Patterico's Pontifications

1/8/2021

Private Company Says “No More” To Trump and His Peeps

Filed under: General — Dana @ 5:20 pm



[guest post by Dana]

Twitter rolled out the ban hammer today:

Twitter permanently suspended President Donald Trump’s account on Friday, citing “the risk of further incitement of violence.”

The president’s account was initially banned for 12 hours on Jan. 6 due to “severe violations of our Civic Integrity policy,” after he used the platform to tweet condemnation against Vice President Mike Pence as his supporters stormed the Capitol.

“After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence,” the company said in a tweet…

“In the context of horrific events this week, we made it clear on Wednesday that additional violations of the Twitter Rules would potentially result in this very course of action,” Twitter said in a blog post. “Our public interest framework exists to enable the public to hear from elected officials and world leaders directly. It is built on a principle that the people have a right to hold power to account in the open.”

Trump wasn’t alone:

Twitter on Friday removed the accounts of Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell and other high-profile supporters of President Donald Trump who promoted the QAnon conspiracy theory.

The permanent bans are among the highest profile that the company has instituted as part of its efforts to crack down on misinformation and calls for violence.

Flynn and Powell both met with Trump at the White House in recent weeks as part of efforts to overturn the presidential election results. They are also high-profile figures in the QAnon community, and Flynn even took an “oath” to the conspiracy theory last year.

“The accounts have been suspended in line with our policy on Coordinated Harmful Activity,” a Twitter spokesperson told NBC News. “We’ve been clear that we will take strong enforcement action on behavior that has the potential to lead to offline harm, and given the renewed potential for violence surrounding this type of behavior in the coming days, we will permanently suspend accounts that are solely dedicated to sharing QAnon content.”

When a private company opts to cut ties with individuals because they have stoked the flames of hate, incited violence by their un-American behavior and harmed the Republic as a result, and, when they have violated the rules that the private company has established, they have not been canceled. Rather, they have received their just desserts as decided by the private company. And for the record, it is not an “authoritarian act,” nor a “dystopian decision,” and it’s certainly not a “disturbingly Orwellian move” either. A private company made this decision, not a totalitarian government, people.

Trump has also been blocked “indefinitely” from posting on Facebook and Instagram, per CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

Along with Trump and his peeps getting the boot, Sen. Josh Hawley was informed by publishing house Simon & Schuster that his book will no longer be published by them:

Simon & Schuster announced Thursday that it would no longer publish a planned book by Sen. Josh Hawley, one of the Republican lawmakers who led objections to Congress certifying President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.

“After witnessing the disturbing, deadly insurrection that took place on Wednesday in Washington, D.C., Simon & Schuster has decided to cancel publication of Senator Josh Hawley’s forthcoming book,” the company said in a statement.

“We did not come to this decision lightly,” Simon & Schuster added. “As a publisher it will always be our mission to amplify a variety of voices and viewpoints: at the same time we take seriously our larger public responsibility as citizens, and cannot support Senator Hawley after his role in what became a dangerous threat to our democracy and freedom.”

Hawley, as you can imagine, was rather unhappy with the decision, and appeared unable to see how his abhorrent behavior was the reason for the decision:

As JVW snarked in an email yesterday: Serves him right for not publishing with Regnery, like any good conservative would.

–Dana

263 Responses to “Private Company Says “No More” To Trump and His Peeps”

  1. No one could ever say for sure whether Trump was speaking on behalf of God and should take it with a level of seriousness reserved only for the Messiah himself, or whether he was just shooting off his mouth and shouldn’t be taken seriously at all. What a joke.

    Dana (cc9481)

  2. The legal eagles can parse this but does Twitter truly qualify as a wholly ‘private company’ if any of their services use or are/can be accessed via any public utilities lines or such? How does that work for an entity like them?

    CNN just reported Trump tried to post to Twitter on another gov’t account. It’s almost funny— Trump-whack-a-mole-troll on Twitter.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  3. Oh, I dunno, DCSCA. I’ve often wondered the same thing myself about my Sunday New York Times and the paperboy delivering it via a public sidewalk.

    nk (1d9030)

  4. Twitter did a decent job of explaining why they did this dumb thing with their property. I haven’t seen a decent explanation from Simon and schuster.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  5. French well supported banning Trump from Twitter hours before he was banned from Twitter.

    Paul Montagu (37f526)

  6. @3. So glad you subscribe to a hard copy o/t NYT, nk. Tip that newsie.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  7. Nikki Haley:

    Silencing people, not to mention the President of the US, is what happens in China not our country. #Unbelievable

    I once had high hopes for her.

    Dana (cc9481)

  8. @4. Both are subject to interpretation.

    But Twitter is a odd duck in this as transmissions via Twitter by POTUS have been deemed official government communications and archived as such. They may have overreacted on this one by full termination of the POTUS acct., but if it is deemed his ‘personal’ acct., that might be different.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  9. @7. Nikki may have point, though, Dana– see #8. It seems a little odd to silence the POTUS acct., but a DJT personal account itself, that might be a different kettle of fish.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  10. @7: If you don’t defend the ugly speech, you don’t defend any speech.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  11. F*ck all the Ivy League populists.

    Dave (1bb933)

  12. Welcome, “John”.

    Hello I am brand new to Twitter, what are you guys up to

    Paul Montagu (37f526)

  13. @7 Dana: She’s not wrong though. This is the sort of dangerous slippery slope that *is* the hallmark of an authoritarian regime like China.

    whembly (c30c83)

  14. Tip that newsie.

    Every Christmas without fail. But the crossword was more fun before the internet, with only a Merriam-Webster’s to cheat with.

    The White House Twitter account is still up, as is Dan Scavino’s (White House communications staff).

    nk (1d9030)

  15. If the government ignores its own anti-trust laws and permits a private firm to monopolize common communications channels, and also allows them to censor speech they disagree with, how does the first amendment survive? Censorship-by-proxy is no better than censorship-in-fact.

    We are becoming Singapore faster than we know.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  16. I see today where Parler, the troglodyte-right messaging site, is being shown the door by Apple, preventing Apple USERS from installing the app on their devices. Even if you think that Twitter can block some speech, as it offends some of their users, how is Apple harmed by Parler’s being USED by some of its device “owners.” No one even knows what’s being said unless they opt in.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  17. Popularity does not make you public property.

    nk (1d9030)

  18. Now, is Twitter doing this because 1) they think that Donald Trump is a criminal and will rabble-rouse on their site, or 2) because they want to be on the good side of the coming administration lest anti-trust laws be invoked?

    One clue: Why did it take them until the end of the Trump regime to do this?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  19. @10. Well, it’s an odd situation- the POTUS Twitter acct. transmissions have been deemed official U.S. government communications, archived for history and so forth. So shutting that acct., down seems to be a very ‘iffy’ area. Whereas chocking off DJTs personal acct or other personal accts he uses would be different. But if Twitter is rendering official gov’t accts inactive just becase POTUS is using them, that may be a problem area.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  20. Popularity does not make you public property.

