• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Trump banned from Twitter permanantly

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

NWRMidnight

Senior member
Jun 18, 2001
878
505
136
Im not sure what's so difficult how understanding this.
It's not difficult, but many people misunderstand the 1st amendment, censorship, and don't understand that private corporations have the right to chose who/what gets to utilize their platform.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BarkingGhostar

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
7,561
2,945
136
Prior to Obama, nobody used social media to communicate.
So riddle me this...
How did free speech and the ability to communicate to the masses work prior to 2008?

I understand that certain Republicans are very upset and going on FoxNews to complain that they cannot communicate with the masses and all the masses that are watching them on foxnews are coming on here to talk about how uinfair and un freespeechey it all is.

Just the other Day Nunes was on fox very upset about how all of his followers on Parlor can't here is message.
He has the full case of the sad faces
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
19,942
11,214
136
Prior to Obama, nobody used social media to communicate.
So riddle me this...
How did free speech and the ability to communicate to the masses work prior to 2008?

I understand that certain Republicans are very upset and going on FoxNews to complain that they cannot communicate with the masses and all the masses that are watching them on foxnews are coming on here to talk about how uinfair and un freespeechey it all is.

Just the other Day Nunes was on fox very upset about how all of his followers on Parlor can't here is message.
He has the full case of the sad faces
The ironic part while complaining about being silenced they are going on FoxNews, OANN, NewsMax to do so. All platforms that have websites, twitter feeds of their own, are available in many cable markets or in the instance of FoxNews included in almost every cable package sold. But they have been "silenced" with no way to talk to anyone.

Fucking lying sacks of shit is what they are.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,080
20,728
136
Prior to Obama, nobody used social media to communicate.
So riddle me this...
How did free speech and the ability to communicate to the masses work prior to 2008?

I understand that certain Republicans are very upset and going on FoxNews to complain that they cannot communicate with the masses and all the masses that are watching them on foxnews are coming on here to talk about how uinfair and un freespeechey it all is.

Just the other Day Nunes was on fox very upset about how all of his followers on Parlor can't here is message.
He has the full case of the sad faces
It's because as always they want special privileges. They believe Trump should be able to use Twitter in a way that violates its terms of service. If you enforce those terms on him the same way you would anyone else (or really in this case, FAR more leniently!) then you are biased against conservatives because you aren't allowing them to do whatever they want without consequences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vic and Pohemi420

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,080
20,728
136
The ironic part while complaining about being silenced they are going on FoxNews, OANN, NewsMax to do so. All platforms that have websites, twitter feeds of their own, are available in many cable markets or in the instance of FoxNews included in almost every cable package sold. But they have been "silenced" with no way to talk to anyone.

Fucking lying sacks of shit is what they are.
I like how Fox is simultaneously 'the most powerful name in news' and apparently is so weak that being able to go on it doesn't even count as not being silenced.
 

conehead433

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2002
5,195
245
106
I'm all for Trump being able to hear his own voice for however long he likes, either in a jail cell or a padded cell. I'm sure he'll be given opportunities to speak on TV, and when he starts blathering about an election being stolen from him they will cut away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
16,910
2,320
126
It's because as always they want special privileges. They believe Trump should be able to use Twitter in a way that violates its terms of service. If you enforce those terms on him the same way you would anyone else (or really in this case, FAR more leniently!) then you are biased against conservatives because you aren't allowing them to do whatever they want without consequences.
Doesn't matter what anyone wants, their ball, their rules, their game. Twitter can do whatever they want and all the annoyed twits can go to hell.
 

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,267
736
126
Everyone here is celebrating the ability of corporate power to ban the president of the united states from having a voice or raising money. Even if you hate Trump surely this must give you a little pause for thought? I mean what's to stop them banning people you love tomorrow, what's to stop them dictating what we get to hear about?

There was a time when the liberals actually fought for Nazi's right to protest because they believed freedom of speech was that important. What happened?
Question, if people came into a book store (that allows open mic night) in your local mall and repeatedly made speeches inciting violence/insurrection, what would you want the coffee shop to do? Would kicking out/banning the people be appropriate? And if it didn't do anything, what would you expect the local mall to do to that book store? Would terminating the lease of the book store be appropriate?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
19,942
11,214
136
Question, if people came into a book store (that allows open mic night) in your local mall and repeatedly made speeches inciting violence/insurrection, what would you want the coffee shop to do? Would kicking out/banning the people be appropriate? And if it didn't do anything, what would you expect the local mall to do to that book store? Would terminating the lease of the book store be appropriate?
Let's say especially after a mob left said bookstore and rampaged through the mall.
 

Dribble

Golden Member
Aug 9, 2005
1,874
397
136
Let's say especially after a mob left said bookstore and rampaged through the mall.
A bit like a number of BLM protests then, something those big corporates are keen to get on board with. However I am not really arguing about whether one persons riot is an acceptable cry about the state of the country vs another persons being terrorism in action. I am arguing about the founding ideals of free speech and the need to defend them so you don't end up in a place even more controlled by the state/big business who will not always be on your side whatever that is.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
19,942
11,214
136
A bit like a number of BLM protests then, something those big corporates are keen to get on board with. However I am not really arguing about whether one persons riot is an acceptable cry about the state of the country vs another persons being terrorism in action. I am arguing about the founding ideals of free speech and the need to defend them so you don't end up in a place even more controlled by the state/big business who will not always be on your side whatever that is.
You're arguing against property rights and free association kind of cornerstones of freedom aren't they? 404 state interference of speech not found in any of these cases. Care to cite some?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,267
736
126
A bit like a number of BLM protests then, something those big corporates are keen to get on board with. However I am not really arguing about whether one persons riot is an acceptable cry about the state of the country vs another persons being terrorism in action. I am arguing about the founding ideals of free speech and the need to defend them so you don't end up in a place even more controlled by the state/big business who will not always be on your side whatever that is.
The constitution already doesn't allow yelling fire in a crowded theater. Is your argument really about freedom of speech or is it that you don't believe what Trump and co did egregious enough to be similar to yelling fire in a crowded theater? Even Parler moderated Lin Wood's call to execute Pence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv and ivwshane

