Trump Accuses Social Media Firms of 'Silencing Millions' (reuters.com) 570
U.S. President Donald Trump accused social media companies on Friday of silencing "millions of people" in an act of censorship, but without offering evidence to support the claim. From a report: "Social Media Giants are silencing millions of people. Can't do this even if it means we must continue to hear Fake News like CNN, whose ratings have suffered gravely. People have to figure out what is real, and what is not, without censorship!" Trump wrote on Twitter, not mentioning any specific companies. Trump also criticized social media outlets last week, saying without providing proof that unidentified companies were "totally discriminating against Republican/Conservative voices." Mr. President's Friday remarks comes days after he expressed concerns over Twitter and Facebook regulating the content on their own platforms. He found such practice "very dangerous."
Old man yells at cloud (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, pretty much. Mod up please
Titanic Distraction (Score:2)
Reveals Titanic desperation
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dl... [twimg.com]
Trump's entire administration is a distraction (Score:5, Insightful)
I could go on. The beauty of Trump is that his outrageousness masks a lot of very real and very bad things that will hurt the American working class.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People have to figure out what is real, and what is not, without censorship!
Huge chunks of the US have repeatedly shown that they are incapable of determining what is real and what is not. Evidence of this is the fact that people believe Trump. More evidence is the fact that Snopes needs a page for this [snopes.com].
Cue the cloud and old man.
He is not wrong tho (Score:5, Insightful)
regardless of your opinions, he is right. of course they have the right to do so, but people are being silenced
Re:He is not wrong tho (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
either everything goes, or they are no longer innocent in what is allowed on their platforms. choice is yours.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ive had numerous posts on FB removed and banned a number of times for innocent posts simply for going against groupthink.
No, you haven't. No one is naive enough to think that FB removed your posts just because you offered a different opinion.
Re: He is not wrong tho (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and the truth of your statements is obvious by the fact that you offer no supporting evidence and are afraid to even post under a pseudonym. You might live in a world where saying shit makes it true, but the rest of us don't.
Re: (Score:3)
so? leave FB then.
the more people do that, the better.
you are annoyed that a SOLELY OWNED private website does what it want? oh, the shock and horror.
bring back usenet and distributed social networking. then I might give a damn. but websites? who, that has tech understanding of this, even cares?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
sadly when all my non technical friends are on those services, I still need to use them at least from time to time.
You don't "need" to use any of that stuff.
If you cannot maintain contact with friends without using social networks, those people you're trying to maintain contact with are not real friends and your "friendships" are not real friendships either.
Re: He is not wrong tho (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly why Usenet and IRC are — and always have been — a better alternative [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Dissagree. The people being shadowbanned and deleted are assholes or bots. There's a terms of service that all users agree to abide by, and those being removed are simply failing to abide by what they agreed to.
It's not the social media sites fault that the people being abusive and racist are far more quantitatively republican/conservative.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because you are offended. No nation can survive long with a population of over-sensitive citizens all demanding they must not be offended. No one holds 100% truth. Occasionally, you will be wrong. Try not to be offended by that. Choose to learn and grow from it instead.
Re:He is not wrong tho (Score:5, Insightful)
If it was actually people being silenced by the millions instead of just astroturf bots, he would have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He is not wrong tho (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem is everyone is talking but no one is listening. So to be heard they talk louder and try to be more shocking to get attention. The one who gets attention is listed to. But only the most outrageous arguments are being heard, so for those who oppose those ideas will either go as far in the other direction or just not listen causing such escalation. From Free Speech of idea sharing, to trolling.
Free Speech has moved from long conversations of opposing ideas, to bumper sticker slogans.
Not all ideas will have a consensus, not all view points are right. But we have fallen into such tribalism we are seeing the opposite party as these evil goblins who are out to kill our way of lives.
Re: (Score:3)
the solution is to break up the USA and make it into more state-like entities. skinner had the right idea; smaller city-states, not bigger ones. big ones mean that too many different subsections will NEVER agree. so, give each what they want; those that don't agree should move (we can do that today; we couldn't quite do that 200+ years ago, not quite as well).
