Trump's Truth App Bans Criticism of Itself - and Also 'Excessive Use of Capital Letters' (msn.com) 225
Time magazine spotted three things in the terms of service for former U.S. president Trump's "Truth Social" site:
- Despite advertising itself as a platform that will "give a voice to all," according to a press release, TRUTH Social's terms of service state that users may not "disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site." In other words, any user who criticizes Trump or the site can be kicked off the platform...
- [W]hile portraying itself as a refuge for free speech and the "first major rival to 'Big Tech,'" TRUTH Social's terms of service make it clear that the platform not only intends to moderate content — just as Twitter and Facebook do — but reserves the right to remove users for any reason it deems necessary. The terms go on to say that if TRUTH Social decides to terminate or suspend your account, the platform may also sue you — something that Twitter and Facebook's terms don't say. "In addition to terminating or suspending your account, we reserve the right to take appropriate legal action, including without limitation pursuing civil, criminal, and injunctive redress," TRUTH Social's terms state...
- Maybe most notably, the site's list of prohibited activities includes the "excessive use of capital letters," an idiosyncrasy that Trump became known for on Twitter and that no other major social network specifically bans. TRUTH Social's terms also contain some sections written in all-caps.
The terms also specify explicitly that the site considers itself "not responsible" for the accuracy/reliability of what's posted on the site. Yet the Washington Post reports the newly-formed "Trump Media & Technology Group" has already applied for trademark rights for the terms "truthing," "post a truth," and "retruth."
Meanwhile, the Software Freedom Conservancy believes the end of the site's public test launch was directly tied to a recently-discovered violation of a Conservancy license. "Once caught in the act, Trump's Group scrambled and took the site down."
One of the license's authors emphasizes that the license "purposefully treats everyone equally (even people we don't like or agree with), but they must operate under the same rules of the copyleft licenses that apply to everyone else..." To comply with this important FOSS license, Trump's Group needs to immediately make that Corresponding Source available to all who used the site today while it was live. If they fail to do this within 30 days, their rights and permissions in the software are automatically and permanently terminated. That's how AGPLv3's cure provision works — no exceptions — even if you're a real estate mogul, reality television star, or even a former POTUS."
- [W]hile portraying itself as a refuge for free speech and the "first major rival to 'Big Tech,'" TRUTH Social's terms of service make it clear that the platform not only intends to moderate content — just as Twitter and Facebook do — but reserves the right to remove users for any reason it deems necessary. The terms go on to say that if TRUTH Social decides to terminate or suspend your account, the platform may also sue you — something that Twitter and Facebook's terms don't say. "In addition to terminating or suspending your account, we reserve the right to take appropriate legal action, including without limitation pursuing civil, criminal, and injunctive redress," TRUTH Social's terms state...
- Maybe most notably, the site's list of prohibited activities includes the "excessive use of capital letters," an idiosyncrasy that Trump became known for on Twitter and that no other major social network specifically bans. TRUTH Social's terms also contain some sections written in all-caps.
The terms also specify explicitly that the site considers itself "not responsible" for the accuracy/reliability of what's posted on the site. Yet the Washington Post reports the newly-formed "Trump Media & Technology Group" has already applied for trademark rights for the terms "truthing," "post a truth," and "retruth."
Meanwhile, the Software Freedom Conservancy believes the end of the site's public test launch was directly tied to a recently-discovered violation of a Conservancy license. "Once caught in the act, Trump's Group scrambled and took the site down."
One of the license's authors emphasizes that the license "purposefully treats everyone equally (even people we don't like or agree with), but they must operate under the same rules of the copyleft licenses that apply to everyone else..." To comply with this important FOSS license, Trump's Group needs to immediately make that Corresponding Source available to all who used the site today while it was live. If they fail to do this within 30 days, their rights and permissions in the software are automatically and permanently terminated. That's how AGPLv3's cure provision works — no exceptions — even if you're a real estate mogul, reality television star, or even a former POTUS."
Hypocrisy is the language of politics (Score:2, Troll)
Hypocrisy has always been , and likely always will be, the language of politics.
Do as we say, not as we do has been the mantra of all politicians for all of history.
One set of rules for us, another set for you.
This is just Trump demonstrating that whether he's the POTUS or not, he remains a politician.
Re: (Score:2)
Still, if we could stop the hypocrisy, the world would be a better place.
Re: (Score:3)
It's more a demonstration that he's a narcissist who just can't handle losing.
Here we go (Score:2)
Another echo chamber. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like "TRUTH" is unable to handle the very thing it is named for. Instead of being the "free speech" site that every right-wing platform has claimed to be, it's just another right-wing echo chamber where criticizing their viewpoint will get your kicked off the platform.
If the people that invented these sites lacked any more self-awareness then they wouldn't qualify as sentient.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen friends of a certain "ilk" often use the comment "Truth." when re-sharing the sort of content likely to circulate as idiotic memes in that sort of place. So I'm guessing its a common behavior among those people, which kinda explains why they picked that name.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I talked to a guy who said the conservatives were being banned on the primary social media platforms.
I asked him, "Of all the people who post misinformation, what is the majority's persuasion?"
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, I agree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
They sure have it, I can use a good laugh.
TRUTH (Score:2)
Even the name TRUTH does not trump Trump sycophant Kelly Ann Conway's term "alternative facts." Fill in the blanks: TRUTH is to truth as ... is to ...
The TRUTH Is All LIES. (Score:2)
And nothing of value was lost.
Re: (Score:3)
In the 1970s a Soviet general told writer Farley Mowat, "The difference between American propaganda and Soviet propaganda is that we don't believe ours."
Low-energy coders. (Score:2)
Catching an all-caps message and just folding the case of the entire message to lower-case is such a trivially easy thing to do. It's actually less code and less server load than rejecting the messages and providing a error about why.
I'm MAGA now (Score:5, Funny)
I completely agree with Trump's plan to enforce civil prosecutions against excessive use of capital letters.
It's about time we put a stop to this abomination.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent funnier. But why not criminal?
Re: (Score:2)
But have they banned.... (Score:2)
Wait! Isn't "Truth Social" Facebook's new Brand? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm really confused. I kept reading about how Facebook was going to re-brand itself and then this "Truth Social" brand popped up.
I thought that this was Facebook's brilliant idea to rebrand itself.
Am I right?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the funniest so far, but I'm still waiting for someone to do a proper parody of the Fight Club rules for TRUTH Club...
Then I can add the Zeroth rule: "But no rule applies to the WTF Leader of TRUTH Club."
Perhaps someone will write a bot (Score:2)
Humorous (Score:2, Funny)
Funny to use scare quotes around 'Excessive Use of Capital Letters' on a platform that has exactly the same posting filter.
If it's good enough for Slashdot....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was referring to the fact that the site stylised its name as TRUTH Social, with the first word in all caps.
Or perhaps Trump's tendency to use ALL CAPS in his tweets, which would apparently not be allowed on his own website.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair this site is called slashdot and not SLASHDOT
Re:Humorous (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot is not claiming to be a bastion of free speech.
How about multiple exclamation points? (Score:3)
Which are a sure sign of a disturbed mind, according to Terry Pratchett.
Some patrons... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd tell them, but it didn't really do any good the last time [bash.org] it was explained to one of the bozos.
Pravda (Score:5, Insightful)
Leave it to Trump to call his new media platform Pravda without a hint of irony. And then make one of the rules that you can't post pravda about Pravda.
Shocked (Score:2)
Absolutely shocked [slashdot.org].
Nice echo chamber you got there. (Score:2)
It's just going to be an echo chamber of like minded people preaching to like minded people who are already versed in Trumpist dogma
Is as if this was created just to see how low the bar can be set for (anti)social media.
I know, everything Trump does is evil, but... (Score:2)
"...Software Freedom Conservancy believes the end of the site's public test launch was directly tied to a recently-discovered violation of a Conservancy license. "Once caught in the act, Trump's Group scrambled and took the site down."..."
Shouldn't that be EXACTLY what they should do if they find they're violating a GPL or whatever? Stop to make sure they're in compliance?
You will not taunt (Score:2)
Happy Fun Ball(tm).
Re: (Score:2)
Trademarks (Score:2)
Value Signaling? (Score:2)
"Truth", in Russian is "" (Pravda) - which is also the name of the official newspaper / propaganda outlet of the Soviet Communist Party. May I presume that it's not just a happy accident that the service is named after a Soviet propaganda channel? I'm guessing that Trump's overseas supporters are soiling their trousers from laughing so hard.
