Twitter Temporarily Limits Donald Trump Jr.'s Account (cnn.com) 270
Twitter has limited some functionality on Donald Trump Jr.'s account after he tweeted a video that ran afoul of the company's policies on Covid-19 misinformation, a Twitter spokesperson confirmed to CNN Business on Tuesday. Some of the account's functionality will be limited for 12 hours, the spokesperson said. Twitter has asked the President's son to delete the tweet with the video.
So what was the video? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you were hoping for more information from the story, note that it's a CNN link. There is no more information.
So what was the video? What was the misinformation? Was it something like pointing out how we're supposed to believe that the coronavirus won't infect mass crowds of BLM protestors but will infect crowds of Trump supporters? (And for whoever wants to call that a troll, note that I'm saying that NEITHER should be happening right now.)
It's impossible to know what to think about this without knowing
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So what was the video? (Score:4, Interesting)
CNN coverage is sophomoric and bias. But compared to Fox News CNN is truthful (if they found something is wrong they will actually call out the retraction) . Fox News is Sophomoric, Bias and untruthful. To a point where in their term of conditions on their website they express that they are entertainment only.
I don't follow Cable News, CNN, MSNBC, FOX News... For the reason that their business model is centered around keeping people with an 8th grade level of education entertained. So they will often be bias, and try to exaggerate things to make them seem a bigger deal than they really are. Breaking News, President (what ever president who is in office at the time) said he/she doesn't care for (pick a type of food).
Re: So what was the video? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignorance has been politicised. The virus has not, although I can see how some would confuse the two.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I saw this shared on facebook, I didn't look any closer because it had a Breitbart logo attached, the godfathers of fake news. Covid-19 should not be politicized and yet it is...
I haven't seen the video, but let me predict what's in it and see show close I am: Fake doctors claiming that school kids are young and can't get sick from covid-19, so it's 100% safe to send them to school because it will do them more harm if they stay home, and only states run by American-hating democrats aren't opening schools,
"Doctors" (Score:5, Informative)
Ben Carson (Score:4, Informative)
Is a doctor but he thinks the pyramids were used for grain storage...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In their opening statements to the 3-hour video, a representative of the Tea Party Patriots Foundation says—without any references, citations, or even appeals to authority beyond standing next to someone in a lab coat—that not only do children not die from the infection, they don't even transmit the infection to adults, and, to quote them, "in fact, they help block the viru...the disease transmission" [youtube.com].
I'm sorry, what? Children are made of poop and snot, not pixie dust. Kids can't magically block
Re: (Score:2)
Saying that children are made of pixie dust, or children are the locust of Sars-Cov-2 are probably both a kind of misinformation.. There was a paper from finland comparing the effectiveness of closing down schools, they said that there was clear evidence that it was an ineffective way to hinder the death in the affected groups (children at school). Wether children infect lots of other people outside of that group is probaly hard to answer, I'm not sure how you would go around getting that data in an easy w
Re: (Score:3)
I would like to see a confirmation study before depending my life on this particular case study, but there at least is some scientific support for the idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh man, I didn't even get to the good part. Later in the video, a doctor/religious minister took the podium and spoke very highly of HCQ and made several somewhat outlandish accusations about fake data and whatnot...which are apparently in line with her even more outlandish beliefs [thedailybeast.com]. I wish I was making this up, but she apparently believes gynecological issues are caused by dreamtime sex with demons and astral projections of witches, that alien DNA is used in vaccines, that the US is ruled by reptilians and
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It certainly has been. Republicans have let 150,000 die so that they wouldn't have to contradict Dear Leader.
So basically, treated the same as anyone else (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a policy.
User posts thing that violates policy.
User receives punishment per that policy.
Of course Trump Jr. and Trump will claim this is some targeted attack on them, but in reality it probably is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course Trump Jr. and Trump will claim this is some targeted attack on them, but in reality it probably is not.
What I'm eagerly anticipating is the wave of people who will unwisely argue that this is a first amendment issue.
