Facebook Has No Plans To Lift Trump Ban, Report Says (nbcnews.com)
- Reference: 0141273138
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/21/01/19/2036214/facebook-has-no-plans-to-lift-trump-ban-report-says
- Source link: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/live-blog/2021-01-19-biden-inauguration-n1254610/ncrd1254767#liveBlogHeader
> The ban on Trump's account remains indefinite, the sources said, and there is no current plan in place to lift it. The social media giant said on Jan. 7 that it would "indefinitely" ban the president's account due to his role in inciting the attack on the U.S. Capitol a day earlier. The company said the ban would last at least through the end of his term. Facebook's suspension stopped short of [2]the permanent ban that other social media companies like Twitter and Snapchat lated placed on Trump's accounts.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/live-blog/2021-01-19-biden-inauguration-n1254610/ncrd1254767#liveBlogHeader
[2] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/21/01/08/2134230/reddit-bans-rdonaldtrump-forum-for-inciting-violence
I wouldn't (Score:3)
he's brand poison. January 6th has permanently associated Trump with violence and riots in the minds of a lot of Americans. Never mind that the money he brings in isn't going to be anywhere close to the cost of making sure he doesn't set off another violent protest or riot. Even McConnell is now saying Trump provoked violence (albeit likely because McConnell wants to get Trump off the national stage so he can assert power).
Trump's just not worth the hassle.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, the only people who actually believe Trump was trying to overthrow the government with his rally are the same people who hated him from the beginning.
His diehard fans will continue to think that he was the best president ever until their dying day.
Re: I wouldn't (Score:2)
Volence is what we associate with America.
WE. *Germany*.
Nationalism and racism too.
Let that sink in for a moment.
Think about your entertainment.
It almost exclusively revolves around two topics. War/crime and money.
(I do not want this to come off as "You suck. I hate you.". Bit as: "Friends! You need to sober up and turn your life around! Stat! ... Please! We love you!")
I wish I knew how to get you out of this vicious vortex... :/
Re: I wouldn't (Score:2)
Nobody said that.
Nice straw man though.
Did the dog eat your real arguments.?
Trump now irrelevant (Score:2)
Trump is now irrelevant, so he can be dumped and the lobbying is shifting elsewhere.
Facebook is now the Michael's of Social Media (Score:5, Insightful)
Scrapbooking only
Government speech should only originate through government channels. Private speech should only originate through private channels.
Government officials relying on Facebook to interact with constituents was a bad idea to begin with. Obama was the first president to use Twitter and that should have been nipped in the bud. Setting up a public platform and whatever else for government officials to post their musing and allow constituents to comment should be an endeavor completely separate of any privately run platforms.
The government has data retention laws. No doubt nothing of Trump's has actually been deleted, but all that data needs to be handed over to the government to be made available in a static form for historical purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, that makes little sense.
CNN is a private channel. Should politicians never talk to CNN?
Should the government print their own newspaper? Rather than ask a few national newspaper to print a message that is clearly labeled?
I suppose they would have to own their own printing press too?
Re: (Score:2)
> Obama was the first president to use Twitter and that should have been nipped in the bud.
There are a number of studies arguing that the reason Obama won in the first place was due to his massive and coordinated campaigning on the (then relatively new) social media platforms. That helped him win both the Democratic nomination, and the presidency. His opponents were basically left flat-footed. It has been compared to Kennedy's use of television, and Franklin D. Roosevelt's use of radio, to win their elections through new forms of media that were dismissed or ignored by their opponents.
[1]https://e [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_on_social_media
*meh* (Score:3)
I think what apple , Google and Facebook did is 'probably' acceptable, although it proves they should not have section 230 protection.
I think what Amazon did should be illegal, because they provide infrastructure and have no more business decided what is done with their problem then someone providing sugar to bakeries should have in deciding which cakes are made.
I get that you disagree with what they did (Score:2)
but it proves the opposite actually. Without the S230 protections the Government could have forced them to keep Trump online. Effectively removing Apple, Google & Facebook's rights to freedom of association.
