Trump asks U.S. judge to force Twitter to restart his account

[Lycanthrope]

If you believe Michael Wolffe, Parler offered Trump 40% of the business if he would sign on exclusively with them. Trump wanted his detractors on the site to be censored, though, and, Parler wouldn't do it, so Trump said no.

If you believe CNN, it was Jared Kushner who convinced Trump not to join Parler. Maybe he thought it wouldn't be good optics for the President to be on a site famous for rightwing extremists. Not if he wanted to be part of respectable national or international politics. Just a guess.

I find it incredibly hard to believe Trump wouldn't want to be on a forum that allowed for free and open debate, including his detractors. That doesn't sound like him at all.

Tried, couldn't hold it in.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

....what part of we will not ban political speech is not getting through to you?

Who are you quoting?

 

[Argent]

Parler offered Trump 40% of the business if he would sign on exclusively with them. Trump wanted his detractors on the site to be censored, though, and, Parler wouldn't do it, so Trump said no.

Whaaaaat?! Trump wanted Parler to do what Trump accuses Twitter/FB/YouTube of doing? Oh the hypocrisy -- I'm getting the vapors. Where's my fainting couch, I need my fainting couch

 

[OpportunityCost]

I take it you have failed to find any reference to giving up the right to association.... By the way, Facebook, Twitter, etc. DID NOT EXIST when section 230 was written yet the statute was so well written it anticipated the evolution of the internet very well.... you are welcome...

Does ignoring the argument of the other person ever get you anywhere?

There were congressional hearings and in those hearings, Dorsey and Zuck made assurances they would not ban based on political speech, thereby making assurances that would surrender part of their right to associate to align better with American ideals on free speech and how it works on their platforms.

 

[BlueTex]

Does ignoring the argument of the other person ever get you anywhere?

There were congressional hearings and in those hearings, Dorsey and Zuck made assurances they would not ban based on political speech, thereby making assurances that would surrender part of their right to associate to align better with American ideals on free speech and how it works on their platforms.

How exactly do their “promises” change the law?

 

[MaryP]

Whaaaaat?! Trump wanted Parler to do what Trump accuses Twitter/FB/YouTube of doing? Oh the hypocrisy -- I'm getting the vapors. Where's my fainting couch, I need my fainting couch

 

[Argent]

There were congressional hearings and in those hearings, Dorsey and Zuck made assurances they would not ban based on political speech, thereby making assurances that would surrender part of their right to associate to align better with American ideals on free speech and how it works on their platforms.

Can you cite that please? I would like to read exactly what they said. Perhaps I didn't use the correct search parameters when I googled as the only thing I could find was that they committed to locking down lies and misinformation.

 

[OpportunityCost]

How exactly do their “promises” change the law?

Since I have explained this already multiple times, explain to me how you don't understand what a verbal contract is and how it is legally binding when you make it in front Congress and in front of cameras?

 

[AGENT J]

Actually its like refusing to print letters to the editor after being given a monopoly by the local city council which was predicated on printing all of them.

who gave Twitter a monopoly?
where is it predicated twitter would let everything be posted?

There were congressional hearings and in those hearings, Dorsey and Zuck made assurances they would not ban based on political speech,

Who or what was banned based on political speech??

 

[Amelia]

A. I would be interested in seeing the actual text of the promises which OpportunityCost considers so binding.

B. The promises would almost certainly not be binding, but I would still like to see what was said.

C. Trump was suspended for violation of TOS, not political speech, per se.

D. Twitter's TOS say they can ban anyone for anything, and Trump agreed to that.

E. I still would like to see the exact text of the promises that OC claims were made.

 

[MaryP]

Its quite clear its subjective.

Yup, the fact that Trump is quite good at not quite saying the quiet part out loud saved his fanny. His supporters have been able to focus on the individual words rather than the overall effect of those words in the context of how supporters were interpreting and acting on them. The entire Congress had been violently attacked because of his ongoing horseshit about a stolen election and evil Democrats that absolutely no one could begin to prove. Not even Cyber Ninjas.


And you see no need to shut more of that rhetoric down? It's not being able to see the forest for the trees.

 

[RealityNow]

i've enjoyed the quite.

Yes, thank goodness!!!!

 

[OpportunityCost]

Can you cite that please? I would like to read exactly what they said. Perhaps I didn't use the correct search parameters when I googled as the only thing I could find was that they committed to locking down lies and misinformation.

Mark Zuckerberg & Jack Dorsey Testimony Transcript Senate Tech Hearing November 17

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on 11/17. Read the transcript here.

www.rev.com

24:38 and 28:32 in particular discuss free expression and free speech that others here are saying they don't have to abide by but they give plenty of lip service to when they want to control the changes or updates to 230.

Then Dorsey at 30:04 and 31:01. Either they will allow free speech or they are lying bastards who openly acted in bad faith.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Yup, the fact that Trump is quite good at not quite saying the quiet part out loud saved his fanny. His supporters have been able to focus on the individual words rather than the overall effect of those words in the context of how supporters were interpreting and acting on them. The entire Congress had been violently attacked because of his ongoing horseshit about a stolen election and evil Democrats that absolutely no one could begin to prove. Not even Cyber Ninjas.


And you see no need to shut more of that rhetoric down? It's not being able to see the forest for the trees.

Or maybe you are assuming what is oh so convenient to your hatred.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Since I have explained this already multiple times, explain to me how you don't understand what a verbal contract is and how it is legally binding when you make it in front Congress and in front of cameras?

Statements made in Congressional hearings are not legally binding in any way.

Contracts, among many other things, don't exist without consideration.

 

[AGENT J]

Mark Zuckerberg & Jack Dorsey Testimony Transcript Senate Tech Hearing November 17

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on 11/17. Read the transcript here.

www.rev.com

24:38 and 28:32 in particular discuss free expression and free speech that others here are saying they don't have to abide by but they give plenty of lip service to when they want to control the changes or updates to 230.

Then Dorsey at 30:04 and 31:01. Either they will allow free speech or they are lying bastards who openly acted in bad faith.

so they said NOTHING like you been claiming LOL
all the crying you've been posting si dishonest and holds no logical or legal water . .

ill ask you AGAIN

Actually its like refusing to print letters to the editor after being given a monopoly by the local city council which was predicated on printing all of them.

who gave Twitter a monopoly?
where is it predicated twitter would let everything be posted?

There were congressional hearings and in those hearings, Dorsey and Zuck made assurances they would not ban based on political speech,

Who or what was banned based on political speech??

 

[MaryP]

Or maybe you are assuming what is oh so convenient to your hatred.

Or maybe you are ignoring what is right before your eyes.

 

[BlueTex]

Since I have explained this already multiple times, explain to me how you don't understand what a verbal contract is and how it is legally binding when you make it in front Congress and in front of cameras?

I hope Trump's lawyers make this idiotic argument since he seems to be leaving a trail of sanctioned lawyers in his wake... Can we assume you buy into the delusion that this will be a successful strategy?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Statements made in Congressional hearings are not legally binding in any way.

Contracts, among many other things, don't exist without consideration.

Statements in and of themselves are legally binding if done so in front of witnesses.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I hope Trump's lawyers make this idiotic argument since he seems to be leaving a trail of sanctioned lawyers in his wake... Can we assume you buy into the delusion that this will be a successful strategy?

I honestly wish you would be a good faith participant instead of making worthless trolling statements over and over.

Can we assume you are capable of contributing in some meaningful way?

 

[LucyLou]

Such a tremendous bullshitter. Why does anyone believe one atom of anything that whistles out his ass?

Trump returning to social media with 'his own platform' in 2-3 months: adviser

Former President Donald Trump will be back on social media in the near future with his own service, according to one of his senior advisers.

www.foxnews.com

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-social-media-platform-return-adviser

Wahhh, judge make Twitter take me back

 

[OpportunityCost]

Or maybe you are ignoring what is right before your eyes.

Nah, you are making assumptions because they fit what you want to believe politically. Personally, I have a hard time making those jumps, as I cannot find statements that are legally actionable by Trump but you are making assumptions he did; not because you can find them but because you want to believe them.

 

[BlueTex]

I honestly wish you would be a good faith participant instead of making worthless trolling statements over and over.

Can we assume you are capable of contributing in some meaningful way?

I am sure you "honestly wish" lots of things like that the first amendment didn't protect the right to associate but, alas, the right does exist and has NOTHING to do with section 230.

 

[Amelia]

Statements in and of themselves are legally binding if done so in front of witnesses.

I appreciate your attempt to give us the relevant quotes. I seriously saw nothing in the quotes resembling what you say was promised.

Also, no, statements do not become legally binding simply when said in front of witnesses. Nevertheless, it seems to be moot, since I don't see the alleged promises in the passages that you directed us to.

Thank you, though, truly, for trying to help us see what it was that you feel was a relevant promise.

 

[Argent]

Mark Zuckerberg & Jack Dorsey Testimony Transcript Senate Tech Hearing November 17

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on 11/17. Read the transcript here.

www.rev.com

24:38 and 28:32 in particular discuss free expression and free speech that others here are saying they don't have to abide by but they give plenty of lip service to when they want to control the changes or updates to 230.

Then Dorsey at 30:04 and 31:01. Either they will allow free speech or they are lying bastards who openly acted in bad faith.

Thanks for the link. I tried to read it from your point of view. What I took away from their testimony is that it is difficult to balance freedom of expression and ensuring public safety and privacy. Dorsey was particularly focused on improving the algorithms Twitter uses and increasing transparency around how those are developed and implemented. Zuckerberg was trying to appease the Republicans without giving away too much of the pie when he suggested that some government oversight of content might be appropriate. He is sleazy and for someone who is allegedly intelligent either he's not very articulate or someone did a poor job of transcribing the testimony. I saw no promises made. It is a moot point to argue that the First Amendment applies to social media. At this point in time, it does not.