    That’s snark, not an argument. Having monopoly control of a marketplace has made you subject to regulation and control for over a century now.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  21. And now Google and Apple are going to ban the Parler app. Parler was started as a free speech site precisely because Twitter was censoring people, primarily conservatives. The sad thing is that Parler’s software and site are very poor.

    The Dana in Kentucky (facd7c)

  22. I think Justin Amash has it right:

    Twitter can ban whomever it wants, but the company’s policy should be clear and consistent. If the president of the United States may be banned for inciting violence, then the same policy should apply to governments and officials everywhere.

    Dana (cc9481)

  23. @7: If you don’t defend the ugly speech from government suppression, you don’t defend any speech.
    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 1/8/2021 @ 6:15 pm

    FIFY

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  24. @7 Dana: She’s not wrong though. This is the sort of dangerous slippery slope that *is* the hallmark of an authoritarian regime like China.
    whembly (c30c83) — 1/8/2021 @ 6:17 pm

    No, the hallmark of authoritarian regimes like China is government suppression of speech. This is a perfectly valid exercise of Twitter’s First Amendment right of free expression and association. The Government/private distinction really does matter.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  25. At least now Parler will be forced to up its game.

    The Dana in Kentucky (facd7c)

  26. Since the topic is generally about Trump’s constant stream of dangerous lies, Tim Alberta is a good writer and journalist, and always worth a full read.

    For the past nine weeks, I’ve had a lot of highly unusual conversations with administration officials, Republican lawmakers and conservative media figures. I describe these conversations as highly unusual because what I was trying to glean from them, more than gossip or inside information, was a sense of integrity and discernment. Based on my reporting, it seemed obvious the president was leading the country down a dangerous and uncharted road. I hoped they could see that. I hoped they would do something — anything.

    My fears were not assuaged. Some of them expressed mild concern but told me there was no point crossing the president when he’d be leaving office soon anyway. Others laughed off the trepidation altogether. More than a few told me I was being “hysterical,” at which point things got heated, as I would plead with them to consider the consequences if even a fractional number of the president’s most fervent supporters took his allegations, and his calls to action, at face value. When I submitted that violence was a real possibility, they would snicker. Riots? Looting? That’s what Democrats do!

    So convinced were the president’s allies that his rhetoric was harmless that many not only rationalized it, but actually dialed it up. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina senator who once skewered Trump’s dishonesty, promised “earth-shattering” evidence to support his former rival’s claims of a rigged election. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy insisted that “President Trump won this election,” told of a plot to cheat him and alerted the viewers watching him on Fox News, “We cannot allow this to happen before our very eyes.” Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who famously called Trump “a pathological liar,” himself lied so frequently and so shamelessly it became difficult to keep up. Dozens of other congressional Republicans leveled sweeping, unsubstantiated allegations of mass voter fraud, some of them promoting the #stopthesteal campaign online.

    Paul Montagu (37f526)

  27. Lurker, I don’t see how a “private company” doing the (incoming) government’s bidding allows the 1st amendment to survive.

    To me a private company is one that has competition. A monopoly exists solely through the government’s tolerance, and that tolerance can be conditional.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  28. I’m old enough to remember the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, and when it was the left who believed that freedom of speech was absolute.

    “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” — ― William F. Buckley

    The Dana in Kentucky (facd7c)

  29. At least now Parler will be forced to up its game.

    What does that even mean? They will be forced to use the same censorship controls that other “private companies” use? Kind of makes a mockery of the claim that these are solely the decisions of private companies. At the end of the chain, you see a monopoly exerting force, doing the government’s bidding.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  30. @22. But ‘banning’ DJT is different from silencing the official POTUS account for the U.S. government.

    Mitt Romney may like to make sleazy crank tweets under the Pierre Delecto name but an official tweet as a U.S. Senator from Utah on a gov’t account would be different.

    So in another medium, should AT&T disconnect Donald Trump’s telephone but leave the President of the United States’ telephone alone???

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  31. and yet they allow officials of Iran to call for the destruction of Israel.
    https://nypost.com/2020/07/29/twitter-defends-blocking-trump-tweets-but-not-irans-ayatollah-khamenei/

    You shouldn’t think that they are banning Trump from any sort of righteous position. It is pure politics.

    kaf (6cbb44)

  32. Having monopoly control of a marketplace has made you subject to regulation and control for over a century now.

    That is not true in any respect. A unique product (or business model) is not a monopoly as you mean it, and a monopoly alone without unfair competition is not illegal, and if you don’t believe me go and try to publish your own line of Mickey Mouse comics.

    nk (1d9030)

  33. Mr M wrote:

    Lurker, I don’t see how a “private company” doing the (incoming) government’s bidding allows the 1st amendment to survive.

    To me a private company is one that has competition. A monopoly exists solely through the government’s tolerance, and that tolerance can be conditional.

    It wasn’t so long ago that private businesses were deemed ‘public accommodations,’ and thus subject to federal anti-discrimination laws. Yes, it might be your privately-owned diner, but that does not mean you can refuse to serve people based on their race.

    The Dana in Kentucky (facd7c)

  34. William O Douglass, left-wing firebrand Justice: “In my view the First Amendment would bar Congress from passing any libel law,” he wrote in declaring that the press should have carte blanche to write about public issues. Rosenblatt v. Baer (1966)

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  35. that does not mean you can refuse to serve people based on their race.

    And probably not for wearing a MAGA hat.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  36. If you think Twitter is a monopoly, and you believe that government should break up monopolies, break up Twitter. Don’t force Twitter to traffic in trash out of a misguided, unrooted, indefensibly squishy interpretation of the First Amendment.

    Leviticus (7c76a2)

  37. Don’t remember– did Twitter suspend Anthony Weiner’s account after is dickpix or did he yank it himself??? No pun intended.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  38. publish your own line of Mickey Mouse comics.

    Copyright, trademark and patents are expressly allowed exceptions in the US Constitution. Although your use of Mickey as an example is troublesome. The copyright that Mickey was first published under expired over 30 years ago. Congress took it from the public domain (the People) and gave it back to the corporation that owns it. Twice.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  39. Probably speaking from ignorance now as usual, but what was Hawley’s abhorrent behavior? Was it taking a political stand as a member of Congress has a right to do? I thought the objectors to the Electoral College certification were wrong and wished the challenge had never been made, but don’t see how making it becomes abhorrent. Apparently Democrats had made a similar challenge to Ohio’s electoral votes after the 2004 election which, had it succeeded, would have made Kerry president over Bush. That challenge was similarly wrongheaded, but not abhorrent. If the Democrats then truly believed the election in Ohio was tainted by fraud, they had a duty to challenge it. Even if many of us really, really, really don’t like Trump, if Hawley truly believed Trump’s loss was the result of fraud, he also had a duty to challenge it. In both 2004 and 2020 the objectors had very little in the way of evidence to support their objections, and in my view it would have been bad for the country if they had prevailed. But they have the right to do unwise things and, one would hope, not win the approval of the voters at the next election.

