Trump sues Twitter and Facebook in class action

Post Reply New Topic

They pretend to be a platform, but clearly, they are acting like a publisher.
THAT is the problem.

Not only that, it is sheer hypocrisy/double-standards.
Other, more vile commentary, is not removed despite it being pointed out.

God, I hate corrupt big business.

Well it's a good thing Trump has Parlor, or Gabber, or his own services, or whatever to fall back on, right???

I would argue that Trump would've had a much larger chance of winning the election if he hadn't been on Twitter. Knowing his every awful thought every minute of the day was not good for his image at all, and only attracted like-minded individuals to his cause.


Yes, he did eventually make a coerced statement telling the insurrectionists to go home (and also practically telling them they did a great job and he's proud of them), but only after HOURS of begging and pleading from the senate.
Only after telling them to "fight like hell", and about how much he loved them.
Only after telling Capital Police and National Guard that they weren't allowed to use guns or violence against the rioters, and to basically stay out of the building and patrol the streets.
Only after hours of ignoring pleas to send in the National Guard.
Only after Twitter threatened to ban him.


Elementary school history class was a really long time ago for me, so I might be missing a few of the finer points, but the basic gist of it is that most of the founding fathers came from countries where speaking out against the government was a death sentence.

It seemed pretty important to them.

My question is did he really read the terms and services of Facebook and Twitter??

It is safe to assume that if he did, he believed that either: (1) the Terms of Service did not apply to him, or (2) if they did, then he could litigate his way around them.

It seems, however, that he was wrong on both counts.

Does he read?

Who Trump? my understanding is that he pays people of the calibre of Steve Bannon to think for him, so the answer is no.

It has to be in large colorful pictures/graphics when he does read. Regular printed text is not exciting to him unless it is posted up on his media accounts by him of course.

Freedom of Speech does not grant freedom from the consequences of what is said, nor does it grant freedom from oversight in the venues used to say it.

A premise:

I have a wall. I built it, I own it, it's on my property. I tell the neighborhood that people can draw on my wall if they want to, but I let them know that I can wash it clean and start over at any time. Someone writes an inappropriate message. I paint over it. "OH NOES! THEY'VE BEEN SILENCED!! !"

No, they haven't. Their exposure has been reduced. They can go write their message other places. They can go make their own wall to paint on. I am not preventing them from saying their message. I am not even preventing them from saying their message HERE. I am merely not giving it permanence. I am not giving it exposure. They can still go say it - they just cant use ME as a vehicle to spread it around more.

If I knock my wall down, have I now "silenced!" a whole neighborhood? If twitter or facebook shut down, does that mean we ALL lose "free speech"? How did free speech exist before we had social media? Just cos I have a megaphone and you don't, doesn't mean I'm "silencing!" you for not letting you use it. I'm not stopping you from saying it - at worst I'm just not helping you spread it. You can still go tell everyone. I'm just not helping you tell more people faster.

The platform vs publisher debate is cute and all, but laws and legal definitions can and do change over time, all the time. They're literally called "amendments" cos you can amend them. Funny that. Any rate, it's just an attempt at being able to hide behind someone else when someone says something that incurs consequences.

Spoiled bratty kids always cry about it when they lose a privilege they've come to expect. They're still the child that thinks it's "totally fair!" when their sports team in little-league gets the one athletic kid, and "UNFAIR!" when the other team gets them. Winning = fair, and losing = unfair. And then as adults they unironically whine about the same participation trophies that allowed them to overestimate their own self-worth in the first place.

Effort and luck are indistinguishable to the lucky. Rights and privileges grow more indistinguishable, the more privileges you have.

Freedom of speech guarantees you a VOICE, not an AUDIENCE, nor a VENUE.

Free Speech


Mouseover Text: "I can not remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you are saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it is not literally illegal to express."

Source: XKCD #1357, by Randall Munroe.

(In simpler terms, Freedom of Speech does not grant freedom from the consequences of what is said, nor does it grant freedom from oversight in the venues used to say it.)

Judging from inflammatory stuff he re-tweets pictures and videos are essential.

Being bumped from one or two social media outlets does not silence anyone.

You are misrepresenting and missing the point entirely.

Then what is the point?

Its a journey to the opinions and pundits from Sky news