Trump Launches Website to Report Social Media Censorship

[Xzi]

Seemingly unmentioned in all this is the fact that Trump has been one of the most anti-free press presidents in the history of the country. He doesn't give a fuck about the first amendment, and this isn't about enforcing it. It's just another example of short-sighted Republicans addressing an issue only once it affects them personally.

 

[Hanafuda]

Seemingly unmentioned in all this is the fact that Trump has been one of the most anti-free press presidents in the history of the country. He doesn't give a fuck about the first amendment, and this isn't about enforcing it. It's just another example of short-sighted Republicans addressing an issue only once it affects them personally.

Predecessor didn’t set much of an example to follow.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/06/08/seizing-journalists-records-an-outrage-that-obama-normalized-for-trump/?outputType=amp

 

[SG854]

Seemingly unmentioned in all this is the fact that Trump has been one of the most anti-free press presidents in the history of the country. He doesn't give a fuck about the first amendment, and this isn't about enforcing it. It's just another example of short-sighted Republicans addressing an issue only once it affects them personally.

The White House rejected governments from around the world to have our own gov censor social media. They acted on our laws in the constitution. They’ve show to care about the 1st amendment.


It’s not mentioned because it’s irrelevant to the bigger picture. If creating legislation is short sighted then the creation of the first amendment is short sighted. If creating legislation is short sighted then the Dems position to create laws to close tax loopholes is short sighted, because our possible future gov might not act on it, so therefore don’t bother at all.

Creating legislation is beyond Trump. And the 3 branches of gov will check his power. He doesn’t have all the power in the world and still can’t get all the funding he wants for his boarder. And many dems hate him so you can be sure they’ll put a check on his power.


It doesn’t matter if they only want something only because it affects them personally. Because Dems will also benefit in the process since it protects everyone. A person that creates a medical invention that saves lives not because he cares about saving people but because he wants fame and money is still beneficial to the public.

 

[Xzi]

Predecessor didn’t set much of an example to follow.

If he was following Obama's example, there'd still be regularly scheduled press conferences. Huckabee-Sanders lost her will to continue spouting lies like a year ago.

It doesn’t matter if they only want something only because it affects them personally.

Yes it does matter if the White House is only adhering the constitution when politically expedient to do so. That would put Trump in violation of his oath of office. Not that any Republican seems to care, but real Americans should.

Because Dems will also benefit in the process since it protects everyone.

Let's see evidence of that first. I have yet to see Trump act in any manner that doesn't benefit him personally in some way. For the moment I have to assume they're just trying to cherry pick examples here to be used as political fodder to benefit the right-wing exclusively. Not that most wouldn't see right through the ruse.

 

[cots]

Predecessor didn’t set much of an example to follow.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/06/08/seizing-journalists-records-an-outrage-that-obama-normalized-for-trump/?outputType=amp

Yeah, however, you're only going to get "but, but ..." or deflecting replies to this fact from the Libtards. Changing your stance on-the-fly to support your floating standards is the Liberal way off life (when in all actuality that's called being full of shit). How about the Liberals see there is truth in this and say "Wait a second, maybe our Savior was also full of it".

 

[BiggieCheese]

okay so how does someone use this and say that they were censored for attempting to incite viol- I-I mean own the libs by providing (what i perceive as) facts and logic against women and minorities
asking for a friend




This is a joke by the way, screw the people that do this stuff and try to get their platform back.

 

[WiiMiiSwitch]

I thought I was done talking about Trump but I found this interesting. Trump launches a website where if you feel you are being censored unjustly for your beliefs you can report it.

Source
YouTube Video



The White House also refused International Call for Media Censorship from 18 governments saying it’s a matter of free speech concerns.

Source

It's still relevant, I don't support neither Trump or Mr.Biden but I belive people should have free speech online and be able to say what they want without being fact checked or tooken down

 

[SG854]

It's still relevant, I don't support neither Trump or Mr.Biden but I belive people should have free speech online and be able to say what they want without being fact checked or tooken down

This thread is old I don't remember what I said. Not gunna read through the whole thread either. This was created two years ago. My opinions are different now then what they use to be so a bit of disclaimer if something does sound off from me in this thread.