    Of course, perhaps the idea that any of these politicians truly believe in anything other than their own advancement is pretty laughable. Kind of wish we could all just cool off and calm down.

    RL formerly in Glendale (fda61c)

  40. Mr M asked:

    At least now Parler will be forced to up its game.

    What does that even mean? They will be forced to use the same censorship controls that other “private companies” use? Kind of makes a mockery of the claim that these are solely the decisions of private companies. At the end of the chain, you see a monopoly exerting force, doing the government’s bidding.

    The biggest problem with Parler is that their presentation and their software aren’t even worthy of Windows 3.1. It’s slow, its facially ugly, it has problems with photos, just everything about it says fourth class. Twitter is by far the superior site; perhaps 75 million potential Parler customers might push the site to do some serious upgrades.

    The Dana in Kentucky (facd7c)

  41. 21. If you’re arguing monopoly or unfair competition, that’s one thing. I leave that assessment to the DOJ’s antitrust division.

    If you’re talking First Amendment, aren’t you the one who just said, “If you don’t defend the ugly speech, you don’t defend any speech?” Keeping the government’s nose out of what Twitter or any other company wants to say, whoever’s bidding you may think they’re doing, is what defending speech looks like. It’s the very essence of the First Amendment, not a threat to it.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  42. “ Yes, it might be your privately-owned diner, but that does not mean you can refuse to serve people based on their race.”

    – The Dana in Kentucky

    “Political lunatic” has never been a protected class for purposes of public accommodation analysis, as far as I can remember.

    Leviticus (7c76a2)

  43. Don’t force Twitter to traffic in trash out of a misguided, unrooted, indefensibly squishy interpretation of the First Amendment.

    If Twitter wants to regulate the type of messages that can be trafficked, that is one thing (although it is a power that we won’t let the phone company use). But that is not what they are doing. They are not banning speech, they are banning speakers, and they are doing so in a way that is transparently crafted to appease federal authority.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  44. I wanna scream! If Patterico’s Pontifications got 330 million users (that’s how many Twitter claims), Patterico would have a monopoly subject to regulation?

    nk (1d9030)

  45. “ Congress took it from the public domain (the People) and gave it back to the corporation that owns it. Twice.”

    – Kevin M

    Because Disney has the best congressional representation money can buy. Since we’re talking about the First Amendment, do you want to revisit Citizens United?

    What is your actual position vis a vis Twitter’s conduct today?

    Leviticus (7c76a2)

  46. “If the government ignores its own anti-trust laws and permits a private firm to monopolize common communications channels”

    What is Twitter selling, that they have a monopoly in?

    Davethulhu (95ea9f)

  47. “Political lunatic”

    The Washington Post still has the Unabomber Manifesto up. You can buy if from Amazon, B&N, Apple, …

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  48. If Twitter had a door, and hung a sign on its door saying “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone,” what would you think of that sign?

    Leviticus (7c76a2)

  49. Citizens United

    How does the first amendment argue that government can curtail speech?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  50. They are not banning speech, they are banning speakers, and they are doing so in a way that is transparently crafted to appease federal authority.

    But is/was POTUS speaking as THE POTUS on Twitter via the official POTUS acct., or as DJT? Captain Queeg issued orders as a USN officer- including the search for the strawberries.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  51. what would you think of that sign

    And again, this is not the corner diner we are talking about. It’s closer to Ma Bell.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  52. 39. I would explain Hawley vs. Simon & Schuster as a “damaged goods” dispute, RL. Who’ll read his book now? There’s probably more than one clause in their contract relating to that.

    nk (1d9030)

  53. I’m serious asking about Weiner; did he crater his own acct., or did Twitter yank it?

    Again, no pun intended.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  54. @50: I only care about the private speaker, DJT. They can shut the President up, but it should be all presidents.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  55. The First Amendment doesn’t argue anything. People make arguments about, ideally grounded in its actual words and secondarily grounded in the case law interpreting it down the years.

    Your argument re: Twitter is certainly not grounded in the language of the First Amendment, and I am struggling to see how it is Grounded in the case law either.

    Leviticus (7c76a2)

  56. In the Third Book of Moses, it was written:

    If you think Twitter is a monopoly, and you believe that government should break up monopolies, break up Twitter. Don’t force Twitter to traffic in trash out of a misguided, unrooted, indefensibly squishy interpretation of the First Amendment.

    It pegs the irony meter when someone exercises his freedom of speech to defend others restricting speech.

    There are now several nationwide cell phone carriers, so, technically speaking, AT&T is not a monopoly, because Verizon and Sprint and T-Mobile exist, but would you support the idea that AT&T could refuse to provide cell service to someone because management didn’t like a particular individual?

    The Dana in Kentucky (facd7c)

  57. What is Twitter selling, that they have a monopoly in?

    They are selling a communication channel. You pay for it by tolerating whatever Twitter wants you to look at while you type. Broadcast TV is not “selling” anything either, in the same exact way, yet there are plenty of laws regulating who can own what.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  58. didn’t like a particular individual?

    Or words that he said on the phone?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  59. If this posed actual First Amendment problems (it doesn’t) and raised actual legal issues (again, it doesn’t), a concept to keep in mind is that Trump has “ample alternative channels.” He can use the White House press release offices. He could demand that the White House webpage become TRUMP THOUGHTS blog.

    johnnyagreeable (c49787)

  60. “ And again, this is not the corner diner we are talking about. It’s closer to Ma Bell.”

    – Kevin M

    No, it’s not. No one actually needs Twitter, in a world where they have phone and email and Facebook and Instagram and Signal and blah blah blah.

    It’s closer to the corner diner, frankly. Cheap, tasty, and bad for you.

    Leviticus (7c76a2)

  61. I wanna scream! If Patterico’s Pontifications got 330 million users (that’s how many Twitter claims), Patterico would have a monopoly subject to regulation?

    He’d have to have some better software first.

    If Google had a controlling share of the search engine market with a billion users, would it still be “just a private company?”

    If Standard Oil owned all the oil and gas wells, and controlled the gas stations, trucking and railroad cars, would it just be a private company?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  62. Though Trump has opted to use his personal @realDonaldTrump account as his primary method of personal communication, the @POTUS account is largely seen as the official Twitter account of the administration. – source, buzzfeed

    https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-02-19/donald-trumps-tweets-are-now-presidential-records

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  63. Sigh. I remember when we used to support speech in all its forms. Now some of us have found there is speech we don’t like enough to cheer when it is suppressed.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  64. Argh, that’s an hour of people arguing about things they don’t know, like tech, the constitution, the difference between private company and a government. What the word “public” means, what the word “monopoly” means.

    Every time this comes up…

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0)

  65. Claiming a private entity should be FORCED to carry speech–government speech, no less!–with no say from the private individuals, strikes at the very heart of the First Amendment rights to associate with (or disassociate from) people.

    I throw a kickass holiday party in non pandemic times. It’s the best. My neighbors could throw other ones, but they wouldn’t be as well attended and they know it. So they don’t bother. Trump should totally be able to make me invite him in to tell all his guests how awesome he is. It’s just common sense.

    johnnyagreeable (c49787)

  66. Sigh. I remember when conservatives used to believe that corporations could do whatever they wanted, and the government couldn’t interfere with them.

    Leviticus (7c76a2)

  67. I remember when we used to support speech in all its forms. Now some of us have found there is speech we don’t like enough to cheer when it is suppressed.

    It’s not being suppressed. It’s being blocked by a private actor who doesn’t want that garbage on its platform.

    I cheer the idea that tbe government shouldnt be able to force a private company to carry messages it doesn’t agree with. It’s way, way, way worse to compel speech. That’s true whether I like the speech in question or not.

    johnnyagreeable (c49787)

  68. Citizens United

    How does the first amendment argue that government can curtail speech?

    ???

    Citizen’s United has nothing to do with Twitter, It’s just one of a long line of cases that expresses the broad principle that with narrow, specifically delineated exceptions, the First Amendment prohibits the government from curtailing speech. There’s nothing about Twitter’s exercise of its First Amendment rights here that triggers one of those exceptions, so there isn’t even a remotely plausible argument that its decision to ban or not anyone it chooses isn’t protected.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  69. Claiming a private entity should be FORCED to carry speech–government speech, no less!–with no say from the private individuals, strikes at the very heart of the First Amendment rights to associate with (or disassociate from) people.

    Yeah, the thing that the first amendment says is:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Forced kind of against the rules. It’s not that hard people.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0)

  70. So, two companies (AWS and Alphabet) own the US internet and no one has an issue. Facebook owns its form of communication and buys up every company that shows a hint of encroaching. Twitter is the open forum of the day, but some people aren’t allowed to speak, all on the same end of the spectrum.

    God knows I’d like to see Trump STFU forever, but I do not want the state — or its agents, however independent seeming — to force that on him. Not because he’s not deserving, but because I want the bar as high as it possibly can be.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  71. Mr M wrote:

    what would you think of that sign

    And again, this is not the corner diner we are talking about. It’s closer to Ma Bell.

    It’s closer to ma Bell, but with public accommodations laws, the federal government did regulate the corner diner.

    Heck, remember Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, where the state not only required the baker to allow homosexuals as customers — which he was already doing, because he had no objection to it — but tried to force the owner to ‘say’ what a particular set of customers wanted?

    Then there’s New York City’s regulation which can fine businesses if one of their employees refers to a customer by his biological sex rather than his imaginary one misgenders a customer.

    The Dana in Kentucky (facd7c)

  72. So, Klink, you would argue that Ma Bell could turn off Trump’s telephone.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  73. To those of you who think it’s relevant that Trump chose to use the account as the official account: so what?

    If Trump declared McDonalds is the official cheeseburger of Trump and the government, McDonalds can still announce that it will refuse to serve him.

    The official nature matters when the government acts as a speaker / host (as in a fora analysis). You obviously cannot circumvent the First Amendment and the right to be free from compelled speech by saying you want to make it the official whatever.

    johnnyagreeable (c49787)

  74. Maybe I have this wrong. If I’m on Twitter I can be forced to read (or see) Trump’s tweets? Because I’m pretty sure that every one I have ever seen has been shoved in my face on some other platform. Who is it on Twitter that gets offended by these Tweets, and shy do they follow the man?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  75. There was rumor circulating about AWS shutting Parler down. Now that would be an interesting case. As for Twitter or FB banning Trump or whomever. Whatever. They’re private companies that basically asks the public to donate their IP to them to make available. They can reject whatever and whomever they want. The idea they’re in any way a monopoly or have even theoretical stranglehold on eyeballs is patently ludicrous. And even if they did, the proper act is to deal with their anti-competitive practices – not to regulate their free speech.

    tla (30834b)

  76. *why

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  77. I remember when we used to support speech in all its forms. Now some of us have found there is speech we don’t like enough to cheer when it is suppressed.

    Again, to fix your incomplete articulation of the principle, we used to and still do support speech in all its forms from government interference. You’re the one who’s discriminating against speech you don’t like, i.e., Twitter’s. Twitter has the same First Amendment right you and I do to publish or not publish what it sees fit. Why don’t you like Twitter’s speech enough to object to it being suppressed?

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  78. So, two companies (AWS and Alphabet) own the US internet and no one has an issue.

    They don’t. That’s not what the internet is.

    Facebook owns its form of communication and buys up every company that shows a hint of encroaching.

    It doesn’t, it owns a website. Other websites exist, other websites exist that do similar things, like the next one.

    Twitter is the open forum of the day, but some people aren’t allowed to speak, all on the same end of the spectrum.

    It’s not an open forum, it is a private website.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0)

  79. And even if they did, the proper act is to deal with their anti-competitive practices – not to regulate their free speech.

    Those options are not mutually exclusive.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  80. This is an endless argument. I’m going to stop trying to educate people now.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  81. “They are selling a communication channel.”

    Twitter (and Youtube and Facebook) are selling eyeballs to advertisers. They are not selling a communication channel.

    “You pay for it by tolerating whatever Twitter wants you to look at while you type.”

    Watching an ad isn’t payment.

    “Broadcast TV is not “selling” anything either, in the same exact way, yet there are plenty of laws regulating who can own what.”

    Broadcast TV is regulated because the medium is owned by “we the people”.

    Davethulhu (95ea9f)

  82. It is when one is not justiciable.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0)

  83. Not mutually exclusive, but one is far more important (and constitutionally defensible) than the other.

    Leviticus (7c76a2)

  84. In the Third Book of Moses, it was written:

    Sigh. I remember when conservatives used to believe that corporations could do whatever they wanted, and the government couldn’t interfere with them.

    So, you would agree that I have every right to start a diner which would serve only heterosexual white Christians, or, if I deigned to allow Negroes in, I could have separate white and colored restrooms, and I could refuse to hire people based upon their race, ethnicity, religion or sexual preferences?

    Well, I would agree that that’s the way it ought to be, but it isn’t the way it is.

    The Dana in Kentucky (facd7c)

  85. Oh no, there goes my education.

    Next time an engineering topic comes up, I’ll try to teach you as much about engineering as you just taught the rest of us about constitutional law.

    Leviticus (7c76a2)

  86. The Dana in Kentucky,

    I would tell you to defend your argument in the courts, understanding that it would be blown to smithereens in exactly the same way Kevin M’s would – by reference to Constitutional text and judicial precedent.

    Leviticus (7c76a2)

  87. I’m going to stop trying to educate people now.

    I hope that’s an effort at humor.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  88. Next time an engineering topic comes up, I’ll try to teach you as much about engineering as you just taught the rest of us about constitutional law.

    Kevin’s an engineer? If so, that explains a lot.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  89. That’s denying equal rights to a protected class.

    Dude, you have to pick both who you want to be racists to, and in what form you want to expose your racism. Posting it on the internet, not a problem, the site might wipe it because it a vile attitude and they own it. If you post it on the door of your restaurant and don’t let said dark people in, you may be taken in/sued.

    One thing is not another thing.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0)

  90. I don’t know. That was my impression for some reason.

    Leviticus (1cc606)

  91. Oh no, there goes my education.

    Next time an engineering topic comes up, I’ll try to teach you as much about engineering as you just taught the rest of us about constitutional law.

    LOL. Yep.

    This reminds me of an argument someone recently started with me (since they knew I”m an appellate attorney) about the “reasonableness” component of the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Case law did not matter; this guy was convinced a type of well-recognized warrantless search was unreasonable and therefore a warrant was required. See, he knew what “reasonable” meant, and I didn’t.

    For whatever bizarre reason people seem to argue what the law as they IMAGINE it to be is what it IS. Or, worse, they jam together entirely separate concepts and start going down the wrong roads, but refuse to acknowledge the guy waving a huge sign telling them they’re going the wrong way.

    johnnyagreeable (c49787)

  92. Thing is, Joe Biden wants to impose more regulations on the internet:

    When Joe Biden is inaugurated as president on January 20, he stands to oversee a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that could do remarkable things. Among other things, the new FCC could bridge the digital divide, ensuring all Americans have access to the internet. But even though Biden’s victory is assured, how much his FCC will be able to do — or if it’ll have the Democratic majority likely necessary to do it — hangs in the balance.

    The Trump administration’s FCC has had a particular agenda. Under the leadership of outgoing Chairman Ajit Pai, the agency has pushed to deregulate the industries under its purview and, in turn, to create a business-friendly environment with few rules, little accountability, and minimal oversight for some of the biggest and most powerful companies in the world. In the months and years to come, the FCC is likely to reverse some of those policies, especially Pai’s most controversial decision: repealing net neutrality, a policy that required internet service providers to treat all types of internet traffic the same. But getting broadband internet in as many homes as possible during the pandemic is many Democrats’ most urgent goal, and one they feel the Trump administration failed to accomplish.

    The left see the internet as a public utility which can be regulated.

    The Dana in Kentucky (facd7c)

  93. Engineers.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  94. The left see the internet as a public utility which can be regulated.

    Maybe, but it was Trump putting in the rules that made it less free. The liberals have been the ones pushing more freedom.

    In the future they may change places, but reality is how it is now. Hypotheticals are scary, because my hypothetical is a large comet hits the planet first.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0)

  95. Jonah Goldberg:

    One of the central tenets of conservatism is that there’s a difference between an explanation and an excuse. I’m happy to concede that many in the mainstream media shamed themselves waving away violence during the  BLM protests. I’m happy to concede that progressive elites have contempt for lots of regular Americans and Christians; I’ve probably written 100,000 words on this point over the last 20 years. All of these things can be true, it still doesn’t shave an onion skin from the layers of outrage we should feel about a mob beating a cop to death with a fire extinguisher. It doesn’t subtract a feather’s weight of opprobrium from a president orchestrating an effort to steal an election by peddling lies and conspiracy theories, never mind from his willful incitement of a crowd to act on that lie.
    Condemning the media or Democrats for their inconsistency when it comes to violence is fine by me, but only if in the same breath you condemn the president for the same inconsistency. The president celebrated an attack on a reporter, pardoned war criminals, cheered militias intent on “liberating” Michigan, and the vice president had to cut him out of the chain of command to get the National Guard deployed to put down an insurrectionist mob that, again, murdered a cop and scrawled “Murder the Media” on a door inside the Capitol. If you don’t acknowledge these things, you’re just providing cover.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  96. Twitter has only three things which no other thing has:
    1. It’s name protected by trademark law;
    2. It’s software protected by copyright law;
    3. It’s goodwill protected by ?

    Then along comes: B’gosh, when so many people want something, it violates the First Amendment and anti-trust laws not to let them have it!

    nk (1d9030)

  97. It’s = Its. Shutup!

    nk (1d9030)

  98. Can an internet platform, even a near monopoly platform, legally ban a user? Yes. Google can and has, in fact, banned people. I knew several people banned by google over their “real name policy” on google+ and it didn’t just ban their google+, it banned every single one of their other accounts on any google program or piece of google tech or ap. So people suddenly lost all access to their pictures, email, or other data they were using google for.

    Should twitter have banned Trump? I think they should’ve waited until after the inauguration and severely moderated him instead. He was currently basically only operating under Twitter’s public interest exception and, based on their stated policy, they should’ve allowed him to continue under severe moderation until he was no longer an elected official.

    Relevant parts of twitter’s TOS that Trump had to agree to in order to use the service:

    We reserve the right to remove Content that violates the User Agreement, including for example, copyright or trademark violations or other intellectual property misappropriation, impersonation, unlawful conduct, or harassment.

    We also retain the right to create limits on use and storage at our sole discretion at any time. We may also remove or refuse to distribute any Content on the Services, limit distribution or visibility of any Content on the service, suspend or terminate users, and reclaim usernames without liability to you.

    We may suspend or terminate your account or cease providing you with all or part of the Services at any time for any or no reason, including, but not limited to, if we reasonably believe: (i) you have violated these Terms or the Twitter Rules and Policies or Periscope Community Guidelines, (ii) you create risk or possible legal exposure for us; (iii) your account should be removed due to unlawful conduct, (iv) your account should be removed due to prolonged inactivity; or (v) our provision of the Services to you is no longer commercially viable.

    Twitter’s failure to enforce any right or provision of these Terms will not be deemed a waiver of such right or provision.

    Relevant Twitter rules:

    Violence: You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people. We also prohibit the glorification of violence. Learn more about our violent threat and glorification of violence policies.

    Terrorism/violent extremism: You may not threaten or promote terrorism or violent extremism.

    You may not use Twitter’s services for the purpose of manipulating or interfering in elections or other civic processes. This includes posting or sharing content that may suppress participation or mislead people about when, where, or how to participate in a civic process.

    You may not deceptively share synthetic or manipulated media that are likely to cause harm. In addition, we may label Tweets containing synthetic and manipulated media to help people understand their authenticity and to provide additional context.

    Nic (896fdf)

  99. This isn’t just Trump and it’s not about incitement. From what I’m hearing there’s large scale shadow banning and booting of users based on view point. This isn’t a genie you’ll get to put back in the bottle.

    To everyone playing the game of swapping between the 1st amendment and free speech picking and choosing the argument that fits for the minute, no one is really persuaded that this isn’t about free speech because it’s not the government. If you’re in favor of this I hope you can keep up with the approved positions because this will be used against you if you don’t.

    To everyone saying “forcing” Twitter to allow speech violates some part of the 1st amendment, “Twitter” isn’t a person. It’s a corporation and corporations do not have all of the rights afforded to people. Citizens United does not give corporations complete 1st amendment protection. Again, this corporate boot licking will not help you if you step out of line down the road.

    I’d also be a lot more persuaded by the “muh private property” if I thought some of you would whip this out so fast if you approved of the speech. It would be a lot more honest to just say you want to suppress speech you don’t like.

    frosty (f27e97)

  100. That’s nice, but it doesn’t change the constitution.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0)

  101. Forgive me if somebody has already posted this:

    Trump tried tweeting from the official POTUS account despite Twitter’s ban, but the tweets were immediately removed

    Those tweets are supposed to be archived, but by whom? Were the people who got a letter signed by Trump along with their $1,200 stimulus supposed to send it to the Library of Congress, tuck it inside the family Bible, or rent a safety deposit box for it? The stupid law is as unconstitutional as a law liming the President’s power of appointment to the Rose Garden groundskeepers.

    nk (1d9030)

  102. “It would be a lot more honest to just say you want to suppress speech you don’t like.”

    I don’t like trolls (not implying that you are one).

    I want their speed suppressed.

    I want Patterico (for example) to be able to ban people from his forum if he wants them gone.

    Davethulhu (95ea9f)

  103. *speech

    Davethulhu (95ea9f)

  104. frosty, there’s already a camel’s nose under the tent. A federal judge told Trump he couldn’t block a heckler on Twitter, and a federal Court of Appeals upheld her while Twitter set on its hands. I thought Twitter was stupid not to intervene and say “We ain’t no government town hall and the only First Amendment rights involved are ours”.

    nk (1d9030)

  105. Jonah Goldberg is irrelevant.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  106. If Twitter allowed Weiner to post dickpix but yanked the official POTUS acct., there’s something amiss w/their ‘standards and practices.’

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  107. I am beside myself with anger at the fact that conservative sites like RedState can expound endlessly about how UNFAIR it is for Trump to be removed from Twitter, but can’t spare a single word for Brian Sicknick.

    Brandon Barkley (03a330)

  108. Apple has always “currated” every piece of technology, every program, every ap they allow their users to see. It’s why I don’t buy apple products.

    @57. Kevin, they are selling their users’ eyeballs. The users aren’t the consumer, they are the product. When Twitter bans someone, they are eliminating a product from their product line.

    @100 Frosty, I’ve seen people I thought had good messages, people I was in communication with, banned off of youtube, off of google, off of livejournal, off of tumblr, off of twitter. There have been many I didn’t think deserved banning. The company still had a right to do it.

    I support Trump’s right to put a soapbox on the capitol mall, stand on it, and say whatever he wants to say within the bounds of legal speech. I support his right to have an internet provider and to set up a website where he says whatever he wants to say within the bounds of legal speech.

    Oh, and as a centrist, I do think that ISPs should be considered public utilities. Access to an ISP is just as necessary to modern life as access to a phone was 70 years ago. They use public space to provide their services. And you don’t really have a choice about which ISPs you can use.

    Nic (896fdf)

  109. nk (1d9030) — 1/8/2021 @ 8:07 pm

    I’m not sure Twitter wants to wade into the free speech issue. They’re very happy with the gray area they’re acting within.

    BTW, don’t tell anyone private companies are getting their 1st amendment rights violated by being “forced” to participate in the Emergency Broadcast System. Also, don’t tell Trump it’s the Twitter backup system.

    frosty (f27e97)

  110. I’m not sure Twitter wants to wade into the free speech issue. They’re very happy with the gray area they’re acting within.

    There’s no gray area.

    johnnyagreeable (c49787)

  111. Access to an ISP is just as necessary to modern life as access to a phone was 70 years ago. They use public space to provide their services. And you don’t really have a choice about which ISPs you can use.

    To the extent this is about Twitter: what’s the relevance? Twitter has nothing to do with access to the internet. That an alternative like Parker exists shows that anyone can open up their own version of Twitter. That Twitter has become the gorilla in the marketplace means nothing.

    johnnyagreeable (c49787)

  112. Trump utterly deserves this ban.

    So do a number of other world leaders and public figures (like Khameini), whom Twitter will not ban.

    The Trumpers have already started to cry foul about this. And they’re right to do so, in a limited way. Khameini, as an example, has called for Israel to be “uprooted and destroyed,” has questioned why it is unacceptable to question the Holocaust on Twitter when insulting Muhammad is allowed (hey, he’s just asking), and has recently insinuated that the US COVID vaccine is meant to “contaminate other nations.” (Twitter did take that last one down, just today.)

    Twitter will refuse to listen to Trumpers, on the grounds of “what-aboutism.” And they’re also right to do so, in a limited way. Trumpers wouldn’t object to any conspiracy-style garbage speech if it came from someone they liked and supported — and we have ample evidence of that. Oh, they may be different conspiracies…root out Jeffrey Epstein’s buddies, rather than destroy Israel…asking why QAnon-related tweets (instead of Holocaust-denial tweets) are deleted and their authors deplatformed…but it’s the same plot.

    Bottom line: both sides are right to doubt the other, and wrong to refuse to doubt themselves. And so it will continue.

    This is how the republic dies…two diametrically-opposed groups, both of whom are wrong, sniping at each other until they use up all its air.

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

  113. @ Johnny @112

    It isn’t actually relevant to twitter. Somebody above made an offhand remark about regulating the internet and lefties wanting to count ISPs as public utilities. I was answering that.

    You’ll notice that I do, indeed, think Twitter has the right to ban Trump, though I think they should’ve waited until his account no longer falls under their “public interest” exception, just for consistency purposes.

    Nic (896fdf)

  114. Nic, gotcha.

    johnnyagreeable (c49787)

  115. johnnyagreeable (c49787) — 1/8/2021 @ 8:40 pm

    That an alternative like Parker exists shows that anyone can open up their own version of Twitter.

    How’s that work when Parler gets shutdown? When they get shut out of CDNs, DNS, app networks, etc? It’s happened before so it’s not like it’s impossible.

    frosty (f27e97)

  116. Pro-Trump Lawyer Lin Wood Calls For Pence to Be Executed, Posts Get Removed From Parler
    Pro-Trump lawyer Lin Wood has moved full-time to Parler after he was permanently suspended from Twitter on Thursday. On that conservative social media platform, Lin has continued to spew unhinged conspiracy theories, as well as threats directed at Vice President Mike Pence.
    ……..
    “Get the firing squads ready. Pence goes FIRST,” Wood wrote on Parler early Thursday morning.

    That post no longer appears on his timeline.

    Early Friday morning Wood also claimed that Ashli Babbitt, the woman shot dead by Capitol Police on Wednesday, is still “alive.”

    That post, which is completely baseless, is also now no longer on his timeline.

    It’s unclear whether Wood deleted the posts or Parler removed them. Neither a Parler communications representative nor CEO John Matze responded to multiple requests for comment on the matter.
    …….

    Rip Murdock (b620f4)

  117. …though I think they should’ve waited until his account no longer falls under their “public interest” exception, just for consistency purposes.

