• Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.

Donald Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
deuse said:
So you was a tourist fair enough.

Adirondack Park in NY is 6.1 million acres.
Catskill Park is 700,000 acres
These are just 2 state parks. There are many more.
New York Forest Preserve, properties that must be kept "Forever Wild" according to Article 14 of the New York Constitution.

Most people never see most of any state.

As I said. NY state failed because they gave the cash away and it's a sanctuary state.
Also Cuomo has just today brought in a law that Nursing Homes and other places can't be sued...
Very strange..until you know that the biggest donor to Cuomo was a company that has nursing homes in NY ;)
Click to expand...
That’s mostly fluff that doesn’t matter. What I said is correct one of the big reasons New York was worse hit is because it has over 100% higher population density combined with a lot more intentional flights with creates a worse situation so the virus can spread easier.

My family has been both as tourists and for work many times over the years. Often part of the family will work while those that are not working threat it as a holiday so a tourist.

You seem to be avoiding my Trump/Obama questions. Is that because you know Trump is wrong or you are wrong and you cannot admit either?
 
Given he's signed an EO that makes them responsible for content published on their platform if they edit it i expect they'll simply start deleting his, and possibly others, tweets now if they consider them to be false.

Why edit a tweet so you can point people to fact-checking articles when you can just delete them for violation of T&C, deleting Trumps tweets would really get his back up and lead to cries of censorship but as that only applies to the government there's nothing they go do legally.

E: That's if it even manages to get through the courts what with Twitter being protected by Article 1.
 
Murphy said:
Given he's signed an EO that makes them responsible for content published on their platform if they edit it i expect they'll simply start deleting his, and possibly others, tweets now if they consider them to be false.

Why edit a tweet so you can point people to fact-checking articles when you can just delete them for violation of T&C, deleting Trumps tweets would really get his back up and lead to cries of censorship but as that only applies to the government there's nothing they go do legally.

E: That's if it even manages to get through the courts what with Twitter being protected by Article 1.
Click to expand...

When does editing something start?

By putting a warning near a Tweet on the screen that the Tweet is a lie does that count?
 
The executive order is apparently completely unenforceable, it goes against the 1st amendment, and the specific protections that were put in place to allow online services to moderate illegal and unwanted content (IE removing porn and spam) without being classed as publishers requiring them to vet everything.

Even some of the slightly smarter republican media people are pointing it out.
 
wesimmo said:
When does editing something start?

By putting a warning near a Tweet on the screen that the Tweet is a lie does that count?
Click to expand...
It seems so in Trumplandia.

I mean Twitter could get round it by basically putting a hold on any replies to Trump's account, until a (non blockable) post from an official Twitter account that is locked to always show directly below Trump's post that has the message is done.
That way they're not even editing his post (which they're not anyway, as IIRC it's obvious it's part of the "twitter block" along with time/likes etc rather than the post), they're just ensuring an even bigger notice is always shown straight after his.
 
It's just another example of why he's completely unfit to govern.

Starting an unwinnable war with Twitter, that can only result in him losing access to the platform, in a tantrum is typical of his short sighted and childish approach to life.

It's one of the biggest windows he has to shout from and he's trying to get banned because he was told off.
 
chroniclard said:
Twitter should just ban Trump now, would be hilarious. Moaning about censorship when they only fact checked his lies, mans a disgrace.
Click to expand...

What about the lies of the Media? What about your lies? Because you perceive as "lies" someone's opinion you do not agree so same rules apply to you also.
So why you lie? (I apply the same rules you use mate)

Trump stated his opinion on a country that has a written Constitution and its 1st Amendment is pretty straight forward. There is also plenty of facts that there is widespread fraud on mail balloting. (New Jersey today hit the news)
Look at UK calls for fraudulent mail balloting.

6 days ago, Dems caught rigging mail voting

Today another, asking for the whole election in NJ to be scrapped.


Twitter admits has vested interests as is politically opposed to Trump and pro mail voting.



By silencing Trump, or editing his comment, or anyone else like they do eg Alex Jones, not only are in violation of 1st Amendment but wave protection of Section 230 of the 1996 CDA. Which means the death of Youtube, Facebook and Twitter when they decide that censoring is better than protection of Section 230. Better all 3 shutdown tomorrow morning if their shareholders do not want to be homeless living on the street if they want to continue censoring, otherwise they need to stop.

Don't extrapolate from the sht laws UK has, some countries have written Constitutions that are above laws and you are as good as gone by breaking them.
Watch the attached video because the media do not show him talking any more (because he gains support and votes).
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-signs-executive-order-on-social-media-companies

Watch this as he sums up pretty well the issues,

and lets forget Joe Rogan is not allowed to get doctors or have anyone's opinion YT arbitrary guidelines do not agree.

As for the media lies, she is damn good, tell me is she lying when calls the liars?
(watch after 45 minute).