You could argue their a publisher at that point, but they're not really. They aren't the ones publishing the material, Trump is.
And you can't argue they're a dumb pipe either. Without some form of moderation their products collapse in a wave of trolls and frauds.
That's what Section 230 is
Lucky Trump. (Score:3)
I'm banned too. Because FB thought my real name wasn't real, and demanded a copy of my passport, or of utilities bills, etc. Which does not only break several laws here, but ... fuck that! You get nothing! You loose! Good day!!
And I can tell you that it was one of the best decisions ever, for my mental health.
Much happier since then. And not dragged back and down to what "friends" think I am or was.
I can only think that it will do Trump good, to focus on real humans around him, and not feed his narcissim. Because I'm sure he was a nice kid once too, before some people damaged him. And maybe he can get a little bit back, of that.
As weird as it sounds. I wish him all the best. And a true friend.
Complete list of insults by Trump on twitter (Score:2)
[1] A reporter has compiled a list of all the insults [nytimes.com] hurled by Trump on Twitter.
A truly historical list, will be pored over by historians over the coming decades.
I recall an entomologist saying in NPR, "You can't hassle an ant. I set up [something that attracted ants] and laid a paper in the way. Got an ant to walk across the paper sheet towards bait. Just as it reached the end, turned it around, and it walked all the way across again. Repeated it some 200 times, the ant never gave up. I eventually gave
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/19/upshot/trump-complete-insult-list.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
What a legacy! (Score:2)
The first president to have received a perma ban on Facebook.
Of course they don't (Score:2)
What's the point of virtue signaling if everyone sees you stop?
The Hypocrite Party (Score:2)
Democrats never stopped bitching and moaning about Hollywood's blacklisting of communists in the 1940's and 1950's, insisting that private corporations should not have the right to discriminate on the basis of political views. Now that Democrats control tech monopolies and are themselves blacklisting Republicans, the Democrats insist that private corporations totally have the right to do business with whom they choose.
When blacklisting works against Democrats it is a corrupt and unethical practice and besi
Re: (Score:2)
Bear with it.
Re: Expect the bearings to continue (Score:2)
Riggt after UTF-8, mate.
Right after UTF-8!
Re: (Score:2)
> This is what communist dictatorships do.
Which are governments, not companies / corporations. This is free-market capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
problem is if the company is too big it is providing infrastructure, still I support their right to do what they want until someone passes some useful laws defining what that is and how it should look , so that all competitors are on the same field.
Is it ok with you if GE builds a kill switch into their fuse boxes then decides who is worthy to use them later based on political speech?
I'm ok if laws being applied equally but then don't be complaining when a private company ( or church) refuses to sell someon
Re: (Score:2)
> Is it ok with you if GE builds a kill switch into their fuse boxes then decides who is worthy to use them later based on political speech?
Yes, if their ability to shut you off remotely for whatever reason they want is part of their terms of service. I wouldn't buy it, but any company can make it. I think this is what they call the "internet of things".
Re: This is downright un-American (Score:2)
So not a democracy then?
Oh, I'm sorry. It is. Care to step off of our lands then?
[Nods over to MASSIVE US ARMY.]
Re: (Score:3)
Communist dictatorships:
Famous for letting the private sector decide what to do...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. The PP got that one wrong. Should have said "What Fascist regimes do."
Re: (Score:2)
Facist regimes:
Famous for telling the president to go fuck himself.
Just out of curiosity (Score:2)
which communist dictatorships?
China? The one that makes all our stuff in privately owned factories and doesn't have Universal Healthcare?
The old USSR? The one where a handful of oligarchs seized control over everything in a massive Kleptocracy?
I'm not asking you to read theory, but you could at least try to understand what communism is and why it didn't work out (hint: You never get out of the "dictatorship" part of "dictatorship of the preliterate", you need a smoother transition into the Star Tr
Re: (Score:2)
> This is what communist dictatorships do.