    Nic (896fdf) — 1/8/2021 @ 8:44 pm

    Agreed. Now, they’ve set a new precedent. They have set themselves up as speech police for world leaders using their service. And every time one of those leaders says anything that is even mildly disputed, cries will go up for Twitter to place a fact-check alert on the Tweet…or delete the tweet…or lock the person’s account until they delete the tweet…or ban the person entirely.

    I have very limited sympathy for Twitter. They did this to themselves. They should have stayed out of the fact-checking business entirely (their platform is meant to be one for basically unfiltered free speech, after all), or else taken several months to draft very clear guidelines for public-interest accounts and put an enforcement team in place. Instead, they did what all Silicon Valley types do…they ignored the problem until they couldn’t anymore, and then responded to it in a piecemeal and wholly unsatisfactory way.

    Then again, maybe this will turn out to be a good thing. Maybe Twitter will finally write a sound policy, enforce it consistently, and little by little, restore some measure of civility and sanity to their service. Don’t you agree, Flying Pink Walrus? You do? Me too!

    Why, yes, I’ve had a couple drinks tonight. Why do you ask?

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

  118. How’s that work when Parler gets shutdown? When they get shut out of CDNs, DNS, app networks, etc? It’s happened before so it’s not like it’s impossible.

    I’m not entirely sure, especially because I’m unfamiliar with who runs those systems from the standpoint of American law versus international bodies. But in any event I think that’s a distinct problem.

    When was Parler banned from the internet? I rarely pay any attention to that service so I’m unfamiliar with what happened.

    johnnyagreeable (c49787)

  119. When was Parler banned from the internet?

    johnnyagreeable (c49787) — 1/8/2021 @ 8:58 pm

    They weren’t. They were, however, taken off the Google App Store. For a lot of younger people especially, if they can’t get an app for it on their smartphones, it might as well not exist.

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

  120. Then again, maybe this will turn out to be a good thing. Maybe Twitter will finally write a sound policy, enforce it consistently, and little by little, restore some measure of civility and sanity to their service. Don’t you agree, Flying Pink Walrus? You do? Me too!

    Why, yes, I’ve had a couple drinks tonight. Why do you ask?</blockquote

    I doubt they'll be able to write any kind of sensible policy, unless it was to simply disallow any kind of political body from its services so it can avoid the problems. From a logical standpoint it's really dumb to ban Trump but let other things go from other leaders as detailed elsewhere in this thread.

    johnnyagreeable (c49787)

  121. “When a private company opts to cut ties with individuals because they have stoked the flames of hate, incited violence by their un-American behavior and harmed the Republic”

    This is the type of post that only someone who lived in a heavily curated echo chamber could make.

    “they have not been canceled. Rather, they have received their just desserts as decided by the private company.

    I always get my moral judgments from AT&T.

    “And for the record, it is not an “authoritarian act,” nor a “dystopian decision,” and it’s certainly not a “disturbingly Orwellian move” either. A private company made this decision, not a totalitarian government, people.”

    So what is it when several private companies representing the entire space of industry all make that decision at once in a politically coordinated fashion, in a method meant to intimidate others of opposite politics into not speaking, and with the implied threat that it could be done to others for any reason or none at all? Save the threadbare moral rationalizations for the people who care.

    “”wow, the democrats and big tech hate the fringe right, and so do i, that means we’re friends” -Republicans”

    Social media doing this mass banning spree is a dumb nerd move that is pissing off even more people. You’ve got 70+ million people who were just shocked into the reality that they are enemies of the state if they’re anywhere to the right of the current corporate consensus.

    Trumps biggest weakness is he still believed in laws, elections, courts, and rules, as much as he was a blowhard, he still respected this country and loved it at a deep level.

    After this, after everything, nobody under 70 feels this way.

    Good Corporate Citizen (07e55e)

  122. They weren’t. They were, however, taken off the Google App Store. For a lot of younger people especially, if they can’t get an app for it on their smartphones, it might as well not exist.

    I don’t see that as presenting any kind of issue. Parler can (and presumably does) make its app available elsewhere, including on its website. I don’t see why Google should be forced to allow access on its store to something it doesn’t want there.

    That a lot of people rely on Google or apple as curators doesn’t mean much legally, as far as I can tell. It just means they’re successful. If Twitter acted in a way that pissed off a sizable enough portion of its users, they’ll seek out the alternative.

    johnnyagreeable (c49787)

  123. No POTUS on Twitter. But:

    Kremlin Russia (@kremlinrussia_e) • Twitter

    twitter.com/KremlinRussia_E

    The latest tweets from @KremlinRussia_E
    .Putin (@putinrf_eng) • Twitter

    twitter.com/PutinRF_Eng

    The latest tweets from @PutinRF_Eng

    … and Putin smiled.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  124. @Johnny @120 Apple banned Parler from their walled garden. Apple notoriously “curates” what is or is not accessible to their users (they will ONLY let Apple users download from their App store). They may run into trouble with that at some point (they may actually be in trouble for that, I can’t remember what their latest congressional oversite hearing was about) but basically they argue that people can always use android or windows products so *raspberries*.

    Nic (896fdf)

  125. 118.Rush Limbaugh Reportedly Deactivates Twitter Account as Trump Team Accounts Suspended

    That’s almost funny, as once upon a time he was peddling the ol’Comp-U-Serve like mad.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  126. I don’t see that as presenting any kind of issue…If Twitter acted in a way that pissed off a sizable enough portion of its users, they’ll seek out the alternative.

    johnnyagreeable (c49787) — 1/8/2021 @ 9:04 pm

    Oh, I agree completely. Not meaning to demand that any private service be forced to give access when they don’t want to. I was just answering your question.

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

  127. No POTUS on Twitter, but:

    Jinping (@real_xi_jinping) | Twitter

    twitter.com/real_xi_jinping

    The latest tweets from @real_xi_jinping

    xijingpingreal (@xijingpingreal) | Twitter

    twitter.com/XiJingpingReal

    The latest tweets from @XiJingpingReal

    Hilarious.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  128. Nic, I can’t say I know enough about this to have an educated legal opinion, but that seems right from a legal standpoint, no? They don’t have to allow it on their store for the same reason Twitter doesn’t have to allow Trump.

    If Apple didn’t allow it to be INSTALLED on its OS at all, that might be a problem. Again, not my area of expertise. But you can usually sideload things and I’m not sure Apple could stop you from that without running into problems. Vageuly reminds me of when Microsoft ran into problems with installing IE by default and making it hard to use alternatives.

    johnnyagreeable (c49787)

  129. “When a private company opts to cut ties with individuals because they have stoked the flames of hate, incited violence by their un-American behavior and harmed the Republic”

    This is the type of post that only someone who lived in a heavily curated echo chamber could make.

    Good Corporate Citizen (07e55e) — 1/8/2021 @ 9:04 pm

    We like to call it Reality. You’re welcome to join us anytime you like. There’s cookies and beer.

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

  130. @129, gotcha. Thanks for answering!

    johnnyagreeable (c49787)

  131. johnnyagreeable (c49787) — 1/8/2021 @ 8:58 pm

    When was Parler banned from the internet?