Russiangate & Ukrainegate where both based lies, rogue FBI agents army twisting people threatening their families, and the Obama administration creating all this as "insurance policy" in case Trump won the 2016 elections. All these are out now. Where is the fact checking on the media & Democrats lies?

So tell me are you pro freedom of speech or against it? Because you leave me with the opinion of your own post that you would have been the front row hand clapper every time Joseph Goebbels made a speech.
 
Panos I got as far as your "they're in violation or the 1st amendment" and stopped reading as if you don't understand something as simple as that, it's not worth anyone's time reading the rest of your post.

The first amendment applies to the Government NOT private companies or individuals, and not on private property (be it a shop, a house, or virtual like a website).
 
Werewolf said:
Panos I got as far as your "they're in violation or the 1st amendment" and stopped reading as if you don't understand something as simple as that, it's not worth anyone's time reading the rest of your post.

The first amendment applies to the Government NOT private companies or individuals, and not on private property (be it a shop, a house, or virtual like a website).
Click to expand...
Murphy said:
You do know the 1st Amendment only protects you from the government, not the other way around, right?
Click to expand...

Protect against anyone not Federal government.
The moment Twitter edits and tries to fact checks an opinion has 2 paths to follow
a) Goes back
b) Waves protection under 230 1996 CDA becoming a publisher and liable for punishment.

As for you Werewolf, by not reading the rest of my post, you go straight to the example of the people on my last sentence.
 
Panos said:
Protect against anyone not Federal government.
The moment Twitter edits and tries to fact checks an opinion has 2 paths to follow
a) Goes back
b) Waves protection under 230 1996 CDA becoming a publisher and liable for punishment.

As for you Werewolf, by not reading the rest of my post, you go straight to the example of the people on my last sentence.
Click to expand...

Opinions aren't infallible.
I can't say "In my opinion the sky is pink"
 
VincentHanna said:
Panos, you appear to get your "news" from YouTube.

People who get their news from YouTube channels are morons.

That's my opinion.
Click to expand...

So you call CNN, Washington Post and NYT morons? Because the YT videos are referring to their articles :D

Oh and the White House official YT channel of today's briefing?
Nice one. Keep the head in the sand.
 
Kind of interesting reading the effect of the order. From what I gather, social media platforms are typically excluded from free speech scrutiny by virtue of the fact that they do NOT scrutinise the content uploaded by users - so they are not publishing information. BUT, if they ARE actually choosing which information is scrutinised and which information is not, then they are actually ‘publishing’ and should be subject to the same rules as anyone else.

Huh. Framed that way.... I can sort of make sense of it.
 
Nitefly said:
Kind of interesting reading the effect of the order. From what I gather, social media platforms are typically excluded from free speech scrutiny by virtue of the fact that they do NOT scrutinise the content uploaded by users - so they are not publishing information. BUT, if they ARE actually choosing which information is scrutinised and which information is not, then they are actually ‘publishing’ and should be subject to the same rules as anyone else.

Huh. Framed that way.... I can sort of make sense of it.
Click to expand...

Yes, and by becoming "Publishers" they are liable to be dragged to court and pay.
 
Panos said:
Protect against anyone not Federal government.
The moment Twitter edits and tries to fact checks an opinion has 2 paths to follow
a) Goes back
b) Waves protection under 230 1996 CDA becoming a publisher and liable for punishment.

As for you Werewolf, by not reading the rest of my post, you go straight to the example of the people on my last sentence.
Click to expand...

Actual
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights

It is a common misconception that the First Amendment prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, including private, non-governmental entities.[1] It is applicable only to state actors.
Click to expand...

Source
 
Last edited:
Panos said:
Yes, and by becoming "Publishers" they are liable to be dragged to court and pay.
Click to expand...
Except they're given very explicit exemptions, otherwise for example a site specifically aimed at kids couldn't remove pornographic adverts spammed to their message boards without also approving every other post.

Heck if you took that route then by removing posts with content that is illegal in the US, thus complying with other US laws would also make them publishers and so no company, organisation, or individual could host any form of comments online without being a publisher and having all the liabilities required for that.

The result of that would be Twitter would shut, Facebook would shut, even the Republican only sites would have to shut as they'd now be jointly liable for every single post, including the ones that go against their T&C as they'd no longer get the protection.

Your take on this is almost as funny as when we used to get people claiming we were infringing their first amendment rights by removing links to competitors....
 
Last edited:
Panos said:
Yes, and by becoming "Publishers" they are liable to be dragged to court and pay.
Click to expand...
They may be liable, yes.

It’s still a bit clumsy though because the platforms do not in reality have the capacity to check all information published, which is then ignored by the new executive order.

For a platform like Twitter, I think it should be allowed to operate as it was but must evidence that it has a system in place for diligent self moderating and it can be held to account for a lack of a robust system, NOT by virtue of flagging or not flagging any individual ‘tweets’ or similar.

I don’t think labelling Trump’s tweets as potentially dodge is inherently a bad thing. Completely isolated from any sort of politics, they are often misleading.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom