International News Donald Trump ๐ŸŠ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ

No wanting to defend the orange loon too much.....

......but I do continue to find the activities of the big social media giants a little troubling.

Way I see it, you have two choices. Either you're a platform - in which case you leave people free to say whatever they want on any subject, you only take down any content that is actually illegal, and any individual is responsible for what they say and post.

Or you decide to editorialize. Control, tag or augment content on the basis of the company's political leanings. And that's absolutely fine - but then you're becoming a publisher, like a newspaper, and as a publisher, you are now liable if anything on your site is libelous.

The tech giants are chillingly powerful nowadays, so if Trump does want to try and legislate to force them to choose what they are, platform or publisher, and be legally treated accordingly - I think I might be with him on that one.

If, as an added bonus, we get fewer bile-filled childish Presidential Twitter rants, then so much the better.......
 
Here is the video:

Here is a news report:
My god that was cringe worthy, what an idiotic thing to say. Although for balance, the tweet you also posted was just as bad with the chimpanzee reference.
 
No wanting to defend the orange loon too much.....

......but I do continue to find the activities of the big social media giants a little troubling.

Way I see it, you have two choices. Either you're a platform - in which case you leave people free to say whatever they want on any subject, you only take down any content that is actually illegal, and any individual is responsible for what they say and post.

Or you decide to editorialize. Control, tag or augment content on the basis of the company's political leanings. And that's absolutely fine - but then you're becoming a publisher, like a newspaper, and as a publisher, you are now liable if anything on your site is libelous.

The tech giants are chillingly powerful nowadays, so if Trump does want to try and legislate to force them to choose what they are, platform or publisher, and be legally treated accordingly - I think I might be with him on that one.

If, as an added bonus, we get fewer bile-filled childish Presidential Twitter rants, then so much the better.......

Trump is free to say what he wants on Twitter, all they have done is link a fact check message on it. Trump is still openly going after a Republican critic in Joe Scarborough (who he labels psycho), claiming he is involved in his aide's death yet this has been refuted already by the autospy and investigation without an advisory accompanying his tweets on it.
 
Trump is free to say what he wants on Twitter, all they have done is link a fact check message on it.

Which is basically equivalent to Twitter stating 'This man is talking nonsense'.

I mean you and I know he's talking nonsense - he almost always is.
But once Twitter takes it upon themselves to point this out......on this tweet, and a few others, but not every tweet on their site.....then they've ceased to be a pure platform, and they've begun to craft the message themselves.

And given how good they, and the other social media companies, are at tailoring and distributing messages.....yeah, I think it is a step in the wrong direction.
 
Which is basically equivalent to Twitter stating 'This man is talking nonsense'.

I mean you and I know he's talking nonsense - he almost always is.
But once Twitter takes it upon themselves to point this out......on this tweet, and a few others, but not every tweet on their site.....then they've ceased to be a pure platform, and they've begun to craft the message themselves.

And given how good they, and the other social media companies, are at tailoring and distributing messages.....yeah, I think it is a step in the wrong direction.

Its okay, he wants to shut them down now. He particularly quoted "We need to stop the nonsense, ill informed posts, particularly on Yellowsforum" :)

 
Which is basically equivalent to Twitter stating 'This man is talking nonsense'.

I mean you and I know he's talking nonsense - he almost always is.
But once Twitter takes it upon themselves to point this out......on this tweet, and a few others, but not every tweet on their site.....then they've ceased to be a pure platform, and they've begun to craft the message themselves.

And given how good they, and the other social media companies, are at tailoring and distributing messages.....yeah, I think it is a step in the wrong direction.

Do you have no problem with Daesh or some other extreme group having free reign to say what they want?

If not, why is it acceptable for Trump to continually accuse somebody of being involved in another person's death (Joe Scarborough) when has been proven otherwise?

Do you think it is reasonable that Trump is trying to do something in the middle of a tantrum because they had the temerity to target one thing he said (not even the Scarborough situation!)?

Or should he/Congress actually take a considered approach over time with evidence and clear heads if something is actually done?

And the advisory is a link to a rebuttal of the claim, people can still choose to read it or not. And if they do, they can still believe the original message as they aren't stopping that at all.

We should have such advisories on Yellowsforum, there'd be loads! :LOL:
 
Last edited:
My god that was cringe worthy, what an idiotic thing to say. Although for balance, the tweet you also posted was just as bad with the chimpanzee reference.
I almost didn't watch it until the end as I assumed it was a puff piece, but holy moly, it's wrong on many, many levels. African Americans are unable to think for themselves, and if they do and don't vote for the Democrats, they aren't "black".

