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

[Athanasius68]

Are you suggesting that everyone who posts on twitter is a staff member?

No

 

[reflechissez]

Of course we can and it just pisses you authoritarian progressives off that someone dares to question big tech authority, now that you both agree on silencing political opposition.

Not really.

 

[bearpoker]

This is a bad conclusion, a forced conclusion (stating your own assertion as if it was proved) in an overall weakish attempt.

In no sense do I accept your assertion that it is a pointless exercise to examine the alluded ramifications.

Though maybe you’ve convinced some attendees?

Attendees? This is the *chime in with enthusiastic agreements* signal.

Why should "ramifications" be examined when you never state what they are? Talk about pointless! Come up with ramifications and then we'll talk. So far you've only given us an article with one ramification. That being that Trump followers can go elsewhere. Indeed they can, but so far Parler hasn't become another social media giant. Next!

 

[bearpoker]

Wait. What about NPR?

A small part of it's budget comes from the federal government. Are you suggesting that all of the corporations subsidized by the government are controlled by it. That would be just about all the farmers in America, not to mention big oil and big pharma. The government is sure doing a piss poor job of controlling things.

 

[reflechissez]

Not a valid reply. My debate is with you

You've made a vacuous declaration, the onus on you is to substantiate it, or specify and then substantiate it.

You have only been vague thus far, and your replies have been incompetent.

Oscar, meet Alizia. What you see is what you always get.

 

[reflechissez]

Ah, Shakespeare, okay he existed during a time when the language was in a considerably more malleable and transitional state, especially with spelling and pronunciation, noting that he was a poet, a master of the iambic pentameter, which leads to my point, which is.......

You're no Shakespeare.

About the only time, in the modern era, where someone can coin a new word, and get away with it, is if they are an opinion leader, well established writer, and it's a word that fills a void no English word fulfills, and/or, it's a word put in a clever poem or limerick, or you are creating a website for which few short words are available for the domain name.

Dayum....

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I pointed out your position was equivalent to the government forcing Twitter to amplify the message of the state. You said you're not for that, but have expressed chagrin, concern, worry about the ramifications of Twitter banning Trump, who is the state personified, or was when banned. Then you said, well, banning Trump was somehow different because it was unusual, etc. but cannot say why "unusual" matters to anything.

You repeat an error from post to post. It is that you have come to some conclusion or other, a priori, and you assume that it is correct, and then you structure your argument as you have done here, attempting to force me to your conclusion.

I think if you became aware of this -- it is intellectual self-deception -- and if you also began to realize this tactic of argument is common among those of your political persuasion, you might be able to confront a 'fallacious construct'. Then, your conversation could be established on a more honest platform.

My position has nothing to do with desiring, deliberately or inadvertingly, to force Twitter to amplify a State position, a State ideology, a State actor. You start from a bad premise. So, stop there, demolish that false-premise, and start again.

I have expressed concern about the power and dominance of these social media platforms. I am concerned because though they are private entities and they operate spaces which have the rights of private property owners, it is in these spaces and through these spaces that an extraordinary range and fullness of civic conversation takes place. This in itself is extraordinary and unprecedented -- quite factually in the history of our world. These spaces, these platforms, sought to become 'the public square' as part of their business model. By assuming that role, and by benefiting themselves (ie making money), and desring to expand their power and reach, they achieved something extraordinary.

If it were to happen -- let me refer to the China-model -- that government could substantially control or limit or direct civic conversation crucial to a Republic like the United States, I do not think that either of us would see this as good in any sense. As it happens there are about a dozen people today, thoughtful, intelligent people who tend to be aligned with Left-Progressive political stances (Snowden, Greenwald are two) who explain in detail what they are concerned about and why. Must I break this down into 'points' and submit them to you? Do you pay attention to these things?

The banning of Donald Trump represents something extraordinary in presidential history. To have 'banned' a president and then a former president represents a significant attack on the office of the presidency. I would develop this idea if you wish.

I would not say that Donald Trump is 'the State personified' though. To have banned Donald Trump is to have banned (or shamed, or vilified, or excluded) millions and millions of citizens. It was both a symbolic act, with many levels of consequence, and a direct assault against the 'Trump supported'. It is part-and-parcel of an ideological and social war against a faction of America.

These are (some of) the areas where I have concerns.

So, what is the principle you're defending? I can't identify anything other than you're unhappy about what happened to Trump, and that's not a principle. Your positions here aren't even skin deep - you'd have to advance a principle to reach that bar and you simply refuse, other than to furrow your literary brows about unidentified "ramifications."

What you 'can't identify' is a limitation that exists within you. Thankfully, I am not the subject of your limitations.

You do here in the quoted paragraph what dozens of people on this forum more or less like you do constantly. You are astoundingly self-righteous. You assume that you are 'right'. You batter and hammer people with your own prejudiced interpretation-conclusions and arrogantly tell them what, in fact, they think. The structure of your argument is unsound, as I have shown, and you will not correct your errors.

Do you kick your dog too?

I KNEW it!

 

[bearpoker]

You repeat an error from post to post. It is that you have come to some conclusion or other, a priori, and you assume that it is correct, and then you structure your argument as you have done here, attempting to force me to your conclusion.

I think if you became aware of this -- it is intellectual self-deception -- and if you also began to realize this tactic of argument is common among those of your political persuasion, you might be able to confront a 'fallacious construct'. Then, your conversation could be established on a more honest platform.

My position has nothing to do with desiring, deliberately or inadvertingly, to force Twitter to amplify a State position, a State ideology, a State actor. You start from a bad premise. So, stop there, demolish that false-premise, and start again.

I have expressed concern about the power and dominance of these social media platforms. I am concerned because though they are private entities and they operate spaces which have the rights of private property owners, it is in these spaces and through these spaces that an extraordinary range and fullness of civic conversation takes place. This in itself is extraordinary and unprecedented -- quite factually in the history of our world. These spaces, these platforms, sought to become 'the public square' as part of their business model. By assuming that role, and by benefiting themselves (ie making money), and desring to expand their power and reach, they achieved something extraordinary.

If it were to happen -- let me refer to the China-model -- that government could substantially control or limit or direct civic conversation crucial to a Republic like the United States, I do not think that either of us would see this as good in any sense. As it happens there are about a dozen people today, thoughtful, intelligent people who tend to be aligned with Left-Progressive political stances (Snowden, Greenwald are two) who explain in detail what they are concerned about and why. Must I break this down into 'points' and submit them to you? Do you pay attention to these things?

The banning of Donald Trump represents something extraordinary in presidential history. To have 'banned' a president and then a former president represents a significant attack on the office of the presidency. I would develop this idea if you wish.

I would not say that Donald Trump is 'the State personified' though. To have banned Donald Trump is to have banned (or shamed, or vilified, or excluded) millions and millions of citizens. It was both a symbolic act, with many levels of consequence, and a direct assault against the 'Trump supported'. It is part-and-parcel of an ideological and social war against a faction of America.

These are (some of) the areas where I have concerns.

What you 'can't identify' is a limitation that exists within you. Thankfully, I am not the subject of your limitations.

You do here in the quoted paragraph what dozens of people on this forum more or less like you do constantly. You are astoundingly self-righteous. You assume that you are 'right'. You batter and hammer people with your own prejudiced interpretation-conclusions and arrogantly tell them what, in fact, they think. The structure of your argument is unsound, as I have shown, and you will not correct your errors.

Do you kick your dog too?

I KNEW it!

Looks like Jaspert struck a nerve. For such a verbose writer you reveal remarkably little. You refuse to detail what ramifications of twitter banning Trump are, but you want to discuss them. You don't refute arguments and berate people for reiterating the points that you have been unable to refute. I've got to hand it to you though. You never use one word when three will serve, especially if they're sufficiently vague.

 

[Master Debator]

You repeat an error from post to post. It is that you have come to some conclusion or other, a priori, and you assume that it is correct, and then you structure your argument as you have done here, attempting to force me to your conclusion.

I think if you became aware of this -- it is intellectual self-deception -- and if you also began to realize this tactic of argument is common among those of your political persuasion, you might be able to confront a 'fallacious construct'. Then, your conversation could be established on a more honest platform.

My position has nothing to do with desiring, deliberately or inadvertingly, to force Twitter to amplify a State position, a State ideology, a State actor. You start from a bad premise. So, stop there, demolish that false-premise, and start again.

I have expressed concern about the power and dominance of these social media platforms. I am concerned because though they are private entities and they operate spaces which have the rights of private property owners, it is in these spaces and through these spaces that an extraordinary range and fullness of civic conversation takes place. This in itself is extraordinary and unprecedented -- quite factually in the history of our world. These spaces, these platforms, sought to become 'the public square' as part of their business model. By assuming that role, and by benefiting themselves (ie making money), and desring to expand their power and reach, they achieved something extraordinary.

If it were to happen -- let me refer to the China-model -- that government could substantially control or limit or direct civic conversation crucial to a Republic like the United States, I do not think that either of us would see this as good in any sense. As it happens there are about a dozen people today, thoughtful, intelligent people who tend to be aligned with Left-Progressive political stances (Snowden, Greenwald are two) who explain in detail what they are concerned about and why. Must I break this down into 'points' and submit them to you? Do you pay attention to these things?

The banning of Donald Trump represents something extraordinary in presidential history. To have 'banned' a president and then a former president represents a significant attack on the office of the presidency. I would develop this idea if you wish.

I would not say that Donald Trump is 'the State personified' though. To have banned Donald Trump is to have banned (or shamed, or vilified, or excluded) millions and millions of citizens. It was both a symbolic act, with many levels of consequence, and a direct assault against the 'Trump supported'. It is part-and-parcel of an ideological and social war against a faction of America.

These are (some of) the areas where I have concerns.

What you 'can't identify' is a limitation that exists within you. Thankfully, I am not the subject of your limitations.

You do here in the quoted paragraph what dozens of people on this forum more or less like you do constantly. You are astoundingly self-righteous. You assume that you are 'right'. You batter and hammer people with your own prejudiced interpretation-conclusions and arrogantly tell them what, in fact, they think. The structure of your argument is unsound, as I have shown, and you will not correct your errors.

Do you kick your dog too?

I KNEW it!

How confused do you have to be to accuse others of wanting state controlled media like in China! while advocating that the State exert control over private entities because you find them extraordinary. Is that the standard for nationalization? Your envy?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Ah, Shakespeare, okay he existed during a time when the language was in a considerably more malleable and transitional state, especially with spelling and pronunciation, noting that he was a poet, a master of the iambic pentameter, which leads to my point, which is.......

We are in a time of tremendous upheaval in so many senses. Metaphysical upheaval, social upheaval. In fact there is a great deal of transformation in the world of language and its usage. For example all the noise about *proper English* as opposed to regional and marginal forms of expression. As it happens, people in the outlying areas invent terms, phrases, idioms and they also invent words and use the invented words.

You're no Shakespeare.

Actually I would argue that it is likely, though I cannot be certain, that I am closer in many ways to Shakespeare than you likely are. I'll bet this is true in terms of metaphysics. And I will bet that I have read more Shakesepeare than you have read or will read in this your fleeting incarnation. And I have made a substantial effort to understand the 17th century -- which has many remarkable points of comparison to our present age.

About the only time, in the modern era, where someone can coin a new word, and get away with it, is if they are an opinion leader, well established writer, and it's a word that fills a void no English word fulfills, and/or, it's a word put in a clever poem or limerick, or you are creating a website for which few short words are available for the domain name.

What you have just said here is flatly, totally, thoroughly and unquestionably false. You are, I think it fair to say (to quote a conventional idiom!) speaking out of your posterior-end! Even your act of pretension is weak! As a French, Spanish and English speaker I can tell you, with no doubt, that language is infinitely malleable in our day and time and is bent, tweaked, poked, puffed, pulled, creaked, squished, squawked, singed, basted, flipped flopped and toppled every day.

Thank you for the opportunity to school you in these matters. Now please retrun to your corner and be silent.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

How confused do you have to be

My impression of you, so far, is that you cannot read something without totally bending it in the repeat. One other characteristic of *your ilk* (if I am permitted to speak so generally) is reinterpretation through rephrasing. But what you *hear* is rarely, or never, what is actually said.

Go in peace my child . . .

 

[jpevans]

No. It is my belief that Twitter is exercising its rights in a way that is biased based on the political speech in question. It is gaining favor with one group by restricting the speech of another group.

I guess that the phrase I may not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it only applied when libs knew they could be the ones being silenced.

He still has his 1st Amendment right to speak & does, although he no longer has a twitter account. Buy a ticket to a Drumpf rally. Yeah, I heard that he's now charging to attend a MAGA Show. I wonder if he'll stiff the locals, like he did in El Paso $450,000 for police & other services relating to his rally there.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Looks like Jasper struck a nerve.

This is a common phrasing, isn't it? If there is any reaction (to some dubious assertion) it is because a 'nerve' was struck. I think these old outmoded retorts should be reexamined.

The other tactical retort is to refer to someone as dealing in 'pseudo-intellectuality'. You assert that i 'say very little' but there is another possible way to look at it: you understand so very little.

This sort of exchange is always a waste of time though. It diverts the conversation from a discussion of ideas into silly bickering, and then the bickering becomes the core message (such as it is).

::: yawn :::

 

[Master Debator]

My impression of you, so far, is that you cannot read something without totally bending it in the repeat. One other characteristic of *your ilk* (if I am permitted to speak so generally) is reinterpretation through rephrasing. But what you *hear* is rarely, or never, what is actually said.

So you haven't been suggesting that the government force private entities to host Trump's speech because he was once *gasp* the president! Omg. Letting private entities cancel a former leader is exactly like China!

 

[Alizia Tyler]

you reveal remarkably little

How about this: Would you kindly tell me where the fault is in this paragraph? If you are going to critique the way I write, and the expression of ideas, can't you show me where and why I have not been clear and direct? Please?

"I have expressed concern about the power and dominance of these social media platforms. I am concerned because though they are private entities and they operate spaces which have the rights of private property owners, it is in these spaces and through these spaces that an extraordinary range and fullness of civic conversation takes place. This in itself is extraordinary and unprecedented -- quite factually in the history of our world. These spaces, these platforms, sought to become 'the public square' as part of their business model. By assuming that role, and by benefiting themselves (ie making money), and desring to expand their power and reach, they achieved something extraordinary."​

 

[WillyPete]

The banning of Donald Trump represents something extraordinary in presidential history. To have 'banned' a president and then a former president represents a significant attack on the office of the presidency. I would develop this idea if you wish.

I would not say that Donald Trump is 'the State personified' though. To have banned Donald Trump is to have banned (or shamed, or vilified, or excluded) millions and millions of citizens. It was both a symbolic act, with many levels of consequence, and a direct assault against the 'Trump supported'. It is part-and-parcel of an ideological and social war against a faction of America.

Let's accept the above.

The organizations that banned Trump are permitted to behave in an arbitrary fashion. They have no legal obligation to provide access to anyone, or to provide their reasoning for their decisions. That's what freedom is.

If it's a war on TrumpCo, it's a legitimate front. Fight harder, send reinforcements, or get overrun. Don't beg the opponent for mercy.

 

[jpevans]

They are not editors but publishers, they don't create content but convey it. To maintain that illusion (its obvious it is an illusion at this point), they need to not be arbitrary, to not show favoritism, to not make decisions that even look political. But they did. You are okay with it, because it won't be used against you.

What does that make you?

Was Drumpf the only person banned by the platform?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Letting private entities cancel a former leader is exactly like China!

No, that is not so. It has elements that are similar. And a larger trend, worldwide, involves control.

You read badly. And you constantly rephrase into the reduced terms of your own limited thought. This is why I say "reinterpretation through rephrasing".

This is essentially what you do and you do this all the time.

 

[bearpoker]

This is a common phrasing, isn't it? If there is any reaction (to some dubious assertion) it is because a 'nerve' was struck. I think these old outmoded retorts should be reexamined.

The other tactical retort is to refer to someone as dealing in 'pseudo-intellectuality'. You assert that i 'say very little' but there is another possible way to look at it: you understand so very little.

This sort of exchange is always a waste of time though. It diverts the conversation from a discussion of ideas into silly bickering, and then the bickering becomes the core message (such as it is).

::: yawn :::

If a phrase is commonly used it is not "outmoded". Your style is verbose and vague. This is a debate site. If you have a point, make it and illustrate it.

 

[jpevans]

If Shakespeare invented words — why deny me that right? Did you not understand? No, you understood. Therefore it functioned as communication.

25 new words were added to dictionary this year. They gotta come from somewhere, right.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Was Drumpf the only person banned by the platform?

Don't head towards the faulty comparison. It doesn't work when I see it coming.

 

[OpportunityCost]

He still has his 1st Amendment right to speak & does, although he no longer has a twitter account. Buy a ticket to a Drumpf rally. Yeah, I heard that he's now charging to attend a MAGA Show. I wonder if he'll stiff the locals, like he did in El Paso $450,000 for police & other services relating to his rally there.

Oh look, you have cute nicknames. I have to ask, does this line of bullshit ever work for you?

 

[Master Debator]

No, that is not so. It has elements that are similar. And a larger trend, worldwide, involves control.

You read badly. And you constantly rephrase into the reduced terms of your own limited thought. This is why I say "reinterpretation through rephrasing".

This is essentially what you do and you do this all the time.

You are clearly arguing that a private entity should be forced to host a former presidents speech against their will. That's as close to China! as it gets and no amount of word salad can paper over that obvious and fundamental fact.

 

[bearpoker]

How about this: Would you kindly tell me where the fault is in this paragraph? If you are going to critique the way I write, and the expression of ideas, can't you show me where and why I have not been clear and direct? Please?

"I have expressed concern about the power and dominance of these social media platforms. I am concerned because though they are private entities and they operate spaces which have the rights of private property owners, it is in these spaces and through these spaces that an extraordinary range and fullness of civic conversation takes place. This in itself is extraordinary and unprecedented -- quite factually in the history of our world. These spaces, these platforms, sought to become 'the public square' as part of their business model. By assuming that role, and by benefiting themselves (ie making money), and desring to expand their power and reach, they achieved something extraordinary."​

The public square has always been dominated by private organs of communication. Newspapers, Television news programs, cable news networks are all public corporations, not government entities. Twitter is just another one. Granted, it is bigger and reaches more people but private enterprise provides a wealth of choices for communication. The notion that private property owners have recently come to dominate the public square is completely false. I do sympathize with your concern over Twitter growing to monopolize the public square. It is a feature of capitalism that companies seek to grow as large as possible and choke out the competition. Again, this is nothing new or unprecedented. It's why we have anti-trust laws. If you can get the courts to agree with your assertion that Twitter is monopolizing the public square, it can be broken up into smaller competing private companies.

 

[TomFitz]

No. It is my belief that Twitter is exercising its rights in a way that is biased based on the political speech in question. It is gaining favor with one group by restricting the speech of another group.

I guess that the phrase I may not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it only applied when libs knew they could be the ones being silenced.

Yes, right wing trash media tells you that all day long. It’s a play to white resentment and victimhood.

No one has the right to post whatever they like on a privately owned third party platform.

There is no free speech issue here.

Whether you believe (as you are constantly being told) that it is a reflection of political bias or not, is irrelevant.

trump loser nation is all too ready to defend Fox and other right wing outlets when they lie to you. Evidently, that’s trump nation’s idea of good bias.

No newspaper is obliged to print everything that is tossed their way, and no television or radio outlet is required to.

But, for the obviously dishonest reason you cite, you think that FB and Twitter should be required to do so.


The obvious self contradiction is as obvious as the emptiness of the right wing complaint.