Donald Trump's social network set to arrive in "two to three months"

Arbie

Posts: 272   +502
As if Trump hasn't done enough harm to our country already. He should slink off and expire.

Instead we'll have a prime-time alt-right echo chamber keeping the Election Steal Big Lie (and his litany of other lies) on life support, leaking poison into our national consciousness.

Trump's niece, a clinical psychologist, called him "the most dangerous man in the world". Ted Cruz called him "a pathological liar". And that's just family and friends being kind. He was perfectly willing to have our democracy overthrown and himself installed as dictator - applauding as his giant mob attacked Congress - simply to feed his ego. Unbelievable.

We need to be rid of him and his obsessions.
 
Last edited:

wiyosaya

Posts: 6,111   +4,358
There was tons of evidence. The courts, which were bought off by Facebook, simply refused to hear that evidence. Time Magazine already exposed the entire conspiracy to steal the election..what rock have you been under?
:rolleyes: Uh Huh. Time Magazine? :laughing:Since when has Time Magazine had standing as a court? I guess, in your eyes, the courts must be full of you-know-what. If Time Magazine had evidence, why on Earth did Trumpy's lawyers not have evidence that stood up in court?

Personally, I think you and many like you are living under that rock. Do you have evidence of Fakebook buying off courts or is that yet another Qism? 🤣

And Fakebook bought off the Supreme Court, too, right? 🤣
 
Last edited:

terzaerian

Posts: 960   +1,399
The thing is, the ruling was not against twitter. It was against Trump, as President, for blocking the user(s) - he was a public official. I think the basis for the ruling was that Trump could not, as a public official, do something that amounted to a violation of the 1st Amendment rights of user(s) he wanted to block.
This is all on Twitter though. If Twitter serves a function to disseminate vital public information, then it's no longer really a private platform. Likewise, Twitter deleting his posts, for whatever reason, would also be illegal as it would be tantamount to deleting federal records.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 6,111   +4,358
This is all on Twitter though. If Twitter serves a function to disseminate vital public information, then it's no longer really a private platform. Likewise, Twitter deleting his posts, for whatever reason, would also be illegal as it would be tantamount to deleting federal records.
No, it is not all on Twitter. Once Trump became a private citizen, Twitter had/has any right to treat him as a private citizen. I am sure that all Trumpy's posts are archived in the Library of Congress. That is the job of the Library of Congress not twitter.

And twitter serving to disseminate vital public information? Really? 🤣
 

terzaerian

Posts: 960   +1,399
No, it is not all on Twitter. Once Trump became a private citizen, Twitter had/has any right to treat him as a private citizen. I am sure that all Trumpy's posts are archived in the Library of Congress. That is the job of the Library of Congress not twitter.

And twitter serving to disseminate vital public information? Really? 🤣
Twitter deleted his posts (noticeably calling for protests to be peaceful) on January 6, while he was still in office.

Yes, Twitter as a means to disseminate vital public information was the crux of the argument used to successfully sue Trump for blocking citizens on Twitter.

I'm tired of the orange boogeyman but not as tired as I am of the constant partisan mental gymnastics of people trying to justify how Twitter is a private platform, until it isn't, and a public platform, until it isn't. And most of all I'm tired of Twitter, whose existence has made the Internet a worse place by muddying the two together.
 
Last edited:

wiyosaya

Posts: 6,111   +4,358
Twitter deleted his posts (noticeably calling for protests to be peaceful) on January 6, while he was still in office.

Yes, Twitter as a means to disseminate vital public information was the crux of the argument used to successfully sue Trump for blocking citizens on Twitter.

I'm tired of the orange boogeyman but not as tired as I am of the constant partisan mental gymnastics of people trying to justify how Twitter is a private platform, until it isn't, and a public platform, until it isn't. And most of all I'm tired of Twitter, whose existence has made the Internet a worse place by muddying the two together.
Dissemination of vital public information, as you call it, was foist on Twitter by Trumpy's use of the platform. And like I said, it is not the job of twitter to archive trumpy's posts.

By the time of January 6th, Trumpy had no recourse from the courts, and as you well know, since it is not exclusive to the left or the right, that presidents/presidential decisions are often taken to the courts.

Perhaps you might gain a better understanding of the issue by studying the application of 1st Amendment rights - it is a simple fact that 1st Amendment rights only apply to the government establishing laws restricting those rights (which have been further clarified by Supreme Court decisions): it is pretty clearly stated in the amendment -
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.

In fact, it is highly possible that if any law is ever established regarding the ability of "social media" sites to censor their posts, that it would be nullified on the basis of it being a violation of the first amendment rights of the social media sites.

And Trump blocking users posts on Twitter is pretty clearly a case of a president acting in his capacity as a government official infringing on the 1st amendment rights of US citizens.
 

terzaerian

Posts: 960   +1,399
Dissemination of vital public information, as you call it, was foist on Twitter by Trumpy's use of the platform. And like I said, it is not the job of twitter to archive trumpy's posts.

No, it was foisted the moment federal administrations and officials decided to register Twitter accounts. Twitter should not have allowed them to use the platform in official capacity, because they knew it would erode their status as a private platform, and federal administrations should have had the restraint not to join.

Perhaps you might gain a better understanding of the issue by studying the application of 1st Amendment rights - it is a simple fact that 1st Amendment rights only apply to the government establishing laws restricting those rights (which have been further clarified by Supreme Court decisions): it is pretty clearly stated in the amendment -
This is also a misunderstanding of the spirit of the first amendment. From a strictly legalistic standpoint, yes, it prohibits congress from violating freedom of speech. But in so doing it recognizes that freedom of speech is a natural right. A private entity violating freedom of speech is violating freedom of speech, even if, from a strictly legal standpoint, it has done nothing actionable, in the same way another country (like Russia, or China) violating freedom of speech is violating freedom of speech. The right doesn't cease to exist at the boundaries of the federal government. Considering Twitter has more money than many other countries on this planet, there is no reason to give it the benefit of the doubt here.


In fact, it is highly possible that if any law is ever established regarding the ability of "social media" sites to censor their posts, that it would be nullified on the basis of it being a violation of the first amendment rights of the social media sites.
On this we're agreed. Trump trying to strike down Section 230 was *****ic.
 

Arbie

Posts: 272   +502
Leftist Media has been heavily involved in suppressing the massive evidence of fraud during the recent election.
First you beg the question that there was massive fraud (!). Of which there would necessarily be substantial evidence. Then you suppose that "media" of any type could "suppress" such evidence. That's all ludicrous.

The media can't, didn't, and wouldn't suppress evidence. There were ~60 complete, formal court cases in which no fraud was even alleged (!!). The media reported on all of these, down to the last lawyer and judge remarks. Those cases alone were BIG NEWS. Finding significant fraud would have been BIGGER NEWS - lifetime news; Pulitzer Prize news. But after weeks of tearing the nation apart politically, and endless ranting from Trump and his paid drones... there wasn't any fraud!! It's all a lie!

But - it's a Big Lie. Big Lies are hard to simply disbelieve because they're so bold and so outrageous. Many people - especially those who want to believe - just can't imagine that it's all false.

Use just a little common sense: In our society, nobody could keep significant election fraud - let alone massive fraud - secret for more than two days. Never mind months of relentless investigations funded by hundreds of millions of dollars, dozens of legal teams etc etc. Clue: it was and is all a lie.

At least to you there's no direct consequence (other than forum ridicule) for buying it. Think about those hundreds now under arrest who believed the lie and attacked Congress. Their lives are more or less ruined. Many are cursing Trump for using them like toilet paper. As one of their lawyers put it "My client may go to jail for years on a felony, while Trump lives in luxury".

A very sad chapter in American history which we should close. Repeating the Election Steal Big Lie is both ignorant and harmful.
 
Last edited:

Arbie

Posts: 272   +502
There was tons of evidence. The courts, which were bought off by Facebook, simply refused to hear that evidence. Time Magazine already exposed the entire conspiracy to steal the election..
"The courts were bought off by Facebook"? Will you simply believe anything?*

"Time Magazine exposed..." Did you actually read the Time article?? It says nothing about the election being stolen!! It outlines how big anti-Trump money got together and funded well-organized opposition to him. Part of this went towards lobbying to better enable vote by mail, followed by encouraging those who rarely voted to do exactly that. This "get out the vote" effort was a major factor. There is zero about those votes being illegitimate.

There was very big money on the Trump side too, but unlike 2016 they were outplayed, even with Russian help. And of course Trump had come to be despised by many of his 2016 supporters. So... most Republicans won (think about that!) while he lost.

The problem then was that in his own mind, Trump is a god. For him to lose meant it must have been stolen. Nobody who wanted to still be employed or endorsed by him dared disagree. So we played out the disgraceful national farce of challenging every single point in every possible court. With the expected (by everyone except Trump) result.