I will never agree with the self-labeled conservatives. nothing they view is important to me and nothing I see as important means a thing to them.
I'm listening (Score:5, Insightful)
The shouting isn't there because they're not being listened to. It's a distraction from what the ruling class is doing to the working class...
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, unless you think the only way you can express yourself is on Twitter and Facebook. You can still go an alt-right forum or even set one up yourself.
But you'll find even sites like StormFront have community standards which they enforce, they're just different community standards. What it means is that everybody can find a platform to express their opinions, but nobody -- left or right, paleo-, neo-, or alt- -- gets a platform from which they can address *everybody*, even people who don't want to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: He is not wrong tho (Score:2)
Bots and Fakes [Re: He is not wrong tho] (Score:2, Troll)
People are NOT getting silenced.
Correct. What they are shutting down are the bots and fake accounts.
People can still spout their paranoid conspiracy theories and can still troll for lulz, they just have to do so from one account linked to their own name, not 1000 accounts linked to 1000 fake names,
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/mollie-tibbetts-death-russia-bots-alliance-securing-democracy-trump-cohen-manafort-a8505241.html [independent.co.uk]
https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/spot-russian-bot-social-media/ [makeuseof.com]
https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/spo [aphapublications.org]
Re: (Score:2)
People are NOT getting silenced.
Correct. What they are shutting down are the bots and fake accounts.
People can still spout their paranoid conspiracy theories and can still troll for lulz, they just have to do so from one account linked to their own name, not 1000 accounts linked to 1000 fake names,
Well, actually, no, at least one of them can't. The three biggies all de-platformed him, working together.
Now, I don't like what I've heard about the guy, but that's immaterial. He wasn't a bot and he wasn't a fake account.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they were referring to Facebook, Youtube, and Apple, who all removed his content.
Twitter was the only one who didn't ban Alex Jones (though they've had a bad track record elsewhere).
I - as a Republican (a moderate Republican, but still certainly right of center) - view Alex Jones as a lunatic and an embarrassment. Still, it's hard to argue the fact that he wasn't really hurting anybody - he was simply expressing a bunch of crazy conspiracy theories. While it may be legal within the letter of the l
Re:Bots and Fakes [Re: He is not wrong tho] (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bots and Fakes [Re: He is not wrong tho] (Score:5, Insightful)
This can be verified very easily by digging into the followers of Trump's Twitter account - even by hand. Pick a few, look at their posts, likes, friends, etc., and you can easily see that a high percentage are fake accounts. The likes are very inconsistent, the friends are also fakes, the comments are generic or inconsistent with what is being commented on, etc. One funny aspect is that it is astonishing how many muslims allegedly follow him :)
I've been watching them for a couple of years now and have been impressed with the technological development of some of them. There is a large mix that makes it obvious that multiple organizations with differing resource levels and sophistication are creating them. The best though are much less detectable by an algorithm now, but they are still easily discerned by a real person.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: He is not wrong tho (Score:4, Insightful)
Fox can choose to not broadcast \ report any news that doesn't fit their world view, and so can Twitter.
Fox is the company that is generating the content of the new reports that they broadcast (they tell the news anchor what to say). Twitter does not create the content of user's tweets, so it is not the same. A correct parallel would be if Fox were a public access TV network, then they would not be the ones creating the content.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that it only takes the stroke of a pen to make political affiliation a protected class right?
If the a company abuses its power, that power can and will be reigned in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This. Upset that you can't post overt racism on Twitter? Hop onto Gab and quityerbitchin.
Re: (Score:2)
Google has not banned Gab from their search results. I can find no news of this and can turn up the Gab homepage and various user feeds from Google searches.
You can reach the Gab web interface from any phone. Android phones can sideload a Gab client, and you could install one on a jailbroken iPhone. The iOS walled garden is a problem with Apple, not Twitter.
