insurrectionists was just the straw that broke the camels back.


  • Options
    #3789
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,220 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It's quite clear that you believe that if a Boards, Reddit etc. mod believes a person should be banned, and the other mods also agree with the ban, that that ban should be upheld. However, you completely switch your opinion if the person who was banned is someone who you don't want to be banned, regardless of why they were banned or if the mods all collectively agree that that ban should be upheld. That much is clear.
    That is not so and I think you know it but just can't back down now.

    I won't discuss moderation on boards as it's not appropriate so stop bringing it up please.


  • Options
    #3790
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,440 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    biko wrote: »
    That is not so and I think you know it but just can't back down now.

    I won't discuss moderation on boards as it's not appropriate so stop bringing it up please.

    nobody is discussing moderation. they are discussing your hypocrisy about moderation.


  • Options
    #3791
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users Posts: 2,038 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    biko wrote: »
    That is not so and I think you know it but just can't back down now.

    I won't discuss moderation on boards as it's not appropriate so stop bringing it up please.

    Its you that can't back down, you've backed yourself into a corner and the only way out is to hide behind
    I won't discuss moderation on boards


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3792
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    biko wrote: »
    That is not so and I think you know it but just can't back down now.

    I won't discuss moderation on boards as it's not appropriate so stop bringing it up please.

    You were specifically asked about a hypothetical website and you said "you'll have to ask them" in reference to a mods decision as to why someone was banned, indicating that you believe that it is ultimately up to the mods of that hypothetical website as to whether a ban should be upheld or not.

    You are now saying the opposite when it comes to Trump. You are contradicting your own opinion.


  • Options
    #3793
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,381 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    biko wrote: »
    That is not so and I think you know it but just can't back down now.

    I won't discuss moderation on boards as it's not appropriate so stop bringing it up please.

    A mod arguing against moderation. That's how far away we are from self awareness here


  • Options
    #3794
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    biko wrote: »
    That is not so and I think you know it but just can't back down now.

    I won't discuss moderation on boards as it's not appropriate so stop bringing it up please.

    But by your own logic if a named politician joined the site and started blatantly flouting the rules, he should not be banned as it would constitute silencing. Boards is no different to reddit, Twitter or Facebook. Users sign up and agree to follow the rules.


  • Options
    #3795
    garrettod
    Registered Users Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭garrettod


    Whatever the future holds for Trump, I just pray that it's not in public office, or with widespread access to social media.

    Thanks,

    G.



  • Options
    #3796
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    biko wrote: »
    I don't think Trumps two posts he got banned for amounted to praising the Capitol riots.

    It is a simple totting up process ... Just as here on boards ..

    The last couple of posts pushed him over the edge.

    And yes with his dangerous rhetoric in his capacity as POTUS he should have been deplatformed long ago.


  • Options
    #3797
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,126 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Twitter cited two posts for brevity but there are dozens of instances of Trump violating Twitters rules and Twitter being called up to Capitol Hill to bend over backwards to accommodate both him and his insurrectionist cult on the platform. All the while Twitter flagged each and every violation of their rules while still letting him go at it.

    https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/29/twitter-blocks-donald-trump-tweet-glorifying-violence-12774703/

    If you’re going to duck behind cover of “well we can’t relate the moderation of boards.ie to the moderation of another website that is also a private platform” then I don’t think you should be instigating this conversation.


  • Options
    #3798
    nolivesmatter
    Registered Users Posts: 893 ✭✭✭nolivesmatter


    I can't believe I actually miss the triteness of Twitter back when it seemed like it was just people posting pictures of their food.


  • Options
    #3799
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,126 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    nolivesmatter wrote: »
    I can't believe I actually miss the triteness of Twitter back when it seemed like it was just people posting pictures of their food.

    Which in itself is an argument against Facebook being a monopoly on that sort of thing, eg. Instagram


  • Options
    #3800
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,350 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    biko wrote: »
    The amount of chatter about Trump, even on boards, is still almost as high as when he was in power.
    People can't get enough of him.
    WhomadeGod wrote: »
    Agreed 6months since the election and he is talked about in this thread and the Biden thread everyday it seems. Wasn't expecting this when I joined.

    Its fascinating.

    I'd be fairly confident the amount of posts about Trump has declined massively compared to this time last year. There was always going to be a slight uptick around the Facebook decision, but I have to say that one crept up on me. If you think back to November - January people following US politics would have known about minor daily deadlines at a state level (even at a county level by times).

    I actually hadn't thought about Trump in weeks. And my own WhatsApp groups - which would have been flying talking about him and the election last year - haven't mentioned him in a couple of months.

    If you're a fan of Trump, it would surely be hard to argue things are going well? Biden is flying, US vaccine distribution is strong and economic recovery is emerging strongly. Trump is down in Florida with his only consistent channel to the public a little rinky dink oneway megaphone to his followers. Hard to spin that as part of the plan.


  • Options
    #3801
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,698 ✭✭✭✭everlast75




    Look at Cruz when he comes face to face with what he helped create...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3802
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,698 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1390789833203671042?s=19

    One might think "consciousness of guilt"....


  • Options
    #3803
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,698 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    It is like rat f**ckers turning on each other...

    https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1391426485437616130?s=19


  • Options
    #3804
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,440 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    everlast75 wrote: »
    It is like rat f**ckers turning on each other...

    https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1391426485437616130?s=19

    someone really should report that tweet for encouraging violence.


  • Options
    #3805
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,381 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    someone really should report that tweet for encouraging violence.

    They did and stones account is suspended


  • Options
    #3806
    SuperGrover
    Registered Users Posts: 990 ✭✭✭SuperGrover


    A few more years of a mix of grifts and lawsuits. Then an Elvis exit on the jacks. Ignominy.


  • Options
    #3807
    astrofool
    Registered Users Posts: 16,679 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    SuperGrover wrote: »
    A few more years of a mix of grifts and lawsuits. Then an Elvis exit on the jacks. Ignominy.

    I'd wonder if it would be more a death of Stalin.


  • Options
    #3808
    extra gravy
    Registered Users Posts: 22,625 ✭✭✭✭extra gravy


    In his latest statement, he called Kentucky Derby winner Medina Spirit a "junky". It's unclear whether he knows that Medina Spirit is a horse. Maybe he got confused between the horse and Don Jr.


  • Options
    #3809
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,440 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    extra gravy wrote: »
    In his latest statement, he called Kentucky Derby winner Medina Spirit a "junky". It's unclear whether he knows that Medina Spirit is a horse. Maybe he got confused between the horse and Don Jr.

    not only that but he thinks it is Bidens fault.


  • Options
    #3810
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users Posts: 19,656 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    That Desk of Trump site is a bit of a laugh, it is old man yells at clouds type stuff.

    I was reading as well there is an election audit company operating in Arizona and its owner reckons that they are going to test thousands of ballot papers for bamboo because they say that thousands of Chinese paper ballots were flown into the US to stuff election boxes.And that the presence of bamboo in the paper will prove their conspiracy theory. Its truly mad stuff but has the blessing of Republicans


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3811
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,440 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    That Desk of Trump site is a bit of a laugh, it is old man yells at clouds type stuff.

    I was reading as well there is an election audit company operating in Arizona and its owner reckons that they are going to test thousands of ballot papers for bamboo because they suspect they are Chinese ballots flown into the US to stuff election boxes. Its truly mad stuff but has the blessing of Republicans

    apparently trump had all ballot papers watermarked before the election so they are checking them for the watermark.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement