[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       cypherpunks
Subject:    Trump? You can't handle the Trump! - Twitter/Dorsey in meltdown - [PEACE] [FREE SPEECH]
From:       Zenaan Harkness <zen () freedbms ! net>
Date:       2020-05-29 9:34:47
Message-ID: 20200529093447.zddfq2qkxn3uyixz () eye ! freedbms ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

Thought lady Kayleigh "McLuscious" McEnany was hard core mic dropping?

Thought a fact check or "now THAT's just reactionary counter tweet":

       This EO is a reactionary and politicized approach to a landmark law. \
#Section230 protects American innovation and freedom of expression, and it's \
underpinned by democratic values. Attempts to unilaterally erode it threaten the \
future of online speech and Internet freedoms.  — Twitter Public Policy (@Policy) \
                May 29, 2020
           https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1266170586197262337?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw


would "handle" the Trump?

Evidently that's what Dorsey's PR directive thought...

The truth is, Dorsey can't handle the Trump :)

This might seem really strange to some, since Twitter's professional full PR team put \
out the above professional PR response to Trump - "This EO is a reactionary and \
politicized approach" - I mean come on, at least the first part is factual, but so, \
so strangely, Trump just came right back, shock horror, O M G, with ... wait for it \
... ANOTHER TWEET! :D :D  :

       MAIL-IN VOTING WILL LEAD TO MASSIVE FRAUD AND ABUSE. IT WILL ALSO LEAD TO THE \
END OF OUR GREAT REPUBLICAN PARTY. WE CAN NEVER LET THIS TRAGEDY BEFALL OUR NATION. \
BIG MAIL-IN VICTORY IN TEXAS COURT TODAY. CONGRATS!!!  — Donald J. Trump \
                (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2020
           https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1266172570983940101?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw



Dude! Like, did NOT expect a response from Trump - and aNOTHER tweet of all things?!  \
Come, on, that is so, so unexpected, and what's more unbelievable, Trump has here \
completely doubled down on his earlier tweet which drew the ire of Twitter's new \
'Trump Fact Checking' team.

Literally could -never- have predicted this!  We were so totally like "nah, this is \
now literally over for Trump - he might as well just concede to Biden immediately... \
so sad"...

... or something.



Free speech muffas!




On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:54:38AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> Be cautious folks, since the tech giants have been craving the fig leaves of govt. \
> regulation to whitewash their nefarious censorship and abuse of civil rights to \
> free speech inherent in their dominant platforms, and: 
> .. And as Mui pointed out, companies face newfound political uncertainty as \
> regulating speech on these platforms becomes a "political football". 
> 
> Trump Signs Executive Order Stripping Social Media Companies Of "Liability Shield" 
> https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/white-house-plans-empower-fcc-regulate-american-social-media-giants
>  
> .. For what it's worth, a report published last night claimed that the White House \
> didn't consult the FCC on these new guidelines. 
> .. Though we doubt Commissioner Ajit Pai will have any serious objections to the \
> plan. 
> .. Finally, it appears the Executive order does not quite go as far as to call for \
> direct reversals of Section 230 protections... though handing it over to the FCC \
> may well be the warning shot across the social media giants' bows that they need. \
> As Jonathan Turley noted: 
> The expectation is that the Trump executive order on social media will include a \
> review of Section 230 of the Federal Communications Act for the possible \
> elimination of protections for Twitter and other social media companies. The effort \
> would be hard to succeed without congressional action. As a private actor, Twitter \
> is not the subject of the First Amendment but the President and his administration \
> are.  There are also separation of powers concerns with any unilateral or \
> constructive amendment of Section 230. 
> Trump in my view is right in condemning the action of Twitter. The focus should be \
> on the company's assault on free speech principles. Anyone who values free speech \
> on the Internet and social media should be appalled by this action regardless of \
> their feelings about Pres. Trump. 
> 
> .. Update (1300ET): In a hilariously sly move, Trump just sent a tweet that will \
> leave Twitter with an interesting dilemma: Slap another "misinformation" label on a \
> presidential tweet that also includes criticism of the company itself (making it \
> essentially censorship bait), or ignore it and face calls of being labeled \
> "inconsistent" while everybody praises Mark Zuckerberg's more measured approach. 
> So ridiculous to see Twitter trying to make the case that Mail-In Ballots are not \
> subject to FRAUD. How stupid, there are examples, & cases, all over the place. Our \
> election process will become badly tainted & a laughingstock all over the World. \
> Tell that to your hater @yoyoel — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 28, 2020
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1266047584038256640?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
> 
> .. Update (1550ET):  During a press conference where President Trump signed an \
> executive order pressuring social media companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter \
> to stop showing political bias. The order is meant to chip away at the "liability \
> shield" these platforms enjoy thanks to Section 230 of the Communications Decency \
> Act of 1996. 
> [Trump signing this order and press conf one assumes]
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_AJWZ01X94
> 
> The EO also requires the DoJ to work with state AGs to make sure they enforce laws \
> on "deceptive" business practices. He added that social media companies are \
> "tantamount to a monopoly" and have had unlimited power to shape and alter the \
> national conversation. 
> When Twitter tags tweets as "misinformation", they cease being a platform and \
> effectively become "an editor with a viewpoint". "What they chose to promote or \
> ignore is nothing short of political activism," Trump said. "This censorship is a \
> threat to freedom itself - imagine if your phone company edited your text messages \
> or blocked your phone calls." 
> AG Barr, who was also in attendance, said Section 230 "was stretched way beyond its \
> original intention...its purpose was to allow websites that were acting virtually \
> as bulletin boards were not responsible for third-party information...". When they \
> "curate" their collection and start "censoring" particular content, they become \
> publishers, and they shouldn't be entitled to the same kind of shield that was set \
> up earlier. He also explained how the executive order sets up a "rule making \
> procedure for the FCC" to try and "get back to the original interpretation" of \
> Section 230. 
> It also encourages state attorneys general to come up with "model" legislation \
> addressing this at the state level. 
> "Currently social media platforms like twitter enjoy a liability shield because \
> they are a 'neutral platform' - which they are not...social media companies who \
> engage in editing or censorship will be stripped of this shield, while companies \
> will be punished should they engage in any "deceptive" acts. Federal agencies will \
> also be barred from buying advertising on these platforms - a direct attack on \
> their bottom line. 
> Trump said he expects legal challenges to the order, but believes the White House \
> will "do well" with them. 
> These companies grew because they held themselves out as a public forum...but now \
> that they have become these very powerful networks, they've now switched, and they \
> are using that market power to enforce particular view points," he said. This \
> should be addressed not only via the order, but in court challenges and legislation \
> on Capitol Hill. 
> .. In true Trump form, the president took a swing at the traditional media, \
> claiming that if press coverage of his presidency was "fair", he would happily \
> delete his twitter account. 
> ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:31:15PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > A hint of good news, folks:
> > 
> > Don Bongino tweeted a quasi-confirmation of this angle for the executive order:
> > 
> > "Twitter made a HUGE mistake. They have now injected themselves into a US \
> > election and decided to become editorialists, rather than a platform. ALL \
> > platform protections should be immediately revoked and Twitter should be treated \
> > as a publisher. They did this to themselves." https://twitter.com/dbongino
> > 
> > 
> > See here:
> > 
> > Trump To Sign Social Media Executive Order On Thursday After 'Fact-Check', \
> > Political Bias Exposed \
> > https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/election-meddling-rule-enforcing-twitter-execs-under-fire-anti-trump-postings
> >  
> > Update (1830ET): Following up on earlier threats, a White House spokesperson has \
> > confirmed that President Trump will sign an executive order on Social Media \
> > tomorrow. 
> > Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany made the remark to reporters aboard Air Force \
> > One, traveling with Trump to Washington from Florida. 
> > There are no details of what the order will contain, however, Rep. Matt Gaetz \
> > (R-FL) said today that he is working with Republican members of the House \
> > Judiciary Committee to craft legislation that would strip social media giants of \
> > their Section 230 legal immunity if they fact check content on their platforms, \
> > according to a copy of his podcast which Breitbart News exclusively obtained. \
> > https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/05/27/exclusive-matt-gaetz-drafting-bill-to-drop-big-techs-legal-immunity-over-one-sided-fact-checks/
> >  
> > Gaetz said:
> > 
> > A lot of people don't see that Facebook and Twitter … you see Twitter \
> > disadvantaging the president, they enjoy liability protections that are not \
> > enjoyed by your local newspaper or your local TV station, or Fox News, or CNN, or \
> > MSNBC. They have special benefits under Section 230 of the Communications Decency \
> > Act as digital platforms because they're not creating content for which they \
> > should be liable. They're not making decisions about content, they're simply \
> > saying come one, come all with your content. And as a consequence of that, \
> > they're getting a bunch of protections.  
> > And as Breitbart concludes, noting that the social media companies have become \
> > increasingly biased against conservatives, Gaetz questioned whether social media \
> > companies deserve to keep their Section 230 immunity. \
> > https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/05/27/exclusive-matt-gaetz-drafting-bill-to-drop-big-techs-legal-immunity-over-one-sided-fact-checks/
> >  
> > ...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Many have observed for ages that the SM (social media/ sado masochist) \
> > corporations want to have their carrier cake and eat it as a content publishing \
> > censor too. 
> > This is about to change.
> > 
> > [Angry Trump pointing the finger at Twatter, pic not attached.]
> > 
> > Update (1025ET): That did not take long. As more and more information is exposed \
> > about Twitter's bias, President Trump has tweeted an ominous warning to "Jack" \
> > and his crew of social justice warriors... 
> > Twitter has now shown that everything we have been saying about them (and their \
> > other compatriots) is correct. Big action to follow! — Donald J. Trump \
> > (@realDonaldTrump) May 27, 2020 \
> > https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265649545410744321?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
> >  
> > 
> > ... On Wednesday morning, Trump issued a couple more tweets claiming the federal \
> > government will "strongly regulate, or close them down" - referring to social \
> > media companies who suppress conservative voices in the name of protecting "the \
> > truth" (ie the progressive narrative that Silicon Valley tech giants have \
> > promised to perpetuate). 
> > He also linked his accusations of bias with his opposition to mail-in ballots. \
> > ... 
> > Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives \
> > voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow \
> > this to happen. We saw what they attempted to do, and failed, in 2016. We can't \
> > let a more sophisticated version of that.... — Donald J. Trump \
> > (@realDonaldTrump) May 27, 2020 
> > ....happen again. Just like we can't let large scale Mail-In Ballots take root in \
> > our Country. It would be a free for all on cheating, forgery and the theft of \
> > Ballots. Whoever cheated the most would win. Likewise, Social Media. Clean up \
> > your act, NOW!!!! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 27, 2020
> > https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265601611310739456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
> >  https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265601615261827072?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Now we know why the tech giants are so desperate to coerce the Euros into "my \
> > hands are tied" Avio etc legislation, so then it looks like it's NOT the tech \
> > giants doing the censorship, since they have created these fig leaves of \
> > plausible deniability (statute legislation). 
> > Not good.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 09:46:20PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 06:40:03AM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
> > > > https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16057/france-free-speech
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Come on grarpamp!  This is getting ridiculous - France was supposed to be that \
> > > final bastion of freedom ?!#@! 
> > > ESPECIALLY free speech!
> > > 
> > > From the article above:
> > > 
> > > - Private companies will now be obliged to act as thought police on behalf of \
> > > the French state or face heavy fines. 
> > > - "Under the pretext of fighting 'hateful' content on the Internet, it [the \
> > > Avia law] is setting up a system of censorship that is as effective as it is \
> > > dangerous... 'hate' is the pretext systematically used by those who want to \
> > > silence dissenting opinions.... A democracy worthy of its name should accept \
> > > freedom of expression." — Guillaume Roquette, editorial director of Le Figaro \
> > > Magazine, May 22, 2020. 
> > > - "What is hate? You have the right not to love... you have the right to love, \
> > > you have the right to hate. It's a feeling... It cannot be judicialized, \
> > > legislated." — Éric Zemmour, CNews, May 13, 2020. 
> > > - Asking private companies -- or the government -- to act as thought police \
> > > does not belong in a state that claims to follow a democratic rule of law. \
> > > Unfortunately, the question is not whether France will be the last European \
> > > country to introduce such censorship laws, but what other countries are next in \
> > > line. 
> > > With a new law, the French government has decided to delegate the task of state \
> > > censorship to online platforms such as Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube, \
> > > Instagram and Snapchat. Private companies will now be obliged to act as thought \
> > > police on behalf of the French state or face heavy fines. 
> > > On May 13, the French parliament adopted a law that requires online platforms \
> > > such as Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram and Snapchat[1] to remove \
> > > reported "hateful content" within 24 hours and "terrorist content" within one \
> > > hour. Failure to do so could result in exorbitant fines of up to €1.25 \
> > > million or 4% of the platform's global revenue in cases of repeated failure to \
> > > remove the content. 
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Making me angry now - the Western underminers just don't know when to quit, and \
> > > grarpamp, you keep bringing it to our attention! 
> > > What are we sposed to do?!
> > > 
> > > [Much redacted and very loud swearing...]
> > > 


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]