Ilov80s
Footballguy
It's not. Just like the same people who protest the tyranny of the government who impose stay at home orders aren't the same people who show up to protest when the government kills a handcuffed man in the middle of the street.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Twitter permanently bans Trump (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
msommer
Footballguy
I'm sure they did. (That's why it was a hypothetical)
The question, however, is not if "any Dem" did, but whether Joe Biden did and my answer is the same. You "hit" the lies and only the lies, from either party.
msommer
Footballguy
Bolding and highlighting the parts you like doesn't make it less debatable. If it's that Law Group vs. Sinn Fein from FBGs it's a pretty easy choice for me. Usually lawyers grab other case law to dispute what people have said. Didn't you claim to be a lawyer, yet I had to point you to the Unruh Act. Man if it's that easy I guess anyone can be a lawyer.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Technically, I am not a lawyer because I have not paid bar dues in years. But, I have a set of skills when it comes to parsing language and statutory construction that does not require bar dues to be valid. And I would place those skills up against any lawyer in the country (including whomever wrote that blog) - that was what I did best when I was a practicing attorney, and its a little like riding a bike - once you learn how to do it well, you never really forget.
You did not have to point me to the Unruh Act - that is what I found immediately (along with the labor law provisions of the California Code), and saw that it did not include the language you claimed it did. So, I asked if there was another statute that I could not find.
At that point, you back tracked, and acknowledged that what you thought was true, and were trying to pass off as true, was in fact - NOT TRUE.
You choose who you want - I am telling you its a lost cause. Even your "attorney" acknowledges the best you can do is "hope to win". (its false hope).
Oh, and one more point - I did not need "other" case law - when the case cited supports my position, and not the position you want. Sorry.
Jobber
Footballguy
It’s not. Ask any Republican what the GOP platform is, and they will rattle off a few items, all of which are absolutey not being followed by the party members.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
So, based on what we've seen before, it would seem that the next steps for Trump will be:
- Trump creates secret Facebook group for himself and his fellow line-steppers
- they create multiple aliases
- they flood the site with troll-ish posts that violate the TOS
- they whine about others who allegedly break the rules
- they only respond with laughing emojis
dkp993
Footballguy
You’re making a big leap assuming it was done because of “political affiliation”. I’m making the leap it’s because he’s the POTUS. Prove which one is correct.
Last edited by a moderator:
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Twitter just suspended the Qanon account Trump circulated and approved of just 15 minutes earlier.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
It's a video of Trump in a voiceover overlaying a series of flags, a Navy ship and Trump speaking at a rally.
The rest of "his" feed was pretty weird, lots of stuff about Christianity and weird claims.
I see. Very strange that someone who is apparently using Christian imagery must have not read that part about Jesus being the Prince of Peace, turning the other cheek, loving our neighbor, and helping the poor. Of course, by strange, I mean blindingly obvious, depressing, and irritating.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Back to back, a second twitter handle retweeted by Trump has been suspended.
Both the potus one and his regular one, i say. Let him shout into the wind if he wants to be heard.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Parent of toddler in 'manipulated' Trump video forces Facebook and Twitter to remove it
***
Facebook and Twitter on Friday removed a video posted by President Donald Trump's account that had twisted a viral video of two toddlers after one of the children's parents lodged a copyright claim. The video had more than 4 million views on Facebook (FB) and more than 20 million views on Twitter (TWTR) before it was taken down.
The now-removed clip is a crude and misleading edit of a video that went viral last year which shows a Black child and a White child running to hug each other. The version posted to Trump's account made it first appear as if the Black child was running away from the White child.
Jukin Media, a company that represents creators of videos including the parent who owns this video, said in a statement provided to CNN Business Friday afternoon, "Neither the video owner nor Jukin Media gave the President permission to post the video, and after our review, we believe that his unauthorized usage of the content is a clear example of copyright infringement without valid fair use or other defense."
Jukin said in its statement that it had submitted a takedown request to Twitter. Jukin did not confirm it had sent the takedown request to Facebook, but Andy Stone, a Facebook spokesperson, said "We received a copyright complaint from the rights holder of this video under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and have removed the post."
The video was put on Trump's Facebook account after he tweeted it Thursday night, the eve of Juneteenth, the oldest known holiday honoring the end of slavery in the United States.
Michael Cisneros, the father of one of the boys in the video, said last year he had posted the original video to social media because he thought it was a beautiful, candid moment to share in the midst of racism and hate in the world.
"The reason that it's getting attention [is] because it is with a little black boy and a little white boy...But if it can change someone's mind, you know, or just change their view on things, then it's totally worth it," Cisneros said last year.
The version of the video tweeted and posted by Trump first showed a part of the viral video in which one of the boys was chasing the other, which had been overlaid with a fake CNN graphic that read, "Terrified todler [sic] runs from racist baby."
The rest of the video -- in which the two children run to embrace one another -- is then shown.
Responding to Trump's use of the video, Cisneros wrote in a Facebook post Thursday night, "HE WILL NOT TURN THIS LOVING, BEAUTIFUL VIDEO TO FURTHER HIS HATE AGENDA!! !! !! !!"