* Guess Facebook missed the bidding window on this one:
Facebook fails to buy off Supreme Court
 
Last edited:

wiyosaya

Posts: 6,111   +4,358
No, it was foisted the moment federal administrations and officials decided to register Twitter accounts. Twitter should not have allowed them to use the platform in official capacity, because they knew it would erode their status as a private platform, and federal administrations should have had the restraint not to join.
Mental gymnastics on your part, or just an opinion? Twitter was not started by the government, and is not run by the government. Therefore, it is not an arm of the government subject to the same limitations as stated in the first amendment. In fact, it would be argued, in the event of any court fight on the subject, that by forcing them or other social media outlets to leave posts up that they decide violate their terms of service is an infringement on the particular social media outlet's first amendment rights.


This is also a misunderstanding of the spirit of the first amendment. From a strictly legalistic standpoint, yes, it prohibits congress from violating freedom of speech. But in so doing it recognizes that freedom of speech is a natural right. A private entity violating freedom of speech is violating freedom of speech, even if, from a strictly legal standpoint, it has done nothing actionable, in the same way another country (like Russia, or China) violating freedom of speech is violating freedom of speech. The right doesn't cease to exist at the boundaries of the federal government. Considering Twitter has more money than many other countries on this planet, there is no reason to give it the benefit of the doubt here.
You'll have to argue that in front of the Supreme Court. Over the years, SCOTUS has further defined what is and what is not part of 1st amendment rights. One of those decisions clearly established that since inciting violence is not required for the free exchange of ideas and is, therefore, not part of 1st amendment rights. It is how our government works, and as I see it, those saying 1st amendment rights should be extended beyond the bounds of what the constitution says and how it is interpreted by SCOTUS, are the ones exercising mental gymnastics. You may want to argue that your first amendment rights are being infringed if you were to incite violence, but it has already been decided by SCOTUS that you cannot, and police agencies have the right to arrest you and charge you with inciting violence.

Like it or not, 1st amendment rights have limitations.



On this we're agreed. Trump trying to strike down Section 230 was *****ic.
We do agree on a few things.
 

fl21289

Posts: 271   +356
Twitter deleted his posts (noticeably calling for protests to be peaceful) on January 6, while he was still in office.

Yes, Twitter as a means to disseminate vital public information was the crux of the argument used to successfully sue Trump for blocking citizens on Twitter.

I'm tired of the orange boogeyman but not as tired as I am of the constant partisan mental gymnastics of people trying to justify how Twitter is a private platform, until it isn't, and a public platform, until it isn't. And most of all I'm tired of Twitter, whose existence has made the Internet a worse place by muddying the two together.

Agree with you 100% bro. Hence, why I deleted all social media and never signed up for it for the past 6 years.
 

Puiu

Posts: 4,682   +3,548
TechSpot Elite
Not quite correct.

- A free market cannot exist when the primary corporations conspire to manipulate the public. It's called a monopoly. It's a federal crime. The public really has no defense unless the government steps in and either breaks up or otherwise throttles the corporations. That's what the Anti-Trust laws are for.

- The attacks on Trump were purely driven by vicious Leftist hatred. They had absolutely nothing to do with the free market or increasing profits for Amazon, Google, Facebook.

- Big Social Media is a public forum. Driving people out of a public forum is an extremely serious federal crime.

- Leftist Media has been heavily involved in suppressing the massive evidence of fraud during the recent election. This is what's called 'election tampering' and is an extremely serious crime.
The moment you mention "election fraud" nobody will take you seriously. Did you find the evidence in a garbage bin in the parking lot?

There was tons of evidence. The courts, which were bought off by Facebook, simply refused to hear that evidence. Time Magazine already exposed the entire conspiracy to steal the election..what rock have you been under?

Ah yes, the "exposed" conspiracy theory. :) That rock has more evidence than you.
 
Last edited:

wiyosaya

Posts: 6,111   +4,358
Agree with you 100% bro. Hence, why I deleted all social media and never signed up for it for the past 6 years.
One other TS user agreeing, here. I have never had social media accounts with either Fakebook or Tweeter, and unless I start a business where there might be an advantage, I never will. IMO, they are a complete waste of time.
 

Fox God Records

Posts: 57   +50
The problem then was that in his own mind, Trump is a god. For him to lose meant it must have been stolen. Nobody who wanted to still be employed or endorsed by him dared disagree. So we played out the disgraceful national farce of challenging every single point in every possible court. With the expected (by everyone except Trump) result.

