Trump's Facebook Ban Should Not Be Lifted, Network's Oversight Board Rules (theguardian.com) 328
Donald Trump's Facebook account should not be reinstated, the social media giant's oversight board said on Wednesday, barring an imminent return to the platform. From a report: However, the board has punted the final decision over Trump's account back to Facebook itself, suggesting the platform make a decision in six months regarding what to do with Trump's account and whether it will be permanently deleted. Facebook suspended Trump's account after the Capitol attack of 6 January, when a mob of Trump supporters stormed Congress in an attempt to overturn the former president's defeat by Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election. Trump was initially suspended from Facebook and Instagram for 24 hours, as a result of two posts shared to the platform in which he appeared to praise the actions of the rioters. The company then extended the president's ban "at least until the end of his time in office." His account was suspended indefinitely pending the decision of the oversight board, a group of appointed academics and former politicians meant to operate independently of Facebook's corporate leadership.
Facebook will overrul becase money (Score:3, Insightful)
Love him or hate him, Trump brings in money from vultures that want to capitalize on people's anger. And Trump is great at making people angry. This is why he wasn't banned from anything until after he left office, and why, even now, network TV news still report on his every little activity.
Trump's accounts will be reinstated soon enough because advertisers like racists money just as much as anti-racist's money.
How profitable is politics vs baby photos? (Score:2, Insightful)
Trump's accounts will be reinstated soon enough because advertisers like racists money just as much as anti-racist's money.
How much money are they getting from him directly? How affluent are overt racists? Also, if you proudly define yourself as an anti-racist to anyone who didn't ask, I'd guess you don't have much going on in your life either.
Facebook's business model gets a lot more revenue from the general community...sharing baby photos, local events, etc. I don't think political junkies bring in too much money. If someone is at home spending hours fuming in his basement about AOC or Trump or Cruz or Pelosi...how m
Re: (Score:3)
Trump's accounts will be reinstated soon enough because advertisers like racists money just as much as anti-racist's money.
How much money are they getting from him directly?
Excellent question. CNN and MSNBC post-Trump ratings are down 50%+ , while FB isn't exactly like cable TV, it is non-trivial amount.
You're not wrong. (Score:2, Insightful)
Love him or hate him, Trump brings in money from vultures that want to capitalize on people's anger. And Trump is great at making people angry. This is why he wasn't banned from anything until after he left office, and why, even now, network TV news still report on his every little activity.
You're absolutely correct about this part. However, there are other things to consider, specifically, the cost of having him on a platform.
Firstly, the amount of mis/disinformation on the platform spiked as a result of the things he has said. This has a real expense because it means workers have to mark posts as "this is bullshit" but in polite terms. The result of doing this causes Republicans to recoil and cry censorship which causes the specter of regulations to pop up as well as slowly drains people
Re: (Score:2)
Love him or hate him, Trump brings in money from vultures that want to capitalize on people's anger.
Don't overinflate Trump's ego. People who can fuel rage are dime a dozen. Stupidity, clickbait and bullshit was on Facebook long before anyone gave a shit about Trump, they will still be floating around media in whatever form long after Trump is gone.
You don't need a Trump account to make money, the shit he brings with him and which makes him valuable is common place.
No biggie (Score:5, Insightful)
He just started his own twitter clone at http://www.donaldjtrump.com/ [donaldjtrump.com] and talks about freedom of speech. Curiously though comments are not allowed...
Re:No biggie (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You can feel free to setup your own blog. Which means he is doing nothing to suppress your free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like they're closing the door a bit late on preventing crazies to post there
Phew (Score:2)
I was really worried the board might say "Democracy survived this bout and is probably good for another! Who wants to buy ads in DEMOCRACY VS TRUMP, ROUND 2? Rageclicks here, get yer rageclick ad views!"
Re:Phew (Score:4, Interesting)
I have some sincere doubts about democracy in the US in 2024. The Republicans seem to have taken the position that 2020 is the last time that Republican lawmakers in Congress will ever certify a Democratic Presidential winner, and with at least a good likelihood that they'll control both houses of Congress in 2024, it means they'll disenfranchise any swing state that goes to the Democratic nominee. Even as their base shrinks, their Evangelical allies watch their pews empty, between ever more blatant gerrymandering and vote suppression, and GOP lawmakers willing to use the normally procedural certification process as an effective veto, what real hope does any Democratic presidential candidate have in the future?
Re:Phew (Score:5, Interesting)
Countries successfully democratizing ended up on a 5th republic French constitution style unicameral parlimentarian republic, with voting methods such as the single transferable vote ensuring the surface area for politicians' shenanigans are minimal.
Re:Phew (Score:5, Informative)
American exceptionalism as a concept has nothing to do with "exporting" the US constitution. That's a bizarre statement, nor does it have anything to do with presidential authority.
In comparative politics, it refers specifically do this; and the peculiarity of the American Constitution (per Huntington, "first wave" democratization) is the strength of the executive.
What countries have you seen the "US Constitution" exported to anyway?
To name a few, Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Brazil and Colombia. Notably, they feature bicameral legislatures with a strong presidential executive modeled after the US.
If you think voter suppression or gerrymandering is any way unique to one party, you're quite frankly very ignorant. Go look up the most gerrymandered districts in the US. It might be illuminating to you. (And please, if you're just going to come back with tired partisan arguments "Well MY team is good and MY team only does it because THEIR team is bad and THEIR team started it," please don't bother.)
But perhaps you are right. The French model is an excellent example of how to minimize political "shenanigans" and public corruption. Oh wait..
Here is where you go off into a rant, much like Ted Cruz said the Paris Accord was about the citizens of Paris' opinion. Do you also think the Geneva Convention was about what they think in Geneva?
The French 5th republic style constitution (not the French state itself, or anything having to do with people in France) is responsible for the "third wave" of democratization in the world, and has spawned the most successful and stable democracies.
You should read Huntington, who was a prominent conservative/republican, for a better understanding of democratic institutions. Then, you can respond intelligently, because tbh the above is a bit of a shitpost.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm honestly baffled by your argument. It's clear from the very sources you linked, including the paper that starts with a definition of the term "American exceptionalism" that the term American exceptionalism refers to (roughly, from the GMU article):
The idea that "(1) the United States is the freest country in the world, and (2) it owes its freedom to the Framer’s Constitution, with its presidential form of government and separation of powers."
That is the concept and idea of American exceptionalism.
Call Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema (Score:2)
Fitting and proper that Facebook did this? (Score:2)
Substantive comment that showed up for the moderation, but the Subject reeked like the proverbial big dog's m0e. I think the distant perspective may give you some clarity?
I wish I could assuage your doubts, but per my other comment about the uncivil war, I think the nation (and the world) will not benefit from the victory of either the GQP or the Trumplicans. In the end, what it comes down to is that the rich and selfish bastards that are controlling these things are confident that they can always grab the
Re: (Score:2)
I previewed that more than once, and I thought carefully.
s/perfectly positions/perfectly positioned/
*sigh*
So tired of stuff like this (Score:3)
I'm so tired of people claiming all this stuff with Trump some how heralds the end of our democracy (...and for the record I think he was a terrible president). A simple modern US history class would show you that our country has been through and done far worse.
For instance the voting laws being passed in some states are worrisome but guess what! They were much worse just 50 years ago which is well within the lifetime of many of our citizens.
But sure, it's your right to be a paranoid or drama queen but just
Re:Phew (Score:4, Insightful)
The voter suppression laws are already being passed, and the wild-assed claims of voter fraud and the increasing willingness of most of the GOP establishment to go along with those claims makes it pretty clear that Congressional certification will be weaponized in the future. It's a theory. I could be wrong, but the idea that voter fraud is widespread is already very popular among conservative voters and almost certainly will mean refusing to certify states is going to be way the Republicans win future presidential elections.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yes, this has become a very partisan issue, and it's sad, because it shouldn't be a partisan issue at all. I would think there are a handful of statements that ABSOLUTELY everyone should agree with:
e.g., Republicans have pushed for voter ID laws. Democrats have fought against voter ID laws. Across the entire population, voter ID laws enjoy strong popular support.
Points of (hopefully) universal agreement??
1. Every eligible voter should be entitled to one vote.
2. We should know who every eligible voter is.
3.
Re:Phew (Score:4, Interesting)
No one is saying that all governmental elections are "cheat free" it's just the idea that voter fraud which is a distinct type of action and different than election fraud has had any major impact on any federal election has never been borne out. The risk/reward of such actions are so high as to make it very much a non-issue and people who try it are very often caught and charged.
Ballot harvesting is an interesting issue since by it's nature it's a very nebulous thing. If I work at a nursing home where people are unable to drive and I collect the residents marked and sealed ballots and drop them off at a polling site have i done something illegal or wrong? Now you can make a case that there are ways to do that nefariously but how do you craft a law to allow the right ways versus the wrong ways and enforce that?
Many people take issue of the fact that #4 is very important and that there have been many actions that try to enforce #2 to such a degree that it affects #4. That's why Voter ID is shot down at every turn. I could get behind a voter ID but anyone who wants it refuses to take the necessary actions to fairly implement it, as in free State ID, free verification of people who cannot travel to a state office, free replacement birth certificates and free services to acquire said certificated or free service to those who were not issued one (a more common occurrence than we think) to acquire one and the ID.
Frankly one i have turned around on is #3. I really am becoming more interested in the idea of mandatory voting like Australia does. I think getting all the fence sitters who perpetually sit out elections will lead to real legislative shifts that could free us from the deadlocked morass we have found ourselves in for the last 40 years. We would likely see a real majority power shift in either direction and much more compelling actions on voter mandate. And being mandated to vote does mean mandated on who to vote for. You can place a protest vote or leave the ballot blank but you have to send it in.
Re: (Score:3)
No one is saying that all governmental elections are "cheat free" it's just the idea that voter fraud which is a distinct type of action and different than election fraud has had any major impact on any federal election has never been borne out. The risk/reward of such actions are so high as to make it very much a non-issue and people who try it are very often caught and charged.
I do think plenty of people claim there is no cheating or fraud in elections. Fair point about voter fraud as a category of cheating, though it's awfully hard to catch. The only firsthand cheating in a government election I have ever seen was in college when a dormmate went around getting people to sign up for absentee ballots and then filled them out herself. No idea how you could stop that.
Ballot harvesting is an interesting issue since by it's nature it's a very nebulous thing. If I work at a nursing home where people are unable to drive and I collect the residents marked and sealed ballots and drop them off at a polling site have i done something illegal or wrong? Now you can make a case that there are ways to do that nefariously but how do you craft a law to allow the right ways versus the wrong ways and enforce that?
Definitely agree. This is specifically one recent incident I was thinking of https://www.fayobserver.com/story/news/p [fayobserver.com]
Re:Phew (Score:5, Informative)
Trump telling Pence not to certify the election results https://archive.is/sra4Y [archive.is]
Trump asking Brian Kemp to "find votes" so he can win the state.
Re: (Score:3)
Thank god Kemp recorded that phone call so we can see Trump flat out ask people to commit crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
So was a Trumpite rabble descending on the Capitol Building and a number of Republican lawmakers voting against certifying some states. And yet here we are.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So was a Trumpite rabble descending on the Capitol Building and a number of Republican lawmakers voting against certifying some states. And yet here we are.
I'm just a populist I guess. Like the black panthers before them, who marched en masse into the California capitol with rifles, shotguns, fighting in favor of gun rights, the hooligans of Andrew Jackson's inauguration who trashed the White House, and going back as far as Jefferson, I do not believe that our government deserves any inherent or built-in adoration and respect. I am in favor of limiting government, government power, and the attempts by some to create a love an adoration of authority, because I
Re:Phew (Score:5, Insightful)
Jefferson's view of liberty was one view, but it was not one even universally accepted by the other Founding Fathers. At the end of the day, most of the Revolutionaries understood the gravity of rebellion, and the entire point of the Declaration of Independence wasn't to just give blanket approval to any form of rebellion or revolution, but to lay out the reasons the Colonies were pursuing independence. And the actions of Congress after that, and Presidents after ratification of the Constitution, was to create a form of government that would be responsive to the people, and where armed insurrections need not be the answer. And the question was answered with finality when Lincoln didn't just roll over and let the Confederacy persist, but pursued a policy of warfare to defeat the Confederacy and bring the states back into the Union.
And let's be very blunt, these seditionists weren't marching on the Capitol Building to seek remedies, they came to block the peaceful transfer of power. They might have been revolutionaries in some rather broad view, but what they are under US law is seditionists. To lose an election is a bitter pill I'm sure, but to try to prevent the transfer of power to the winner, both by storming the Capitol to prevent Congress from performing its constitutional role, and by some Republican lawmakers clearly abusing the certification process to cancel out the constitutionally and lawfully cast ballots of those states' electors was not some great sword stroke from freedom, I'd argue those lawmakers themselves were seditionists, since there was no evidence of mass fraud, and considerable evidence that the incumbent himself had committed acts of sedition in trying to block Congress's certification on purely baseless grounds.
The majority of the American people voted for Biden. The majority of Electors in the several states honored their pledges to cast their vote for Biden. To insinuate that the majority of Americans and the majority of Electors were in some way representative of and furthering the cause of tyranny, to the point that those breaking into the Capitol Building hunting down the Vice President and the Speaker of the House, were champions of liberty, even in the Jeffersonian sense, is absurd, and absolutely wrong. Those people weren't looking to restore democracy, they were trying to undermine it.
Re:Phew (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah never happened. https://archive.is/sra4Y [archive.is]
Who? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Aw, don't tell me you've forgotten Hitler already? Godwin certainly remembers him.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent funnier.
"He whose name need not be mentioned." Thank gawd.
Lucky bastard. (Score:2)
Now we know why there are so many muslim terrorists trying to attack America: They only want Fecebook to leave them alone!
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
He's repeatedly shown he didn't care about effects his words have so long as he can keep donations coming in and some political power in the GOP. He's an actual, real threat to public safety and as Facebook I wouldn't want to do business with him either.
And yes, this is Facebook making a business decision. It has nothing to do with censorship or free speech. The first amendment goes both ways and Facebook has a right to decide what they allow on their platform. Common carrier doesn't apply and they're not a publisher. That's why made new laws, e.g. section 230 of the CDA. New tech needs new rules or it dies. Time to decide if actual freedom matters more to us than letting Trump back on FB and Twitter
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure the riots would have been avoided as well if he took it like a woman, or like a small furry creature from Alpha Centauri.
Monsieur Zuckerberg, le Roi Soleil (Score:2)
We will know more when he finishes his 2000-room palace with a Hall of Mirrors holding the new Facebook Constitution, in which the rights remaining to peasants will be enumerated.
Re:Censorship is hard to reverse (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm just grateful that this is a privately-owned outfit that is banning him, and not the Government. Then you would have something to worry about.
Re:Censorship is hard to reverse (Score:5, Insightful)
If so many people didn't rely on places like Facebook for our political news I wouldn't be bothered.
Re:Censorship is hard to reverse (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook is not benevolent. It's not malevolent either. It doesn't care about controlling politics. It cares about its users... in the same way a pig farmer cares about his pigs. If the pig farmer is smart he takes good care of his pigs, but in the end they're there to make bacon.
Social media companies' problem with Trump is not that they aren't willing to hook him up with his supporters, it's that he's too visible to do it *discreetly*. They've made a simple profit calculation that it would cost more to piss off anti-Trumpists than it would Trumpists. Everything else is just posturing.
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook is under constant threat to have hundreds of billions knocked off its trillion dollar valuation by section 230 changes, or actual breakup. Some want to declare it a "common carrier".
"So you had better censor harrassment and dangerous speech, oh, start with the harrassment by our political opponents."
So, no, the tech giants are decidedly not doing this of their own free will under the First Amendment
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is under constant threat to have hundreds of billions knocked off its trillion dollar valuation by section 230 changes, or actual breakup. Some want to declare it a "common carrier".
"So you had better censor harrassment and dangerous speech, oh, start with the harrassment by our political opponents."
So, no, the tech giants are decidedly not doing this of their own free will under the First Amendment
Because private entities are not required to have 100 percent tolerance of anything anyone wants to say. Just the same as you are not allowed to come into my house and spout anything you like. Just because Trump demands to spend the rest of his life claiming that Dominion, the Supreme court, and most state legislatures and other Judges that his administration appointed are in on a vast conspiracy, remember - we have the right to react. Are places like Facebook shielded from libel laws?
The first amendment
Re: (Score:3)
There has been no solid evidence presented in any court of law. All there is are mountains of dubious videos and speeches claiming to have seen fraud. That is not evidence. All of the claimed evidence is trivially debunked. Only a complete moron would believe the lies after having actually looked into the evidence (and that includes the drug addled pillow guy).
Re:Censorship is hard to reverse (Score:5, Interesting)
No, what really happened is Trump became a legal liability. He turned social media into a weapon that used it against his enemies and tried to overturn the election. Now lawmakers are going to want know why a company had that much power, so little oversight, and apparently no consequences.
The Trump ban was nothing more than virtue signaling to congress and the press to try and avoid regulation. They would happily embrace Trump and his gaggle of diet-fascist loonies if they could get away with it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more concerned that this is still another way that a private corporation is controlling politics and our government. And I say that as no fan of Trump.
If so many people didn't rely on places like Facebook for our political news I wouldn't be bothered.
Your last comment is key. Whether Facebook bans or reinstates Trump doesn't affect the social and political power that they wield. Due to their outsized role in information dissemination, Facebook is forced to either censor or promote. Censorship is a dirty word, but propaganda is no cleaner. In fact, it's the propaganda (especially from the right) that has been the true problem. Concerns about censorship are currently theoretical, just like concerns about voting fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Private corporations have always had a voice, and in 2010 it was ruled for even their money to be constitionally protected as speech. At least this is just about Facebook's actual speech, rather than whom they pay to speak for them.
I know people here don't like Facebook, but before them, there were a million websites saying whatever the fuck they felt like. Now it's a million and one. Surely we can sustain this increase.
Yes, it's disappointing that so many people ask that one website for its opinion about w
Re: (Score:2)
Private corporations have always had a voice
Putting aside arguments over the truth value there, the issue is not voice so much as selective megaphone use while claiming not to take sides. Facebook claims to be a platform, yet is making editorial decisions. Nobody ever accused PBS Newshour or the Wall Street Journal of being platforms, free of responsibility for what people say there. Facebook is trying to play it both ways.
I say fight fire with fire,
And I say that only leads to more goatse. No, thanks. Been there. Can't un-see that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more concerned that this is still another way that a private corporation is controlling politics and our government. And I say that as no fan of Trump. If so many people didn't rely on places like Facebook for our political news I wouldn't be bothered.
The problem is that the first amendment is very very specific.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I see nothing about forcing people to include speech. Fox News recently stopped interviewing Mike Lindell because of the legitimate lawsuit against them by Dominion. Mike h
Re: Censorship is hard to reverse (Score:2)
If so many people didn't rely on places like Facebook for our political news I wouldn't be bothered.
Thatâ(TM)s their problem.
Re: (Score:3)
The reason why I'm an Independent is because of all the corporate money
How does being independent help address that problem?
An "independent" is just someone who doesn't vote in the primaries. So you have even less influence than others.
Can Facebook avoid picking a side? (Score:2)
I sympathize, but there are real differences between the parties. As far as I can recall, I have never been registered as a Democrat, but that was because my own motivations are mostly negative. I was mostly voting against the worst politicians (and therefore mostly against the incumbents). However these days it has becoming increasingly clear that the worst politicians are on the other side, not Dems but either GQP or Trumplican. (These days there is no meaningful Republican Party with any linkage to Abe o
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Censorship is hard to reverse (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how conservatives didn't complain about "censorship" when Kaepernick was being criticized for just taking a knee.
Wonder what the difference is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny how conservatives didn't complain about "censorship" when Kaepernick was being criticized for just taking a knee.
Wonder what the difference is.
Kaepernick wasn't "censored" by conservatives. The issue was he was doing his protest theater while engaged in his job as a sports entertainer.
The customers who are paying him to entertain them were not paying for protest theater so they complained. I'm pretty sure if you were paying for something and you were getting something you didn't want instead you would complain too.
Re:Censorship is hard to reverse (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right. He wasn't "censored" in the sense he couldn't speak out about black people being gunned in the streets by police or in their own homes or while out jogging. Instead, what conservatives did was cancel culture, the very thing they whine are being done to their anti-semitic, racist rants and voter suppression laws.
Further, what Kaepernick did in no way interfered with his performance, the game or anything else. He knelt during a time when nothing was going on. When it came time for him to play, he played. So no, the "customers" weren't being deprived of seeing him perform on the field.
Re:Censorship is hard to reverse (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead, what conservatives did was cancel culture, the very thing they whine are being done to their anti-semitic, racist rants and voter suppression laws.
I disagree with this analysis. Full-disclosure, I don't care about the NFL, and I don't care about Kaepernick, and I don't care about the national anthem.
The complaint as I have always heard it was not that Kaepernick had an opinion. It was that he was choosing to make his workplace--the football field--that platform for his advocacy. I have never heard anybody say that Kaepernick didn't have a right to his opinions, that he couldn't protest whatever he was protesting, etc.
It would have been cancel culture if he protested away from the workplace and people called for him to be fired.
It was cancel culture when my small business's Facebook page received multiple messages from random people across the country DEMANDING that an employee be fired since, on her personal Facebook page, she said that looters should be sprayed with sewage and that would take care of looting.
Re:Censorship is hard to reverse (Score:5, Interesting)
have never heard anybody say that Kaepernick didn't have a right to his opinions, that he couldn't protest whatever he was protesting, etc.