CNN Business has reached out to Cisneros for comment.
The clip Trump promoted suggested that CNN would have spun the viral video to make it appear negative.
In fact, CNN covered the full version of the viral video in 2019. The toddlers and their fathers also appeared on the "The Van Jones Show" on CNN.
Twitter labeled the video Trump tweeted as "manipulated media" shortly after he tweeted it Thursday night.
"This Tweet has been labeled per our synthetic and manipulated media policy to give people more context," a Twitter spokesperson said.
Facebook also has a manipulated media policy. The company declined to comment on whether the video violated that policy. Facebook took no action until a copyright claim was filed.
A spokesperson for CNN responded to Trump's tweet Thursday night, "CNN did cover this story - but exactly as it happened. Just as CNN has reported your positions on race (and your poll numbers). We'll continue working with facts and invite you to do the same, rather than tweeting fake videos that exploit innocent children. Be better."
Asked about the video Friday, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said she thought it was funny.
...
***
***
Facebook and Twitter on Friday removed a video posted by President Donald Trump's account that had twisted a viral video of two toddlers after one of the children's parents lodged a copyright claim. The video had more than 4 million views on Facebook (FB) and more than 20 million views on Twitter (TWTR) before it was taken down.
The now-removed clip is a crude and misleading edit of a video that went viral last year which shows a Black child and a White child running to hug each other. The version posted to Trump's account made it first appear as if the Black child was running away from the White child.
Jukin Media, a company that represents creators of videos including the parent who owns this video, said in a statement provided to CNN Business Friday afternoon, "Neither the video owner nor Jukin Media gave the President permission to post the video, and after our review, we believe that his unauthorized usage of the content is a clear example of copyright infringement without valid fair use or other defense."
Jukin said in its statement that it had submitted a takedown request to Twitter. Jukin did not confirm it had sent the takedown request to Facebook, but Andy Stone, a Facebook spokesperson, said "We received a copyright complaint from the rights holder of this video under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and have removed the post."
The video was put on Trump's Facebook account after he tweeted it Thursday night, the eve of Juneteenth, the oldest known holiday honoring the end of slavery in the United States.
Michael Cisneros, the father of one of the boys in the video, said last year he had posted the original video to social media because he thought it was a beautiful, candid moment to share in the midst of racism and hate in the world.
"The reason that it's getting attention [is] because it is with a little black boy and a little white boy...But if it can change someone's mind, you know, or just change their view on things, then it's totally worth it," Cisneros said last year.
The version of the video tweeted and posted by Trump first showed a part of the viral video in which one of the boys was chasing the other, which had been overlaid with a fake CNN graphic that read, "Terrified todler [sic] runs from racist baby."
The rest of the video -- in which the two children run to embrace one another -- is then shown.
Responding to Trump's use of the video, Cisneros wrote in a Facebook post Thursday night, "HE WILL NOT TURN THIS LOVING, BEAUTIFUL VIDEO TO FURTHER HIS HATE AGENDA!! !! !! !!"
CNN Business has reached out to Cisneros for comment.
The clip Trump promoted suggested that CNN would have spun the viral video to make it appear negative.
In fact, CNN covered the full version of the viral video in 2019. The toddlers and their fathers also appeared on the "The Van Jones Show" on CNN.
Twitter labeled the video Trump tweeted as "manipulated media" shortly after he tweeted it Thursday night.
"This Tweet has been labeled per our synthetic and manipulated media policy to give people more context," a Twitter spokesperson said.
Facebook also has a manipulated media policy. The company declined to comment on whether the video violated that policy. Facebook took no action until a copyright claim was filed.
A spokesperson for CNN responded to Trump's tweet Thursday night, "CNN did cover this story - but exactly as it happened. Just as CNN has reported your positions on race (and your poll numbers). We'll continue working with facts and invite you to do the same, rather than tweeting fake videos that exploit innocent children. Be better."
Asked about the video Friday, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said she thought it was funny.
...
***
Last edited by a moderator:
Sea Duck
Footballguy
President Trump says that he will veto a national defense bill if Congress does not repeal Section 230, which protects online companies from liability for the content published by its users.
https://www.cnet.com/news/trump-threatens-veto-of-defense-bill-unless-congress-nixes-section-230/
https://www.cnet.com/news/trump-threatens-veto-of-defense-bill-unless-congress-nixes-section-230/
I would think repealing section 230 would go against his goals. If you repeal it then Facebook and Twitter will increase the number of posts they remove. It would also likely drive companies like Parler out of business due to lawsuits because the remove very few posts (if any).
Sea Duck
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
I think one of the best parts of Trump not being President anymore will be that he's treated like every other citizen in the twitter-sphere. He'll be on "timeouts" more than he'll be able to tweet his nonsense.
BoerumHill
Footballguy
You sure? Doesn’t it take two or three threats beheadings or similar behavior to get a ban on Twitter?
We’re not talking about Joe B & the Mods guy.