Remember, Dumpster said -- in a campaign speech -- that a rigged election was the only way he was going to lose.
 

Nunya

Posts: 16   +2
There was tons of evidence. The courts, which were bought off by Facebook, simply refused to hear that evidence. Time Magazine already exposed the entire conspiracy to steal the election..what rock have you been under?

You might want to try reading that Time report just a little bit closer. They
made no claims of voter fraud, election fraud, illegal amendment of laws,
etc., etc., ad nauseam...because there was none. Time made no such
claims, nor included any such details.

Here's an article about the Time report you might like to read.

"The Time magazine expose on the conspiracy to elect Biden is not what you think it is"

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...cy-to-elect-biden-is-not-what-you-think-it-is
 

terzaerian

Posts: 960   +1,399
You might want to try reading that Time report just a little bit closer. They
made no claims of voter fraud, election fraud, illegal amendment of laws,
etc., etc., ad nauseam...because there was none. Time made no such
claims, nor included any such details.

Here's an article about the Time report you might like to read.

"The Time magazine expose on the conspiracy to elect Biden is not what you think it is"

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...cy-to-elect-biden-is-not-what-you-think-it-is
Al Capone never admitted to murdering anyone, and was never convicted for murder, therefore, he never murdered.
 

bobc4012

Posts: 143   +57
The thing is, the ruling was not against twitter. It was against Trump, as President, for blocking the user(s) - he was a public official. I think the basis for the ruling was that Trump could not, as a public official, do something that amounted to a violation of the 1st Amendment rights of user(s) he wanted to block.
Then we all have a problem if you block someone because you don't like their point of view. Shades of NAZIism, especially those who agree with blocking those who have opposing points of view. Be careful what you wish for as it will come back to bite you in the rear. BTW, whether you like Trump or not, he never told people to storm the Capitol building like the left-wing media would like you to believe if you saw his tweets and the video.
 

bobc4012

Posts: 143   +57
The moment you mention "election fraud" nobody will take you seriously. Did you find the evidence in a garbage bin in the parking lot?
Ah yes, the "exposed" conspiracy theory. :) That rock has more evidence than you.
Guess what. You can't get to see those votes. There were stacks of mail-in votes in PA that had only Biden's checked with a nicely printer-filled marking for him and no other candidate selected. Hmm. Those who tried to expose all this were threatened either directly or their family members would come to harm.
 

Puiu

Posts: 4,682   +3,548
TechSpot Elite
Guess what. You can't get to see those votes. There were stacks of mail-in votes in PA that had only Biden's checked with a nicely printer-filled marking for him and no other candidate selected. Hmm. Those who tried to expose all this were threatened either directly or their family members would come to harm.
Ah yes, wild fantasies from people who can't accept reality.

Guess what, Biden can't see those votes either and he doesn't need to. He just won. You are forgetting the simple fact that even in 2016 Trump lost the popular vote by millions. He tried to fool his supporters by calling the election "rigged" a year before it even started and even "nerfed" the postal office because he knew he was really behind in popularity, but people were smarter than that (at least most were).
 

Arbie

Posts: 272   +502
There were stacks of mail-in votes in PA that had only Biden's checked with a nicely printer-filled marking for him and no other candidate selected. Hmm. Those who tried to expose all this were threatened either directly or their family members would come to harm.
So you know this, but Trump's hundred-million dollar legal teams were unable to produce any evidence in court - of this or any other significant fraud.

How is that possible? I understand why you didn't call them (fearing for your life) but didn't they watch Youtube? Didn't they read Parler?

Amazing... just amazing.
 
Last edited:

Arbie

Posts: 272   +502
Trump never told people to storm the Capitol building like the left-wing media would like you to believe
Trump staged his big rally on the same day Congress was deliberating on the vote nearby, promising that "it will be wild". That alone makes his purpose obvious. A few quotes from his speech that day:
“These people are not going to take it any longer... big tech.. rigged it like they’ve never rigged an election before... pure theft... we will stop the steal... you have to get your people to fight... we fight like hell... we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to (give Republicans) the kind of... boldness that they need to take back our country... [or] our country will be destroyed, and we're not gonna stand for that".
After which his mob invaded the Capitol. Which he watched happily. This is what he said and did, as the President of our nation.

You apparently need zero evidence to conclude that the national election was stolen. How much do you need to conclude that Trump caused the riot?
 
Last edited: