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

[jpevans]

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."​

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!

I'm just curious, do you speak this way?

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Trump's lawyers need to read the Twitter TOS, the contract Trump agreed to when he created his account. You can be damn sure the judge is going to, right before he/she dismisses the suit.

 

[WillyPete]

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.

Twitter has no commitment to neutrality, and while that phrase is a good'un, we don't operate based on platitudes.

You think Twitter did wrong? Go do it right and show them!

 

[Alizia Tyler]

If a phrase is commonly used it is not "outmoded".

A commonly used phrase can indeed be 'outmoded'. We use terms all the time that really are outmoded. The idiom 'a nerve was struck' is a good way to talk about outmoded idioms. Your use of that idiom conceals a lie that you deceive yourself with. And this is why, in your case, it is a good idea to examine your usage. That usage is common, in different forms, on this forum by people of your *political persuasion'. Your errors in perception, assimilation and interpretation can, and should, be challenged. I am happy to school you but I do insist on humility.

No nerve was struck, my friend. What I did was to respond in a direct and upfront way, substantially and structurally, to what Jasper wrote.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

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.

You have made many good points here. All this I understand, and so do those who make intelligent arguments about the issue of this particular banning.

The issue does become more complex, and potentially more severe and concerning, the more it is drilled down into (now I am self-conscious about outmoded idioms). The digital age, and the fact that nearly all communication is transmitted over these platforms and through digital systems, has opened many many different levels and layers of concern.

The banning of DT from Twitter (and other platforms), in my view, is one facet in a larger issue. And what is what I have expressed.

 

[prometeus]

A commonly used phrase can indeed be 'outmoded'.

Yea, that is why it is outmoded because it is commonly used eh? Your usual sophistry is turning into plain stupid at this point.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Yea, that is why it is outmoded because it is commonly used eh? Your usual sophistry is turning into plain stupid at this point.

And it is exactly your comment, this one and so many like it, which serve no function at all on this forum. The point of my comment to BearPoker was to tell him that 'no nerve was struck'. It is not sophistry to point out that through the use of that idiom he deceives himself. He wishes that a nerve had been struck, he'd like to believe that is the case, and he asserts that it is the case.

In my opinion this is a usage that is common on this forum. I suggest you-plural examine it.

Again, our language is filled with outmoded idioms that are used all the time. Similarly, our argumentation falls into fallacious and outmoded patterns. These need to be examined. You have accused me of sophistry and you say 'it is turning into plain stupid'. But this is false. You are self-deceiving. Examine what you are doing here. And stop doing it.

 

[OpportunityCost]

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.

More stupid bullshit....you never seem to get tired of posting it.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Twitter has no commitment to neutrality, and while that phrase is a good'un, we don't operate based on platitudes.

You think Twitter did wrong? Go do it right and show them!

Other than stating it before Congress, sure.

 

[JasperL]

I have expressed concern about the power and dominance of these social media platforms.

I've certainly never objected to any of that. But there are thousands of businesses that operate in these same "spaces" and no one cares that they are as biased as they want to be. Furthermore, FB is as sociopathic as any business in the world. I'd bet my last dollar Zuck would happily serve the Nazis in that era if he thought doing it made FB an extra 10 cents a share. He's shown us that many times, so the idea that they are 'liberals' etc. is just stupid. If the company folded tomorrow, I'd laugh.

So what they do they do to maximize their profits, and part of that is responding to public pressure, which includes censoring toxic presences on the platform. That is the "free market" at work, actually. No one is mad they censor neo-Nazis, just the MAGA contingent, and only a very few of them, and Trump. That is the problem - that they censored the personification of the state at that time.

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.

It's odd that you don't recognize that when government says, to Twitter or anyone else - you must carry this message, the state's message (i.e. Trump's message) or else - it's doing what you say you fear it doing.

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.

Well, we've never in our history had a POTUS spread lies about an election for months, organize a rally of the faithful to attempt to stop the certification of an election, then as the riot/insurrection is taking place, first do nothing at all, then after being urged by staff finally put out a video that tells those engaged at that moment in a riot/insurrection that he loves them.

So it's not an attack on the "office of the presidency" but Donald J. Trump, and for what he did, his actions. There's a an important difference. People in a free country must, as a core, essential right, be free to attack the personification of the state at that time - i.e. POTUS, - without fearing retaliation from the state.

Furthermore, so what if it is an "attack on the office of the Presidency." If you want to assert that a private business must not attack the office of the presidency, or else, say that. If that's not your position, then clarify what it is.

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.

I don't care what you'd "say" - he as POTUS is/was in fact the state personified.

In a free society, what is the alternative to the state allowing private businesses and individuals to engage in "an ideological and social war against a faction of America." Is it bad that society engages in a war against neo-Nazis? White supremacists? Muslim terrorists? Shouldn't we in fact engage in a "war" against factions of America we believe are destructive to America?

If I believe that the MAGA faction is a threat to the core ideals of this country, would you have me and my businesses muzzled by the state...if you disagree or if the then state disagrees? If not that, then what? You will not say.

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

If we can't identify any principle you're advancing, maybe the problem is with your arguments, not the readers. You assume then state outright we are stupid or arguing in bad faith because we cannot make sense of your non-committal drivel.

 

[TomFitz]

You have made many good points here. All this I understand, and so do those who make intelligent arguments about the issue of this particular banning.

The issue does become more complex, and potentially more severe and concerning, the more it is drilled down into (now I am self-conscious about outmoded idioms). The digital age, and the fact that nearly all communication is transmitted over these platforms and through digital systems, has opened many many different levels and layers of concern.

The banning of DT from Twitter (and other platforms), in my view, is one facet in a larger issue. And what is what I have expressed.

No, you haven’t.

You keep repeating that there is some larger issue.

But when asked to state what that issue is, you move on, and avoid the question.

So, for the second time from me alone….what larger issue are you talking about???????

You say there is one, but never say what it is. I am not the only one here to note your circular non commital posts.

 

[pamak]

The present objection is that they already ARE reducing their desire to post views-- the former president is banned.
Nobody is forcing them to do that-- its a choice of their own. There are no legal consequences for them if they do not ban Trump.

The present situation is a reflection of well established policies which permit any company to exercise it's 1A right and it has NOTHING to do .with fear of lawsuits. Many people before Trump were ban ed by these companies and Trump himself was required to read the terms of the provided service before joining,

The freedom to choose political associations includes the freedom to reject the toxic political association of a former president who spreads conspiracy theories that erode the public confidence to the republic. And it makes zero sense to claim that the current legislation gives more incentives to these companies to ban problematic speech.

With or without this legislation , Trump would be banned from Twitter. Still, without the current legislation, others who are now permitted to write problematic posts will also be banned because in the absence of the current legislation, companies will have an additional fear of. lawsuits. So, things will become worse.

 

[bearpoker]

A commonly used phrase can indeed be 'outmoded'. We use terms all the time that really are outmoded. The idiom 'a nerve wahttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outmodeds struck' is a good way to talk about outmoded idioms. Your use of that idiom conceals a lie that you deceive yourself with. And this is why, in your case, it is a good idea to examine your usage. That usage is common, in different forms, on this forum by people of your *political persuasion'. Your errors in perception, assimilation and interpretation can, and should, be challenged. I am happy to school you but I do insist on humility.

No nerve was struck, my friend. What I did was to respond in a direct and upfront way, substantially and structurally, to what Jasper wrote.

That's ridiculous. A commonly used phrase can't, by definition, be "outmoded". The only one practicing self deception is you.

Definition of OUTMODED

not being in style; no longer acceptable, current, or usable… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Alizia Tyler]

A commonly used phrase can't, by definition, be "outmoded.

It very much can. It can still be in use, but it’s references outmoded, which is what I meant.

outmoded​

adjective old-fashioned, passé, dated, out, dead, square (informal), ancient, antique, outdated, obsolete, out-of-date, old-time, archaic, unfashionable, superseded, bygone, antiquated, anachronistic, olden (archaic), behind the times, superannuated, fossilized, out of style, antediluvian, outworn, obsolescent, unhip (slang), démodé (French), out of the ark (informal), not with it (informal), oldfangled People in positions of power continue to promote outmoded ideas.​

 

[bearpoker]

It very much can. It can still be in use, but it’s references outmoded, which is what I meant.

outmoded​

adjective old-fashioned, passé, dated, out, dead, square (informal), ancient, antique, outdated, obsolete, out-of-date, old-time, archaic, unfashionable, superseded, bygone, antiquated, anachronistic, olden (archaic), behind the times, superannuated, fossilized, out of style, antediluvian, outworn, obsolescent, unhip (slang), démodé (French), out of the ark (informal), not with it (informal), oldfangled People in positions of power continue to promote outmoded ideas.​

The phrase "struck a nerve" is none of these. It's frequent use is evidence of that. Thanks for verifying.

 

[Luce]

It very much can. It can still be in use, but it’s references outmoded, which is what I meant.

outmoded​

adjective old-fashioned, passé, dated, out, dead, square (informal), ancient, antique, outdated, obsolete, out-of-date, old-time, archaic, unfashionable, superseded, bygone, antiquated, anachronistic, olden (archaic), behind the times, superannuated, fossilized, out of style, antediluvian, outworn, obsolescent, unhip (slang), démodé (French), out of the ark (informal), not with it (informal), oldfangled People in positions of power continue to promote outmoded ideas.​

Oh my God. WHO CARES?

 

[bearpoker]

Oh my God. WHO CARES?

Alizia considers adding "ly" to "glossing" to be cutting edge.

 

[prometeus]

And it is exactly your comment, this one and so many like it, which serve no function at all on this forum.

Because it pointed out the stupidity of your post?

The point of my comment to BearPoker was to tell him that 'no nerve was struck'.

Then why the **** did you not just say that? Why the double talk rant? Had a very big load of words that you needed to unload?

He wishes that a nerve had been struck,

How the hell would you know what he wished?

Again, our language is filled with outmoded idioms that are used all the time.

Maybe you need a dictionary.

Similarly, our argumentation falls into fallacious and outmoded patterns.

No, the crap you peddle is just that and getting tiresome.

You have accused me of sophistry

I did no such thing. I simply pointed out a reality.

and you say 'it is turning into plain stupid'.

Also a reality.

But this is false.

No doubt because you dislike reality so you deny it.

You are self-deceiving.

No, you are projection.

Examine what you are doing here. And stop doing it.

Let me know when you get promoted to a position that allows you to dictate to others.

 

[TomFitz]

More stupid bullshit....you never seem to get tired of posting it.

And, since you have no argument, you paste a label on facts and use that to ignore them.

There is no first amendment right to access to twitter. It’s solely up to the owners of the platform. That’s not “stupid bullshit”. It’s just fact.

Trump’s lawyers know it. So does trump.

I’m sure that your social media safe spaces are awash in fundraising appeals to “fight to restore” trump’s non existent first amendment right to a Twitter account.

If you gave them money (which is what this is all about), I hope you remembered to uncheck the box.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

What you have written here is dripping with all sorts of errors. I'll go through them:

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

I pay attention to all sorts of media. You could fairly describe some right-leaning media in these terms, but they are trash in ways directly analogous to left-leaning media sites. The issue is not necessarily the content. What is it then? Sophistry and fallacious argument. Improper (underhanded) use of rhetoric. Idea structures that are muddled and unclear. And also specific editorial policies and choices.

But there is a good deal of excellent right-oriented media. But generally if one frequents conservative-oriented sites and media, one does so because one has done certain intellectual work that has induced one to accept certain principles. Philosophically these are, of course, 'first principles'. To understand anyone that you or I communicate with, we are advised to try to identify and understand the 'first principles' that they operate from.

There are very very sound principles, and first principles, in some left-leaning and progressive-oriented political philosophy. There are also ideas that are questionable. Sometimes, the differences between people of different persuasions can be discovered in acutely different existential principles. My understanding is that to grasp The Culture Wars one must have done the work to identify these differences.

Next, if any 'resentment' is valid in your view it would, I propose. likely be the resentment of the victim, would it not? So the Black community that relates to George Floyd's plight describes itself as often being the 'victim' of injustice. And resentment (and anger and much else) develops from this. Surely you agree.

Your fallacy here is to use 'victimhood' and 'resentment' as negative denominators. So, logically, resentment and victimhood can have sound basis. You obviously have a prejudiced interest in undermining the right of those whites you refer to to have resentment or to perceive victimhood. And you use these terms rhetorically to shame, blame, ridicule and dismiss those concerns.

But more can be gotten from examining them (if indeed they exist) point by point.

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

Yet a 'right' is recognized, culture-wide, and that right is part-and-parcel of the culture and system of governance that we have and which we assent to. The sense of right interweaves our entire perspective, a cultural perspective, a value-set, that is shared even if it is not consciously realized and articulable.

So in this sense you are wrong. But let me say that factually you are rather right. What I am writing now can be erased on this forum and I'd have no recourse. But it would not, in any sense (I don't think and I hope) be viewed as a right action, a fair action, a good action, or in any sense a helpful action within the context of our social, political and philosophical values.

I challenge therefore not the strict fact that you assert -- it is true -- in the sense that you actually can 'post what you like' on third-party owned forums and on social media. There is a right that is implied. There is a right that is culturally accepted. And to deny someone reasonable right to reasonably speak and express themselves is never, in our culture, seen as a good. It is not emulated, it is not encouraged, and it is not a part of our cultural paideia.

 

[Luce]

Yet a 'right' is recognized, culture-wide, and that right is part-and=parcel of the culture and system of governance that we have and which we assent to. The sense of right interweaves our entire perspective, a cultural perspective, a value-set, that is shared even if it is not consciously realized and articulable.

So in this sense you are wrong. But let me say that factually you are rather right. What I am writing now can be erased on this forum and I'd have no recourse. But it would not, in any sense (I don't think and I hope) be viewed as a right action, a fair action, a good action, or in any sense a helpful action within the context of our social, political and philosophical values.

I challenge therefore not the strict fact that you assert -- it is true -- in the sense that you actually can 'post what you like' on third-party owned forums and on social media. There is a right that is implied. There is a right that is culturally accepted. And to deny someone reasonable right to reasonably speak and express themselves is never, in our culture, seen as a good. It is not emulated, it is not encouraged, and it is not a part of our cultural paideia.

This is the worst example of communication I have seen in over 20 years.

 

[bearpoker]

This is the worst example of communication I have seen in over 20 years.

It's like she's weaponized boring.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

[cont. from previous post to TomFitz]

There is no free speech issue here.

No, you are wrong, there very much is. That is the very core of the question. The issue is how the problem of free-speech in private spaces will be decided. It is both a legal and Constitutional issue and a cultural and social (and a philosophical and value-issue).

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

Another fallacy. You imply that he (whover you were talking to) is 'being told' something. As if he or she is not capable of forming their own idea based in recognized cultural, social values. Your phrasing, which reflects a worldview, shows a way that you dismiss views that you don't like, but more likely do not understand properly.

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.

More overheated, underhanded rhetoric. The fact of the matter is that the nation you refer to as Trump Nation has valid concerns, valid values, valid preoccupations, concerns and perspectives. It matters not at all what you say here because simply by phrasing it as you do -- underhanded dirty rhetoric -- you have dismissed yourself from being heard, except in terms understood to be fallacious and also demagogic.

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

That is true, yet there are certain standards that have been established, and these are referred to as journalism standards. There is a school of thought and a sound, philosophical base (or ethical base if you wish) that underpins a commonsense notion of 'good journalism'.

No newspaper has the right to print mistruths -- if we understand right in the sense I formally defined. It can (is able to) print lies, mistruths and deceptions, and it might not suffer liability, but according to our sense of right and fairness, it must not.

If we did not have some sort of understructure to our value-system, we simply could not speak to one another. We'd have no basis for communication.

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

I would suggest and also highly recommend that you 'turn the lens of examination around', as well as the condemnation, and focus on yourself. Dishonesty you say? Your entire post is replete with statements that are fallacious. Do you do this innocently? and can you be corrected? Or do you do it intentionally and in bad-faith?

These are the questions we all have to ask ourselves.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

This is the worst example of communication I have seen in over 20 years.

Yes, but you do not seem very well qualified to make such assessments, given your focus and content!

 

[OpportunityCost]

And, since you have no argument, you paste a label on facts and use that to ignore them.

There is no first amendment right to access to twitter. It’s solely up to the owners of the platform. That’s not “stupid bullshit”. It’s just fact.

Trump’s lawyers know it. So does trump.

I’m sure that your social media safe spaces are awash in fundraising appeals to “fight to restore” trump’s non existent first amendment right to a Twitter account.

If you gave them money (which is what this is all about), I hope you remembered to uncheck the box.

You didn't make any sort of fact based argument. So I sure as **** don't need to refute your ranting bullshit.