Facebook is a private business, not an entity constitutionally obligated to trumpet all of your violent fantasies of you and Trump want to visit on liberals to punish them for disagreeing with you all over the internet. If Facebook feels that Trump and his merry band of admirers is doing more damage to their brand than they are profiting from having them on their platform they can kick Trump out. Don't believe me? Read the terms Trump and all of his followers agreed to when they signed up for Facebook's ser
Re: (Score:2)
Except that you are forgetting that you can't yell "fire!" in a theater or say "bomb!" on an airplane and expect no consequences. There are limits to free speech and Trump crossed that line when he whipped his supporters up to violence.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what fascist dictatorships do too. Of course, the right goes straight for the C word, as that's scary to them and all policies that help the poor are all on the path to that. Turns out lies eventually do have consequences, and the GOP supporting installing a literal dictatorship has consequences. Let's see, the next claim will be that none of the idiots had parler accounts, and the insurrectionists were all antifa?
Re: (Score:2)
No, that would be if the government banned the account.
This, on the other hand, is very American. It's a corporation, declared to be a person by the SCOTUS, exercising their free association rights.
Re: (Score:2)
of which from 12pm tomorrow he is neither of.
Re: (Score:2)
He'll be a candidate for as long as he chooses to identify as such. Trump very well could (and I'd wager, likely will) make a run for the 2024 election.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if Mitch McConnell has anything to do with it. He's pretty much recommending Republican Senators vote to convict him, and then make him ineligible for a Federal office ever again. Whatever Republican voters may think, the GOP does not want Trump, particular a Trump that's four years older and probably four IQ points lower, seizing the nomination again.
Re: (Score:2)
The abrupt shift away from Trump by the GOP leadership has been breathtaking. I was honestly shocked how quick McConnell turned his back.
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians secrete an ooze that allows them to float along as well as quickly change directions.
Re: This is downright un-American (Score:2)
Yeah, but are you the country of free speech or not?
Are you a democracy or a corporate ologarchy?
Because in a democracy, you let everyone, even crazy people, speak too. And work it out. That is kinda the whole point.
Blocking is like war. A last resort that by definition means you already failed. At working it out. It is shameful.
And no, I'm not blaming you. I'm not blaming anyone.
You just get to decide now, who you are.
Somebody LIKE Trump or some dictatorship ... or somebody who takes the high road (without
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook isn't a branch of the government. It is a privately owned company.
Do you think you can come into my living room and demand to use my couch to pontificate on? Do you believe in property rights, or are you some sort of Trotskyite?
Re: (Score:2)
" Facebook isn't a branch of the government. It is a privately owned company. "
Considering how deeply various agencies within the US Government have their fingers into the data this platform provides, I would disagree with you on this point.
Re: (Score:2)
> Are you a democracy or a corporate ologarchy?
The latter. Next question.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with Merkle on this one, 'de-platforming' should at minimum require a court order the followed by a trial.
Re:This is downright un-American (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry but he violated their terms of service. They can do whatever the fuck they want. Thats how it works.
Re: This is downright un-American (Score:2)
So break up the tech oligopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
And how many advertisers do you imagine will want to be associated with a Neo-n@zi dominated FAcebook? Hell, the MyPillow guy has managed to start costing his company major contracts, or do you want Lowes to be forced to sell his merchandise?
Re: This is downright un-American (Score:2)
He just said that that is the problem.
And how the fuck is it, that people like you scream that such things are horrible, horrible, *unless* a corproation does it.
It seems you are the prime enablers of corporations being able to *actually* do anything they want.
PROTIP: They are not the rulers. The cititens are. You say one can do whatever the fuck one wants with one's platform?
Well, that is true for the citizens too, which land and amenities Fscebook enjoys! For free, instead of paying taxes, too, mind you!
H
Re: (Score:2)
> How about we block Faxebook from our "platform" unless they conform to our terms?
Most of the sane people are on-board with such a request. Please point to which of "our terms" (laws) that they have broken.
Re: (Score:2)
They can do whatever the fuck they want even if he *doesn't* violate their terms of service.
Technically they can ban him just for having orange hair.
Their terms of service explicitly grant them the right to ban anyone at any time for any reason they so damn well please including no reason at all
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if all social media was government owned.
Re: This is downright un-American (Score:2)
Talk to us about what that "ownership" means without our police and courts and military and laws...
-- The Cititens Of The United States Of America
Re: (Score:2)
What the fucking are you babbling about?
Re: (Score:2)
Then Merkle does not understand the US government. The President is literally immune to the US Justice System while in office. And to political restraint as well, so long as his party holds either the House or Senate. This had not really been established until recently, and does not line up with what we learned in school, but here we are.
Re: (Score:2)
> Indeed. You may not like Trump, but the thought of giving the social media oligopoly control over which political officials and/or candidates are allowed to communicate with us is a terrifying abuse of power.
Not too much more terrifying than the government preventing companies from removing problematic users from their platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't. Nobody owes you a platform to speak from.
Re: (Score:2)
You're using the same line of reasoning that people used to enforce "no coloreds allowed" rules. Yes they are private businesses, but there are limits on discrimination in business. Political affiliation isn't currently a protected class, but it certainly should be, and a SCOTUS decision certainly could determine it to be so.
Re: (Score:2)
Protected classes are for things you "are" such as race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability. The only one that is a choice is religion and IMO should not be protected, but outside of that it would be a real stretch to make political affiliation a protected class. What would even be the line, just your party? Ask 10 Democrats or Republicans or god forbid Libertarians what their beliefs are and chances are you'll get 10 different answers.
Re: (Score:2)
" it would be a real stretch to make political affiliation a protected class "
No, it wouldn't considering how much HATE is being heaped upon anyone who doesn't support Biden and / or the Democratic Party atm.
Political affiliation is one of those things that is no one's business but your own.
Just like everything else on the current list of protected classes.
Re: (Score:2)
> You're using the same line of reasoning that people used to enforce "no coloreds allowed" rules. Yes they are private businesses, but there are limits on discrimination in business. Political affiliation isn't currently a protected class, but it certainly should be, and a SCOTUS decision certainly could determine it to be so.
It's not his political affiliation that prompted the ban, it's what he said and how that fit (or didn't) with Facebook's rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Explain what discrimination is used against Trump?
Re: This is downright un-American (Score:2)
That would be a corporate feudal oligarchy, mate.
You seem to be confused about who's in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess which party that has been in power for the last 4 years has been a champion of corporate rights and against neutrality in any form!
Care to put odds on any of them remembering this the next time the issue comes up in debate?
Re: (Score:2)
There's been pretty broad support against Section 230 for a while there - even some bipartisan support.
Though speaking of irony, it's funny how the party that has spent that last 4 years decrying "evil corporations" and screaming "EAT THE RICH!" are now all of a sudden screaming "BUT IT'S A PRIVIATE COMPANY!!??!!". Hypocrisy swings both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
All removing section 230 will do is flood social media with shit posts that they are too afraid to remove. If someone LITERALLY posts the word shit to every thread, they would be forced to leave it there lest they become a "publisher" and become responsible for the 2 out of a million posts that might incur legal liability.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you not capable of thinking that maybe, just maybe, they could just modify it to fix what's wrong rather than a full repeal?
Rather than "gates wide open" content filtering it would be rather simple to say that sites are only legally allowed to filter spam, repetitive content designed to drown out others (eg, DOS attacks), and illegal content, if they want to enjoy the protections of Section 230. Otherwise if you're "controlling the narrative" as it were, then you most certainly should be treated as a p
Re: (Score:2)
I am, but the GOP seems not to be. They're the ones that tried to repeal it entirely as a rider.
Re: (Score:2)
More projection from the right, but you didn't notice that, did you?
