4 ms·

Meta removes Trump account restrictions ahead of 2024 election

19 points by mupuff1234 2y ago

Finnucane 2y ago
two days after [expletive deleted] threatened to put Zuck on the retribution list.
- fleabagmange 2y ago
  Source?
  - maga_2020 2y ago
    I am guessing, it is same original source that Finnucane had about Hunter Biden's laptop being a 'russian plant'.
  - mupuff1234 2y ago
    https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/11/trump_zuckerberg/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/11/trump_zuckerberg/
  - Finnucane 2y ago
    His own post on Pravda Social?
- hnpolicestate 2y ago
  Trump doesn't follow through on anything he says, whether good or bad. Ever. Just hollow gibberish.
  - shrimp_emoji 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - kmos17 2y ago
    Yes exactly like his empty threats to pack the supreme court to end the right to abortion, or how he would refuse to accept election results if he lost. Just hollow gibberish right? Oh wait..
    - hnpolicestate 2y ago
      None of those things happened. Implanted narrative.
      - webninja 2y ago
        I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted. The surpreme court moved to make abortion a states-rights issue. This is the correct and most moderate move for any politician or political body to make on the most polarizing and most divisive issue. Perhaps the only thing better would’ve been to make it a county’s-rights issue but that’s now up to the states. Anyone that wants an abortion can just fly to a liberal state for one as long as at least 1 liberal state still exists. Furthermore, the court made it so states cannot ban the abortion pill, which can be received by mail. The surpreme court is the only section of government designed to minimize or remove bias by letting its supreme judges for life. This means the judges get to make decisions based on what they think is right decision rather than some policial leaning decision. By design, they don’t need to worry anymore about whether they need to appeal to any policial campaign funding party for a reelection bid. It successfully takes money out of politics. I’m firmly on the side of pro-choice and I’m not one to talk positively about government bodies but the Supreme Court is functioning extremely well. It’s doing a commendable job with so many intricate & difficult cases.
        ragequittah 2y ago
        "Anyone that wants an abortion can just fly to a liberal state for one as long as at least 1 liberal state still exists." Let me just take time off work book a hotel and buy a plane ticket when I can't even afford rent.
        2y ago
influx 2y ago
I'd love to hear the arguments why Meta shouldn't do this.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- cyanydeez 2y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- maga_2020 2y ago
  they should not do that because Meta is not a platform for constitutionally-allowed free speech, instead, they are a platform for selective filtering. So let them stay that way. It is good to have the moral clarity of what they do, enforced by their actions. It much more beneficial for the society today, and for the future -- that the political actors have their masks off. I am not trying to suggest that Meta is good or bad, I am just happy that we see Zuckerberg and other billionaires with the mask off, same for many others.
  - krapp 2y ago
    >they should not do that because Meta is not a platform for constitutionally-allowed free speech, instead, they are a platform for selective filtering. "Selective filtering" by private platforms like Facebook (I will die on the hill of refusing to call it Meta) is constitutionally allowed free speech.
- jfengel 2y ago
  Well, their original reasoning still applies. They banned him for what they perceived as threats of violence. If it were anybody else, Meta wouldn't be coming to them and saying, "If you've learned your lesson you're welcome to return." More to the point, if I were Meta, I'd be keeping a very close eye on it come November. We know that people are scanning his words closely and looking to use them a call to violence. I would be prepared to shut it down in short order if something looked suspicious. Not that that will solve anything, of course, since there are plenty of other channels available. But it might help keep them out of trouble.
fuzzylightbulb 2y ago
> Donald Trump’s animosity toward Mark Zuckerberg is getting even more heated. In a post on Truth Social on Tuesday, the former president threatened to put “election fraudsters” in jail, name-checking the Meta founder in the process. [1] That was three days ago. A few months back he called Facebook "the enemy of the people". I will never understand why these platforms bend over backward to accommodate the guy who would destroy their entire business if he felt it personally advantageous. It feels like a modern, business-specific twist on the paradox of tolerance. [1]https://www.fastcompany.com/91153300/donald-trump-threatens-to-jail-mark-zuckerberg-truth-social https://www.fastcompany.com/91153300/donald-trump-threatens-...
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  I'm pretty sure the platforms are in it for the money.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- poikroequ 2y ago
  And thanks to the conservative majority supreme Court, he can actually do these things as president with complete impunity.
- maximinus_thrax 2y ago
  > I will never understand why these platforms bend over backward to accommodate the guy who would destroy their entire business if he felt it personally advantageous. This [0] book says it's because of money [0] https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/712678/broken-code-by-jeff-horwitz/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/712678/broken-code-...
moomin 2y ago
Irrespective of whether you think these restrictions were justified, it’s hard not to sniff a whiff of political expediency in loosening them right now.