That sort of thing does self serve Trump in his mindset of the media doesn't report the same thing consistently or give me a fair shake - not saying I agree with him on that though
 
Which is basically equivalent to Twitter stating 'This man is talking nonsense'.

I mean you and I know he's talking nonsense - he almost always is.
But once Twitter takes it upon themselves to point this out......on this tweet, and a few others, but not every tweet on their site.....then they've ceased to be a pure platform, and they've begun to craft the message themselves.

And given how good they, and the other social media companies, are at tailoring and distributing messages.....yeah, I think it is a step in the wrong direction.
The whole Cummings thing is a good example. Have Twitter tagged Pippa Crear's tweet? No:

And in and of itself, that is where the likes of Trump will complain about how unfair it is and how he is being picked on (blah, blah). Now, I am surprised he did something with the EO other than just complain about it.
 
Do you have no problem with Daesh or some other extreme group having free reign to say what they want?

If not, why is it acceptable for Trump to continually accuse somebody of being involved in another person's death (Joe Scarborough) when has been proven otherwise?

Do you think it is reasonable that Trump is trying to do something in the middle of a tantrum because they had the temerity to target one thing he said (not even the Scarborough situation!)?

Or should he/Congress actually take a considered approach over time with evidence and clear heads if something is actually done?

And the advisory is a link to a rebuttal of the claim, people can still choose to read it or not. And if they do, they can still believe the original message as they aren't stopping that at all.

We should have such advisories on Yellowsforum, there'd be loads! :LOL:


As I said - I think Trump should try and legislate i.e. work with Congress to bring through new laws. Just by the nature of the congressional approach, that ensures that it will be a slow, measured process. Whatever executive order he announces on a whim later today is going to achieve absolutely nothing other than making a lot of lawyers a lot of money.

But yes, in general I am a very strong advocate of free speech.
There are certain means of expression that are illegal (which would cover a lot of Daesh's message) and social media platforms have an obligation to remove those.

Otherwise, I think they have three choices:
1) Fact check every tweet that everyone writes (with current AI, they're probably able to do this fairly accurately today....albeit it would cause some technical challenges)
2) Don't fact check any tweet
3) Decide to fact check some tweets but not others - and in doing so, accept that they are now shaping the message and therefore are a publisher not a platform, and are hence liable in the same way that the New York Times or CNN would be for their own published content.


The Joe Scarborough thing is a different issue - in general, if you libel someone, they should be able to sue you for defamation.
But there are some loopholes in US law/process at the moment, that make it really tough to make a libel suit stick against a sitting President.
This article describes it rather well - https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/29/donald-trump-tweet-joe-scarborough-libel-215882

Again, something for US legislators to consider (although good luck getting anything there through a Presidential veto!!) but it's tangential to the main issue which is how much should social media companies be able to censor and augment the messages on their platforms, without themselves being liable for the content of those messages. And my answer is straightforward - they shouldn't.
 
Social media is a real problem for a liberal (with a small 'l') bloke like me.

On the one hand, debate - even very partial debate - is healthy and I wouldn't want to end that. On the other hand, there is so much bile, hatred, aggression, lying, spinning, deception and sheer horribleness on platforms like Twitter (especially) that I think there has to be some sort of regulation. How you do that on a platform where there are probably a bazillion posts a minute, who knows? You cannot make Twitter responsible for what people post, you have to make the posters responsible for their own actions. Would I want to provide a whole slew of personal data to Twitter to prove my identity? Nope, on past record of these large and leaky companies, it would be likely to end up on the dark web for sale to scammers! So they won't do that, it would kill their business stone dead. Do I think software is clever enough to make the judgement of what is acceptable and what isn't? Not that either.

Difficult, but funny that they are pulling Trump up. If they want to start such 'fact checking' flagging, they should indeed start at the top - at the most influential (in the real world) Tweeters. Their drivel can do the most damage.
 
As I said - I think Trump should try and legislate i.e. work with Congress to bring through new laws. Just by the nature of the congressional approach, that ensures that it will be a slow, measured process. Whatever executive order he announces on a whim later today is going to achieve absolutely nothing other than making a lot of lawyers a lot of money.

But yes, in general I am a very strong advocate of free speech.
There are certain means of expression that are illegal (which would cover a lot of Daesh's message) and social media platforms have an obligation to remove those.