The Commish
Footballguy
BoerumHill
Footballguy
I’ve been blocked my many satellites in the RealDonadTrump orbit including two of his children. And scores of TSLA trolls.Good point...guess I'm squinting too much to see the silver linings these days
But Twitter has never sent me anything implying I’ve been reported or might possibly face sanction. It’s a cesspool over there.
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
I used to love Twitter. Not even talking about Trump but is a dumpster now. My buddies daughter was on twitter and she loves dogs and was clicking around, next thing you know he said there were pictures of women having sex with dogs. How does Twitter allow stuff like that?
The Commish
Footballguy
Don't know much about it honestly. I don't go on twitter other than to read some things linked here or a buddy of mine's comments from overseas. I have probably 2 hours total time on the platform since it became a thing. I never understood the concept or the "need" that's made it successful.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
What counts as "obvious misinformation?" When Fauci and other health experts were telling people not to wear masks, should pro-mask people have been censored for spreading obvious misinformation? Or would it have been a good thing for people to speak out about the potential benefit of masks sooner?lazyike said:
If the answer is that the government decides what's misinformation and what isn't, why do you think Trump should have that power?
Last edited by a moderator:
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
They don’t allow stuff like that, but it’s also incredibly difficult/impossible to screen it all. They rely heavily on both algorithms and people reporting that type of content.Summer Wheat said:
And there’s the difficulty in repealing S230. Basically S230 just takes liability from the tech company and put’s it fully on the individuals using the platform to create content, as long as the tech company does not moderate anything at all. If S230 is repealed, it means that tech companies have 2 options:
1) Heavily regulate EVERYTHING. Which likely would mean no more instant posting. Every single thing would have to be reviewed by an actual human and someone would have to make a subjective decision on whether or not the posting could incur legal action.
2) Regulate NOTHING. If they don’t moderate anything at all, then they are still protected and incur no liability. So every service becomes a free for all. They can’t prohibit any type of material (I do believe they may be able to remove illegal material, but I’m not positive about that), flag it, categorize it, nothing. You think things are bad now? If S230 gets repealed it would likely get much much worse.
Bamboo Bill
Footballguy
What has changed? You choose who you follow and what you see. Now the comments based on the content are always up for grabs and it's always been this way.Summer Wheat said:
Gr00vus
Footballguy
Seems like they have a section below the tweet you're looking at (and its follow on comments) with "suggestions" for other tweets you might be interested in - not stuff you explicitly requested to see. I'm not a twitter user, so I don't know how much more stuff like that appears for logged in users.
Bamboo Bill
Footballguy
If you decline or ask not to show it, they appear less frequently. It’s annoying, but you can have some control. I’ve also noticed they are displaying more ads recently which makes sense as they generate revenue.
At that time we were learning about the virus and we very soon found out that it was so that people wouldn't hoard masks.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
That second part isn't true. People were telling us not to bother with cloth face masks or surgical masks, both of which were (obviously) widely available.
But regardless, should the Trump administration have been able to censor pro-mask people on "misinformation" grounds? If so, does it bother you that they would have the ability to do so now under your proposal?
Last edited by a moderator:
Mile High
Footballguy
Congress shoots down Trump's threat to veto defense billSea Duck said:
Top Republicans and Democrats plan to ignore the president's eleventh-hour demand to repeal a legal shield for social media companies.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/12/02/congress-trump-veto-threat-defense-bill-442209#scso=_i-XHX8z5GZ_P0PEPtYqhiA087:0
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
No they weren't. I know first hand that the government was stock piling them and other PPE supplies in February, well before that press conference.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I have three cloth masks made by my daughter and one of her buddies from earlier this spring sitting on my dresser.
Edit: I also have a box of
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Regardless, "government officials were openly spreading misinformation in the spring" doesn't seem like a good argument for allowing the government to regulate the spread of misinformation.
They weren't widely available. Amazon was sold out. Homemade versions were being sold on Etsy, but usually with a long wait list. There were online instructions for making your own out of other garments, which I guess sort of counts as being widely available, but not really.
In any case, I agree with your main point that the government should not be regulating misinformation. (I'm fine with Twitter doing so, however.)
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
Yes, surgical like masks were available towards mid-May but believe me, or don't, they were gone at the end of February because the government allocated all they could.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Yes that’s the reason my wife started sowing masks for not just us and family but for friends who worked in hospitals because even some of them were short masks.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I don't know what "widely available" even means if it doesn't include stuff that anybody can make themselves from a couple of items that they picked up from Hobby Lobby. That was what I specifically had in mind when I was posting about this.
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
No, I saw your posts -- I think this was an error on my end because I was originally thinking about cloth masks like the do-it-yourself kind, but then I added in a note about surgical masks that didn't really apply to the point I was trying to make. That was my fault for being unclear.I guess I'm on ignore after my Thanksgiving post.
Sorry again GB. Luvs :(
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
I don't care about that GB, just glad I'm not on ignore. I really appreciate your posts and agree 80%+ of the time.
I've been in the PPE business for a decades. If there was supply in March I would be rich beyond my wildest dreams. As previously stated, the problem is that the government "took" (I don't know the financial arrangements) everything before most of the public wanted it.
Similar threads