Re:Same difference (Score:5, Insightful)
So if Twitter, FB, YouTube all censored similarly, why is this looking like an attempt to criticize the new platform?
Because the con artist repeatedly whined he was being censored, how these private companies were violating the Constitution (no, really. That is what he and others claimed), that there was a cabal against "conservatives" posting their lies.
There's nothing to criticize here.
Everything written is a valid criticism of this trash site because they are doing the exact same thing they whined about, and more so.
Preventing rudeness is something that does not need explaining.
Which is why the con artist and others were kicked off the various sites. For being rude, obnoxious, lying twats. You should be happy they were kicked off if the intent is to prevent rudeness.
If you think your freeedom of speech is violated, make your own platform and in that platform you can express your rights in any way you want.
Which is exactly what the con artist has done and then turns around and does the exact same thing he whined about. It's called hypocrisy. Look it up some time.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
they are doing the exact same thing they whined about, and more so.
And they're doing it before the site is even open, LOL!
Re:Same difference (Score:5, Insightful)
George Orwell couldn't have come up with better terms than "post truth" and "retruth".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> repeatedly whined he was being censored, how these private companies were violating the Constitution
Everyone has a case of Schrodinger's censorship: the idea needs censorship AND also should NOT be censored at the same time. You can only tell once you open the box and asses the idea.
Or for the lay person:
Censorship bad - when it censors our "good" ideas
Censorship good - when it censors others "bad" ideas
EXCEPT THAT IS NOT HOW CENSORSHIP WORKS (all caps for the trigger). Actually that IS how *censorsh
Re:Same difference (Score:4, Funny)
Ideally there would be an open platform for people to discuss uncensored.
I have just created a new cryptocurrency. Would you like to hear more about it? It's a great investment opportunity and you'd be a complete fool to pass up this amazing chance at getting in early on this revolutionary and visionary paradigm-shattering use of blockchain technology.
Horny teenage girls want to do horny teenage girl things with each other! What's too naughty for other sites isn't too naughty here! Start your free trial today.
Single mom discovers this one weird trick that help you cut belly fat each day.
Punch the monkey and win a free TESLA! Holy shitballs!
Re:Same difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Ideally there would be an open platform for people to discuss uncensored.
When a company has a customer that makes other customers leave, the company drops that toxic individual. In some groups this is called 'censorship'.
When a discussion board enforces its 'stay on topic' policy, in some groups that's called "censorship".
When a group of individuals with ties to a specific discussion board go off and do things like attempt an insurrection, the other 3rd parties needed to provide the discussion board, not wanting to be associated with the bad apples, depart. New policies are put into place to prevent a re-occurrence and in some groups that's called "censorship".
But hey, those groups managed to get us talking about reconfigurable definitions of the word 'censorship' and not .. you know.. the violence that triggered the "censorship". I don't get why we're even talking about this right now.
Re:Same difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I’m still waiting for Sean Hannity to undergo waterboarding like he promised.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry... [huffpost.com]
Re:Same difference (Score:5, Insightful)
And those same arguments can't be made about a social network that exists to facilitate an election run by an ex-President who s considered the leader of one of the 2 parties?
Re:Same difference (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Then make those strong arguments instead of blathering about them.
Re:Same difference (Score:5, Interesting)
Strong arguments can be made that Major Social Media Platforms are acting as Government Agents and as such are bound by the Constitution.
Are they using public funds? Utilizing a limited resource (access to broadcast spectrum or right-of-way) with the authorization of the government?
No. Social networks are just privately-run services existing as part of the essentially limitless real estate of the internet. Yes, you can argue that they have most of the eyeballs, but being popular has never been a legitimate justification for right of access to someone else's audience. You could also make the fallacious "town square" analogy, but in this case, the town has teleportation technology (there is no need for people to assemble in the town square when they can freely and instantly assemble elsewhere).
All of these "social networks are violating my free speech!" arguments ultimately distill down to a desire to put speech in front of people who have no interest in seeing it. Sorry, but people also have a right to freedom from speech they don't want to read. If someone puts a "Trump 2024" sign in my front yard, it's getting plucked (my yard, my rules).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope.
Supreme Court - March v. Alabama (1946)
“Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."