Re:So basically, treated the same as anyone else (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So basically, treated the same as anyone else (Score:5, Insightful)
Show me where sec. 230(c)(1) says [cornell.edu]:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider, unless you curate content."
I'll wait. Probably for quite awhile.
BTW: sec 230(c)(2) says "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of [] any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." You know what's missing between (c)(1) and (c)(2)? Anything that suggests that they're alternatives to each other, such as the word "or."
Not only does Twitter want to curate, the law expressly allows them to curate while still being immune from being treated as the "publisher or speaker" of content put on the service by some other party. Deal with it.
Re: (Score:2)
And before someone says it they are not a common carrier either. Section 230 was created specifically for sites like Twitter that are not carriers.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the law makes no distinction between publisher and platform and actually encourages them to filter and block material. The whole point of the CDA was protecting "the children" from the nasty pr0ns.
Removing 230 would cause companies to remove user posted content. The liability would be too high. Look at all the Nazi crap that gets posted here on /., some of it outright calls to violence. There's no way they could keep operating if they were able to be held liable for that. You're already seeing t
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, there is plenty of evidence to suggest Twitter is acting in bad faith.
Please elaborate, with citations.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That would only make them potentially liable for the act of moderation (230(c)(2)), not subject them to liability for things third parties post because they are no longer a "platform" (230(c)(1)).
But go ahead, provide us with plenty of evidence as to how Twitter's moderation of COVID misinformation is being done in bad faith.
Why not mark it instead? (Score:3, Interesting)
Rather than outright ban it, how about a notice tag such as "May contain false medical information" with a hyperlink to details about the violation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you reply to this comment, I bet that no matter what you say, Twitter will not take any action in adjudicating it. And if we go discuss this on your blog instead of Slashdot, you will be the sole adjudicator. What would they be able to do about it?
Re: (Score:2)
If they spot dangerous medical advice sent to a wide audience, it's perfectly valid to attach a warning in my opinion. It's a decent compromise between free speech and censorship of problem content.
Re:Why not mark it instead? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, that's how you get PizzaGate, anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, "mask exemption cards", HCQ is a cure, flat earth theory, "Plandemiic" Obama's going for guns! and plenty more.
The marketplace has spoken - conspiracy theorists thrive much too easily and people seem to switch off their brains using Twitter.
In a world where everything is driven by the like and retweet, going with popular opinion doesn't get you anything. Going against popular opinion, or "going against the Man!" however gets you views/clicks/likes up the wazoo thus validating your opinion.
Twitter: Grow up and just add a simple disclaimer (Score:2, Insightful)
Twitter should leave the tweet alone and add a simple disclaimer.
'Twitter has no evidence to confirm or deny the accuracy of the statements put forth in this tweet.'
What Twitter is currently doing is childish. I don't like how the game is going so I'm taking my ball and going home.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Twitter: Grow up and just add a simple disclaim (Score:5, Interesting)
What Twitter is currently doing is childish.
Blocking a dangerous propoganda video promoting the political nature of COVID-19 in the face of actual science is not "childish". Rather it's "being a responsible company".
I don't like how the game is going so I'm taking my ball and going home.
So are you claiming then the tweet did not violate the policies? Are you advocating the selective application of policies depending on if a person happens to be a politician? Are you not aware that Twitter literally bans users in bulks of 100s of thousands for violation of policies? But somehow now that it's Trump it becomes "childish".
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter should leave the tweet alone and add a simple disclaimer.
'Twitter has no evidence to confirm or deny the accuracy of the statements put forth in this tweet.'
They basically did that with one of Trump's tweets and that is what really kicked his crusade against social media into high gear.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't win, if they put up a disclaimer they will be attacked for that too. Might as well just limit his account like any other, at least then it's semi-consistent.
If he wants to post that stuff why doesn't he go to Gab or 4chan?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Twitter: Grow up and just add a simple disclaim (Score:4, Insightful)
It's Twitters platform. I don't see the government or taxpayer paying their bills, so they can do whatever they want with it.
