5 ms·

You mean the person who was the sitting president of the united states, who got deplatformed in unison by big tech social media, and is now fighting against cen

You mean the person who was the sitting president of the united states, who got deplatformed in unison by big tech social media, and is now fighting against censorship by using tech? Yeah, that is not relevant at all to hackernews /s

parrellel 5y ago
That is an interestingly context free take. What did he do? What could he possibly have done, to get that to happen? It's like I wasn't sitting a mile from the capitol watching the WTOP national mall guy hiding behind a banister while the mob from his rally battered down the doors.
krapp 5y ago
I like how everyone always says "sitting President of the united states" when they mention Trump's deplatforming, as if to imply that being a sitting President gives Trump greater legal right to a social media account, or that deplatforming Trump was in some way an coup or overthrow of Trump's position as President, thus reinforcing the narrative of social media being an organized supranational conspiracy that poses a threat to national sovereignty itself. It's these consistent, subtle details that make the Trumpist propaganda so effective. The other side needs to start taking notes.
- jimktrains2 5y ago
  As much as I dislike Trump, deplatforming is much more notable while he was in office than if it had happened afterwards. I agree, though, that it does sometimes sound like it's being hinted that something more nefarious was happening when people talk about it like this.
  - smhenderson 5y ago
    But he did violate their terms of service over and over while in office. You could argue that they should have booted him sooner, after a few warnings and repeated violations. And they can argue that they gave him, and other political figures, extra leeway due to their public positions and their newsworthiness. But at the end of the day he was repeatedly given special treatment that most of us would never get on any of the platforms he was banned from. If there was anything nefarious going on it was Twitter, FB, etc. looking the other way because they knew that his violations of their terms was attracting attention and therefore making them money.
    - adventured 5y ago
      > But he did violate their terms of service over and over while in office. One of the primary issues is that Twitter has routinely granted privileged protected status to their favored political side, and refused to ban prominent people on the left that have behaved dramatically in violation of their policies [1][2]. There were a huge number of examples of it from the left during the unhinged Nick Sandermann cultural conflict for example (a wave of direct calls for violence by blue checkmarks against underage children). Twitter has no qualms with unevenly applying their policies, so long as they're helping their political side. That has particularly been going on for four or five years non-stop at this point. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2013/11/12/5094762/spike-lee-sued-for-posting-wrong-zimmerman-address-on-twitter https://www.theverge.com/2013/11/12/5094762/spike-lee-sued-f... [2] https://apnews.com/article/north-america-donald-trump-ap-top-news-movies-jane-fonda-dc61fee9d4c84506a712dd6f4974ba17 https://apnews.com/article/north-america-donald-trump-ap-top...
      - smhenderson 5y ago
        I certainly don't doubt there are plenty of other examples and I don't have any love for Twitter or any other SM platform these days. But as far as I could see, only seeing the former president's tweets in the news because I'm not a Twitter user, he was also granted protected status. So I fail to see it as some leftist conspiracy and find it more likely that Twitter just allows users that attract more attention this privileged status because it's in their best interest to do so. Honestly, I don't know who Nick Sandermann is and could not care less about what Jane Fonda and Spike Lee are up to on Twitter. You've just pointed out some great examples of why I left it behind a long time ago. However, as a US citizen, I do care what my president gets up to, even on social media. Given it's outsized influence on our society these days, I'm probably more interested in what the president is saying on social media, where he, and every other politician, seem to be able to get away with saying things they'd never have said on mainstream television or on traditional media not that long ago.
