• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 26

Status
Not open for further replies.
Babbylonian said:
Trump doesn't even understand what it does. Essentially, it allows companies like Twitter and Facebook to edit content posted on their services at their discretion without being held responsible for said content. What Trump doesn't understand (along with just about every other aspect of reality) is that stripping these content distribution platforms of this protection will require them to far more aggressively censor content; if they don't, they could be held liable for user content in both criminal and civil courts. Trump's Twitter access would be disabled almost instantly in that scenario since he slanders people daily.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. But how does this relate in any way to DEFENCE spending?
 
Norman Alexander said:
Thanks for that. But how does this relate in any way to DEFENCE spending?
Click to expand...

Trump believes they are part of a conspiracy to deprive him of his presidency, he believes he is the best ever president so depriving the USA of his presidency weakens the USA as only he can stand up to his - sorry - the USA’s enemies.

ETA: Or they let people say nasty things about him. He needs to be able to defend himself - sorry the USA from those nasty lies.
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
Thanks for that. But how does this relate in any way to DEFENCE spending?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. Nor does it have anything to do with a general spending bill.

That said, Congress puts random crap into bills all the time, so Trump wanting his pet random crap in a bill isn't without many precedents.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
I agree, but also think he wants to punish the American people for being
unworthy of him....
Click to expand...


That's better than the idea that he wants to cut-off unemployment checks,
forcing poor people into the streets, where they'll riot, and then he declares
martial law. Way, way, way too complicated for him.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Someone explain it to me again: How does this "section 230" about internet responsibility for third party commentary relate in any way to US defence matters? I'm just not seeing it...
Click to expand...

It does'nt.
One of the insanities of the way the COngress operates, is that you can tack on a piece of legislation that has nothing to do with the main topic of the bill in hopes of getting it passed in a sort of piggy back move.
I think there needs to be congressional rule saying any added clause needs to pertain to the main subject of a bill, but given how both parties see the tack on tactic as a useful way of getting pork through, I am not holding my breath.
 
Babbylonian said:
Someone explain it to me again: How does this "section 230" about internet responsibility for third party commentary relate in any way to US defence matters? I'm just not seeing it...
Click to expand...
Trump doesn't even understand what it does. Essentially, it allows companies like Twitter and Facebook to edit content posted on their services at their discretion without being held responsible for said content. What Trump doesn't understand (along with just about every other aspect of reality) is that stripping these content distribution platforms of this protection will require them to far more aggressively censor content; if they don't, they could be held liable for user content in both criminal and civil courts. Trump's Twitter access would be disabled almost instantly in that scenario since he slanders people daily.
Click to expand...
Yup. Reminds me of earlier in Trump's term, when he suggested changing the libel/slander laws (in theory to make it easier for him to sue people who said mean things about him). But of course that would have backfired on him, since he would end up getting sued too.
 
dudalb said:
I agree, but also think he wants to punish the American people for being unworthy of him....
Click to expand...

Or maybe someone on FOX News said it and he decided to barge in at the last second again.

Point is, if he really wanted $2000 checks, he could have pushed for that months ago, sent out the checks with his name on them, and dems would have likely gone along.
 
dudalb said:
It does'nt.
One of the insanities of the way the COngress operates, is that you can tack on a piece of legislation that has nothing to do with the main topic of the bill in hopes of getting it passed in a sort of piggy back move.
Click to expand...
Along those lines:
 
dudalb said:
Unfortunately, since Twitter is something I wish had never been invented even before Trump.
Click to expand...
So if you follow Trump, does your phone receive text alerts every time he tweets or retweets a message? It's something I've never understood about Twitter.
 
Mumbles said:
Or maybe someone on FOX News said it and he decided to barge in at the last second again.



Point is, if he really wanted $2000 checks, he could have pushed for that months ago, sent out the checks with his name on them, and dems would have likely gone along.
Click to expand...
Yes. The White House had been kept informed of the progress of the bill all along and there was no hint that Trump would veto it
 
Norman Alexander said:
Someone explain it to me again: How does this "section 230" about internet responsibility for third party commentary relate in any way to US defence matters? I'm just not seeing it...
Click to expand...

I think the Trump-logic works like this

If the American people are allowed to mock the president with impunity then the world will consider the United States so weak and vulnerable that other countries will launch attacks ranging from covert cyber attacks to full-scale landings of expeditionary forces.
 
Last edited:
Trebuchet said:
It prevents him from suing Twitter if someone says mean things about him on it.
It also prevents Logger from suing Icerat for the thread after he was banned.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think the simplest way to explain it is that each user is responsible for what they write on the internet. Facebook is not responsible for something posted by some random user of Facebook, and you cannot sue Facebook for it. Same with this forum. It also says that you can have moderators, and Facebook or this forum can moderate the content of what users post (including editing or deleting it) to enforce whatever rules they choose to set, and you still can't sue them for that either. And they don't have to be politically neutral.

That's the law in a nutshell.
 
Minoosh said:
So if you follow Trump, does your phone receive text alerts every time he tweets or retweets a message? It's something I've never understood about Twitter.
Click to expand...

I think you can turn those sort of notifications off. You only get them if you really want them.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Someone explain it to me again: How does this "section 230" about internet responsibility for third party commentary relate in any way to US defence matters? I'm just not seeing it...
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with that. He's trying to prevent himself and his cult being banned or having individual stuff full of gaslighting taken down. He's miffed that Twitter posted notes discrediting his fantasies.
 
Babbylonian said:
Trump doesn't even understand what it does. Essentially, it allows companies like Twitter and Facebook to edit content posted on their services at their discretion without being held responsible for said content. What Trump doesn't understand (along with just about every other aspect of reality) is that stripping these content distribution platforms of this protection will require them to far more aggressively censor content; if they don't, they could be held liable for user content in both criminal and civil courts. Trump's Twitter access would be disabled almost instantly in that scenario since he slanders people daily.
Click to expand...
As a former member of the media I objected strongly to some of the comments we got on news stories. But short of incitement to violence they were left up, no matter how cruel or inaccurate. The philosophy was that if we started moderating comments, we were then owning them - and the less of that we did the better. This started at around 2005. Hate speech toward Mexico, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans was my main objection. I felt if we wouldn't allow it in the paper it shouldn't be on our website. And we were a podunk outfit; moderating our comments would not have been very editorially onerous.

IMO it's simply not possible for Twitter and Facebook to effectively monitor content, and what they do take down takes a horrible toll on the people hired to remove the most egregious posts. I'm not sure these companies could survive if they were held liable for the material they "publish." There's just too much stuff to look at, and algorithms only get you so far. Whether they should survive is an open question in my mind.

If platforms were held truly accountable for what they host, his right-wing echo chamber might never have gotten off the ground. Maybe he doesn't care now that he's toast.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Thanks for that. But how does this relate in any way to DEFENCE spending?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. Congress always throws crap into bills they couldn't otherwise get passed.

Sometimes they do it as poison pills. Sometimes they do it as blackmail or extortion, if you want X, you have to give us Y. And sometimes they slip it in at the last minute because it's too late to object.
 
Trebuchet said:
It prevents him from suing Twitter if someone says mean things about him on it.
It also prevents Logger from suing Icerat for the thread after he was banned.
Click to expand...
I'm not seeing that. Could be. Twitter has deeper pockets than John Q Tweeter.

But Trump is pissed off right now that Twitter is tagging his posts as false. He wants the rule repealed, not added.

Just my opinion at this point.

ETA: I believe my opinion is correct though my understanding of the situation is more clear now. See my relevant post #2883 below.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom