This is why I'm OK with Twitter banning President Trump
On January 8, in the aftermath of the Capitol riots, Twitter permanently banned the accounts of Donald Trump and several Q-anon conspiracists while Apple and Google removed the Parler app from their stores, reportedly upon pressure from U.S. lawmakers.
While I must admit I'm uncomfortable with what could be seen as a starkly partisan act that smacks of Fascism, when I look at what has transpired in context I really must agree with their decisions.
First of all, Donald Trump has never lost a vote without claiming fraud. He claimed fraud when the Apprentice didn't win the 2004 & 2005 Emmy Awards. He claimed fraud after the 2016 Iowa caucuses, etc., etc. It's his modus operandi response to losing.
There have been 62 lawsuits filed which claim that the 2020 Presidential election was illegitimate, and all but one were dismissed. Their arguments were pathetic, and the lawyers involved should have been sanctioned. To give you just a small glimpse as to just how bad these cases were presented, click through and read this Twitter thread.
I don't want to get bogged down rehashing all the bogus evidence, the long and short of it is that these lawsuits were not intended to be won. They were intended to whip Republicans into a frenzy, and keep them agitated.
It was a fundraising con job. At first it was reported that up to 60% of donations could go to President Trump's campaign fund and the RNC, but then we learned there is no "Election Defense Fund."
Since the election, his fundraising team has sent more than 550 fundraising emails and almost 200 SMS text messages. It amassed at least $250 million dollars for Trump and the RNC. But that's not all, the Save America PAC pulled in half a billion dollars.
The only fraud committed here is the grifting done by Trump in order to bilk his supporters of about 3/4 billion dollars.
But like a child who doesn't know when to stop, Trump continued to goad his supporters to keep them incensed. He chose to use his Twitter megaphone to stoke the fires of their anger, with dire consequences for 5 Americans.
The first thing many of us noticed during Wednesday's riot was the paucity of law enforcement present versus a typical BLM rally, or the March 2007 peace rally led by veterans. This event was not a surprise, it was promoted by the President himself. So where was the National Guard? Why hadn't they been deployed in advance? There needs to be an investigation into this lapse of security, which must have been decided at the highest levels of our government.
The thing that angers me most is the lack of leadership, responsibility and maturity, traded in lieu of personal gain. But that has always been the Trump way.
There is a law, section 230 of the Telecommunications Decency Act, which a) indemnifies hosts of social media sites from the content posted by its users, and b) grants those hosts the right to censor, delete or ban content at their discretion.
Actions have consequences. Just as it is illegal to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, so too must there be restrictions on broadcasting lies to millions of people, and if you read the Twitter terms of service, there are such restrictions.
But Twitter also has a policy of not taking action on tweets from public figures, particularly political figures. This is in the public interest to see the candid side of our leaders.
It could be argued that many of President Trump's tweets during the past year would have violated Twitter's COVID-19 misinformation policy. Countless accounts have been suspended for repeating similar information.
It should be noted that Twitter gauges the potential damage caused by a tweet not merely upon the words published, but also how those words will be interpreted and acted upon by the public.
So you see, Trump was given a lot of leeway already as to what is deemed acceptable. Twitter has also considered how his role as a politician (I balk at the use of 'leader') allows him exceptional behavior.
At some point we must ask, 'how much is too much?' At what point does public safety trump (if you'll excuse the tainted phrase) the public's right to be know a politician's innermost thinking?
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html
After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter — we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.
Most states have a law which says that if a person is killed during the commission of a felony, all co-conspirators involved in that felony should be held accountable. I would argue that Trump fraudulently acquired hundreds of millions of dollars by falsely asserting then 2020 elections were rigged.
From where I'm sitting, Trump was afforded every exception to spew his vitriol and sow division. As a result, Trump profited and people died. I'm totally O.K. with Twitter giving him the boot.
As for Parler, let me remind you of Robert Bowers, the gunman who shot up a Pittsburgh Synagogue in 2018. He was active on Gab, a rightwing echo chamber which normalized far right reactionary points of view, and he posted his intentions to do harm on that site. Surely Mr. Bowers would have found a different place to foment his inner demons if there hadn't been a Gab, but I'll argue that it was the community of reactionary voices, without even a sole lone dissenter, which gave rise to the idea that he could, and should, commit a mass homicide. I will shed no tears for Parler.
Comments
I think trying to rationalize it
doesn't serve the greater good. We have to look at what benefits all. If censorship benefits all, then I can agree with you. However, I don't believe censorship benefits all - communication benefits all, even bad communication.
Each of us wants our voice. None of us wants to be censored. Maybe we don't have the platform of the POTUS, but censorship should never be tolerated.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
you said it right, imo.
a useful metaphor: Martin Niemoller's poem:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me...
I am a little amazed that you equate Niemöller's
voice with that of those who support Trumps free speech rights. I don't think that fits.
But no offense, your mileage may vary, and I am probably too tired to post a well expressed comment of my thinking.
That is the politest way I can say it.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Free speech is for everyone, or no one.
The principle is that you must allow even the most obnoxious people to make flaming assholes of themselves in public, as long as they don't directly and immediately threaten anyone or anything.
On the other hand, nothing prevents you from pointing at the obnoxious flaming asshole and publicly calling them out for one.
And no one is required to listen...to either of you.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
I don't buy into that well-known argument anymore,
The platform which allow the free speech to be heard around the world in seconds. is owned by very few corporations or people. They are a threat. As the current developments around the world clearly prove. To be thrown in prison or your accounts being closed on platforms is not the only or even the greatest threat. The threat is in psychological mind manipulation, enslaving peoples thinking for the sake of tech corporations to make a profit and buying (and selling out) media and government.
If you neglect to see the threat of the IT technologies, then probably you couldn't live and work without them anymore. Forgive me if I assume wrong, but to me it seems to be that dependent and addicted to the technologies many seductive offerings, is a threat, imho.
https://www.euronews.com/live
You and lots of people.
And democracy dies to rousing applause.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Right. And furthermore, no one has to publish you
or build you a stage, or give you an amplifier. That is simply not what free speech means. How do people not understand this? I am baffled, honestly.
I have been doing some soul searching to try to understand why this seems so ridiculous to me. I have concluded that it must be because I do not use social media, and so I really cannot conceive of places like FB or Twitter to be the center of the universe or essential to survival, or to "free speech" when there are many, many ways of speaking out.
In the past this was no different, we had the printing press invented and then books and newsletters and eventually newspapers became a vital means of communication. But never in all of that time was any printer or publisher required to publish the words of any particular individual. They chose who and what to print. If you had enough money you could buy a press or pay for your information to be printed. If not then you had to convince someone to publish you.
No one has an inherent right to have their words published, printed, or disseminated. The right to speak freely in this country may mean standing on a street corner with a sign or organizing a protest or it might be publishing your ideas. But unless you have the money to fund your own press (now media/online platform), you must have the voluntary cooperation of the publisher. No one has any right to demand that someone else publish their content. Not even Saint Trump.
I think I'm missing something here,
maybe because I don't use Facebook and am not a Twitter-addict. (I don't even have cable TV, and don't miss it.) To me "in public" still carries the old-fashioned connotation of standing on a soapbox in the public square and hollering.
There's an old story about a London bobby who broke up a rabble-rousing crowd in Hyde Park by suggesting that those who wanted to burn down the House of Lords proceed to the left, and those who wanted to do the same to the House of Commons go to the right. Or something like that, I've forgotten the details, but he did get them to laugh and move on.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Censorship was tolerated here on C99p and nobody
was critical of that kind of censorship by JtC. I mean honestly ..., This is not to criticize JtC's decisions. He doesn't make a profit providing the platform for C99p and exactly gives us a platform to speak our mind freely without any monetary interests to do so. If he does censor, he must have some pretty serious reasons, which are not of profit oriented interests. That's the big difference to a twitter platform, which does make money with it. Twitter has no problem to censor accounts. Or do you think millions of twitter users will now boycott Twitter and not use it anymore?
So, and now, darn it, donate to C99p and JtC.
Sigh.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Kinda a broad brush
I wouldn't say that is true. I had a problem with it and said so at the time.
I think many people will stop using Twitter and FB and any media that does censorship especially if they are Trump supporters who only joined Twit to follow him. He has started using Parlor and will start his own website if he gets enough money. Then what? He now has a platform that he can spew whatever vile he wants. The only way to stop that is for the internet to block him. Block him and whoa that can have big consequences.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
I don't remember anymore who and in how far some
voiced objections to ban two users here. So, there I agree with you that I made a broad statement and it was not fair as my memory is not good enough to comment in such a way.
I don't want to get into it, because I believe that JtC can decide to ban whoever he wants to. He provides the platform and I don't know how this started, but several people came together to create this site. As it is a free platform, which allows us a lot of free speech and thinking.just paid for by members donations (well, JtC, do you have a billionaire hidden under your desk who pays you to play nice?/ /s. ). it is all good.
JtC punishes (very seldom, I assume), if people get a little too fresh with other members in response to their comments. Because this place is a small community and has no outsiders, it is not well understood, that outsiders might have difficulties to understand things that sound outrageous and disgusting to their or the community's ears, but not to outsider's ones.
I had this difficulty often. I find it very difficult to understand a lot of people's view points. Some are never straight forward or they speak in tongues (ie music and insider cultural codes, quotes out of movies' etc. That is fun only for those, who know what you are talking about and have the same cultural background and education as you have). And by no means do I criticize all the musical and movie quote's comments, I just regret that I do not know so many of them, that's allust m. And really music is a language that is understood universally, and the best healing power there is).
Another issue is the private messaging system on this site. JtC told me that even he as an administrator can't read what is said in the pm area. That allows people to say things in the pm area, they would not say in public, because it would be too aggressive. It doesn't mean that it is less aggressive just because it is said behind closed doors. So I would conclude if a comment is too aggressive to post in public, it is the same way aggressive in the pm system and there is no need to keep it private. Just saying.
Whatever, as a result one probably starts not to care anymore what is said to someone anyhow.
I give up to try to explain myself. What irritates me is that in all the well-known comparisons that are made from the past, that it is never taken into account that someone shouting fire in the movie theater is not the same as shouting 'storm the Capitol and take over' on a platform read and heard by millions around the world is not to compare.
Why is the different technology not considered as a very important difference between what happened in the past and what is happening today?
Sorry for ranting and rumbling and being cranky. It is not easy to not be. What can I say i love you all, warts included.
Peace. Always. Hmm, now I even don't know anymore if that is really true. May be we need a little war from time to time? /I keep my head down.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Parler is being sabotaged even as we speak
Apple and Google won't carry their app, Amazon is turning off their servers, and it looks as though they're going out of business.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Twitter isn’t the government
I care deeply about censorship by the government. From Twitter? Meh. People elevating the likes of Twitter in the context of free speech need to study a bit more history, in my opinion.
Cheering for censorship is folly
Trump crossed the line when he shouted "Theater!" in a crowded firehouse.
But seriously, those who support selective censorship will live to regret it when the censors come after you one day.
Now I want to go
to the local fire station and yell THEATER, THEATER, OMG THEATER, inside to see what happens!
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
Hey, I think I’ve been in that firehouse, like, 50 years ago
https://www.nyclgbtsites.org/site/gay-activists-alliance-firehouse/
If I yelled anything, it was probably “Dance!” rather than “Theater!” though.
I think sets a dangerous course...
You might be next if you say something unacceptable.
“This Will Be Remembered as a Turning Point”: Snowden Warns Against Trump Social Media Ban
https://www.mintpressnews.com/edward-snowden-warns-against-trump-twitter...
He continues...
Facebook officially silences the President of the United States. For better or worse, this will be remembered as a turning point in the battle for control over digital speech.
Cheering this on is a mistake in my opinion. Now I'm not fan of Trumpolini's nonsense, but he has the right to say it. Did he yell fire in the theater? If so perhaps delete that tweet but banning the POTUS? Corporations rule? Not a good idea IMO.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
To add, LO,
those corporations just decided what all of us may read and hear.
I reserve my right to pick and choose. I never gavve them permission to symbolically pat me on the head, and tell me "just let me do the thinking, little lady".
Fuck that.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
I am not following the current discussions here
but what confuses me a little is that there is no distinction made between free speech and free thoughts.
Dear Mr. Goethe said that "Thoughts are Free", he didn't say "Spech is fee". I think Goethe got that right.
Somehow I remember the the saying that "Speech is Money". As we don't have all the same amount of money, equality in freedom of speech is kabuki theater.
My computer gives me the willies and me eyes are going wildly out of control. I am not the most healthy kiddie in the sandbox. So, no more comment.
[video:https://youtu.be/eHcPOtgqjN0]
https://www.euronews.com/live
Goethe is just all that,
except it has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.
There is nothing unclear about it. You are free to criticize the government, as long as you do not incite violence.
Where the current problem lies is whether or not you believe these private corporations who are deleting accounts are a wing of the government by all their contracts and funding with/by the government. If they are a government entity, by contract, they are censoring free speech. If they are merely independent corporate entities, they can do what they want.
The discussions should move away from censorship and on to clearly defining the connection these tech companies have with government.
Obama specifically blocked the effort of the FCC to make them public utilities. It would thus be difficult to make a solid case that they are engaged in anything more than company policies that allow them to do what they are doing.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
I assumed they are not part of the government
A private corporation, I assumed is a private entity. If they are so rich that they can buy the government, then it does not mean that they are the government, but that they bribed the government, imo. It is not the private corporations fault, if the members of the parliament and government, are easily bribed and bought. That is true for any government. If it were for me, Amazon and Tesla wouldn"t be permitted to do any business in Germany.
I remember how shocked I was when I understood (through the explanations here on C99p) that the DNC and RNC are private corporations.
Sigh, I just am not that much of a smarty pant. And I am tired and give a ... about it lately. Forgive me. Something has changed. A line was crossed. I don't care anymore.
https://www.euronews.com/live
There is defintely a link between SV and team usa
he doesn't give up his chairmanship of Alphabet
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-innovation-idUSKCN0W421V
Former Google CEO Schmidt to head new Pentagon innovation board
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
Yes, a contractual link.
These corporations won a bid. None of us have seen, or ever will see, the contract.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Good point, but also begs the question
the very important question of whether private corporations should control public discourse.
Sort of like the question of whether private clubs should control public politics.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
They are in it for the money.
If we had true public forums, then government censorship through 1st amendment should be the only guide.
The problem is not censorship, but the lack of anything for the public, any infrastructure for our good, that doesn't turn a profit for anyone.
These corporations have the power to disappear anyone's communications by terms of agreement that users must agree to before they can use the forum.
I look at it more as a monopoly problem than a censorship problem, since government provides us no where to go but to their corporate donors, who are basically unregulated.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
I know this has been hashed a lot, but just what is a utility
in this case? Twitter has a virtual or real monopoly, even if it is a corporation owned by someone plus stockholders??
When AT&T had the monopoly it (Ma Bell local Bell Operating Companies -BOCs-; Long Distance; The Bell Labs and a few other entities) was a regulated utility. That meant it had with the government to provide a 7% return to stockholders each year. It was highly regulated. The long distance rates and large urban BOCs cross-subsidised the loser rural routes which didn't have the density to generate profit.
Looking back at the 1984 decision to break up the Bell System because they/it were abusing their monopoly status, was an excuse to privatize the highly profitable phone and developing data services. It was the first of the dominoes of large government regulated businesses which became privatised.
I remember working on Rio Rancho (Intel in New Mexico), staying in the Manzanos near Tijeras in rural NM. If you had a ranch with a home down a long rock road the answer was pay $10,000 for your phone line or go without. It was a new landscape for the privatised Baby Bells.
Was on the universal service subcommittee with Ron Wyden. He was a huge proponent of the break up. I was in favor of privatizing products on the user side of the plug and keeping the network as a national asset. When me in my Bella Abzug hat started to state as such for the cameras, Ron put his hand on my arm. I made my point but the politicians won.
Just don't like the idea that a corporation like Twitter can censor unless the speech is a call to violence. I would rather hear and see what is being thought than drive the crazies into dark corners.
This whole episode this late in the Donald's last few weeks, sounds like a point or two to be made. Makes me very uncomfortable.
A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. Allegedly Greek, but more possibly fairly modern quote.
Consider helping by donating using the button in the upper left hand corner. Thank you.
hmm, I think you should have the right to say what you want,
but should not have the right to use a platform that spreads your words around the world in seconds, especially not if the owners of that platform make a profit out of your freedom of speech activities.
If the President would write his opinions out on paper and submits them to some newspapers, with the restriction to not put his opinions online, I would say, he has enough freedom of speech rights, but not the power of spreading it in ways the twitter platform allows him to do. The problem is not the freedom of speech rights, but the rights of for-profit IT platforms.
I am with bondibox' arguments.
I mean in which country would you have the most fears that saying something critical and using inciting words for it? I would say it is in the US compared to other Western European countries.
https://www.euronews.com/live
The result of censorship
will be to drive the MAGAs underground, and stiffen their resolve to Right The Terrible Wrong Of 2020, and to Displace The Commie Oppressors And Usurpers. The slogans just write themselves.
The completely predictable outcome here will be to make them even more unhinged. And these are not people that you should really encourage to get weirder- they are doing just fine on their own. They already have their martyr, unfortunately, and MAGA Blood Has Been Shed. All the elements of an even crazier mob are now in place.
My MAGA ex-friends are mostly going apoplectic. Once Trump starts his inevitable president-in-exile Limbaugh-style schtik from some offshore golf resort of his, it is going to get ugly. The icing on the cake will be when some yellow print journalists with decent circulation (who are beyond the reach of Big Tech for deplatforming) decide to hop on that bandwagon to Profit.
Remember The Maine!
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
Pushing voices out of the Public Square
won't solve anything. Maintaining free speech for all groups is vital to a functioning democracy. Remember how IdPol Liberals were so shocked that Trump could win in 2016? That's because in their minds they had won the culture wars and transformed US society. We had elected a black man and were one big, happy post-racial nation.
In reality, all they had done was shame their opponents out of the public square to fester in the dark, disengaged from the country as a whole, only to re-emerge more angry and virulent than before. The antidote to bad ideas isn't censorship - it's dialogue with better ideas.
To quote Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." That's what I fear pro-censorship lefties are doing here.
Did they hibernate after 1/20/08?
Didn't see the Koch (and other) backed Tea Party? Missed the 2010 midterms? Lost votes in 2012? Missed the 2014 midterms as well?
Democrats didn't want HRC in '08 and she didn't improve in the subsequent eight years. Without cheating she wouldn't have made it through to the nomination, and that was against a most improbable challenger who could articulate felt gripes against the neolib Democratic public policies. In a superficial form, Trump appropriated some of that for his campaign. Not well enough to snooker many of those on the left but well enough to snooker some more conservative leaning voters who could hear Bernie's critiques. Didn't seem to me that they were "festering in the dark." They were out there and making a ruckus.
While I didn't expect Trump to win in '16, I did know that he was very close and only needed one more mid-sized state. That he got three more -- all a total surprise to HRC and her team -- reinforces the perception that they were incompetent.
@Marie Go back and watch the
Go back and watch the reaction videos to the 2016 election and tell me Liberals had any clue how much dissent there was with their narrative. I had friends breaking down in tears, thinking their whole world had been repudiated. Their liberal bubble had completely insulated them from reality.
I saw and noted the shock and awe
on the faces of Democrats (who I don't consider liberals) when Trump won. That they then bought into the most ridiculous explanation for what to them was inconceivable was a testament to their irrationality and stupidity. They can't even admit to themselves that Trump was the Hillary/DP designated loser to her long-held aspirations.
Trump was an improbable GOP nominee but for months ordinary Democrats opined that he couldn't win the nomination and were puzzled as to why he was even running. They rejected my responses that Trump could very well win the nomination and he was running because he wanted to be POTUS. During the general election they made the same mistake by not declaring that it was impossible for Trump to win when in fact it was only improbable and became more possible during the campaign.
While no one should be above the law
(especially not a US President), I think Twitter's was a panic-based overreaction. And if it doesn't come around to bite them in the ass, it will certainly bite us in the ass.
Did you all know that the "shouting Fire in a crowded theater" restriction was not Original Intent? Did you know that the context was a Supreme Court ruling that distributing flyers opposing the draft in WWI was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (as amended by the Sedition Act of 1918)? Did you know that the Judge (Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.) who wrote the decision incorporating the phrase (falsely shouting fire in a theater) ruled the exact opposite way later the same year, over the issue of printing flyers saying the US should not intervene in the Russian Revolution? (Holmes was in the minority that time, the pamphleteer was deported, and the US DID directly interfere - beginning a never-ending tradition of hostility.)
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) limited the restriction to speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". The guiding principle here appears to be that anybody can make a total flaming asshole of themselves, as long as they don't incite or cause immediate violence.
I expect, though, that we will in the near future see legal challenges that revert Brandenburg to status quo 1919, or worse, status quo 1798 (Alien and Sedition Acts).
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Interesting info
Thanks for posting this.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Where was the National Guard?
[snark on] Everybody knows White people peacefully protesting to seditiously overthrow the duly elected next president need no National Guard presence. Only people illegally rioting about Black deaths by hero police officers require the National Guard and multiple police agencies and thugs with batons and German Shepherds to bust heads and make arrests. [snark off]
As for censorship, I don't generally support it. However, Twitter is not the sole outlet for presidential speech. He has TV coverage, newspaper coverage, internet news coverage, rightwing blog coverage, and much, much more. His every utterance receives a billion times more attention than anyone on c99 who pours their heart and soul into an essay. Why should a president be able to abuse so much power without repercussion?
Also regarding censorship, Democrats and Progressives have not exactly covered themselves in glory recently. Cancel culture, forced pronoun use, public shaming of divergent opinion, litmus tests, etc. are merely censorship in a different guise.
But will it stop with Trump?
Twitter also banned General Flynn, Sydney Powell, Lin Wood and lots of people that follow Q so already it is not just Trump that has gotten banned.
This is not the start of a slippery slope. It is that the social media has brought us to the censorship cliff and they jumped off hoping that enough people would jump with them and accept the censorship that many of us have been warning against since the start of the bogus Russia Gate scam. And it certainly looks like enough lefties are going along with it. Take a gander at the orange blob's rec list and see for yourself. This is just one of many 'leftist' websites that are okay with censorship as long as it affects people they don't like. But we all know that it will not stop with Trump, his supporters and the right. The Elite have always been afraid of the power of the left. That is why if it were BLM, OWS or any leftist group there would have been more cops and much more violence against the protesters.
Big Tech Further Mutes President, Far Right Megaphone as Demands for Trump Removal Swell
Twitter said that they banned Trump after Twit employees hounded him into doing it. Social media didn't ban Trump when he was threatening violence against countries that have long been on the US sh*t list. He threatened to nuke North Korea if Kim stepped out of line. Many government people have used Twitter to threaten countries with Mike Pompeo being the one who has done it the most. Either supporting violence is bad or it is not.
I feel strongly against all censorship. Orwell warned us and we just sat and watched as it came true.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Twitter's decision
No you don't. You work for a platform where people can post their inane thoughts. Nothing more. You were not elected to make decisions on behalf of we the people. Neither were Jack or Zucken person. And not when you are working with the intelligence agencies and gawd knows who else to spy on us. Either you're for the rule of law or you are not. Not with the connection to the Atlantic Council and NATO and Foreign governments and organizations. This is coming from the power elite. IMHO.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
I disagree.
Trying to censor opinion is like trying to block water.
This will only anger Trump's supporters more, make Trump more of a martyr, and cause more violence to occur. Will we NEVER learn the lessons of free speech? Now we'll just end up with an expansion of the Patriot Act and all of us will pay.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
It's not censorship
when you break the rules, it's punishment. Right?
Am I missing something here?
These are private, for profit corporations who developed platforms and they have a defined set of "rules" we're supposed to abide by. We all "agree" to the TOS policies when we signed up to these platforms. (TOS = Terms of Service)
Now, everyone, in theory, can go out and start their own platforms. Heck, there are tons of "facebook" in a box apps out there, that are all open sourced. They are all free or nearly free.
The "cost to develop" is almost nothing compared to creating an app from scratch. Heck, many of these open source app give you the source code for you to modify as you please.
I was banned from twitter because, technically, I broke their "rules" for community engagement. I called Trump's latest supreme court pick a "C-NT" for not knowing the 5 freedoms protected under the 1st amendment, go figure. And I was banned for it. (No irony there...)
I mean, this is Jtc's site. If he were to hide an essay I wrote and published here, just because he disagrees with me, that's censorship. If I post an essay that violates his rules of publishing here, and he de-publishes it, well then that is PUNISHMENT for violating the rules.
It's not censorship!
Trump was simply punished for violating their rules. They, like JtC, have that right to punish those that violate "their rules" for using "their platforms", BECAUSE, we agreed to their rules to use their platforms. It say's so in the TOS of these sites!
Am I missing something?
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
Does the first amendment
say, "...unless you are a corporation/private entity/whateveryouwanttocallit and can set a policy against free speech." I understand policies against free speech are set by some entities, however, they are not public platforms. They chose to be public platforms. What gives them the right to pick and choose who was right? They censor people who point out the Russiagate DNC farce/coup; they censor people who tried a coup for Herr Drumpf. Who is right? Both? Neither? Who?
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
"Congress shall make no law..."
It's not a breach of First Amendment rights unless it's codified into law by Congress. What exactly constitutes a "public platform" as opposed to a private entity? Does size and widespread adoption make something a public platform? Or that is the stock is publicly traded (by private individuals)? What is the difference between Jack Dorsey / Twitter and JTC / Caucus99percent? None. None at all. They are self governed and self regulated.
You can not compel an individual or business to give you a platform for your voice. No one, not even the President, has an infallible right to use these platforms. There are limits to acceptable use and consequences for exceeding those limits.
