We must be living in a simulation. This can’t be happening in real life.
I wish Twitter would not just close his account but ban it, DT's head pop would be epic🤣
Ih my God, this has seriously escalated. Am I getting this right? They flagged a tweet for glorifying violence, which means it’s hidden unless you click on it, and you can’t retweet or reply to it?
yup. Bloomberg is also running the story.
The gloves are off...
Did you see the info CNN published about their crew getting ARRESTED while on the air in Minneapolis??? How in the world can police be so crazy in the middle of a race riot to arrest a reporter of color who is pleading with the police to tell him where they want him to locate his crew while a white reporter looks on in disbelief???
I can understand why Twitter flagged the president’s tweet, which just served to add fuel to the fire...
This from the Washington Post’s “Best Comments” newsletter, a comment that makes an amazing point on how Trump’s efforts could seriously backfire on him.
From MISProf11: “The First Amendment is clear that Trump doesn't have the power to regulate content on any media company. Ironically, repeal of section 230 for online media companies would HURT Trump's ability to post on Twitter. Since it protects those companies from liability associated with false or misleading information, they would have to either provide similar fact checks to those that got Trump all riled up, or remove any of his tweets that contain false, inflammatory, or defamatory information if it were repealed. If they didn't, they could be sued or otherwise held liable when any user uploaded something that anybody perceived to be derogatory. That would mean a lot more work for Twitter and every other media company that allows user content, but it would also mean that a lot of Trump's tweets would have to come down or be notated, since so much of what he tweets is demonstrably false or defamatory.”
This just goes to show how much of a cry baby Trump is, throwing a tantrum because Twitter rightfully called him out on his nonsense.
I'm by no means familiar with American law, let alone Section 230, but from what I read it seemed to me that what Trump is doing (or wants to do) will actually backfire since he doesn't seem to actually know what he's asking for. Then I saw this article and was happy to know that my understanding of it seems to be correct.
Trump has a love of exaggeration and a dodgy relationship with the truth. He has made 18,000 false or misleading claims as of April, many of them on Twitter, according to a database of his not-true statements kept by the Washington Post.
So, if he were to get his latest wish and delete Section 230, he would be removing the protections that allowed him to post whatever he wanted. Not the other way around.
Trump would either have to stop posting untrue things on social media, or Twitter and Facebook would face such a high liability they would be forced to remove more of his posts, or even ban him altogether.
It's also interesting to see how much people are supporting Twitter now and criticising Facebook at the same time.
Jack Dorsey, chief executive of Twitter, took to his site not long after to say Twitter would not back down, presenting a stark contrast to Mr. Zuckerberg, who, in an interview a day earlier with Fox News, said Facebook wasn’t going to judge Mr. Trump’s posts.
Even Facebook's own employees are now questioning the integrity of their employer.
“I have to say I am finding the contortions we have to go through incredibly hard to stomach,” one employee wrote in a comment about the shooting post. “All this points to a very high risk of a violent escalation and civil unrest in November and if we fail the test case here, history will not judge us kindly.”
Meanwhile, news publications across the internet have tested Facebook's stand against fact-checking by posting blatant lies about Zuckerberg to see just how far they can push it.
Satirical sites like The Onion, The Shovel and The Chaser posted fake headlines about Zuckerberg himself, which are still up on their Facebook pages. Some of the headlines accuse him of absurd and clearly fabricated behavior, illegal conduct, or even claim he died from coronavirus — which is false. While these posts could be seen as misinformation, they also make a serious point about the role and responsibilities of social media platforms in today's troubled world.
If there's one thing Trump has accomplished in his tirade against Twitter, it's that people now actually stand behind Twitter while Facebook seems to be collateral damage in the Trump-Twitter feud.
So you understand my initial comment... wouldn’t it be nice if this ended up being a great example of MAD...
Can you imagine a worse thing to do in the middle of a pandemic than withdraw from WHO? We didn’t use to have more than a Trump scandal a day, did we? Now it’s what, 2-3 major scandals a day?
I don’t think Trump is paying any attention to governing at all—I think he is just sitting in the White House blaring out all his conspiracy theories and ripping on anyone who he thinks might take his stage away. It is absolutely incredible to see him thrash about and destroy everything he can get his hands on. Truly nauseating.
I can’t believe policemen can be so stupid as to arrest reporters while the cameras are rolling. There’s a thing called “optics” that they seem to not be aware of.
Donald Trump getting angry at social media companies is like a whale getting angry at the ocean. Trump lives on social media and owes all his success to it just like how a whale lives in the ocean and wouldn’t exist without it. 🐳 🐋 🌊
Cameras are everywhere now, though, so they can’t really calculate that like they have in the past.
A CBS crew was shot with pepper bullets on camera. Who knows what the policeman was thinking? Fog of war?
I grew up in the days of “Officer Friendly.” It was a complete shock when I learned that many LEOs are attracted to that career because they crave power and authority. Eventually, I saw that first-hand in a few male in-laws. Oy. Now, a LEO has to *earn* my trust. What a sad commentary...
I depressed myself by watching the first two episodes of the new Netflix documentary about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. I did it because I thought maybe I could come to understand. But I couldn’t and stopped watching. The cruelty was too much. All I could think is how much like Trump they are. .
In the midst of the Twitter feud and threat to bring in the army and start shooting, once more I had this desire to understand. Is it just that he’s insane? I know, people say you can’t make that judgement without a clinical diagnosis.
Si I read this new essay from his ghostwriter for The Art of The Deal because he explains why we can’t understand and you have to look through a different lens. I am trying but failing.
Actually on this particular story, Trump is probably being slandered. People assume that Trump meant that people would kill the looters but all he said is that when looting begins, shooting also begins which may not be 100% accurate but is not completely erroneous.
I think if you are the president, you should be able to tweet so people can understand. For people like me, Twitter, Taylor Swift and her millions of followers, and most of the worldwide media, we took it as a threat — especially in context of calling in the military.
This quote from Trump’s Twitter this morning seems like threats in the same vein, no?
The front line was replaced with fresh agents, like magic. Big crowd, professionally organized, but nobody came close to breaching the fence. If they had they would have been greeted with the most vicious dogs, and most ominous weapons, I have ever seen. That's when people would have been really badly hurt, at least. Many Secret Service agents just waiting for action. 'We put the young ones on the front line, sir, they love it, and ... good practice."
It was a direct quote, so the meaning was clear. That’s why there has been such an outcry.
Headley, who was chief of police in Miami for 20 years, said that law enforcement was going after “young hoodlums, from 15 to 21, who have taken advantage of the civil rights campaign. ... We don't mind being accused of police brutality."
"There is only one way to handle looters and arsonists during a riot and that is to shoot them on sight. I've let the word filter down: When the looting starts the shooting starts," Headley said, according to a New York Times report from 1970.
I needed a place to share this, and here seemed to be appropriate.
I'm sure that many of the "sayings" which I have quoted in my life meant something different when they were originally said than I intended them to mean.
Almost every "pop" usage of a bible quotation is a distortion of the original meaning.
When Jacob and Laban parted ways the phrase "Jehovah watch between you and me, when we are absent one from another" does not mean what many lovers use that phrase to mean.
Jeremiah 29:11 does not mean what many people quote it to mean.
2 Chronicles 7:14 cannot legitimately be applied to any current country
"I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" can only be applied to all the things which God has required of His servant, not to something like winning the Olympics or starting a business.
Unless you have evidence that Trump knew the origin of his "saying" to assume that he meant the same thing as Headley is to "project" your own bias onto his statement.
The officer who knelt on George Floyd's neck knew that he was being filmed. Did it help?