Hold on a moment. No less an influential person than the president of the US, had this to say about Kapernick https://www.theatlantic.com/po... [theatlantic.com]
"Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now, out. He’s fired. He’s fired!’ ”
In a related case - Trump's mouthpiece Huckabee-Sanders said that a person who tweeted about Trump "When asked if Trump knew about Hill's comments, Sanders responded, "I'm not sure if he's aware, but I think that's one of the more outrageous comments anyone could make and certainly something that I think is a fireable offense by ESPN." https://www.si.com/media/2017/... [si.com]
You think that the leader of the free world and his representatives saying stuff like that isn't cancel culture? saying that people need to lose their jobs for expressing their opinion. And in Kaepernicks case, he exactly was cancelled.
Point is, people like the former occupant of the White House, and his sycophants like Mike Lindell, have demands for free speech for themselves, while simultaneously demanding suppression of speech by others.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you might have missed the entire point of my statement, which is the objection raised to Kaepernick was that he was doing it _at work_, _on the football field_. That seems to literally be what Trump said there?
My reply was based on your writing
"The complaint as I have always heard it was not that Kaepernick had an opinion. It was that he was choosing to make his workplace--the football field--that platform for his advocacy. I have never heard anybody say that Kaepernick didn't have a right to his opinions, that he couldn't protest whatever he was protesting, etc.
People in here have a marked tendency to spout "Nobody ever said" when it is obvious that someone indeed did say.
But since you decide to make a very narrow allowance for fireable offenses, and apparently believe that in the woorkplace, no protest is ever allowed - Let's get yuour judgement on whether or not having an opinion is a fireable offense.
The Pittsburgh Steelers as a team did not come onto the field for some games until after the Anthem had been played.
Fir
Re: (Score:3)
And since when is bending a knee suddenlly disrespectful? Normally taking a knee is seen as highly respectful. One of the reasons for taking the knee is that it was not a rude gesture.
I'm baffled by the conservative attitude to it, except that there's a huge segment of the conservative side that treats the flag as literally a sacred object, and that you must follow the correct patriotic rituals at all times (like wearing a flag lapel pin). The whole meaning of "conservative" is "things were great in the p
Re:Censorship is hard to reverse (Score:5, Insightful)
Did anybody get fired or deplatformed for supporting Kaepernick? Did Kaepernick not become insanely more wealthy through is theatrics? Check your bias.
Why would anyone be fired or deplatformed for supporting Kaepernick? There's a world of difference between peacefully protesting the inequitable violence against black males in this country, and perpetuating The Big Lie that not only undermined our democracy, but also lead to a *direct assault* on our democracy.
And I'm not sure what you are trying to say about Kaepernick being "more wealthy now". Is it your contention that he was protesting not because it's truly something he believed in, but rather that he was doing it because he knew he could make more money?
Re:Censorship is hard to reverse (Score:5, Insightful)
Did anybody get fired or deplatformed for supporting Kaepernick?
If an NFL team did sign Kaepernick it's pretty clear that President Trump would have encouraged his followers to boycott the team and probably called for the executives to be fired.
The very fact he lost his NFL career is evidence of how effective the threat of "cancellation" was towards the group of people who's support mattered.
Did Kaepernick not become insanely more wealthy through is theatrics? Check your bias.
Lets be clear.
Kaepernick was given the choice of ending his protest or losing a career that paid him millions.
He chose to continue his protest.
I wouldn't call that "theatrics" as much as an extraordinary level of self-sacrifice.
Re: (Score:2)
He was literally blackballed from an industry at the demand of the cross burners. Maybe your gaslighting take is shitty.
Re: (Score:3)
Kaepernick wasn't "censored" by conservatives. The issue was he was doing his protest theater while engaged in his job as a sports entertainer.
He was literally blackballed from an industry at the demand of the cross burners. Maybe your gaslighting take is shitty.
You might be able to make a case that he was "literally blackballed from an industry". The rest of your statement is garbage.
WRT the "blackballing" (hey, is this now a racist thing to say?), here's a statement from an ex-NFL executive https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyl... [yahoo.com]
“[F]or many owners it always came back to the same thing,” Lockhart wrote. “Signing Kaepernick, they thought, was bad for business. An executive from one team that considered signing Kaepernick told me the team projected lo
Re:Censorship is hard to reverse (Score:5, Insightful)
Criticism isn't censorship. Conservatives didn't get Kaepernick kicked off of Facebook or Twitter. They didn't block him from signing endorsement deals. He just didn't get a job, because he -- like the Basecamp quitters -- made it clear that he thought his personal speech should be allowed on his employer's time and premises.
Re:Censorship is hard to reverse (Score:5, Insightful)
There were plenty of people calling for him to be boycotted and never work again. That was one of the reasons why he was dropped, until the NFL realised it was on the wrong side of history with that one.
Re: (Score:3)
Lock her up! Oops, I mean lock him up.
Re: (Score:3)
"he -- like the Basecamp quitters -- made it clear that he thought his personal speech should be allowed on his employer's time and premises."
So clearly you would be in favor of team owners not having their franchises renewed because they not only engage in personal speech on company time and premised but also for forcing that speech in their employees.
Different kinds of lies (Score:3)
It think you were being rhetorical or sarcastic, but the difference is hypocrisy. I recently figured out how to classify hypocrisy within the ontology of lies. If you think about it carefully, hypocrisy is a kind of Level 0 self-contradiction. It's just conditional on some external circumstance rather than conflicting directly against itself. The Level-0 lies are still obvious without even looking at the evidence, since it is not possible for both branches to be true (though logic allows for both to be fals
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's worse. He was blackballed.
Re: (Score:2)
What colour are they now?
Re: (Score:2)
crying Fire in a theater (Score:2)
Bad vaccine advice.
bad stock advice.
We do try to regulate bad advice in cases where the bad advice can spread and do damage faster than it can be corrected.
Keeping trump off facebook is a pefect example of squelching a bad advisor once he has been proven bad.
It's NOT apriori censorship. It's evaluating someones track record ad giving them a kerma of minus infinity.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Conservatives DON'T say bakers shouldn't bake wedding cakes for the gays, they say bakers should not be forced to bake cakes when they do not want to. And why they don't want to isn't always at issue.
At least be honest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First, there are conservatives and Christians who adamantly state no cakes, or services, should be given to gay people. Full stop. Some of these same people also say gays should be killed. Why? For the same reason they don't want to bake a cake: their religious beliefs.
Fine. Trot out their religion to justify not making a cake. Not sure how
Re: Censorship is hard to reverse (Score:2)
I'm a conservative. I'm a Christian. Our church welcomes gays into our worship. We don't preach death to gays, and I know of no mainstream Christians that do.
And yes, if you're a baker, why would you not nbe permitted to deny service to someone for your own reasons? As a bank, or utility, no, you've taken on a business more essential. But cakes aren't doing essential they must be delivered no matter the conditions...
You've gotten a warped sense of Christianity. That's unfortunate, and it's wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
It's allowable to deny religious services to people who don't follow the tenets of the religion. For instance, a preacher can refuse to perform a wedding for a gay couple.
But it is not allowed to refuse services that are not religious services just because those people do not follow the tenets of the religion. Full stop.
Baking cakes is a secular activity, not a religious one. You can't refuse secular services for religious reasons. This is something that Jesus himself espoused: "Give to Caesar what is Caesa
Re: (Score:2)
Even preachers refusing to officiate at marriage ceremonies for those they believe do not adhere to the tenets of their faith is challenged occasionally. A lesser example, several religious organizations have been challenged in their employment practices, for denying employment to candidates that literally oppose their faith. Many, probably most, were easily defined as 'secular' activities, such as schools. A non-secular school might differ in that opnion.
I plainly disagree with you. If a baker, for example
Re: (Score:2)
Both custom cake artistry and facebook tie directly to the First Amendment. May I remind you the left got freedom of speech expanded to freedom of expression, including art.
Government should not be forcing speech for either case. For facebook, they threaten section 230 changes unless they censor harrassment, oh look, start with the harrassing postings and tweets of our political opponents.
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. Facebook as a platform is NOT required to just allow everything, willy-nilly. BTW: facebook and twitter do work with the government. So facebook censorship is government censorship.
That is literally not how it works. A private company does not become a "government entity" simply because at some time they had a small government contract. [youtube.com] If you think your t
Re: Censorship is hard to reverse (Score:3)
Facebook calls itself a neutral platform - like mail or telephone.
No they don't. Not that the word 'platform' has any relevant legal meaning anyway.
Facebook denies that it is a publisher.
Not quite. Facebook undoubtedly is a publisher of its own content and I'm sure they have no problems saying so. They're just not a publisher of third party content online.
But, by censoring opinions facebook does not like, facebook is acting exactly like a publisher. It is not fair for facebook to have it both ways.
It's super fair. As a matter of public policy we want sites to be able to set their own standards. A web forum about movies doesn't want people talking about cars or baseball (except to the extent they appear in movies). A newspaper's online site allows comme
Re: (Score:2)
Having Trump on their platform wouldn't make them culpable.
What would make them culpable, except for Section 230, was the fact that people used their platform to organize illegal activities on January 6th. Trump had no part in that planning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Censorship is hard to reverse (Score:4, Insightful)
There was no treason, no coup, no attempt at either
Protesters were not looking to capture political leaders once they got inside? What were the zip ties for?
no leader
Yet many of the protestors claim that they were there because Trump asked them to come. Did you listen to his fiery speech that day? Sure, he did not break in the building with the protestors, but he sure did a lot of inciting beforehand.
It was a mostly peaceful protest, and not even a little bit fiery.
People died at this peaceful protest. Are we living on the same planet?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently Capitol police [yahoo.com] were the ones who brought them. Get with three months ago, dude.
Protesting is legal, my friend. There's nothing wrong with asking people to protest an action that you don't like.
Re: (Score:3)
They delayed the transfer of power for an elected leader. I'd certainly call that an attempt. I also wish Ashli Babbit would have simply complied with the lawful order of the police, she would be alive today.
Re: (Score:2)
To appease officials who want them to censor harrassment or section 230 "might get broken" is not facebook choosing of its own free will.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Worst riot in the history of the country? For real? It was bad not the even close to being the worst. Maybe you should study your history. But hey, Orange Man bad.
Re: (Score:3)
I think a riot that almost upends 200+ years of peacefully transferred power is worse than a riot that burns half a city. Like LBJ said: "These are the stakes . . ."
Remember Cons, the government big enough to make everyone listen to you is big enough to make sure nobody can hear you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
" worst riot in the history of the country?"
Um, there are plenty of other incidents that compete for that title. 'Rodney King' riots for one, and then the unpleasantness in Portland. And several others.
Fake it baby.
Re:Contextualized (Score:4, Informative)
None of those were the worst.
New York City draft riots [wikipedia.org]
Re: Contextualized (Score:2)
Thanks. I owe ya one.
Re:Contextualized (Score:4)
Whiskey rebellion, last summer with loss of chunks of city to autonomous zones for many weeks.
But hey, rhetoric is the name of the game.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now who's lying?
Re: (Score:2)
https://legal-dictionary.thefr... [thefreedictionary.com]
Read and educate yourself. There was no incitement, as it did not meet the legal definition.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
It wasn't his speech people were pointing out as the issue (although some likely took that erroneous route) it was the months of sowing discord about the election process for the months leading up the election. When you tell people over and over that the only way you can lose is if it is "rigged" then people are going to believe that narrative and be angered by it.
We just went through a 2-3 week nonstop news cycle about the "crisis" at the border, haven't heard much about it the past couple weeks as now the crisis is all about "wokeness". Notice how after the election we hear almost nothing about "migrant caravans" anymore?
https://www.mediamatters.org/immigration/right-wing-media-ecosystem-has-dominated-national-immigration-narrative [mediamatters.org]
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump is blamed for people entering the Capitol illegally, though they did so 18 minutes before he even finished his speech. In addition, the initial perpetrators were a mile and a half from Trump, meaning it was unlikely they heard a word he said.
You don't actually believe that do you? Trump spent weeks spreading false information about the election, he spent weeks attacking the very process that elected him in the first place. No one in their right mind an make the statement that he had nothing to do with the actions that followed. He wanted it to happen. He was happy it happened. He's just upset now that it didn't go well.
Re: (Score:2)
though they did so 18 minutes before he even finished his speech. In addition, the initial perpetrators were a mile and a half from Trump, meaning it was unlikely they heard a word he said.
The fact that people with your thought processes exist is a real bad indictment on the American education system. Or is Trump secretly holding your family hostage?
Re: (Score:3)
You may need to recheck your timeline.
12:53 p.m.: Rioters overwhelm police along the outer perimeter west of the Capitol building, pushing aside temporary fencing. Some protesters immediately follow, while others, at least initially, remain behind and admonish the others: "Don't do it. You're breaking the law." ...
1:10 p.m.: President Trump ends his speech by encouraging the crowd to march to the Capitol: "We’re going to try and give them [Republicans] the kind of pride and boldness that they need to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Think about what you are asking though, do you not see the chilling effects or long term consequences of declaring these social media sites "public squares" with no way to moderate a TOS? You really want to leave discourse up to the court system? It's a bad situation I agree but I think going the other way will have unintended consequences, it's just easy to get upset about now. If social media has it's moderation abilities hampered to such a degree they will just restrict posting for everyone on the fron
Re: (Score:2)
"This message brought to you by the Republican Party."