“He may not have gotten the words out but the thoughts were great.”
Amazes me that so many
that invoke the 1st Amendment don't comprehend that it restricts government's ability to censor speech.
Well, perhaps we take the law in the context of its
times.
The Founding Fathers--most of them--could not imagine a world in which a handful of private business owners could censor the speech of a nation. We live in a time when their power is approaching the level that they might be able to do that.
Of course, the real point is that such platforms should be public, and protected under the Bill of Rights, since they now constitute the primary way the people discuss the nation with each other. But in order for that to happen you'd have to have a republic run by a government which considered the interests of the people important. Since we don't have that, all bets are off. Including the basic deal between the people and the government, embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That contract has been broken since the institution of the Patriot Act. The government is currently attempting to extradite a journalist so that they can more effectively torture him.
So, it's not so much that freedom of speech is sacred because the Bill of Rights says so. It's the other way around. The Bill of Rights is, or was, sacred because it secured rights that we deemed as of the greatest importance.
The only real question now is what you consider to be of importance.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Much scarier than Trump & Co. for me has been the discovery that
most Americans don’t value free speech the way I had thought they did, as a kid growing up in
colonial“Territorial” Hawaiʻi.In my childish naïveté I had thought it was perhaps an acceptable tradeoff that the U.S. usurped power in Hawaiians’ national homeland, since the U.S. was a system and culture designed, despite its flaws, “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
Pustekuchen, as the Germans say.
It really appears as if a decisive majority is satisfied with a minimalist, purely legalistic interpretation of the First Amendment in particular and “Liberty” in general.
“They’re reading and censoring my mail and spying on everything I say and do? Oh, it’s not the government, so it’s O.K.”
I guess the East German Socialist Unity Party’s mistake was not having their Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart, anti-fascism’s crowning moment, built and run by a Western private company (maybe Israeli?).
Folks got shot dead trying to cross? “Sorry, not sorry; you violated the Terms of Service, you get punished.”
I thought more people would see deplatforming as “un-American” or, in other Western countries, incompatible with the West’s “the Free World™” branding. I was wrong.
“From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent.” Well, a digital iron curtain is descending across the Internet.
The only thing that ever protected us was, not a paternalistically benevolent dictatorship of an overlord class, but we ordinary citizens’ willingness to put ourselves on the line for each others’ freedoms. The good ol’ “I abhor what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it” approach? That well seems to have gone dry, so (to mix metaphors) it’s down the slippery slope and, well, look out below!
Surveys have indicated that
most Americans would do away with several of the Bill of Rights amendments. It mostly escapes them that these were limitations on the federal government, often violated, (and by extension state governments if the SC got around to ruling on the overreach of a state government).
People and the private sector have always been free to do whatever they damn well please as long as it hasn't been deemed unconstitutional by Congress or the SC or prevailing social conventions. Women and minorities know better than men how that operated/still operates in their lives.
Not entirely — e.g. AT&T, though privately owned, was regulated
as a natural monopoly, obligated to provide everyone service equally under “common carrier” rules.
The Bell System couldn’t pick and choose which customers were allowed to have a landline based on whether it or its employees liked what folks were saying over the phone.
“Common carrier” was IMO the way to go instead of Section 230. No liability for what people say over the “phone,” but no monitoring and monetizing without explicit permission (like from a TV-viewing household in the old days, being signed up and paid to be a Nielsen family) and no discrimination based on the content of people’s “calls.”
Ah -- now you're getting to
the New Deal. Those guys figured it out and hard-wired the solutions. No single dominate communication platform in local communities, including no cross ownership of print/radio/TV. National broadcasters that were few and limited in those days were subject to equal time/fairness doctrine. Labor owned newspapers. Still it was limited to organized communication platforms and fringe, individual free speech remained on the corner soapbox. Also, politics from the pulpit was minimized to avoid losing their tax free status. But we know how and when all of that went bye-bye.
Apples and Oranges
You're comparing private conversations between two individuals, to broadcasting messages to millions of people. The two couldn't be more different.
“He may not have gotten the words out but the thoughts were great.”
Well…why shouldn’t a virtual “Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner” orator
have, not just dozens, but millions listening in on his (Zoom-like) “conference call,” now that the technology exists to support such things?
Does a 1-to-N communication, especially when recipients have signed up for it by “following” or “subscribing to” the speaker, somehow cease to be “speech” if N is very large? If so, then call it “free press” instead—getting N way up there having been the role of the printing press since Gutenberg.
The promise of the Internet as something liberating, empowering, and emancipatory was always strongly linked to the idea that barriers to entry would become so low, anyone could be a publisher or broadcaster. Now TPTB want to renege on the promise.
Tja, in 1994 the internet and www seemed to be
a beacon of free speech possibilities. Right!
Pustekuchen!
Great comment and a tough one to read. Thanks.
https://www.euronews.com/live
The censorship beyond Trump has been massive.
One of the two tweets which Tweeter pointed to as Trump inciting violence was a simple statement that he would not attend the inauguration. Really thant is worthy of a complete ban?
Beyond Trump, I have been surprised by the massive censorship. Facebook appears to have banned any pictures of the capitol riots. Youtube shut down live streams from the capitol. Social media outlets have been purging accounts so that people like Tucker Carlson lost 70K followers. Aron Mate showed that a popular anti-woke leftist was shut down on twitter. One of the DC streams had 100K in the live stream reporting what he was seeing and it was shut down. The intent on this one was obvious that only mainstream media could report and interpret events.
Of course all of this is justified based on a radical libertarianism that recognizes property rights over human rights, and does not understand the history of laws against monopolies. Or that when social media companies work hand in hand with governments it no longer is a private entity.
This has opened the door to Russiagate fanatic proposing laws on domestic terrorism leaving open the possibility that anti-war groups could be charged with domestic terrorism.
The Parler one is huge. Amazon is kicking them off their hosting platform so even their website disappears. Looks to me that C99 given that it is an anti-establishment website could also be shut down completely especially under the law that Schiff is now proposing.
Embrace the Dark Web.
IMHO, all media platforms
should have shutdown the fact free Russiagate nonsense. Facebook and Google were pressured to find the evidence and after massive searches they found some meaningless crap, but that didn't shut up the Russiagaters. With all that public noise, it still only ever had much support among Hill Democrats and Hillary bots. The majority didn't buy into it and that gave Trump an edge going into the 2020 election.
Decorum and holding to traditional conventions is very important to those in the seats of government. So, yes sore loser Trump capping off his months making baseless claims of election fraud by declining to attend the inauguration was adding fuel to the incitement he instigated.