Donald Trump Jr, nor anyone else, has a right to use Twitter.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not Twitter's fault that the person spreading misinformation in this case is a politician's son.
Twitter is trying to hide the truth! (Score:3)
The truth being that sex with nightmare demons is awesome!
Can't these people come up with $20/month? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not like the Trumps are the only weirdos in the world. Lots of people are members of weird minorities, cults or even merely eccentric hobbies, engage in illegal behavior that they think should be legal, etc. And the further out there you are, the more likely your weird niche doesn't fit what "normal" people do, so you have to DIY instead of trying to do your thing on MySpace or Geocities.
If it were 1998, nobody would blink an eye at this. Trumps would just get their geocities page. But it's 2020 and for $20/mo you can get a whole VPS and the sky is the limit; you can do anything anyone else can do. It can be up and running an hour from now. If it were any of us, we'd simply just do it.
And many do. I think it's safe to say that for 90%+ of peoples' interests, Facebook and Twitter aren't where you go to discuss that, even if it's uncontroversial.
Why can't these Trumps just build it, instead of always having to rely on someone else? Nobody else has that special need. Why are they always beggars, completely dependent on others? You wouldn't do that. You'd find the $20, somehow. When Facebook does something stupid, you laugh and close the Facebook tab.
If the Trumps ever want to stop being laughed at as choosy beggars, and don't want to abide by common decency and mainstream terms, all they need is one computer-savvy friend. Remember back to when you downloaded that first mp3. You didn't download it from some bland corporate site, did you?
If Don Jr can't figure it out, maybe Eric is young enough to know how.
I'm sure the Trumps like hookers and blackjack as much as anyone, so they just need to ask themselves "What would Bender do?" Just ask uncle Vlad for another $20 allowance and you can spread as much misinformation as the Russians want them to.
Re: (Score:2)
Barron is still young enough to pick up the hacking bug, right?
Re:Can't these people come up with $20/month? (Score:4, Interesting)
People typically complain for three different reasons:
Trump falls into some mix of 2 and 3, with 1 as a distant afterthought. He wants his supporters to see him and themselves as a group that's unjustly persecuted by the evil, leftist silicon valley tech companies, because it seems to drive turnout. If he actually wanted to get his message out without "censorship" (and I use the term very loosely) it would be trivial for him to set up his own platform, but that isn't really the goal.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, well this is a hell of a predicament. What a dastardly plan by the left-wing nutjobs!
You should have legalized child porn when you had the chance (2017-2018). I guess until you retake the House and repeal/enact legislation to re-assert the 1st Amendment, just use their own tactics against them until both sides know they're in a MAD situation. I'm sure if you tweet enough child porn at Bernie Sanders, twitter will eventually kick him off. Have you tried it?
False Equivalency (Score:5, Insightful)
I can hear it now, another liberal tech company is trying to shut down conservative voices...
Except it really isn't that. I mean, conservative used to mean "small government", "low taxes", "limited regulation", power to state and local governments, etc.
In the conservative world, the argument against doing anything about climate change used to focus on cost, cost to develop alternative energy sources, cost to change the infrastructure to new options, etc. There was no "anti-science" aspect in the discussion, it was just that the cost was too great to tackle at one time. It wasn't a position I necessarily agreed with, but it was a fiscal-based argument that made sense and encouraged reasonable discourse on what to do and how soon to do it.
I don't know why that argument disappeared, but "conservative" then started to transform into anti-science bias, conspiracy theories about what was being recommended and why, ...
And it appears like this is how all big discussions are taking place, ones on health care, education, the pandemic, etc.
We have liberal arguments based on some science, some reasoning and yes some opinionated guess as to what happens when we do nothing, but it is countered by batshit crazy "conservative" views like the woman claiming Fauci has been sending corona viruses to Wuhan for 10 years apparently in an effort to cull the population.