Re: (Score:2)
Wait until you hear about their views on the deficit now they're out of power! That'll be Biden's fault too.
That's a false dichotomy (Score:2)
They never had control over what political officials & candidates are allowed to communicate. At best they had control over access to a very specific audience.
In America you're owed the right to speak, but not the right to be heard. Put another way, I don't have to listen to you, and I don't have to give you a megaphone to yell at me on my private property.
Re: (Score:2)
To put it another way:
The Freedom of Speech is a wonderful thing, as long as we can ensure that no one is listening.
Re: (Score:2)
So tell the politicians to stop using private companies as their communications platform. Have the government build out their own social media website for their communications, and let people subscribe to it if they want updates. The private companies aren't abusing their power. They're using their power, the power that our politicians gave them by using them as the communications gateway. Stop doing that!
Re: (Score:2)
> You may not like Trump, but the thought of giving the social media oligopoly control over which political officials and/or candidates are allowed to communicate with us is a terrifying abuse of power.
Trump has the White House media infrastructure at his disposal: he can hold a live TV press conference, or put out a press release, literally whenever he damn well feels like it. Instead he chooses to act like a petulant 'tween "influencer" - thank the gods he's not into selfies.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean fucking up the Covid response and "draining the swamp"?
Re: (Score:2)
No, he means playing golf and having the taxpayers pay for it.
Re: (Score:3)
According to Trump Golf Count, a website that tracks the president's golf outings, Obama played 306 rounds of golf during his eight years in office — just 45 more than the 261 it estimates Trump has already played during his first term.
[1]https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-defends-golf-trips-falsely-claims-less-than-obama-2020-7
Re: (Score:2)
So AC is right, Obama DID play more golf during his term. /s
Re: (Score:2)
This is my problem with politics... You can hate the man all you like (just like I do) but if you can't point out anything good he's done then you're just as much of a problem as the blind supporters. Obama is a FAR better human being than Trump could ever hope to be, but that doesn't mean his presidency was without its share of crappy decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
That just proves how toxic Trump and his cult members are.
Re: (Score:2)
Hard core Trump supporters are not half of America. They are not even half of the Republican party. They are half of the Republicans who show up in the primary that is all. A really small part of America.
And yes, they are toxic.
Re: (Score:2)
Half the country would vote for a turnip of there was an R in front of the name.
Re: (Score:2)
This decision will have a cost, but doing nothing would have also, which will never be known. Politics is definitely making a lot of the social connections on Facebook less enjoyable, but it's unclear how much Facebook can fix that.
Twitter's dilemma is much greater. I don't think much of the traffic on Facebook is directly attributable to Trump, as it has been on Twitter the last few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like what happened in the election, except the loser can't let it go... which basically put him in the position he's in.
Words and actions have consequences. Elementary age kids learn this lesson.
If FB did nothing, is that angering the other half of the US? They hedged their bet by assuming many republicans really didn't like Trump but disliked democrats more. And I would say their assumption is correct going by my personal connection to life-long republicans. A few thought Trump was great, ma
Re: (Score:2)
You try very hard to claim ALL the Republican votes as Trump votes. But the fact is, so many Republicans voted Republican despite Trump not because of Trump.
90% of the pro Trump noise is made by 10% of the Republicans. As they get held accountable for the noise they make, this will shrink dramatically.
The Republicans use Fox News to know what line to parrot dutifully. Fox gets sued by Dominion Voting systems, suddenly all the fraud caused by hacked machine noise and chatter goes off the air. [1] Fox paid o [nytimes.com]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/17/business/media/fox-news-seth-rich-settlement.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but you don't get to excuse what you vote for. If you voted for Trump, you voted for Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
As I keep saying, nobody seems to hate the right like the right.
Alienating half of the USA is not a winning marketing strategy.
The majority of the right are not traitorous insurrection sympathizers, and frankly no one on the left is suggesting it. But it's a really common meme on the right.
Re: (Score:2)
The question was, which half of the USA were they going to alienate? They decided to go with the smaller half.
They're not going anywhere (Score:2)
their friends and families are all still on Facebook. A few of them will try some right wing competitors, but those tend to either censor posts at a very high rate (like Parler) or chock full of actual White Supremacists (like Gab) meaning that nobody likes to hang out on them except a narrow band of users.
When it comes to social networking Facebook has a lock on the market. Google, with the benefit of it's search empire and billions of dollars couldn't crack that nut. Losing Trump isn't gonna do it.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect that their reasoning goes something like... after a couple of years of a president that actually acts like a president is expected to, people in the U.S. are likely to move away from the approximate 50/50 split you alude to from the vote. If Biden doesn't spend as much time on the golf course and treats Covid as a real problem, it might even move faster. If you look at the recent presidential approval polls, they are already about there. According to the convenient graphs on fivethirtyeight.com, on
Re: (Score:2)
BTW Republicans are not "half" of America. Democrats are reliably 33%. Independents bring in another 30%. Republicans are about 25%. The rest are libertarians and other minor parties like Greens.
Hard core Trump supporters are about 60% of Republicans, or 15% of the country. Usually these are uneducated rural Whites, the spending controlled by them is less than 15% especially in the high margin discretionary spending products. So it is not that big a loss. Facebook knows so much about them, they know preci
Re: (Score:2)
The interests of the nation winning over the interests of the Zuck? I'm all for it. What took so long, and how can we get more of this?
Re: (Score:2)
Less than half of the USA. That's what got this problem started.
Re: Who cares (Score:2)
Looking at Facebook, even he has a decent chance of building something better. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Not a chance.
Free market, bitches! (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't like it? Just make your own social network, hosting, payment processor, credit card company, and country!
Re: (Score:2)
...with Blackjack, and Hookers!
In fact, forget the social network, hosting, payment processor, credit card company, and country!
Yo Grark
Re: (Score:2)
Be sure to take your fraction of the current country, state, and maybe county or city debt with you wherever you decide to relocate. That's the real tough thing that has to be resolved before any of these nutty secede stances would ever work.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty tough running an insurrectionist army dedicated to overthrowing Congress and making you dictator for life. First, most of the damned voters don't want you to, then it turns out your army is a bunch of low class Neo-n@zis and Q Anon psychiatric cases. And then, and this is worst of all, it turns out corporate America doesn't want to play a part in your coup, and only the Russians will host your chat site. I mean, what's a would-be tyrant to do? I guess retire to Florida, though it turns out your
Re: (Score:2)
> Don't like it? Just make your own social network
With blackjack! And hookers!
Re: (Score:2)
Your signature, dude. Its author wouldn't know truth if it punched him in the face. Neither would you. You need professional help. Bigly.
Re: (Score:2)
[1]https://www.irishtimes.com/new... [irishtimes.com] Wow. Really nice role model for ya there.
[1] https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/beatification-of-irish-american-archbishop-postponed-1.4121019
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably much easier to pitch in to raise funds to buy an island in the Caribbean or Pacific Ocean.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You right wing supplicants are already living off the taxes of others, so yeh by all means fuck off. Build yourself a nice high wall .When your right wing paradise is destroyed by nutjobs infighting, don’t expect the civillised people to help.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, what you're describing is just unpossible. It really is.
A quick review of Wikipedia reveals that AWS was introduced in 2006. Do you remember any websites before 2006? I doubt it, the Internet really didn't exist until 2006. That was when it all started. Twitter started on the same day which we all know is hosted on AWS so stop saying that it isn't.
Facebook, well, that started before, but let's be honest, that must have been Zuckerberg starting Facebook corporation, at which time until AWS came al
Re: (Score:3)
You leftist shitheads can't leave well enough alone and constantly try to get these platforms to kick off content you don't like. Fuck you.
You rightist shitheads can't do anything except make up lies because you are utterly disconnected from reality. I use one of those webhosts that I'm talking about, partly because they will host anything allowed under the first amendment, no exceptions.