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,080
20,728
136
Doesn't matter what anyone wants, their ball, their rules, their game. Twitter can do whatever they want and all the annoyed twits can go to hell.
Exactly. I think people arguing otherwise have not thought this through. They say they are worried about Twitter having control over who is heard and maybe that's a valid concern! The solution to that is emphatically not to have the government tell them what they must say, however.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,080
20,728
136
A bit like a number of BLM protests then, something those big corporates are keen to get on board with. However I am not really arguing about whether one persons riot is an acceptable cry about the state of the country vs another persons being terrorism in action. I am arguing about the founding ideals of free speech and the need to defend them so you don't end up in a place even more controlled by the state/big business who will not always be on your side whatever that is.
Our founding ideals of free speech did not include having the government force private individuals to publish speech against their will.

Do you really not see how the government forcing people to say things is just as much of an attack on free speech as the government preventing people from saying things?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vic
Dec 10, 2005
20,731
2,132
126
Our founding ideals of free speech did not include having the government force private individuals to publish speech against their will.

Do you really not see how the government forcing people to say things is just as much of an attack on free speech as the government preventing people from saying things?
Seems pretty relevant (not that I agree with the case, since there are medical issues and licensure, but the scotus decided that the state can't force speech here under the 1st amendment) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Family_and_Life_Advocates_v._Becerra
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,080
20,728
136
Seems pretty relevant (not that I agree with the case, since there are medical issues and licensure, but the scotus decided that the state can't force speech here under the 1st amendment) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Family_and_Life_Advocates_v._Becerra
Yes, there are plenty of exceptions for when the government can limit or compel speech.

Also, I agree with you that this case was wrongly decided, especially considering as your link mentions that the court said it was fine for the state to force abortion clinics to mention the possibility of adoption, but not the other way around, which makes no sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,080
20,728
136
To my knowledge he already has at least one site (www.donaldjtrump.com) and probably has others.
He could blog or whatever but I doubt he will do even that because even blogging requires at least a modicum of work as the average post is going to be several, theoretically coherent paragraphs strung together.

If I had to bet on what Trump will do after being president (assuming he stays out of prison) it will be that whatever it is will require him to do nearly no work. It's why he won't have a TV show either, although I could see him being a guest that would show up like Louis Black used to on the Daily Show. Whatever it is, it's going to have to be something where he can just show up and half-ass it like he does with everything else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv and Pohemi420

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
78,101
11,127
126
Trump can buy a server and start hosting his own blog. Nobody is stopping him.
HE is stopping him.
Buying or leasing a server costs money. If you follow Donalds business dealings closely you'll notice he almost never spends his own money. His legacy is working as a conman and getting other billionaires to invest in his bullshit then taking a huge cut regardless of whether the venture fails or succeeds.

Any business he has run personally collapsed like a toddler with a stack of lincoln logs. The main is not a winner. He's a loser with a really effective system of lying.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,846
8,157
126
Everyone here is celebrating the ability of corporate power to ban the president of the united states from having a voice or raising money. Even if you hate Trump surely this must give you a little pause for thought? I mean what's to stop them banning people you love tomorrow, what's to stop them dictating what we get to hear about?

There was a time when the liberals actually fought for Nazi's right to protest because they believed freedom of speech was that important. What happened?
Never ceases to amaze that people can compare free speech and voluntary association with nazism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,846
8,157
126
A bit like a number of BLM protests then, something those big corporates are keen to get on board with. However I am not really arguing about whether one persons riot is an acceptable cry about the state of the country vs another persons being terrorism in action. I am arguing about the founding ideals of free speech and the need to defend them so you don't end up in a place even more controlled by the state/big business who will not always be on your side whatever that is.
You're arguing against free speech not for it. You're saying that a private entity must be forced to publish a govt official against its will. That is literally the exact opposite of free speech.
 
Mar 11, 2004
20,846
3,009
126
Never ceases to amaze that people can compare free speech and voluntary association with nazism.
While they tacitly remark about how its literal Nazis doing the "free speech" and wondering why after those Nazis tried to overthrow the government people are telling them to eat shit. Does he think Hitler was giving the Jews free speech? Does he think America was like "we need to let the Nazis speak!" during WWII, and were broadcasting Hitler's speeches unedited on public radio?
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
7,603
2,760
136
While they tacitly remark about how its literal Nazis doing the "free speech" and wondering why after those Nazis tried to overthrow the government people are telling them to eat shit. Does he think Hitler was giving the Jews free speech? Does he think America was like "we need to let the Nazis speak!" during WWII, and were broadcasting Hitler's speeches unedited on public radio?
Well, you did have this guy broadcasting right up until 1939.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY