Donald Trump meets Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to discuss social media

[midian182]

Recap: Donald Trump seems to have a love-hate relationship with Twitter. The president constantly tweets to his 60 million followers and often uses the microblogging site to announce government policies, but he has repeatedly accused it of political bias. Yesterday, Trump and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey had a meeting to discuss his grievances and social media in general.

Before the meeting took place, Trump tweeted that Twitter doesn’t treat him well as a Republican. “Very discriminatory, hard for people to sign on. Constantly taking people off list. Big complaints from many people,” he wrote, before accusing the site of “political games.”

Later, Trump tweeted a picture of the meeting, which was also attended by White House director of social media Dan Scavino and Vijaya Gadde, Twitter's head of legal, policy, and trust & safety.

Great meeting this afternoon at the @WhiteHouse with @Jack from @Twitter. Lots of subjects discussed regarding their platform, and the world of social media in general. Look forward to keeping an open dialogue! pic.twitter.com/QnZi579eFb

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 23, 2019

“Lots of subjects discussed regarding their platform, and the world of social media in general. Look forward to keeping an open dialogue!” wrote the president.

A Twitter spokesperson offered more information on which topics were discussed: “Jack had a constructive meeting with the President of the United States today at the president's invitation. They discussed Twitter's commitment to protecting the health of the public conversation ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections and efforts underway to respond to the opioid crisis."

Back in October, Trump accused Twitter of removing many of his followers. The Washington Post claims a "significant portion" of the meeting revolved around this accusation, which Twitter says can happen as it deletes spam accounts.

Twitter has removed many people from my account and, more importantly, they have seemingly done something that makes it much harder to join - they have stifled growth to a point where it is obvious to all. A few weeks ago it was a Rocket Ship, now it is a Blimp! Total Bias?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 26, 2018

In 2016, Twitter said it would ban Donald Trump if he violated the site’s rules prohibiting violent threats, harassment, and hateful conduct. It later backtracked, saying it wouldn’t remove these tweets because they are newsworthy.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/79779-donald-trump-meets-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-discuss.html

 

[Uncle Al]

That's what happens when you let a minor player like Trump try to boss you around .... if they weren't worried about the revenue stream they could / should ban all political affiliations showing no favoritism to any and force the "discussions" back to the mainstream media where they belong ....... never going to happen, but heck, if I'm going to dream I'll dream BIG!

 

[Morris Minor]

Mainstream media lol

 

[Anon666123]

That's what happens when you let a minor player like Trump try to boss you around .... if they weren't worried about the revenue stream they could / should ban all political affiliations showing no favoritism to any and force the "discussions" back to the mainstream media where they belong ....... never going to happen, but heck, if I'm going to dream I'll dream BIG!

Are you serious? The last thing we need is for mainstream media to come back and recapture the main political discussion in this country. The one redeeming quality of social media is that it can make political discussion decentralized and not as easily controlled.

 

[Evernessince]

That's what happens when you let a minor player like Trump try to boss you around .... if they weren't worried about the revenue stream they could / should ban all political affiliations showing no favoritism to any and force the "discussions" back to the mainstream media where they belong ....... never going to happen, but heck, if I'm going to dream I'll dream BIG!

Are you serious? The last thing we need is for mainstream media to come back and recapture the main political discussion in this country. The one redeeming quality of social media is that it can make political discussion decentralized and not as easily controlled.

Switching from vetted journalists and reporters to random old bats on your facebook news feed is not a redeeming quality.

And have you not been watching the news? Social media HAS been influenced on a large scale. It is easier to manipulate and control, not harder.

 

[Anon666123]

Switching from vetted journalists and reporters to random old bats on your facebook news feed is not a redeeming quality.

And have you not been watching the news? Social media HAS been influenced on a large scale. It is easier to manipulate and control, not harder.

You are getting that info from the news?! Of course they will tell you social media can’t be trusted- socials threaten their business. I agree you can’t trust each individual person, but as a collective you can find a diverse and more reflective general opinion on social media vs listening to a single channel of MSM. Nowadays it’s blatant bias depending on which channel you chose. On socials you can follow a bunch of different sources and get the story from multiple angles and make your own opinions from there. Edit- you can also include MSM in those sources if you wish. The comment I was replying to mentioned silencing/banning political discussion from social media which would be very counter-productive and limiting.

