Trump? You can't handle the Trump! - Twitter/Dorsey in meltdown - [PEACE] [FREE SPEECH]

[Zenaan Harkness]

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...]
> > >