• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump says he is suing Twitter, Facebook, Google and CEOs Dorsey, Zuckerberg, Pichai

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
28,226
Reaction score
11,683
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ooo that is possibly a good suit actually... if they can prove facebook did this at the behest of the government, or in any way their decisions were affected by government, that actually could be seen as a breach of the 1st.

Sure. IF they can prove Facebook did this for the government. The "what if" is used a lot by Trump and his supporters.

- Wasn't Trump still President , hence part of the Government when Facebook and others locked him out?
- What were the rules Trump agreed to when he set up his Facebook account? Seems private platforms have a right to establish content rules. Even DP has things you cannot post on this site.
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
66,422
Reaction score
20,137
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Twitter and Facebook and Instagram and tiktok ect can ban, suspend, delete etc anybody they want for whatever reason within the scope of the law, this their right and its their property. Just like DP or you with your own web page.

What legal justification is there to to punish me, violate my rights and force me against my will to allow people on my property just because im popular?
 

MTAtech

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
26,649
Reaction score
20,070
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well, his lawyers make money. I can see why he went bankrupt so many times, he likes to waste money (if he pays them)
Only if Trump pays their bill, which is iffy.
 

CaughtInThe

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
45,733
Reaction score
28,906
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Should the government force private companies to allow content they do not want to show/broadcast etc?

Erotic photos on Christian Science Monitor?
Jerry Falwell Jr.: Liberty University Launches Investigation | PEOPLE.com
 

Brack

DP Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2020
Messages
508
Reaction score
288
Location
Arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The two dudes who have taken over the Rush Limbaugh show really like this latest lawsuit from Trump.
 

MTAtech

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
26,649
Reaction score
20,070
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
No way in hell that is going to fly without evidence that Facebook was “censoring” on behalf of or in consult with government actors. That line right there might just be the end of this lawsuit.
Ok, I read the suit. It's baseless. It claims FB et al are violating his 1st Amendment right. There is no such right with a private company when a member violates their terms of service, which is a contract.
 

ApersonLIKEallOFyou

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2021
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
401
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Ok, I read the suit. It's baseless. It claims FB et al are violating his 1st Amendment right. There is no such right with a private company when a member violates their terms of service, which is a contract.
Exactly. So unless Zuck is banning people because some politician tells him to then this is a waste of the court’s time.
 

Pound4abrown

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
5,658
Reaction score
3,477
Location
Maine
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In the category of stupidest lawsuits, the former president goes all in and is suing facebook, google and twitter for... get this... violations of the 1st amendment... LMAO...




This whole charade will end just before all three of them depose him.
 

Carl Young

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2021
Messages
5,857
Reaction score
1,435
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
If Facebook decided to ban all pictures of dogs I would not care. Facebook is a private company with competition out there in the social media sphere. So they can in my opinion do whatever they want, consumers can go somewhere else if they do not like it
But the reality is that the information is gathered and disseminated by three like-minded people and they can censor or promote whatever they choose. They also, through Google, control much of the past. They will have you thinking whatever they want you to think, and are doing it now.

Trump may or may not win this Quixotic attempt but it should bring the issue to the public and to the new Congress. It's a monopoly.
 

roguenuke

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
52,644
Reaction score
19,407
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Yuck it up all you want, but justices on the Supreme court have already been discussing the issue in their speeches and interviews. They say even though these companies use 230 to hide behind in their flagrant censorship trampling the First Amendment, that it is time to classify them as utilities.
Links to this need to be provided. These companies are not utilities. That would not last long at all. You can live without Facebook and Twitter and any other form of social media. If they all went away, people would still be able to communicate just fine.

Should people be allowed to use your house to display their movies on if you allow your friends to do it on the side of your house? What if you have the best house in the city for doing this on? Should they be forced to show any movie they want to on the side of your building, even if you disapprove of that movie? If you owned a karaoke bar and allowed people time on the mic to share a poem or talk about something in their lives, but not to talk about politics, or perhaps just certain issues, should they be forced to allow you to discuss those issues using their platform since they allow other things up there?
 

BlueTex

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
23,610
Reaction score
15,136
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
But the reality is that the information is gathered and disseminated by three like-minded people and they can censor or promote whatever they choose. They also, through Google, control much of the past. They will have you thinking whatever they want you to think, and are doing it now.

Trump may or may not win this Quixotic attempt but it should bring the issue to the public and to the new Congress. It's a monopoly.

LOL.... What do you think congress will do? Repeal section 230? All that does it make these companies litigate each claim, it does nothing to remove any editorial control.
 

MTAtech

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
26,649
Reaction score
20,070
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I don’t care if Trump wins but I hope these arrogant CEOs pay through the nose for censoring content.
It's their platform that they don't charge users -- but users have to follow the rules (term of service.)
If I walk into Trump Tower and become a disturbance, they can throw me out of the door. Likewise, Trump was a disturbance and posting dangerous content. Twitter threw him out the door.
 

BlueTex

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
23,610
Reaction score
15,136
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Links to this need to be provided. These companies are not utilities. That would not last long at all. You can live without Facebook and Twitter and any other form of social media. If they all went away, people would still be able to communicate just fine.

Should people be allowed to use your house to display their movies on if you allow your friends to do it on the side of your house? What if you have the best house in the city for doing this on? Should they be forced to show any movie they want to on the side of your building, even if you disapprove of that movie? If you owned a karaoke bar and allowed people time on the mic to share a poem or talk about something in their lives, but not to talk about politics, or perhaps just certain issues, should they be forced to allow you to discuss those issues using their platform since they allow other things up there?


I believe there is a strong argument that the ISP's are a utility, far more than websites...
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
28,226
Reaction score
11,683
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
But the reality is that the information is gathered and disseminated by three like-minded people and they can censor or promote whatever they choose. They also, through Google, control much of the past. They will have you thinking whatever they want you to think, and are doing it now.

Trump may or may not win this Quixotic attempt but it should bring the issue to the public and to the new Congress. It's a monopoly.

What about other search engines? You do not have to use Google.
 

Carl Young

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2021
Messages
5,857
Reaction score
1,435
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Sure. IF they can prove Facebook did this for the government. The "what if" is used a lot by Trump and his supporters.

- Wasn't Trump still President , hence part of the Government when Facebook and others locked him out?
- What were the rules Trump agreed to when he set up his Facebook account? Seems private platforms have a right to establish content rules. Even DP has things you cannot post on this site.
If Trump was interested in posting here do you think DP would ban him? You have to be very powerful to do that and Zuckerberg is clearly more powerful than any US President. The Triad could also bump Biden any time they want.
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
66,422
Reaction score
20,137
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If Trump was interested in posting here do you think DP would ban him? You have to be very powerful to do that and Zuckerberg is clearly more powerful than any US President. The Triad could also bump Biden any time they want.
8ytbprI.gif

:ROFLMAO: 😂 :ROFLMAO: 😂
 

roguenuke

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
52,644
Reaction score
19,407
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I believe there is a strong argument that the ISP's are a utility, far more than websites...
The ISPs are a utility, easily. The websites are not. But ISPs only provide basically internet access, basically an (at least one) IP address to go with your modem/router or theirs that connects you to other places on the internet.
 

roguenuke

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
52,644
Reaction score
19,407
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
If Trump was interested in posting here do you think DP would ban him? You have to be very powerful to do that and Zuckerberg is clearly more powerful than any US President. The Triad could also bump Biden any time they want.
How would they know it was Trump? Why wouldn't they ban him if he broke the rules?
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
28,226
Reaction score
11,683
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If Trump was interested in posting here do you think DP would ban him? You have to be very powerful to do that and Zuckerberg is clearly more powerful than any US President. The Triad could also bump Biden any time they want.

Yes, if he broke the rules and racked up enough points. Just like anyone else.
 

Carl Young

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2021
Messages
5,857
Reaction score
1,435
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
LOL.... What do you think congress will do? Repeal section 230? All that does it make these companies litigate each claim, it does nothing to remove any editorial control.
They may do what they did with other former monopolies, such as Standard Oil and AT&T., That's the end game.

Do you think that having a near monopoly on news and opinion serves the public interest?
 

Carl Young

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2021
Messages
5,857
Reaction score
1,435
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Exactly. So unless Zuck is banning people because some politician tells him to then this is a waste of the court’s time.
In fact it is the biggest issue of the day.
 
Top Bottom