Otherwise, I think they have three choices:
1) Fact check every tweet that everyone writes (with current AI, they're probably able to do this fairly accurately today....albeit it would cause some technical challenges)
2) Don't fact check any tweet
3) Decide to fact check some tweets but not others - and in doing so, accept that they are now shaping the message and therefore are a publisher not a platform, and are hence liable in the same way that the New York Times or CNN would be for their own published content.


The Joe Scarborough thing is a different issue - in general, if you libel someone, they should be able to sue you for defamation.
But there are some loopholes in US law/process at the moment, that make it really tough to make a libel suit stick against a sitting President.
This article describes it rather well - https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/29/donald-trump-tweet-joe-scarborough-libel-215882

Again, something for US legislators to consider (although good luck getting anything there through a Presidential veto!!) but it's tangential to the main issue which is how much should social media companies be able to censor and augment the messages on their platforms, without themselves being liable for the content of those messages. And my answer is straightforward - they shouldn't.

Thank you for the response.
 
'When the looting starts the shooting starts'. That's what WE need more of! None of this vague messaging from the government. None of this 'follow your instincts' or 'use your common sense' or 'stay alert' but firm, clear information. The thugs of Minneapolis know where they stand and should now accept the consequences of their future actions.
 
'When the looting starts the shooting starts'. That's what WE need more of! None of this vague messaging from the government. None of this 'follow your instincts' or 'use your common sense' or 'stay alert' but firm, clear information. The thugs of Minneapolis know where they stand and should now accept the consequences of their future actions.
Typical woolly messaging, is it only looters that get shot, can they fire back, do the police have to rely on kneeling on rioters who don't loot.....
 
Typical woolly messaging, is it only looters that get shot, can they fire back, do the police have to rely on kneeling on rioters who don't loot.....
We also need a definition of 'looting'. Perhaps shoplifters should be shot, or at least have their necks trodden on?
 
I frankly don't care if Trump is getting fact checked. I think it is highly amusing that someone is now pointing out on every tweet he makes that it might be bullshit.

As has already been said, we all know most of it is, but the very fact that it is staring you in the face means you are reminded of it (and so is Trump) with everything he says is...funny!

I know it is too much too ask for our political Lords and Masters....you know, the ones we elect to serve us (not the other way round) to act with integrity, probity and be beyond reproach in everything they purport to do for and on our behalf, but for many Trump is the worst barrel-scraping example there is.

Watching him get all pi$$y over it just exposes what a vain narcissistic child he really is. Don has been asked to play nicely and he clearly has a real problem with that because it restricts and undermines his modus operandi. The longer he keeps showing himself up like this, the more his chances of getting a second term diminish.....I'm good with that.
 
  • React
Reactions: QR
Good summary from Rory Cellan-Jones:

"For years Twitter resisted calls to treat Donald Trump like any other user and make him follow its rules. Then, on Wednesday, it made a first small move, not removing a tweet but adding a fact-checking link.

The company then had two choices - hunker down and weather the storm or continue to take action in accordance with its stated rules. It has now chosen the latter course of action, calling the President out for glorifying violence.

Any other user would have had their tweet removed, and might have seen their account suspended.

It now looks as though there is no easy way out for either of the two adversaries - a huge battle over the limits of free speech and the rights of social media firms to moderate content is looming."

I've underlined the bits which I think strengthen the case for why we shouldn't have a problem with their approach. Don ALREADY gets special treatment on Twitter - he (despite clearly thinking otherwise) is a mere mortal, just like everyone else! Therefore he should play by the same rules....is that really too much to ask?
 
The Joe Scarborough thing is a different issue - in general, if you libel someone, they should be able to sue you for defamation.
But there are some loopholes in US law/process at the moment, that make it really tough to make a libel suit stick against a sitting President.
This article describes it rather well - https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/29/donald-trump-tweet-joe-scarborough-libel-215882

Again, something for US legislators to consider (although good luck getting anything there through a Presidential veto!!) but it's tangential to the main issue which is how much should social media companies be able to censor and augment the messages on their platforms, without themselves being liable for the content of those messages. And my answer is straightforward - they shouldn't.
I saw a lawyer hypothesising that one of the reasons Scarborough won't do anything about the Trump allegations is the discovery phase on the libel lawsuit, from a legal perspective, could find stuff that Scarborough may not want out there because of comments like the below - even if it's not 100% related.
Why joke about killing an intern?

So it's a tricky one for Scarborough and I am sure Trump knows that. We all know the more obscure stuff the Mueller investigation found and once the genie is out of the bottle...
 
Back
Top Bottom