 

[netman]

This was basically a kiss a** meeting... What Twitter should do is to become DT's spell checker on his tweets in order to prevent his embarrassment around the world!

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Dorsey should have kicked Trump's @rse to the kerb. What a mor0n.

 

[Jon Heil]

Ha, who uses twatter, no need to poop and type... yawn another pointless app, just like SnapCrap but guess if you want to send nudies

 

[Evernessince]

You are getting that info from the news?! Of course they will tell you social media can’t be trusted- socials threaten their business. I agree you can’t trust each individual person, but as a collective you can find a diverse and more reflective general opinion on social media vs listening to a single channel of MSM. Nowadays it’s blatant bias depending on which channel you chose. On socials you can follow a bunch of different sources and get the story from multiple angles and make your own opinions from there. Edit- you can also include MSM in those sources if you wish. The comment I was replying to mentioned silencing/banning political discussion from social media which would be very counter-productive and limiting.

Humans don't work like that. If humans all had the lone wolf mentality, they would. Unfortunately a majority of humans search for a group to identify with and start to mirror that group's values. Mainstream media or social media, general groups that control the basis of thinking will always rule.

The internet may have changed the game but in the end human psychology remains the same.

 

[Danny101]

You are getting that info from the news?! Of course they will tell you social media can’t be trusted- socials threaten their business. I agree you can’t trust each individual person, but as a collective you can find a diverse and more reflective general opinion on social media vs listening to a single channel of MSM. Nowadays it’s blatant bias depending on which channel you chose. On socials you can follow a bunch of different sources and get the story from multiple angles and make your own opinions from there. Edit- you can also include MSM in those sources if you wish. The comment I was replying to mentioned silencing/banning political discussion from social media which would be very counter-productive and limiting.

Humans don't work like that. If humans all had the lone wolf mentality, they would. Unfortunately a majority of humans search for a group to identify with and start to mirror that group's values. Mainstream media or social media, general groups that control the basis of thinking will always rule.

The internet may have changed the game but in the end human psychology remains the same.

I've seen Facebook silence somebody who clearly disagrees with me on an issue. Not that I would have really cared for their argument anyway, but still, I would like to be able to see it. It's social media manipulators trying to keep everyone in their box with no real debate or dialogue. I'm still usually able to see it, by logging in on a different device, but most people won't do that extra step.

 

[takemaru]

"vetted journalists"

...but who vets the journalists? The national TV in Hungary changes leadership the moment an other party gets the majority vote. No one watches it, it is, and always have been the propaganda factory of the current government.
The same thing can be said about the mainstream media. They are owned by private corporations, they are putting out "(click-)bait" news to draw in viewership; they hire "journalists" to write smear-pieces of their competition. In the past, they were held to a higher standard, that's why boomers still watching/reading them. In the older generation's mind, the mainstream media still has some prestige.
"Social media HAS been influenced on a large scale."
That's not very specific. Are you talking about the bullshit Russia-gate conspiracy?
"It is easier to manipulate and control, not harder."
Really? It is easier to control millions of independent SMS accounts, rather than a small group of journalist, who are beholden to their employer?
There is no such thing as a perfect news source. It's up to the consumer to see through the bullshit, the sources spouting. If you reduce the number of sources, how people can inform themselves, you are just restricting the consumer's options. Curated sources aren't any better, than "random old bats on your facebook news feed", if the curator is biased or has an agenda to push.

 

[Evernessince]

Really? It is easier to control millions of independent SMS accounts, rather than a small group of journalist, who are beholden to their employer?
There is no such thing as a perfect news source. It's up to the consumer to see through the bullshit, the sources spouting. If you reduce the number of sources, how people can inform themselves, you are just restricting the consumer's options. Curated sources aren't any better, than "random old bats on your facebook news feed", if the curator is biased or has an agenda to push.

Yes, yes it is. Nothing I say will change your mind though, by your post you have long since made it up.