From the other side of the big pond (Score:5, Insightful)
It looks as though you have someone who is completely out of control as president of your country.
As someone inside the US (Score:5, Insightful)
It looks as though you have someone who is completely out of control as president of your country.
That seems like accurate description of the situation. Though upon closer inspection, we also have a chickenshit congressional majority who refuses to do their duty to keep the president in check.
Re: (Score:3)
Though upon closer inspection, we also have a chickenshit congressional majority who refuses to do their duty to keep the president in check.
They can't. Trump's built a system where going against him equates with going against conservative values in general. Any politician that doesn't agree with him even slightly is "not on the team" and loses. Conservatives are all-in on Trump. Trump is conservatism in America.
Re:As someone inside the US (Score:4, Insightful)
They can't. Trump's built a system where going against him equates with going against conservative values in general. Any politician that doesn't agree with him even slightly is "not on the team" and loses. Conservatives are all-in on Trump. Trump is conservatism in America.
You seem to misunderstand what duty means. They swore an oath and now they are failing to uphold it.
Just because something will destroy you politically doesn't mean you should refuse to execute your responsibilities.
Re: (Score:3)
More accurately, he's changed "conservative values" into the fetid dingos kidneys of his imagination.
He's started a fight with just about every ally except Israel. He's started a fight with just about every trading partner. He's denigrated two entire continents in Africa and S. America. He's collapsing environmental laws. He helped give away a large pot of money to the right and we're now on track to trillion dollar deficits every year. He's dragged the institution of the Presidency down to the World Wrestl
Re: (Score:2)
It looks as though you have someone who is completely out of control as president of your country.
Thankfully, he's not really in control of the country he's ostensibly running, so things are—at least for the most part—running just fine on a day-to-day basis, despite him.
Truth be told, while I (a Republican) don't like his policies or the direction they're aiming us as a country, nor do I like basically anything he's doing or saying, I can't actually point to anything he's done so far (aside from poisoning political topics to the point that we can't have civil discourse any longer) that's act
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder, could conservatives find someone, anyone, among the ~400M Americans, that is able to uphold their values without being a loud mouth egotistical maniac troll?
Are you serious? Let's see the last few how the media portrayed them. Romney was a sexist. McCain was a racist. Bush was Hitler that stole the election.
There is not a single Republican that the Left would not think as some kind of *ist. Every single one this century has been labeled evil by some ism or ist. Go figure that eventually the loud mouth egotistical maniac troll is thrown in like a hand grenade. I don't think any decent Republican can run the way the media operates and treats them. Even Paul Ryan
Re: (Score:2)
The idea behind our system of checks and balances and restricted federal powers is that we should be able to coast through the occasional moron in office. A classic case of The Dilbert Principle [wikipedia.org] in action. This goes against the grain for those who expect a nanny state to run their daily lives. Hence all the screaming and hand-wringing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:From the other side of the big pond (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you point to a Trump policy that fostered that growth? If you want him taking the credit for it, show his work. All the rest of us see is any time he tries anything on money policy or trade, there are stories in the paper a few weeks later about the sector he touched tanking or offshoring. Like Carrier, Harley Davidson, GE, various appliance makers, Coors raising prices because of aluminum tariffs, soybean farmers, tourism down, auto manufacturers in the Carolinas having slumps because of China's reverse tariffs, etc.
So maybe the economy as a whole is shambling along on momemtum like an oil tanker whose engine cut out an hour ago and is still cruising at 15mph, but many sectors of the economy sure do sound like they're getting hit with enormous unnecessary pain as a result of someone's mouth...
Re:From the other side of the big pond (Score:5, Interesting)
Or how about Trump's rambling speech about "wildfires" and "higher wood costs coming from Canada" and all that? Lest it be forgotten, Trump put in a 20% tariff on softwood from Canada shortly after coming into power last year, so of course people are paying more for wood - he made it more expensive!
(American companies can supply about 75% of the domestic consumption, which is why Canada can still sell wood to the US despite the 20% tariff). And of course, if Canada has to sell 20% more expensive, aren't you going to raise your prices a bit to make extra profit?
I think part of the problem is Trump's upbringing. He's been speech trained, which is why you never see him use "ums" or "ahs" when he talks. (Compare and contrast to other world leaders - like Justin Trudeau or Obama and you'll see they pause, stutter and do "um, ah" a lot. Trump doesn't, because he was coached into not doing it). This is good if you want to seem eloquent as only commoners let their mouths run faster than their brains and have to pause with ums and ahs. Of course, the reality is, the speech training makes sure if you do run out of words, you end up repeating what you said.
So if you hear Trump say something like "This will make them very happy, they will be happy, and happy it will be" or some other non-content thing, that's the training kicking into action with Trump speaking instead of saying "ah, um, err". Likewise, when something fictional comes out, I can't help but think that's also something his speech training taught him or he grew into).
The only REALLY good news is that Trump generally doesn't follow up with his ramblings.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you point to a Trump policy that fostered that growth?
No, he cannot, because Trump has done nothing of the sort.
Re:From the other side of the big pond (Score:4, Informative)
Wow, a momentary blip in GDP growth at the end of a recovery that is in many ways the longest sustained one ever, almost all of which occurred under Obama. Things always destabilize when they are about to go bad. During that destabilized period, there are often some manic highs outside of what the longer recovery experienced. That's what you're seeing - the result of destabilization. There will be others before the recession which almost all experts, no matter their party affiliation, expect to kick in within the next 18 months.
In terms of change since arrival in office, Obama turned the direction of the second worst recession in our history around in months after taking office - a massive delta versus the direction it was taking under Bush. At the most, Trump can argue for a tiny delta that was delivered almost entirely to the rich.
If you discount those first few months of Obama's tenure during which jobs were still going down because you can't instantly change directions, Obama created more jobs than any previous President. And he did that while being the first President in modern history to oversee a decrease in overall government employees [wikipedia.org]! This means that his record for jobs created in the private sector is well above any other. Most Presidents have boosted their job numbers by building the number employed by government.
Trump actually cannot achieve Obama's job numbers no matter how good he does. There simply aren't enough people left that will take a job no matter how tempting you make it to put the same numbers up. Obama did too good of a job.
Re:From the other side of the big pond (Score:5, Insightful)
We have the strngest economy in 20 years. How you doin?
To be more specific, we had the strongest economic growth in 20 years under Obama, and Trump hasn't torpedoed the economy (yet).
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/economic-growth-remains-steady-falls-short-trumps-vows
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/05/17/trump-lags-behind-his-predecessors-on-economic-growth/
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/02/donald-trump/donald-trump-base-describing-gdp-growth-his-watch/
Re:Second link says the opposite of your claim (Score:4, Informative)
Trump exceeds Obama growth. You also fail to mention loss of purchasing power under Obama or the general economic malaise of the country, and have fallen back on two propaganda sources -- Maddow and Politifact -- to make your argument.
And you fall back on no sources whatsoever: you just make up facts.
There was no particular change in purchasing power between Obama and Trump-- the inflation rate stayed about the same: CPI increased 2.9% year over year as of June. Oil prices have goine up 65% since Trump's election, though, so Trump's election has resulted in a net loss in purchasing power.
Leftists really do live in different worlds, don't you? Either that or you are honestly deluded (insane) or liars.
I'm not sure what your point is, since I'm not a leftist. I'm a guy who likes numbers.
Re:Second link says the opposite of your claim (Score:4, Informative)
Trump exceeds Obama growth.
Not even close. I think you are perhaps looking at the last reported quarter and assuming that is growth for the entire term.
Now, if the last quarter were to continue happening, yes, he would definitely decimate growth under the previous President's term. However, it should be noted that Obama had several 4% quarters, and even a 5% quarter.
Leftists really do live in different worlds, don't you?
Sigh, first off, leftists aren't a thing. I know Tucker and Sean tell you they are, but they just aren't. Stop using the word, it makes you look like a raving lunatic.
Second, no, your opponents are not living in different worlds, especially as long as you're using pure falsehoods to describe your world. You're literally accusing them of doing what you actually are doing. That's called projecting. It's a sign of intense insecurity. You could probably get help with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Riding the global rise that has been ongoing the past few years and Trump has taken credit for over here too mate, only no Trump to be found. Let's hope he doesn't fuck it up any more than he already has though.
Re: (Score:2)
We have the strngest economy in 20 years. How you doin?
Clinton also had 4% GDP growth, over 2 terms. And he managed to do it without dividing the country and making the rest of the world think we're retards.
Trump's policies (or the policies instituted while he's been in office) aren't terrible, he just needs to shut his mouth. Every tweet he makes is flamebait. It's pathetic.
Also, this goes both ways. If you want to applaud Trump for anything that happens while he's in office, be ready blame him if something goes wrong as well. That's how it works.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was money that won elections, Hillary would be president.
CNBC: Trump spent about half of what Clinton did on his way to the presidency
His campaign committee spent about $238.9 million through mid-October, compared with $450.6 million by Clinton's. That equals about $859,538 spent per Trump electoral vote, versus about $1.97 million spent per Clinton electoral vote.
[Those numbers do not include spending from Oct. 20 to Election Day due to when the article was written.]
While Trump's campaign increased i
Hypocrite (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump: People should be able to say whatever they want on private platforms that have no connection to the government.
Also Trump: Football players should be fined and fired for daring to take a knee.
So in one case he wants the First Amendment to apply to private companies, and in the second wants to force silence on non-govermental employees.
Re: (Score:3)
The only people who are not hypocrites are those who think it's OK for NFL players to kneel, and that social media companies shouldn't be censoring users. Or
Re: (Score:3)
I know you're AC here and this is likely a useless response, but there is a difference. Trump's twitter account is considered an official government method of communication. As such, people being blocked from reading it is unconstitutional. It's not the same when the reverse occurs because the reverse isn't an official government method of communication.
Re: (Score:2)
So, Twitter can control who can have an account to view official government communication? It wasn't about reading his twitter as much as it was to replying to his tweets (you can read his tweets without an account and the lawsuit was specifically for being banned and unable to reply). Does that mean I have grounds to sue if my account is shadow-banned? Or if I am banned because "bot like" behavior*?
Are you comfortable with the idea that Twitter can control the means of official government communication wit
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't quoting him, only mentioning his invective, but here is one example:
https://mashable.com/2017/09/23/donald-trump-nfl-tweets-youre-fired/#gEmC9..VFaqY
"If a player wants the privilege of making millions of dollars in the NFL,or other leagues, he or she should not be allowed to disrespect.... ...our Great American Flag (or Country) and should stand for the National Anthem. If not, YOU'RE FIRED. Find something else to do!"
Re: Hypocrite (Score:3)
Where did Trump claim that football players can't post their opinions on social media when they aren't on the clock?
And why the hell does it matter if there are on the clock? I don't recall that the NFL is in any way a part of any national, state, or local governments. As such there are on private time which means only their employers have any say. In the past some of their employers said it was okay and demonstrated with their employees. What is your argument against that?
Re: Hypocrite (Score:2)
Well, at least that's a change (Score:2)
... from the usual "political correctness" complaint, which is somebody with a regular appearance on a major newspaper page, TV or radio show, complaining to an audience of millions that they are being "silenced". ( https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com] )
On a practical note, if these millions are "unsilenced", how I am supposed to find time to listen to them? I can only listen to each of even one million people every month, if I spend 18 hours a day listening to each for two seconds.
Tell him to turn off Warnings (Score:2)
Those poor unwashed millions of Russian and Iranian bots waiting to be heard.
Hey, I have an idea, he could resign and move there and hear from them all the time!
Socialist media (Score:2)
Is run by rich socialists.
FCC (Score:2)
Nationalise and give it to the FCC for administration.
I can't help but wonder (Score:2)
Trump senses a disturbance of the force (Score:3)
Trump senses a disturbance of the force. It felt as if millions of bots cried out in terror, and then were silenced.
No doubt about that (Score:2)
Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, and others routinely apply double standards to non-Leftists and censor non-Leftists.
Then they lie about it.
I get wanting to censor all political competition, but why not just admit that is what you are doing?
I guess that censorship is not popular, and social media is afraid of losing popularity and going the way of MySpace.
However, by alienating half of their potential audience, they have guaranteed that they are obsolete anyway...
We have heard this song before. (Score:2)
Christ on a pogo stick, are we really back to this bullshit? Nixon trotted this out , his "Silent Majority". He had a secret plan to end an undeclared war backed by a silent majority. No one does bullshit better than republicans and the criminal Trump is following Nixon's playbook except the criminal Trump does not read and he damn sure can't retain anything he has been told. The guy is stupid, senial Nixon.
Suddenly, Left worry about "evidence" (Score:2)
How long have the vague accusations of "treason" been unsubstantiated by evidence nor even any plausible details? Two years?
Now, when Trump simply states the obvious — and, indeed, admitted by Facebook themselves [twitter.com] — the Left turn back to the most rigorous standards of evidence.
Alex Jones wasn't silenced (Score:3)
The final straw came when he mimed shooting Robert Mueller to an audience he knows is mildly unhinged. It was a Jones supporter who showed up with a rifle at the "PizzaGate" restaurant (google it if you don't know what it is but be prepared to lose a little faith in humanity...).
Moreover Jones has admitted in sworn deposition during his divorce trial that everything he does is an act. So you can't say he isn't fully aware of the consequences of what he's doing. He's not a true believer or a kool aid drinker. He's manipulating a specific set of people and knows it and he knows the risks involved.
So what? (Score:3)
Who cares? And there's nothing to see here. So a website bans someone? Is this suddenly a problem? Do websites have to give up their rights so someone else can have their speech on this website? No. Websites have the same rights as we do, sorry. They definitely have to right to not be associated with your speech, with or without a reason.
Case in point, if you head over to ANY technical support forum from any computer manufacturer and start posting about rabbit breeding and showing, you'd be asked to leave, your posts would be removed. That speech is not the focus of the forum, and the forum's operations have no obligation to publish your speech.
Just stop this nonsense. If Facebook, Twitter, YouTube or Granny's Cooking Website doesn't want you there, then you have to leave, you have no rights, period. You are a guest of the website operator and as part of your agreement you clicked on without reading, you relinquish any rights you thought you might have, when you signed up to that site. GTFO with this BS. You wanna speak? Head over to your favorite web hosting company and register a domain, publish whatever you damn well please on YOUR website.
So go build your own, creeps (Score:3)
You should be used to this by now. No one wants you around, so you find a community that doesn't understand what you are, take advantage of their hospitality, ruin it for everyone, and no one wants you around again. What's one more trip through the cycle? Or you could end it, by actually making the change and growing the fuck up, but of courseyou don't want to do that.
Failing that, build your own community. You've got everything you need for that. No one will stop you from leaving, and no one will miss you when you're gone. You may run into some trouble growing your community when no one wants to be around you, but so what? You should be used to this by now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Heck if he just shut up I bet his approval ratings would go up 10 points.
Re: (Score:2)
Heck if he just shut up I bet his approval ratings would go up 10 points.
Maybe. Maybe not. He's trying to keep his base riled up, by throwing them red meat. Would he start losing them if he stopped?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because like it or not, most of his base have a pretty deep-seated hatred for CNN (the "Communist News Network" as many call it). Any news of unfortunate happenings towards CNN is good news to much of the Republican base.
This isn't exactly shocking though or just a Republican thing. Whether they'll admit it or not a ton of Democrats would feel the same way if they heard that Fox News was having trouble.
Re:I'd propose a trade (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: I'd propose a trade (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Trumpies hate any fact checking media source (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'd propose a trade (Score:5, Insightful)
Or worse, he actually believes what he's saying.
Fox and the rest of the right wingnuts regularly get taken to the cleaners by repeating what some yahoo says because it gins up ratings. Then the truth comes out, they look like idiots...except to their viewers who by that time have moved on to the next faux outrage Fox, et. al. are promoting. And there is a never ending supply of molehills they can masquerade as mountains. It's the closest thing yet to a perpetual motion machine....a perpetual propaganda machine.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Trump is actually just another Russian twitter bot."
No. Those at least have artificial intelligence.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Only one person needs to be silenced, (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think DJT ought to be silenced. I think people should stop listening to him.
DJT is proof of Terry Pratchett's observation that hate and love are both forces of attraction, because people who hate DJT hang on his every word, even when it makes them sick with outrage and that makes his followers feel empowered, which of course shows the people who love him and the people who hate him are equally irrational.
Now I think Donald Trump is a miserable human being unworthy of the office. But I don't *hate* him; as far as I'm concerned if he goes back to being a successful reality TV star that's fine, because I don't feel compelled to pay attention to him. As long as he's president I do have to pay some attention to what he says, but since I don't hate him I have the luxury of not having to react emotionally to every bit of manipulative BS that comes out of his mouth.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't hang on his words because I hate him (Score:3)
I hang on his words because they've got enormous power over me. It's not emotion, it's policy.
Re: (Score:3)
I, on the other hand, do hate him for helping turn America to its darkest ideas that should have gone out of style with the KKK. And for what he's doing to environment. There is no forgiving dragging America down that dark hole.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can tell the strength of your convictions by how you aren't even able to post under a pseudonym lest someone might figure out your stand on the issues.
Re: (Score:3)
And that means she is no longer relevant.
Trump, on the other hand, is in office, and that means he's fair game for criticism.
Re: (Score:2)
What if i buy facebook and use all the tools they created and silence you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People have to figure out what is real, and what is not, without censorship!
You know, some of the stuff Trump says could be truly profound, if not for the source...
That's his method ... he uses outrageous hyperbole, and while everybody gets the vapors, the actual issue really does get some attention.
I don't care if it's a clown crying "fire" if there really is a fire ...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care if it's a clown crying "fire" if there really is a fire ...
If you're depending on a critical message like "fire!" to be delivered properly, you really don't care that it's coming from Bozo? Compare a normal looking person screaming "fire" to a giant orange clown screaming "fire" -- your brain will spend extra cycles trying to cope with the existence of Bozo the Giant Orange Clown, his bouncing around, arms waving, before ever getting to the actual message. You really want these sorts of messages delivered in a serious, professional manner that commands attention an
Re: (Score:2)
That's the foundation for a stupid society. People need to be able to rely on a reliable news-media and press because nobody has the expertise or time to figure out what is real or not real, all information being equal. He might as well insist that everyone repair their own cars and grow their own food.
Of course, Trump thinks the press is the enemy of the people. Insisting that everyone individually figure out what's real or what's not is straight from the populist cookbook interested in keeping people effe
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Diamond and Silk
Alex Jones
Candice Owens
3 of the above are black women, so I have to assume Zuck is a bigot, along with everyone supporting his censoring people.
Re: (Score:3)
Diamond and Silk
Caught lying about what happened, basically a non-incident.
Alex Jones
On top of posting overtly racist content, he orchestrated harassment campaigns against the relatives of mass shooting victims. Would any conservatives like to argue that this should be allowed?
Candice Owens
Had to look up who this was. Her account was briefly locked due to a large number of reported violations, and then Twitter aplogized. OH THE HUMANITY!
So again, the supposed persecution of conservatives on social media is some combination of Nazis hiding unoppo
Not correct (Score:2)
They wanted to stop publication of a stolen and leaked classified document. That is not "inconvenient news."
Democracy as usual.
Re: (Score:3)
Twitter is a far-Left platform.
Yeha not hosting literal nazis makes you far left. Well, you're certainly living up to your usernaeme.