I think people should have free speech. But there are exceptions to the free speech thing, I'm just lazy to list those exceptions or even debate this issue.

 

[Taleweaver]

It's still relevant, I don't support neither Trump or Mr.Biden but I belive people should have free speech online and be able to say what they want without being fact checked or tooken down

Yeah... The problem is that people already have that. Here on gbatemp, even : just make a blog post and write away. Criticism? Just delete all their comments. It's your personal spot.
Okay, within reason (I don't think it'll stay there if I start sharing rom links or pornography), but I'm mostly free.

That 'mostly free' happens in most areas on the internet. Those who violate the rules aren't paying respect to the owners, which would in normal cases feed superstition to their motives.

... Which is that problem I'm talking about : those claiming to want more freedom are usually the ones attempting to troll or intimidate others to push their own agenda.

Same with Trump. In the two years since this thread was active, Trump has used his Twitter account to spread lies about covid. This directly impacted all sorts of communication issues that shouldn't have been there to begin with.
But he just kept using his 'freedom of opinion' to try to convince people that he won the election (even though none of his lawyers could even prove anything remotely in that regard), and finally relief them to raid the capitol.
So... Is that freedom of speech worth it to you? That any madman with a cult following can just order his followers to commit terrorism?

 

[Plasmaster09]

Arbitrary gatekeeping, nobody in the political sphere knows anything about IT, besides McAfee, which would be a funny pick for the saviour of the Internet. On a more serious note, you can keep taking digs at Trump all you want, I can't wait to see the result of this program.

Your approach to this is very interesting because not 5 minutes ago liberals argued that a Christian baker has to bake a cake for a gay wedding despite religious objections because upon becoming a business he has agreed to serve the public without discriminating his customer base on whatever grounds, and now I hear liberals arguing the exact opposite. Hmm. Makes me think. Gets my noggin' joggin'. Really toasts my almonds. Could it be possible that, perhaps, removing right-wing voices from the public square on the Internet's biggest websites with the widest reach is politically expedient and pretending to be anti-interventionist free marketeers is worth it in this particular moment in time? Who knows? I surely wouldn't be cynical enough to say that out loud.

There's an important difference (which especially needs to be explained since people use this kind of bullshit false equivalency a lot right now): the asshat baker didn't have any form of ToS stating that they have any right to just... deny service to people for an arbitrary distinction out of bigotry, while platforms like Facebook lay out all their terms of service and violations thereof from the beginning. By using a social media platform, you are agreeing to their rules and they have every right to punish you for breaking them as they said they would.

 

[Luke94]

I guess it's daily routine for Russia,China,North Korea,America, Israel. Political correctness stuff.

 

[Plasmaster09]

I guess it's daily routine for Russia,China,North Korea,America. Political correctness stuff.

what
what
how are you comparing oppressive regimes to basic TOS that amounts to "don't be a bigoted dickbag online"

 

[AncientBoi]

tRUMP can still go kcuF flesmiH !

 

[Luke94]

what
what
how are you comparing oppressive regimes to basic TOS that amounts to "don't be a bigoted dickbag online"

Calm down dude.

 

[MikaDubbz]

The ways people misinterpret the first amendment never ceases to amaze me. The Freedom of Speech doesn't mean your speech has no consequences. If you go about to private businesses and start spewing hate, that business can absolutely kick you out and ban you from the premises, and in doing so, they are NOT violating your first amendment rights. You're free to say what you want, but don't mistake that for meaning that there can't be consequences for what you say no matter where you say it.

 

[g00s3y]

Wow, talk about fucking snowflakes...

Trump and his supporters still out here looking like pussy

 

[Plasmaster09]

Calm down dude.

1) tone argument
2) pathos gambit
3) deflection
you said some pretty crazy bullshit, of course I'm going to call you out on it

 

[Luke94]

Oh okay.