In other words, if it acts like a public space, it is a public space as far as Constitutional rights are concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
Strong arguments can be made that Major Social Media Platforms are acting as Government Agents
No they couldn't.
Re: (Score:3)
So a food company that supplies the Navy is acting as a government agency, then?
Is that your "strong argument"?
Re: (Score:3)
Strong arguments can be made that Major Social Media Platforms are acting as Government Agents and as such are bound by the Constitution.
Okay, make one. We'll see how far you get. My guess is the most important part of the constitution that will actually apply is a private company's rights to first amendment protections.
Being big doesn't make you a government agent. It literally does not work anything like that, not in theory, not in practice, and without any basis legally.
Re: (Score:3)
Major Social Media Platforms are acting as Government Agents
It’s been my experience that when people start capitalizing otherwise perfectly normal terms, such as “Government Agents” and “Major Social Media Platforms”, there’s an extremely high likelihood that they’ve bought into a cult and can be safely ignored. After all, their views aren’t falsifiable, so arguing with them is futile, and trying to parse their inanity on the off-chance they got something right is as pointless as checking a broken clock just in case it
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure if you realized this, but they're all clowns. And we're going to keep laughing at them.
Re:Same difference (Score:5, Insightful)
well of course it's not about being illegal, it's about being hypocritical. If he was marketing it as a social media site that censored with a conservative bias instead of a liberal bias, there'd be no story. However he's marketing it as a safe haven for anyone to talk about what they want. Then putting a TOS that basically says "I didn't really mean you are free to talk about what you want, I mean you are free to talk about what I want you to talk about". Anyway I predict this one is going to go the same as every other "free speach" haven on the internet has gone. Especially ones started with a direct right wing founder. The opening wave is going to be the usual swarm of people that were banned from facebook, twitter etc... and hard core trump supporters. Basically literal self identified white supremicists, nazi's, KKK chapters etc... will be the first and hardest to flock to these networks, people that aren't fan of those, won't join out of fear of being associated with them.
It will get the reputation as the nazi site... advertisers hosting services etc... won't want to touch it with a 10' poll.
Re: (Score:3)
then putting a TOS that basically says "I didn't really mean you are free to talk about what you want, I mean you are free to talk about what I want you to talk about".
And it's like "fake news" isn't news that is fake (aka wrong/a lie), but rather that's embarrassing or inconvenient to be discussed.
Re:Same difference (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to remember - to the incestuous white-supremacist alt-right, "free speech" doesn't mean freedom of speech for everyone, it just means FOR THEM. They'll happily - for instance - shoot Harvey Milk [history.com] or Medgar Evers [splcenter.org] dead rather than let them speak. They want to make it a crime to criticize, for instance, the kid rapers who run the Baptist and Catholic religious cults - or as they put it "to defame religion" because they want a fucking theocratic autocracy.
They happily scream lying bullshit claims about being "censored" in order to play the refs [washingtonpost.com] and convince facebook and twitter to bend over backwards and allow right-wing terrorist talk to remain unmoderated. [nbcnews.com]
Trump and the Repugnant Klan Party are terrorists. As such. They lie a lot, and they don't believe 99% of what they say publicly - it's just a front for their white supremacist shitbigotry.
Re: (Score:3)
Does that mean you're interested in police reform now, cos that's still ready to be tackled!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Trump did more reform than Biden... (Score:3)
Propaganda works.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is a born hypocrite. He is happy to play the part, and feels no guilt about it at all, even happiness if it helps him. The last 10 years have shown that.
The same may be said about all politicians, but this is about Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
I am anti Biden who is a total failure and certainly the worst president ever
You think Biden is the worst president ever? Worse than Nixon or Harding?
Biden isn't even the worst president of this century.
Re: (Score:2)
*pole
Anyway, I agree. Some right-wingers will want to be on that list to prove that they are Party-line comrades.
The FBI will have a field day knowing the bastids have built a fence around themselves. Pseudonyms, here we come!
Also, the beta was hacked already and the kiddies are waiting for it to go into production. Who wouldn't want private information on batshit crazy Evangelical Christians and White supremacists?
Finally, the things people post are discoverable in litigation. See Trump.
Re:Same difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah. A Trumper already making excuses. How true to form.
There's a certain irony in one of the biggest documented liars endorsing a platform with "Truth" in its name.
Similarly, there's also irony in having a platform dedicated to free speech which nonetheless feels the need to apply censorship from day one. And censorship for trivial things such as caps and criticizing the platform itself.
I'm guessing by "Truth" they mean "Our truth" - censorship is only censorship when it's applied to Trumper opinions, amirite?
I predict this social network will eventually apply more censorship than any other social platform - because the list of opinions which upset Trump is wide-ranging and ever-growing. It's going to be a little circle-jerk echo-chamber full of Trump fanatics repeating lies to each other.
Re:Same difference (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Say hello to the Trump apologists.
Re:Same difference (Score:5, Insightful)
The claim was that they were just pro speech. This serves as evidence for what a lot of people expected all along, they're only pro their own speech. All other speech can GTFO.
This makes it look like they never really wanted to get rid of echo-chamber safe-spaces. They just wanted one where they could set the rules.
Re:Same difference (Score:5, Interesting)
Why? It's to show how hypocritical they really are.
The claim was that they were just pro speech. This serves as evidence for what a lot of people expected all along, they're only pro their own speech. All other speech can GTFO.
This makes it look like they never really wanted to get rid of echo-chamber safe-spaces. They just wanted one where they could set the rules.
It's actually worse than hypocritical.
They complained that FB and Twitter were censoring people based on their political views (ie, being conservative). It wasn't actually true (they were censored for harassment or promoting violence, etc), but that was the claim.
This site is explicitly banning criticism of Trump and/or the site itself. I've seen FB, Twitter, Zuckerberg, and Dorsey critized in FB and Twitter, heck, I've even seen them criticized by their own employees.
Re: (Score:2)
I think some people will sign up, throw a few "Fuck Trump" lines, and get banned, while they screen-capture the event and post on Twitter showing the underbelly of Truth Social.
Maybe we can label the moderators there, "Social Justice Warriors."
Re: (Score:3)
It's a Communist Social Media Site (Score:5, Insightful)
Just look at what they do and their demonstrated mantra. This is just a rewording of the great Soviet observation: Everyone is equal in Communist Russia, just some people are more equal than others. In this case: Some people's free speech is freer than others.
In essence, both Trump and his mentor Putin both say, your free speech is only free if you agree with me.
Re: (Score:2)
We can rebrand it as "Truth Soviet."
The first rule of TRUTH Club is... (Score:3)
So if Twitter, FB, YouTube all censored similarly, why is this looking like an attempt to criticize the new platform? I haven't given it a try nor know if it's gone online yet, but I already see opposition parties are already making a stand against "free speech".
Regarding excessive use of CAPs. From the beginning of the internet, it's an unwritten rule that using excessive CAPS means yelling and being rude. There's nothing to criticize here. Preventing rudeness is something that does not need explaining. If you think your freeedom of speech is violated, make your own platform and in that platform you can express your rights in any way you want.
I think I like your FP angle, and you apparently need to be requoted against the trollish and insane censors, but I don't like your mostly vacuous Subject. So I'm poking afresh at the main joke angle. These two early rules are just somewhere in the list, but:
The FIRST rule of TRUTH Club is you do not talk about truth.
So any predictions on whether or not the two announced rules (no doubt just a few among MANY to come) will actually apply to "the former guy", who remains dedicated to the principle that "Truth
Re:Same difference (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it would not, because you have completely missed the point of the story.
It's not about whether of not Trump's soon-to-fail social network had the right to arbitrarily silence posters on its site: it's about the hypocrisy of complaining about other sites' moderation actions then doing the exact same thing.
Re:Same difference (Score:4, Informative)
Please show me where in the TOS Facebook, Youtube, or Twitter ban criticism of the platform or it's leaders. The comment was voted down because it made claims that weren't actually true and Trump's new "Free Speech" platform actually censors more than the other networks.
Re: Same difference (Score:2)
Re:time magazine has some mental malfunction (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't get the hypocrisy, there's no help for you.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:time magazine has some mental malfunction (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think Trump's supporters actually believe that. They understand that it means people can say anything that's TRUE, i.e. which Trump has decided is his preferred lie in that moment.
It's a money makeing system for Trump. Like Jordan Peterson's Thinkspot, the only content allowed is content that makes the owner money.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right.
Trump knows nothing about building using ones and zeros. He's farming it out to people who don't give a rat's ass except to get paid.
If it's insecure, faulty, a train wreck, it's still a money-maker for the companies doing the actual work.
If it never goes online, the builders won't give a shit.
Re: (Score:3)
And this is precisely why the site will fail. The right wingnuts get their rocks off by yelling at everyone else. If they are all birds of the same feather on that site, they'll tire of it very quickly. Well that and the teenagers are going to have field day trolling them. Sooner or later they'll cotton on to the trolls so they won't even enjoy that.
First rule of the former alleged president: he destroys everything he touches.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised you didn't beat me to the joke, though I'm not sure where it will appear now relative to your comment. But to repeat the obvious:
The FIRST rule of TRUTH Club is you do not talk about truth.
Duh?
Pravda still exists. Apparently the Communist Party still values the old brand? But the first rule of the real world is you don't have to insistently claim you are telling the truth if you actually are telling the truth. You have to meta-claim your truthiness precisely when you are lying.
The joke that tr
Re: time magazine has some mental malfunction (Score:2)
The site will fail, but not until he's grifted millions from the idiots that drink his brand of kool-aid.
Re: (Score:2)
The site will fail, but not until he's grifted millions from the idiots that drink his brand of kool-aid.
Yep. Look at the stock price.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The same people (Score:5, Informative)
What change? None of those people popping out of the woodwork as you say, have changed. They are being entirely consistent. They aren't saying the new site can't or even shouldn't be run how they please.
The people who launched this new platform were the other people who complained repeatedly that this was "the problem" with Facebook and Twitter.
It's not particularly surprising that their new platform does exactly what the founders complained about the existing platforms, but it is still worth mentioning the hypocrisy of the founders.
The more interesting question, to me, is how you couldn't see this for yourself?
Re: (Score:2)
Like other apologists, they should invoke their faith amendment right.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is complaining about "Truth" socials' policies. They are exclusively complaining about the hypocrisy of it. This has nothing to do with censorship or being private and these people who you claim have changed are being entirely consistent, likewise defending Facebook's freedom while criticizing their own take on misinformation management.
If you think there is something inconsistent here I'm afraid you may have been in some kind of echo chamber.
Re: (Score:3)
It's the ridiculousness of the whole situation. Personally, I don't give a fuck what he does with his pet project, but a pathological narcissistic, antisocial liar calling his page "truth social" is a gift to any comedian on the planet.
But little else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
My idea of a TV show is to on camera show a Trump Republican who is forced to accept the truth. Given how much effort they put into avoiding this it must cause them greater stress than any physical beating could muster.
Re: (Score:2)
This maybe hard to believe, but when Bush was President, Julian Assange was a Folk Hero among liberals!
Re: (Score:3)
No he wasn't, nor do you understand anything about "liberals" beyond your desire to talk shit about them.
Re:MSN is crap. Condems *everything* Trump does (Score:5, Insightful)
"Maybe Trump's site will be just as bad. But, at least, it's the other side of the argument."
There is no other side of the argument. Trump is a criminal grifter, the only things that are "made-up bullshit" come from him.
"Leftists love such propaganda. Leftists live to go into hysterics over everything that isn't radical left totalitarianism."
Pure projection from the brainwashed.
Re: (Score:2)
The 1984 bit isn't with it appearing in the title, but rather trying to constantly use it whenever possible and smothering it as a virtue signal.
"Truthing", "post a truth", and "retruth" is the real 1984 bit. The latter term being the big one, in the same way the main character creates retruths by editing old newspaper stories.
Re: (Score:3)
At this point, it's more laughing at the schoolyard bully because he can no longer beat us up and he's still as ridiculous and stupid as he ever was, just without the ability to beat anyone anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's associated with the Rump brand then it will be unusable anyway. Trump Airlines, Trump steaks, Trump University, Trump casinos, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh? Does the left already invade and spam the forums at Fox, Breitbart, OAN, Stormfront, Infowars, The Blaze, and the other right-wing haunts on the internet, to the point that they are all already unusable? Seriously, that's an actual question. I stay away from all of those and the rest because, speaking only myself of course, I endeavor to avoid those people and their toxicity as much as possible and engage with them as little as possible... not even to troll them. So I don't actually know what the di