A reasonable conservative argument is welcome. Please. Let's talk about the short term and long term economic impacts of shutting down schools and businesses. Let's talk about whether numbers are over- or under-estimated. If there's some reasoning and sense in there, that's a discussion I want to hear.
But the last thing we need are more conspiracy theories, uneducated theories not backed by any real data or wingnut claims that things are not as bad as they are or won't be an issue.
Not just "misinformation" (Score:4, Insightful)
The video Trump Jr posted was of a "doctor" (who is actually a "Deliverance Minister") saying that COVID-19 is caused by sexual visitations by demons and alien DNA. She is also demanding that all medical professionals submit a urine sample because she says it will prove that they're all secretly taking hydroxychloroquine, which she says is a cure for COVID-19. Also, this is someone Republican members of Congress invited to testify as an expert witness on COVID-19.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/... [thedailybeast.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody is stopping from Donald Jr from setting up his own soapbox to shout from.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ministry of Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not true. Alt media and platforms are having a hard time with not just deplatforming from service providers like cloudflare, and AWS, or domain registrars or hosting providers, but even alternatives set up like bitmitigate find themselves blocked out of internet access (level 3 providers), or the financial system (gab, subscribestar, all found this out the hard way), or the app stores. So, no, unfortunately A LOT is stopping people from creating alternatives to big tech.
There's things called "web sites". Which are controlled by their owners.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ministry of Truth (Score:5, Informative)
Write the HTML all you want, but if nobody is willing to serve it, you're offline. People have been booted from service providers at all levels of the stack. You can't even host it on your own computer at home, as ISPs are allowed to dump you for whatever reason. To paraphrase The Matrix, what good is a website, if nobody can connect to it?
This is the problem I think needs fixing, not forcing the platforms to host things, but forcing the lower level providers to work with everyone. Hosting, ISPs, domains, transit, rack space, and financial services. The only reason they should be allowed to shut you down is non-payment. Then people CAN easily set up their own platforms. Let FB/Twatter/Goog do whatever they want, but make it possible for people to make their own space.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Write the HTML all you want, but if nobody is willing to serve it, you're offline. People have been booted from service providers at all levels of the stack. You can't even host it on your own computer at home, as ISPs are allowed to dump you for whatever reason. To paraphrase The Matrix, what good is a website, if nobody can connect to it?
This is the problem I think needs fixing, not forcing the platforms to host things, but forcing the lower level providers to work with everyone. Hosting, ISPs, domains, transit, rack space, and financial services. The only reason they should be allowed to shut you down is non-payment. Then people CAN easily set up their own platforms. Let FB/Twatter/Goog do whatever they want, but make it possible for people to make their own space.
Sounds good. But then also cake shops have to be forced to make wedding cakes for gay weddings, no matter what kind of "religious exception" you have (I'm having trouble recalling which bible verse says "thou shalt not bake cakes for gay weddings" anyway)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm having trouble recalling which bible verse says "thou shalt not bake cakes for gay weddings" anyway
Since you want to be a smartass, the issue wasn't about baking a cake, it was about being obligated and forced to affirm and knowingly support a gay wedding against their religious beliefs. One of the several verses you can't recall is: Matthew 19:4-5 "He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’. Yup,
Re:Ministry of Truth (Score:5, Informative)
rite the HTML all you want, but if nobody is willing to serve it, you're offline.
If it's not literally illegal then places like Dreamhost will host it.
Nobody is obligated to assist you in spreading misinformation about a disease during a pandemic.
Re: (Score:3)
Write the HTML all you want, but if nobody is willing to serve it, you're offline. People have been booted from service providers at all levels of the stack.
Let's see if I've got this straight. You're saying that Donald Trump would put things on his web site that literally NO ISP would be willing to host?
You're an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
... doesn't deserve the light of day.
Says every tyrant ever.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Its the job of whom to make your message more loud? us out here? The provider(s) YOU choose to use? Your message doesn't resonate. You have no group to push any agenda, but the group should do it for you cause ? freedom?