    - dtoznayxvf 5y ago
      What a pile of nonsense. Now I'm not an American and have no stake beyond not wanting your country to burn because it's bad for the world... but come on? Have you ever seen another president treated that way? Maybe Nixon? Imagine if he was on twitter when in office. Extra leeway lolololol. You must be a reporter or a FAANG employee with options?
- cabalamat 5y ago
  > as if to imply that being a sitting President gives Trump greater legal right to a social media account That's not what they're implying. The implication is that if they can do it to the office-holder of one of the most powerful jobs in the world, they are very powerful and can do it to you. > the narrative of social media being an organized supranational conspiracy When lots of social media companies do the same thing at the same time, what other explanation is there?
jd115 5y ago
No, we mean the fat orange KGB troll by the same name.
- elzbardico 5y ago
  Please, trump has defects enough so we don't have to resort to this stupid Russian conspiracy lie.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    I'm sorry but what part was a lie? Russians did hack the DNC, sparing the RNC. They did coordinate with Trump associate Roger Stone in the distribution of the materials, and Stone informed Trump of this. Trump's campaign did meet with a Russian spy at Trump's residence to discuss a quid pro quo deal in which dirt on Clinton was exchanged for relaxed foreign relations, both of which did materialize from the respective parties. Trump did solicit help from Russian hackers to attack Hillary Clinton, an attack which did materialize according to investigators. And to top it all off, Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort, who was deep in debt to a Russian oligarch (Deripaska) yet working pro bono for Trump (a billionaire), was caught giving internal campaign polling data to a Russian intelligence officer (Kilimnik) working directly for Deripaska, which was then used to target the social media psyops campaign by the GRU. This is exactly the collusion many said occurred during the 2016 election, and just because it took 5 years to prove doesn't mean we were wrong in 2016 when we pointed out what was obvious to us. Yes some took it too far and said Trump was a literal agent of Russia, but the effect is really the same agent or not - the Trump campaign was working hand-in-hand with Russia to get him elected over Clinton. They were coordinating in public and private, sharing data, making deals, and following through on those deals, and they all lied about all of it at every opportunity (establishes consciousness of guilt). Collusion. These are all facts laid out in the Mueller Report Vol I [1], the Senate Intel report on Russian Active Measures (especially Vol V) [2], and the US Treasury Department [3]. Calling all of this a "lie" at this point feel like memory holing. [1] http://opensourcemuellerreport.com/mueller-report-vol-1.pdf http://opensourcemuellerreport.com/mueller-report-vol-1.pdf [2] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/publications/report-select-committee-intelligence-united-states-senate-russian-active-measures https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/publications/report-sele... [3] https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0126 https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0126
knowfilter 5y ago
> users cannot "disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site." Sorry how does that count as "fighting against censorship?" Sounds like they can censor any user that disparages their platform (the way that Trump regularly disparaged Twitter, on Twitter.) https://truthsocial.com/terms-of-service/ https://truthsocial.com/terms-of-service/