Instead of diversifying social and political thought and ideas and disseminating verifiable facts, social media had consolidated the teams and disseminated more BS and fake crap than ever. As a massive propaganda and consumer advert tool, they are great. And helped facilitate the spread and death of COVID-19 which should infuriate everyone.
They are private platforms.
The public is invited onto their platforms with policy restrictions. If an individual who accepted the terms of agreement, then violates a term, they will be banned. I am relieved that the terms apply to all the public, and do not exclude any elected officials from such contract agreement. This is at least once in a lifetime that Trump and I must follow the same rules.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
But corporations are people right? (snark)
They have the "right", if you will, not constitutionally of course, but a "legal right" none the less, to tell you...
What to wear, what to say, when you can say it, when to work, when not to work, how to work, what to use while you work, and whole host of other things they "can do", without a "constitutional right".
They routinely violate our 4th amendment rights making us piss in a cup to upend our most sacred of legal principles, "innocent until proven guilty".
If you violate your employers "rules", one gets punished no?
Please understand, I'm not saying it is right or good, just objectively observing reality.
The last employment "agreement" I signed, said basically I could not participate in protests that might reflect badly on the company. I had to agree to the restriction of my 1st amendment right to protest, in order to get a good paying job.
I "reasoned" unless my employer was engaged an actual crime, then who they sold the subprime auto-loans too, i.e. Wall Street, I could certainly still protest against them, as long as I kept my employer's name out of it.
Corporations have the legal right to define how their business operate and what they will, and won't tolerate. Doesn't mean I agree with it or what they do.
If you break their rules, you get punished.
This has nothing to do with a "constitutional right to free speech" using a private for profit corporation's technology, which to get an account to use that technology, you must agree to their terms of service.
Violate the TOS and one gets punished. As one who has been suspended permanently from twitter, I sure don't like their rules.
(snark on)
But life isn't fair and there's not much we can do about it, because ya know, football and pro sports and corporations are people too right?!
I love this country, you go to fish place to get chicken!
(snark off)
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
RR, you have the best understanding
of the meaning of corporate contracts I have seen on this site today!
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
@on the cusp
What a wonderful thing to say. Thank you.
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
I agree.
I haven't been banned from Twitter yet, but I am proudly banished from Red State and Gateway Pundit and Truthout. Not for TOS violations, but for disagreeing with the herd mind. If I can be censored or banned, so can Trump.
How many here at C99
were censored or banned at TOP? It wasn't was an issue of 1st Amendment censorship. (Although the rules at TOP aren't as codified as those at the corporate platforms such as Twitter. "They" don't like a comment and you're out of TOP.)
A better question is WHY did people get banned from ToP?
Most of us here were banned because we told the truth about Hillary’s records which went against the democratic position of only saying something nice about her or nothing at all. The roving band of gatekeepers join up and got people banned. It’s kinda the same because of kos' ties with Pelosi and democrats, but the federal government isn’t whispering in his ear as far as I know.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
'07-'08 nobody that spoke the truth
about Hillary's record was banned or banished from ToP. Instead they got uprated.
I got the boot a few years earlier than you did for daring to point out the murderous foreign policies of Obama. (Who I had supported in '08 over Clinton -- it was never more than a choice between Clinton and maybe not Clinton -- too bad 99% of his supporters put him on a pedestal and became incapable of evaluating his performance as only slightly less toxic than Clinton's would have been.)
Even kos was against Hillary back then
He wrote an article titled: "Hillary is too much a Clinton democrat." He listed many of the same things then that we said in 2016. And remember that she didn’t drop out when it was clear that she had no chance to beat Obama. That’s why he was such a hypocrite when he made that rule.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
That's rich!
No, I didn't read that drivel from Kos. (I only started posting there in late 2002 because Kos was a lousy political analyst and within a few months did no more than glance at his posts.) Kos is and has always been a Clinton Democrat -- at least since he stopped being a Republican -- but wants to be seen as cool (he's not). Obama got his nod because he appeared cool and he's a man -- Kos is also secondarily a misogynist.
Other than his first two elevations to FP status, Billmon and Steve Soto, and occasionally MB (who demonstrated that he could walk his talk when the issue became Libya), none of them were worth reading. Steve's a good guy even if he's more conservative or perhaps conventional than I am. Billmon was often brilliant but he burns out. (MOA was created when Billmon shut down his Whisky Bar (from the Alabama Song that he didn't know wasn't a Doors composition). b often does some good analysis but not on US politics and completely out in left field wrt Trump.)
.
I had the same experiences that I had at TOS
with my own friends and family. One was not supposed to bring up Joe Biden's record or anything about his pathological lying for years about his biography and legislation because Trump HAD to be defeated. I found myself walking on egg shells all the time, afraid to have to make a choice between friendship and honesty. Now I have one friend who keeps sending me his concerns about Biden's appointments. My response is, "why are you surprised?"
At least the GOP is upfront about their thuggery. The Dems put on white hats and then slip a stiletto into your back.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
Well didn't you know that if you stick your fingers in your
ears you won't hear the truth about the candidate that you have come to worship instead of support? This is what happens on DK every time someone is the least critical of democrats. The same gatekeepers come out and tell them how naughty and sexist and ageist they are and they should knock that crap off right this minute.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
I wasn't.
I wasn't banned from TOP, but I was threatened more than once by other users who swore they'd get me kicked off.
I got a warning once,
but only got hounded once or twice.
I was consciously self-censoring, carefully wording my sentences, and staying away from various writers and topics. It got to the point where it was way more trouble to tow the line than it was worth. Even staying neutral about Hillary Clinton made their gang suspicious of me. I still have top mojo, not that I have spent more than a couple of minutes at top in the last 3 years. I figured they would ban me in absentia.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
I was.
Other than the Clarkies in 2003 and a few minor skirmishes in '04 (and that was without posting my election projections -- all of which were accurate -- because I didn't want the grief of being labeled a Cassandra. Oddly the degree of fretting over the '06 election was intense when that was a year to chill.) didn't encounter too many attacks until mid-2009 when I highlighted the "Barack Hoover Obama" article that was on the money. Might have gotten on the "hit list" for opposing military action in Libya.
Great. Let's spread the silencing of dissent far and wide.
The muzzle on our mouths will feel so much more comfortable when we reflect that Trump has one too. Schadenfreude is so sweet, why shouldn't we trade our basic liberties for it.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Dang! You caught me!
My plot to silence Trump's heroic dissent has been revealed. I had a carefully crafted plan to ensure Trump would no longer be the voice of the little people, but curses! You busted me.
I am so, so sorry for my sins.
It has nothing to do with Trump, and everything to do
with the precedent set by banning Trump, which is obviously the point of the exercise. The point is not to prevent Trump from spewing seditious hatred--if that were the point, Twitter would have stopped him long ago.
It's pretty obvious that they're going to use this stunt to suppress people who aren't Trump. It's exactly what happened when Alex Jones was banned from YouTube. With great fanfare, they take down the racist--and then quietly take down hundreds of other channels, many of them left-wing channels, including the site Copwatch. I don't expect anything better from Jack Dorsey than from Eric Schmidt.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Yes, you are. And so are the founding fathers.
The fifth and fourteenth amendments. Neither one says, "Unless Mark Zuckerberg says otherwise." The constitution has a fatal flaw, it cedes power to individuals - power that can only be effectively used by individuals with overwhelming wealth.
We have a way to respond to Trump, there are laws that can be applied, laws under which he can and must be arrested and tried - a trial where he has due process. Instead private actors declared him a non person, like Nikita Khrushchev.
On to Biden since 1973
Censorship as/and Punishment?
You make it sound like censorship and punishment are somehow mutually
exclusive - are they?
Those TOS are notoriously and likely intentionally vague which gives the
providers plenty of leeway to say that content is in violation when it is,
in fact, simply something they don't approve of on ideological or other grounds.
In which case censorship *is* the punishment, no?
It's not like there is any transparency there, or any effective legal way at present to hold them accountable.
Well, theoretically Congress could remove their Section 230 shield. And who was it that attempted to do that? Some dude named Trump, I believe?
Well I for one am glad the c99% is still able to be here
If Section 203 were repealed, JtC would be personally liable for every word posted on this site. And then it would be goodbye c99%, because who in their right mind would provide a platform if they are liable for everything posted? Is that really a good idea?
It seems so easy when you pretend it is all about the big bad guys, but that law shields every platform provider from having to control all the content on their site. Anyone worried about censorship would not be in favor of that, it seems to me.
Liability shield
is justifiable (IMHO) if a platform is actually a forum
for the free exchange of ideas, information, etc. where
those who post material are the ones responsible for it.
On C99, that should be us and not CtC.
That is the basis, as I understand it, that Section 230
was sold on and enacted in the first place. So, you have a
point about simply getting rid of it maybe having detrimental
effects.
The problem lies more in how the exemption is being abused by
powerful social media who are not providing anything like free
and open forums, but are actively selecting against those whose
ideology they don't approve of, or who threaten their power and perks
in some other way.
And when it comes to elections, they have no peers when it comes to interference.
They deserve, and in fact it's urgent if we want to retain something like civil society
that they be broken up, not given breaks in terms of liability.
BTW - Some of your civic-minded neighbors have taken it upon themselves to hit the streets
and physically canvass the AZ voting rolls - mainly Maricopa so far - you might find it interesting to hear what they are finding...
Liz Harris' introduction from about 1:20, testimonials from volunteers about their experiences from about 1:27...
I think a body count might be a better way
to determine which of our recent Presidents most deserve to be muzzled and condemned. None deserve our respect in their propensity to spread “democracy” around the world at the point of a gun or a drone or a bomb.
Trump garners a lot of attention for all his antics and absurd comments, and along with that a disproportionate amount of our condemnation. Trump could be vaporized today and our body politic would remain amoral servants of Empire, and sowers of discord among the populace they ostensibly serve. The next occupant of the White House will almost assuredly continue the current traditions and objectives.
With or without Trump spewing nonsense on Twitter, we are in deep trouble.
“ …and when we destroy nature, we diminish our capacity to sense the divine,and understand who God is, and what our own potential is and duties are as human beings.- RFK jr. 8/26/2024
Agreed
They are not acting alone in their decisions. It’d be interesting to see what is happening with social media in other countries. The state dictating what we can read is frowned on by us in countries like China that control the media.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Two things
1) For the record, I oppose censorship, including this instance. Every instance is the same in that it part of the downward road.
2) The Other Maven touched on this, but it is perfectly legal, afaik, to cry fire in a crowded theater. It is arguably even legal to falsely cry fire in a crowded theater, depending upon facts and circumstances. The Court decision from which the phrase came never said it was illegal to do so, it said that the First Amendment would not cover such an utterance, and not protect one who did so from any charges. Such a person would, all the same, have be charged with something different, something actually illegal under some statute. FWIW, I can't recall for sure, but that whole bit might have also been mere dicta.
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Well... we both know that the urge to censor opinion
runs deep with Democrats after our adventures with the crowd at Daily Kos.
I've had friends and family try to censor me from bringing up Joe Biden's record so many times, I lost count. This is an illness among Democrats for sure and certain our government in general.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
lol
Just. Do. It.
The sweetest revenge.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Personally, I pretty much
blame the entire Republican party for what happened on Jan 6. From Rush Limbaugh to all the other yahoo's who have been spewing hate for decades, they stoked the fires that Trump really only managed to actually light. The very audacity of ANY of them getting up there and screaming "domestic terrorists" when they have continually pushed their base to openly espouse violence just shows their hypocrisy. They all have used "illegals" "communists" and yes, "traitors" over and over and over again, perhaps it was a bit more subtle but the intent was always there. And when that monster gets away from them, they don't like it and will deny they ever had one thing to do with creating it. And this does in no way mean the Democratic party escapes any blame either. Their feckless idiocy fed that monster as well, just in a much more subtle way.
While Trump is of course repugnant to his core, do we really think shutting him down on Twitter is going to make all of his supporters say, oh well, let's forget all that treason talk and just calm down and go home? Just forget what Hannity, et al, have been saying for a generation or two, never mind... AS IF. That fire was lit for them a long damned time ago, Trump just pushed them over the edge. Blaming him for the entire thing lets the rest of them off the proverbial hook and yes, also lets them fundraise from it as well. What a special little gift that is, for all of them.
And I will just add, personally, I did enjoy seeing some of those lying bastards cower in a corner for a minute, would be nice if they did actually fear their voters for once, too bad it had to be physical fear as that is not what I truly want, but one takes the little tiny bit of shadenfreude wherever one can get it today. And really, where were the cops? Where were the tanks? Where was that 50 Cal mounted on a military assault type vehicle? This "event" was not only known about but talked about endlessly and breathlessly in the media, on all sides. Do we really think they are that stupid? Or was this perhaps a staged event, meant to once again gin up the divide, the anger, the FEAR. And now look, in comes Joe and Kamala to save the day, doncha know. Never mind that censorship, our "side" will be the ones doing it so it's for your own good. We will decide FOR YOU what is true and what is not, and America will go back to normal. Almost sounds just a tad MAGA-ish, doesn't it?
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Well said
Who built the fire that Trump put a match to? Brilliant connection.
As for the rest I’m seeing false flag event more on Twitter. You’re the 2nd person to question whether Trump is in on the act so that Biden can do patriot act 2.0.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
I think I read one snippet
in the MSM headlines I skim at work, and of course the office people were already talking about what was going on that day, saying that the Capital Police were too busy getting staffers out of the building in the confusion. Now, I'm sorry, but even at AT&T we had an emergency plan to evacuate the building. I thought about that later and realized that surely, the Capitol building of the US would have some kind of plan, and more than likely one for any "armed insurrection." I mean, really. And that's when it hit me that this too is probably theater.
I watched very few clips of it, but I saw a couple on Jimmy Dore and I did notice - I did not personally see one gun in the protest group. And that hallway scene with the black security guard or whatever and the white mob running up the stairs behind him? Almost like whoever watched it all on camera couldn't have wished for better optics - a lone black cop running from a white mob of Trumpers? Almost like someone maybe hoped they'd beat the shit out of that black cop, but they didn't. Sure, they yelled, but they did not physically get even all that close. I put NOHTHING beyond our owners in their divide and conquer zeal. Did Trump play along? Who knows, would not shock me AT ALL.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
My biggest reason to think it’s theater
is that unknown people breached the halls of congress and after they were cleared from the building congress went back to work in the same rooms that unknown people were in. It should have been locked down and treated as a crime scene because it was. The woman who was shot and killed I’m sure her area was cordoned off so they could investigate the shooting. This was right outside one of the congress chambers iirc. If it was any other group of people you know that congress would be out for awhile. Yes they had to finish business, but there?
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
I posted a tweet with video of the cops watching
as they enter the building. They may have opened the door for them too.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
So this assumes, first,
that banning Trump from Twitter is going to actually censor him. Which is untrue.
You leave a crucial part out of your analysis. How did Trump get his platform to begin with? In fact, why did Trump ever become a viable candidate?
https://theweek.com/speedreads/626702/fox-news-cnn-msnbc-all-broadcast-t...
Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC all broadcast Trump's empty podium instead of Clinton's big speech
May 26, 2016
What they're not including is that they also cut away from an interview with Bernie Sanders to broadcast footage of Trump's empty podium. And why did they do that? Because Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff asked them to.
Nobody wants to remember this, but the 2016 Clinton campaign and corporate media elevated Trump to the position of viable candidate. They are the reason we had a Trump presidency to begin with. The Clinton campaign's asinine "Pied Piper strategy" combined with the corporate media's avid delight in sensationalism as a crutch to bolster their failing industry is what gave Trump the exposure he needed--for free, by the way. Then they all scratched their heads about why Hillary was running out of money when Trump wasn't. After they gave Trump a multi-billion-dollar in-kind donation of airtime.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-don...
So to take Bush down, Clinton’s team drew up a plan to pump Trump up. Shortly after her kickoff, top aides organized a strategy call, whose agenda included a memo to the Democratic National Committee: “This memo is intended to outline the strategy and goals a potential Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would have regarding the 2016 Republican presidential field,” it read.
“The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party,” read the memo.
“Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to:
• Ted Cruz
• Donald Trump
• Ben Carson
We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously."
...
Eleven days after those comments about McCain, Clinton aides sought to push the plan even further: An agenda item for top aides’ message planning meeting read, “How do we prevent Bush from bettering himself/how do we maximize Trump and others?"
Even Barack Obama acknowledged the role of the corporate press in elevating Trump,at his last White House Press Corps dinner:
All right, that’s probably enough. I mean, I’ve got more material — (applause) — no, no, I don’t want to spend too much time on The Donald. Following your lead, I want to show some restraint. (Laughter.) Because I think we can all agree that from the start, he’s gotten the appropriate amount of coverage, befitting the seriousness of his candidacy. (Laughter and applause.)
I hope you all are proud of yourselves. (Laughter.) The guy wanted to give his hotel business a boost, and now we’re praying that Cleveland makes it through July. (Laughter.)
It's funny cause it's true.
So Twitter censored Donald Trump. Whoopee. Now he won't be able to torment us with his horrible words anymore. Except that the corporate press is more than willing to cover every goddamned thing about him 24/7. Which suggests that this move on the part of Twitter is not about silencing Donald Trump, but about something else. I wonder what that might be?
Could it be getting us used to the idea that censorship is good?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Outstanding
comment, lots of great recent history reminders.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
No, Twitter just wants to
make the world a better place!
They want to save you from being subjected to more horrible words.
Like these:
White House statement Jan. 7, 2021
And what social media can't accomplish on its own in getting rid of those pesky populists that actually believe in quaint things like constitutional republics and election integrity, maybe a little 'mostly peaceful' counter-protest can...
San Diego - 1/9/21
You've omitted a major
component in your narrative. Clinton and by extension the MSM (because Clinton/Obama had been good to them) wanted Trump to get the GOP nomination because 1) he would be the easiest for Clinton to beat and 2) the MSM could take him down and pump up HER in the general election.* The latter task proved difficult because HRC was such a weak candidate, but the former task proved even more difficult because by then Trump's twitter thumb was bypassing the MSM.
*It was to be a rerun of 2000 when the MSM had no problem tearing down Gore and praising GWB.
There were so many moments in 2016 when the MSM thought,
“Ha ha, boom! We’ve got him now! Bye-bye Donald!”, such as after release of the Access Hollywood tape.
Not a fan of Trump, but not a believer in the MSM either. Their rising consternation as Trump breasted every putatively reputation-destroying tsunami they sent his way was beautiful to see.
Indomitable and undaunted, continuing to hold his head high when everyone was telling him to bow down and slink away in shame — a fighter, the same thing he said he admired about Hillary. A kind of tenacity and faith in oneself that, attached to a more popular figure, would have been celebrated as a tribute to the human spirit.
What makes that exceedingly odd
is that the MSM has long known that the presidential candidate that best plays or can be seen to inhabit the "tough guy" persona in the general election always wins, except when up against "cool" as in 1960 and perhaps 2008.* Particularly if the opponent can easily be cast as a wimp. Sometimes the MSM manufactures the wimp image for one of the candidates and sometimes the candidate does it to her/himself.
*Gore did win in 2000 despite the MSM efforts to wimpify him and portray GWB as a tough guy. Just enough people saw through the ignorance and fakery of GWB and MSM fakery on Gore for him to win. So, I guess I would say that between the two, Gore was the tougher guy.
Pages