Your understanding of value in message is well beyond just obtuse -- it smacks of lazy as well.
Re:Ministry of Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The AC said "soapbox", not "social networking platform". The 1st Amendment and free speech principals in general do not extend to forcing others to provide you with services to amplify your voice.
Thing is apparently Gab only costs about $1,000/month for hosting the entire platform, so Don Jr. could just find it himself. He's a millionaire, right? But he literally doesn't put his money where his mouth is.
Nice misdirect (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nice misdirect (Score:5, Informative)
not about forcing internet content sites to host whatever crazy shit get posted by their users
Distinction without difference. What is an argument supporting your "net neutrality", that cannot be used — verbatim — to support this net neutrality?
There very much is a difference. Data in motion is qualitatively different from data at rest.
ISPs deal in data in motion. The bytes get from point A to point Z and are then gone from their systems. In law, they are the common carriers. They are the ones who should be forced to be net neutral. They deal in transit, and only transit.
Service providers of various flavors deal in data at rest. It sits on their servers until someone asks for a copy of it, at which point they hand it off to an ISP to move that copy to the place it was requested. They are not common carriers. They can own data, and can be liable for that data if it is illegal. Some of them accept data from other people and serve it up when it is requested. They are also not common carriers. They are service providers protected from liability for storing and making available data given to them by other people. They are not required to be net neutral, as the service they are providing isn't the network. It's an endpoint on a network.
And don't forget, "making available" has already been used to utterly smash someone for running a bittorrent client with a handful of MP3s on it. It went through the courts 4 times, and in the end, a multimillion dollar judgement stands. The ISP that person was using was not a party to the lawsuit by the MPAA. That immunity they have is damn near absolute. It is also a century old, originating as it does with POTS voice.
We, each country individually, and effectively as a global society decided to make the distinction between transit and endpoints before your grandfathers were born. It is a good and necessary distinction, and it was implicitly net neutral for more than a century. Now, because greedy dickheads have decided to break things for money, we are going to have to enforce net neutrality by law. It will happen. And it will be enforced only against ISPs, businesses which deal in transit. It will not be written or enforced against businesses which deal in data storage and retrieval. Because they're different.
Re: (Score:2)
For. But who has been blocked by a carrier? Net neutrality doesn't apply here.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not true. Alt media and platforms are having a hard time with not just deplatforming from service providers like cloudflare, and AWS, or domain registrars or hosting providers, but even alternatives set up like bitmitigate find themselves blocked out of internet access (level 3 providers), or the financial system (gab, subscribestar, all found this out the hard way), or the app stores. So, no, unfortunately A LOT is stopping people from creating alternatives to big tech.
If nobody wants to do business with you, maybe, just maybe the problem is you, not them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe they should not have shit opinions then eh? I wouldn't want to be associated with them either.
Sure, sounds reasonable. Lets ask Chairman Xi Jinping to help us decide what constitutes shit opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds reasonably you'd want to check with Chairman Pooh because you're acting like a massive communist. You clearly hate the concept of freedom of association and private property.
Re:Move to China then. (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, you don't see Nancy Pelosi promoting unproven drug treatments or telling people not to wear masks. So there's a difference. Even if you don't want to see it.
Re:Move to China then. (Score:5, Interesting)
So you believe corporations shouldn't be allowed to have political leanings? What a progressive liberal stance! We sure could have used you during the "Citizen's United" debate.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the issue lies not with them refusing to host conservative bullshit propaganda but that they allow liberal/progressive bullshit propaganda at the same time. You want to deplatform Trump & Sons, fine...but you should apply the same policies to Biden/Pelosi/Schumer/etc. It's not the censoring. It's the selective censoring leaning in particular political direction.
If Biden/Pelosi/Schumer start posting (or have posted) obvious bullshit about the COVID pandemic or anything else, then by all means that should be removed too. It just seems that Conservatives, and in particular Trump followers, are prone to posting the most outlandish and dangerous conspiracy theories. Posts by any party, Republican or Democrat, which are patently absurd and dangerous should be removed. Nobody should have free reign to post absolute bullshit that has no basis in reality.
Re: (Score:3)
It's the selective censoring leaning in particular political direction.
If your policy is to ban only people who commit hate crimes, and Twitter de-platforms the Nazi party, would you still be here shouting "OMG SELECTIVE POLITICS!"
Republicans have nothing to fear from Twitter's policies if they stopped posting actively dangerous lies and bullshit.
This is a pandemic, fuck the Ministry of Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Lies Kill. This is a God Damned Pandemic.
Now is the time to tell the truth and face reality.
Trump's lies, conjured to justify an deadly and inept response to the pandemic have killed thousands of Americans.
I think when your lies kill more Americans every week than Bin Laden did on Twitter and other responsible companies have a responsibility to act.
Re:This is a pandemic, fuck the Ministry of Bullsh (Score:5, Informative)
Trump failed to prepare for the pandemic. There was nowhere else to put infected patients. There was insufficient testing to even know which patients were infected. The hospitals were full of people dying while Trump was on TV lying and deflecting blame.
It was Trump's job to defend the country, because only the federal government has the resources to prepare quarantine facilities, and build temporary hospitals.
It's was Trump's job to procure enough tests, so that Covid-19 wouldn't spread like wildfire through our nations' retirement homes.
Trump failed. Trump lied. Americans died.
It's telling that you seem to place the blame for deaths on individual states. In countries where Covid was brought under control, there was a national plan. The national leadership was accountable for their country's response to Covid.
Trump had states bid against eachother for covid tests, and protective equipment.
That is why we have the worst ongoing Covid outbreak in the world, having already paid a staggering price in human death and suffering for Trump's ongoing failures and lies.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This is a pandemic, fuck the Ministry of Bullsh (Score:5, Insightful)
He closed the borders. Back when the WHO, CDC, MSM, and Demorats everywhere called him reactionary and xenophobic. Fuck off commie.
I guess closing off the borders to certain countries was ineffective then. Possibly because this is a fucking virus that is contagious and infected all countries.. so just cutting off China at best bought Trump 2 weeks, which he spent lying and failing to prepare. The fact that he declares a temporary delay of the virus to be his main strategy helps explain why so many Americans have died while the rest of the world got the virus under control.
So, Trump is supposed to use his magical powers to make a test appear, then magically produce a few billion tests?
South Korea did it... so did every other country in the world. When America is the sole failure in the world you have to ask yourself why.
I'd say America failed because a lying sack of shit is running the country into the ground. He knows he can get away with it for a while thanks to gullible dumbfucks like yourself. But damn.... the corpses are really piling up...
How many died due to rioters and looters spreading Covid around? Zero? Keep living in that magical fairytale land.
Let's check:
Oregon:
Ongoing protests.
Facing down ultra-violent unmarked federal agents on a daily basis.
Limited Covid activity.
Florida:
No protests.
Inept governor who is habitual liar like trump.
Massive Covid Outbreak.
Re:This is a pandemic, fuck the Ministry of Bullsh (Score:4, Informative)
There was a 69 page playbook which laid out, step by step, what to do in the case of a pandemic. The con artist deliberately, and with malice, ignored the document because it came from Obama. And this was after he was warned in January he needed to take steps for when the pandemic hit the U.S.
He closed the borders.
Jesus fucking christ! Stop with this lie. No border was closed. Ever. Not a single flight was ever stopped [washingtontimes.com]. In fact, returning flights were a shitshow of chaos [usatoday.com] and people packed in like hogs, ripe territory for spreading covid-19.
So, Trump is supposed to use his magical powers to make a test appear,
He could have read the playbook which would have told him to ramp up production of the needed supplies. Instead, he did nothing, telling states they were on their own then going about and stealing supplies from states when they ordered.
How many died due to rioters and looters spreading Covid around? Zero? Keep living in that magical fairytale land.
You mean like those white supremacists infiltrating the protests [washingtonexaminer.com] and setting buildings on fire [startribune.com]? Remember when the experts were telling people not to participate in the protests because it might spread the virus and the uneducated deplorables showed up anyway and blocked streets and hospitals [thedailybeast.com]?
Funny how you claim the OP is a commie when you fully, and unequivocally, support a Russian agent who doesn't care how may people die because it makes him look bad.
Re:This is a pandemic, fuck the Ministry of Bullsh (Score:4, Informative)
Really? He closed the borders huh?
I was returning from Europe in late February and here is how the "closed borders" worked: an AirFrance employee (read: French citizen unbeholden to the US government in any way) absent-mindedly asked me if I'd been in mainland China in the last two weeks, which I replied "no" and they let me board an aircraft destined for Cincinnati, Ohio.
No effort to look at my visa stamps in my passport. No effort to even look me in the eye when I responded. They didn't give a shit, because they didn't have to. And they were the ones "enforcing" the so-called "closed borders". I could have easily have just gotten off a China Southern flight 30 minutes previously and they would have let me right on by.
No borders were ever closed, just stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is a pandemic, fuck the Ministry of Bullsh (Score:4, Informative)
Did Trump order nursing homes in NY, NJ, PA, MI, and CA to take back Covid-19 infected patients? Or were those states run by Demorat governors intent on creating a disaster to blame on Orange Man?
Those states followed the CDCs guidance. And they happened to be the first ones hit. Why did they follow the CDCs guidance? Because the point of a federal government is to have the combined resources of all the states rather than 50 states having to figure out things like this instead of 50 states having to each solve the same problem 50 times. Flordia and Texas and other R states watched NY and the problems they had, they saw exactly what to do, what not to do. Yet they've managed to screw it up worse than NY which had no preview.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
No. All the con artist did was say the onrushing pandemic was no big deal even after being told preparations needed to be made [theguardian.com] and deliberately ignoring a 69 page document [politico.com] which outlined the steps needed before, during and after a pandemic took place. He said it was only 15 people, the numbers would definitely be going down, the U.S. had everything under control [cnn.com], but despite all this, the world was totally
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is a pandemic, fuck the Ministry of Bullsh (Score:4, Insightful)
He can't order them to do it but he could easily go on national TV and ask the governers to do such-and-such, make it known what recommended policy is.
It would be strong leadership, unlike what he's currently doing.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump's "leave it in the hands of governers" approach is what our constitution says.
Trump could easily wear face masks in public and make it widely known what governers _ought_ to be doing.
building hospitals isn't one of them.
I could have sworn he already used his powers to get the army to build hospitals all over the country.
And coerce companies into manufacturing ventilators under some sort of emergency government power.
Re: (Score:2)
This. A bit of presedential backup would go a long way to making unpopular mandates happen (eg. wearing masks).
Trouble is: Everybody would point their fingers at Trump so that's never going to happen. He can't take criticism in any form.
trump and make an ios app and apple can't really s (Score:2)
trump and make an ios app and apple can't really say no as then trump will say it's retaliation
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Ministry of Truth (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there really? Would you like to cite that precedent then?
Re:Ministry of Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
I am guessing you never dealt with medical professionals huh. A good chunk of them are rather to very conservative. However they have studied how viruses work, and how they spread, and are able to see the differences between Covid-19 and the normal Common Cold or flu.
The idea that there is some secrete force telling doctors from all around the world to say the same thing, but keep this hidden from the rest of the public is just idiotic.
I find it much more logical. That a Rich Kid, son of an unpopular president who is floundering in a response to an emergency, will just lie by himself. vs some secrete underground ministry who has the ability to fund or de-fund doctors if they don't say the right thing, especially in a country that doesn't have socialized healthcare in which their money comes from Insurance claims (Where the insurance companies tend to be conservative as well) .
Being that the number of Elected officials who get caught cheating on their wives which cost them their jobs. I find it nearly impossible that a conspiracy to push professionals to say something false and dangerous is possible.
Trump Jr. Isn't being arrested for saying what he says. It is just the commercial companies can decide what content they want to share or not. When you are in a position of influence then your words will have greater restrictions. As if you say something dangerous or false, there will be a group of people who will follow you, no matter if it was a joke, or just your opinion. People who get hurt from following advice could sue for damages. This could go directly to Trump Jr. But more likely it will go to the media distributor, as they often have deeper pockets, and can be handled without having to deal directly with the guy spouting crap.
The first amendment prevent people to be arrested for saying something, giving their opinion. But it doesn't mean they are free from any recourse from what they say, and companies can indeed block you. As they are selling your content. If they don't want to sell your brand, they don't have to.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see it happening with automated scripts. Video with obviously misleading, er, outright lies about covid-19y dubious doctors including the #demonsperm doctor, gets banned based upon policy. Then an account tries to push this video, and it gets automatically banned. You don't need human bias to do this.
(You know, the 9 out of 10 doctors line? Even the 10th doctor thinks this batch were crazy.)
Re:Ministry of Truth (Score:4, Interesting)
> A good chunk of them are rather to very conservative.
Way back, I was in the John Birch Society with a pathologist who worked at the local hospital. The automatic gate and concrete driveway to his house costs more than all my assets put together. This guy was obsessed with not paying taxes. Yes, the stereotypical rich guy working with all of us poor people to get people elected that would make him richer. The JBS is full of doctors. I used to have discussions about that with my chapter leader.
Anyway, one day the light bulb came on for me. I dropped out of the JBS. Got tired of unpaid lobbying to help rich people to get richer.
Checking only the biggest liars on Twitter (Score:2)
No, troll, that isn't how reality works, but congratulations on poisoning the discussion so thoroughly. NOT. At least you didn't AC it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Ministry of Truth (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Lots of people do. That's why we moved off CompuServe and AOL to the web, making censorship damn near impossible. Want the DeCSS source? You can find it, but it might not be on Facebook or AOL or Twitter. It might be in some Slashdot comment, though.
So why smack big tech? At least right now, big tech is what prevents censorship, by making everything so scaled up and affordable. Without the huge internet we have now, it might actually be more feasible to censor someone.
Re: (Score:3)
You have no first amendment rights on private property. The freedom of speech only applies to public spaces.
Don't believe me? Try walking into a restaurant, stand in the middle of the dining room and just start talking about any topic. Politics, religion, science, whatever.
The cops will show up and take you away. Why? Because it is private property. The restaurant owners can choose who is allowed in and who is not. You have zero freedom of speech rights on someone else's property.
This same thing goes for al
Re: (Score:3)
In 10th grade, I wrote a report on Theodore Roosevelt. He was concerned about the power of corporations so large, they effectively wielded control of things using such levels of power only properly reserved for the democratic process.
It may not be a first amendment issue technically, but it could be a concern.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, it could be a First Amenent concern, given the Democrats fell all over themselves during the debates to see who could make the biggest threats to these social media companies for not blocking harrassment, from 230 changes, to breakup (see Theodore Roosevelt above) to outright fines.
So these kinds of threats make it a First Amendment issue. The companies are not doing this in a vacuum severed from government arm twisting.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you name a corporation who is big enough and free enough from internet competitors, that it would ever have the slightest chance of successfully censoring someone? Apple is far, far too small. Amazon is a pipsqueak. Even Google would be a laughingstock, trivially defeated by any person reading this thread.
Who do you think is going to ever even make a dent in censoring anyone? And how would they ever keep competitors from instantly undermining them?
Corporations, ha. Even the Chinese government, the one
Re: (Score:2)
The king didn't die and it's his son.
Re:Who died and made Twitter king of anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Twitter is free to publish whatever it likes. You and I are also free to read twitter or not.