19 points by mupuff1234 2y ago

Finnucane 2y ago

two days after [expletive deleted] threatened to put Zuck on the retribution list.

fleabagmange 2y ago
Source?
- maga_2020 2y ago
  I am guessing, it is same original source that Finnucane had about Hunter Biden's laptop being a 'russian plant'.
- mupuff1234 2y ago
  https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/11/trump_zuckerberg/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/11/trump_zuckerberg/
- Finnucane 2y ago
  His own post on Pravda Social?
hnpolicestate 2y ago
Trump doesn't follow through on anything he says, whether good or bad. Ever. Just hollow gibberish.
- shrimp_emoji 2y ago
  [flagged]
- kmos17 2y ago
  Yes exactly like his empty threats to pack the supreme court to end the right to abortion, or how he would refuse to accept election results if he lost. Just hollow gibberish right? Oh wait..
  - hnpolicestate 2y ago
    None of those things happened. Implanted narrative.
    - webninja 2y ago
      I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted. The surpreme court moved to make abortion a states-rights issue. This is the correct and most moderate move for any politician or political body to make on the most polarizing and most divisive issue. Perhaps the only thing better would’ve been to make it a county’s-rights issue but that’s now up to the states. Anyone that wants an abortion can just fly to a liberal state for one as long as at least 1 liberal state still exists. Furthermore, the court made it so states cannot ban the abortion pill, which can be received by mail. The surpreme court is the only section of government designed to minimize or remove bias by letting its supreme judges for life. This means the judges get to make decisions based on what they think is right decision rather than some policial leaning decision. By design, they don’t need to worry anymore about whether they need to appeal to any policial campaign funding party for a reelection bid. It successfully takes money out of politics. I’m firmly on the side of pro-choice and I’m not one to talk positively about government bodies but the Supreme Court is functioning extremely well. It’s doing a commendable job with so many intricate & difficult cases.
      - ragequittah 2y ago
        "Anyone that wants an abortion can just fly to a liberal state for one as long as at least 1 liberal state still exists." Let me just take time off work book a hotel and buy a plane ticket when I can't even afford rent.
        2y ago

influx 2y ago

I'd love to hear the arguments why Meta shouldn't do this.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
cyanydeez 2y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
maga_2020 2y ago
they should not do that because Meta is not a platform for constitutionally-allowed free speech, instead, they are a platform for selective filtering. So let them stay that way. It is good to have the moral clarity of what they do, enforced by their actions. It much more beneficial for the society today, and for the future -- that the political actors have their masks off. I am not trying to suggest that Meta is good or bad, I am just happy that we see Zuckerberg and other billionaires with the mask off, same for many others.
- krapp 2y ago
  >they should not do that because Meta is not a platform for constitutionally-allowed free speech, instead, they are a platform for selective filtering. "Selective filtering" by private platforms like Facebook (I will die on the hill of refusing to call it Meta) is constitutionally allowed free speech.
jfengel 2y ago
Well, their original reasoning still applies. They banned him for what they perceived as threats of violence. If it were anybody else, Meta wouldn't be coming to them and saying, "If you've learned your lesson you're welcome to return." More to the point, if I were Meta, I'd be keeping a very close eye on it come November. We know that people are scanning his words closely and looking to use them a call to violence. I would be prepared to shut it down in short order if something looked suspicious. Not that that will solve anything, of course, since there are plenty of other channels available. But it might help keep them out of trouble.

fuzzylightbulb 2y ago

> Donald Trump’s animosity toward Mark Zuckerberg is getting even more heated. In a post on Truth Social on Tuesday, the former president threatened to put “election fraudsters” in jail, name-checking the Meta founder in the process. [1] That was three days ago. A few months back he called Facebook "the enemy of the people". I will never understand why these platforms bend over backward to accommodate the guy who would destroy their entire business if he felt it personally advantageous. It feels like a modern, business-specific twist on the paradox of tolerance. [1]https://www.fastcompany.com/91153300/donald-trump-threatens-to-jail-mark-zuckerberg-truth-social https://www.fastcompany.com/91153300/donald-trump-threatens-...

seanmcdirmid 2y ago
I'm pretty sure the platforms are in it for the money.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
poikroequ 2y ago
And thanks to the conservative majority supreme Court, he can actually do these things as president with complete impunity.
maximinus_thrax 2y ago
> I will never understand why these platforms bend over backward to accommodate the guy who would destroy their entire business if he felt it personally advantageous. This [0] book says it's because of money [0] https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/712678/broken-code-by-jeff-horwitz/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/712678/broken-code-...

moomin 2y ago

Irrespective of whether you think these restrictions were justified, it’s hard not to sniff a whiff of political expediency in loosening them right now.