parrellel 5y ago

That is an interestingly context free take. What did he do? What could he possibly have done, to get that to happen? It's like I wasn't sitting a mile from the capitol watching the WTOP national mall guy hiding behind a banister while the mob from his rally battered down the doors.

krapp 5y ago

I like how everyone always says "sitting President of the united states" when they mention Trump's deplatforming, as if to imply that being a sitting President gives Trump greater legal right to a social media account, or that deplatforming Trump was in some way an coup or overthrow of Trump's position as President, thus reinforcing the narrative of social media being an organized supranational conspiracy that poses a threat to national sovereignty itself. It's these consistent, subtle details that make the Trumpist propaganda so effective. The other side needs to start taking notes.

jimktrains2 5y ago
As much as I dislike Trump, deplatforming is much more notable while he was in office than if it had happened afterwards. I agree, though, that it does sometimes sound like it's being hinted that something more nefarious was happening when people talk about it like this.
- smhenderson 5y ago
  But he did violate their terms of service over and over while in office. You could argue that they should have booted him sooner, after a few warnings and repeated violations. And they can argue that they gave him, and other political figures, extra leeway due to their public positions and their newsworthiness. But at the end of the day he was repeatedly given special treatment that most of us would never get on any of the platforms he was banned from. If there was anything nefarious going on it was Twitter, FB, etc. looking the other way because they knew that his violations of their terms was attracting attention and therefore making them money.
  - adventured 5y ago
    > But he did violate their terms of service over and over while in office. One of the primary issues is that Twitter has routinely granted privileged protected status to their favored political side, and refused to ban prominent people on the left that have behaved dramatically in violation of their policies [1][2]. There were a huge number of examples of it from the left during the unhinged Nick Sandermann cultural conflict for example (a wave of direct calls for violence by blue checkmarks against underage children). Twitter has no qualms with unevenly applying their policies, so long as they're helping their political side. That has particularly been going on for four or five years non-stop at this point. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2013/11/12/5094762/spike-lee-sued-for-posting-wrong-zimmerman-address-on-twitter https://www.theverge.com/2013/11/12/5094762/spike-lee-sued-f... [2] https://apnews.com/article/north-america-donald-trump-ap-top-news-movies-jane-fonda-dc61fee9d4c84506a712dd6f4974ba17 https://apnews.com/article/north-america-donald-trump-ap-top...
    - smhenderson 5y ago
      I certainly don't doubt there are plenty of other examples and I don't have any love for Twitter or any other SM platform these days. But as far as I could see, only seeing the former president's tweets in the news because I'm not a Twitter user, he was also granted protected status. So I fail to see it as some leftist conspiracy and find it more likely that Twitter just allows users that attract more attention this privileged status because it's in their best interest to do so. Honestly, I don't know who Nick Sandermann is and could not care less about what Jane Fonda and Spike Lee are up to on Twitter. You've just pointed out some great examples of why I left it behind a long time ago. However, as a US citizen, I do care what my president gets up to, even on social media. Given it's outsized influence on our society these days, I'm probably more interested in what the president is saying on social media, where he, and every other politician, seem to be able to get away with saying things they'd never have said on mainstream television or on traditional media not that long ago.
  - dtoznayxvf 5y ago
    What a pile of nonsense. Now I'm not an American and have no stake beyond not wanting your country to burn because it's bad for the world... but come on? Have you ever seen another president treated that way? Maybe Nixon? Imagine if he was on twitter when in office. Extra leeway lolololol. You must be a reporter or a FAANG employee with options?
cabalamat 5y ago
> as if to imply that being a sitting President gives Trump greater legal right to a social media account That's not what they're implying. The implication is that if they can do it to the office-holder of one of the most powerful jobs in the world, they are very powerful and can do it to you. > the narrative of social media being an organized supranational conspiracy When lots of social media companies do the same thing at the same time, what other explanation is there?

jd115 5y ago

No, we mean the fat orange KGB troll by the same name.

elzbardico 5y ago
Please, trump has defects enough so we don't have to resort to this stupid Russian conspiracy lie.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  I'm sorry but what part was a lie? Russians did hack the DNC, sparing the RNC. They did coordinate with Trump associate Roger Stone in the distribution of the materials, and Stone informed Trump of this. Trump's campaign did meet with a Russian spy at Trump's residence to discuss a quid pro quo deal in which dirt on Clinton was exchanged for relaxed foreign relations, both of which did materialize from the respective parties. Trump did solicit help from Russian hackers to attack Hillary Clinton, an attack which did materialize according to investigators. And to top it all off, Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort, who was deep in debt to a Russian oligarch (Deripaska) yet working pro bono for Trump (a billionaire), was caught giving internal campaign polling data to a Russian intelligence officer (Kilimnik) working directly for Deripaska, which was then used to target the social media psyops campaign by the GRU. This is exactly the collusion many said occurred during the 2016 election, and just because it took 5 years to prove doesn't mean we were wrong in 2016 when we pointed out what was obvious to us. Yes some took it too far and said Trump was a literal agent of Russia, but the effect is really the same agent or not - the Trump campaign was working hand-in-hand with Russia to get him elected over Clinton. They were coordinating in public and private, sharing data, making deals, and following through on those deals, and they all lied about all of it at every opportunity (establishes consciousness of guilt). Collusion. These are all facts laid out in the Mueller Report Vol I [1], the Senate Intel report on Russian Active Measures (especially Vol V) [2], and the US Treasury Department [3]. Calling all of this a "lie" at this point feel like memory holing. [1] http://opensourcemuellerreport.com/mueller-report-vol-1.pdf http://opensourcemuellerreport.com/mueller-report-vol-1.pdf [2] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/publications/report-select-committee-intelligence-united-states-senate-russian-active-measures https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/publications/report-sele... [3] https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0126 https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0126

knowfilter 5y ago

> users cannot "disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site." Sorry how does that count as "fighting against censorship?" Sounds like they can censor any user that disparages their platform (the way that Trump regularly disparaged Twitter, on Twitter.) https://truthsocial.com/terms-of-service/ https://truthsocial.com/terms-of-service/