    Parler hasn’t been yet but it’s certainly possible. I’m not sure why “it’s always possible to go make your own alternative” keeps showing up in these discussions when we’ve got at least one example of multiple tech companies proving this isn’t true.

    I’m not entirely sure, especially because I’m unfamiliar with who runs those systems from the standpoint of American law

    That isn’t the question. The question is how does this logic work when there isn’t an alternative.

    frosty (f27e97)

  132. The question is how does this logic work when there isn’t an alternative.

    frosty (f27e97) — 1/8/2021 @ 9:15 pm

    The answer is, you build an alternative.

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

  133. @ Johnny @131 I think THIS is the most recent issue regarding it. They not only did not allow sideloading of that particular product, they cut off users from all products from Epic that the users had already downloaded legitimately from the Apple Ap store. IIRC, the users could still use the app itself, but couldn’t update, so the apps would shortly cease to work.

    Nic (896fdf)

  134. “We like to call it Reality. You’re welcome to join us anytime you like. There’s cookies and beer.”

    I can get cookies and beer without pretending that Congress is some sort of sacred temple to Divine Law whose holiness is sullied by the feet of Wrongthinkers (well, it does have the temple prostitutes at least!)

    Good Corporate Citizen (62e901)

  135. 114.Trump utterly deserves this ban.

    Trump, perhaps; POTUS, perhaps not.

    “We salute the rank, not the man.” – Dick Winters [Damian Lewis] Band of Brothers, HBO 2001

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  136. Coke/Pepsi –

    Duopolies? Yes.

    Utilities? No.

    Leviticus (7c76a2)

  137. Trump, perhaps; POTUS, perhaps not.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 1/8/2021 @ 9:21 pm

    But they didn’t ban the POTUS account. He can still use it.

    I can get cookies and beer without pretending that Congress is some sort of sacred temple to Divine Law whose holiness is sullied by the feet of Wrongthinkers (well, it does have the temple prostitutes at least!)

    Good Corporate Citizen (62e901) — 1/8/2021 @ 9:18 pm

    It’s not the floor of the Roman Senate either. Aspiring Brutuses should keep their edged weapons, semi-automatic weapons, and Molotov cocktails at home.

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

  138. iPhones are an even bigger scam than Trump, but packaged so ever much more attractively that people don’t care.

    nk (1d9030)

  139. @140. But they didn’t ban the POTUS account. He can still use it.

    No. He can’t:

    Twitter Inc on Friday deleted new tweets posted by U.S. President Donald Trump on official government account @POTUS and suspended the account of his presidential campaign, after booting his personal account off the platform permanently. After President Donald Trump and his @RealDonaldTrump account were suspended from Twitter Friday, he attempted to post several tweets from the @POTUS account. Twitter swiftly deleted the tweets.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  140. Trump tried tweeting from the official POTUS account despite Twitter’s ban, but the tweets were immediately removed

    nk (1d9030) — 1/8/2021 @ 9:32 pm

    Which doesn’t mean he can’t use it. It just means he can’t use it the same way he used his old, dearly departed account — no more conspiracy theories, no more ranting against personal enemies, etc. He might actually have to try acting like the President of the United States for once. It would be a nice change of pace for the next couple weeks. Who knows, he might even start to enjoy it a little bit.

    (I know, I won’t hold my breath either.)

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

  141. Demosthenes (d7fc81) — 1/8/2021 @ 9:17 pm

    The answer is, you build an alternative.

    Are you choosing to ignore the earlier part of my comment? The tech companies have shown that they can make this a practical impossibility. And it’s not that hard.

    frosty (f27e97)

  142. @142. Maybe he can piggyback on Vlad’s or Xi’s….or Kim’s;

    No POTUS on Twitter, yet:

    Kim Jongun (@_kim_jongun) • Twitter

    twitter.com/_kim_jongun

    The latest tweets from @_kim_jongun

    @Kim_Jong__Un___ | Twitter

    twitter.com/Kim_Jong__Un___

    The latest tweets from @Kim_Jong__Un___

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  143. From an MSN article on the deleted POTUS tweets:

    “As I have been saying for a long time, Twitter has gone further and further in banning free speech, and tonight, Twitter employees have coordinated with Democrats and the Radical Left in removing my account from their platform, to silence me – and YOU, the 75,000,000 great patriots who voted for me,” Trump tweeted. “Twitter may be a private company, but without the government’s gift of Section 230 they would not exist for long. I predicted this would happen.”

    “We have been negotiating with other various sites, and will have a big announcement soon, while we also look at the possibilities of building out our own platform in the near future,” he added. “We will not be SILENCED! Twitter is not about FREE SPEECH. They are about promoting a Radical Left platform where some of the most vicious people in the world today are allowed to speak freely… STAY TUNED!”

    Gosh, I wonder why those were deleted. Maybe if he’d posted about presidential activities instead. (Which is what the account is supposed to be for…)

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

  144. @144. He can’t use it.

    Again: “We salute the rank, not the man.” – Dick Winters [Damian Lewis] Band of Brothers, HBO 2001

    There’s something seriously warped about a platform that lets Vlad, Xi ad Kim “tweet” away yet closes down the President of the United States.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  145. Demosthenes (d7fc81) — 1/8/2021 @ 9:14 pm

    We like to call it Reality. You’re welcome to join us anytime you like. There’s cookies and beer.

    Based on some of the comments in this thread, you may like to call it reality but I’m not sure that’s the correct label.

    frosty (f27e97)

  146. Trumps biggest weakness is he still believed in laws, elections, courts, and rules, as much as he was a blowhard, he still respected this country and loved it at a deep level.

    LOLOL

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  147. Are you choosing to ignore the earlier part of my comment?

    frosty (f27e97) — 1/8/2021 @ 9:37 pm

    Yes, I am. Just because you try to preemptively foreclose the proper response doesn’t mean I won’t give it.

    @142. Maybe he can piggyback on Vlad’s or Xi’s….or Kim’s;

    DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 1/8/2021 @ 9:37 pm

    Maybe he can. And who knows, maybe that would get Twitter’s attention focused on those accounts as well. I’ve already said upthread that there are plenty of world leaders who should be given the same treatment that Trump was today. I spent all my time talking about Khameini, but you’ve certainly picked three other world leaders whom I would be glad to see Twitter go after.

    I’m not holding my breath on that, either. But though they won’t, they should.

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

  148. @Frosty@145 Do you think that platforms like Apple, Android, and Windows should be required to allow sideloading, in order to make it easier for new companies to bypass legacy tech to ban them?

    Nic (896fdf)

  149. *legacy tech’s attempt to ban them.

    Sigh.

    Nic (896fdf)

  150. @151. Moot point; they are there, now; the President of the United States of America, is not.

    Between this and the NY Post fiasco, Twitter’s along with Lucy haz gots some ‘splainin’ to do.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  151. @144. He can’t use it.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 1/8/2021 @ 9:41 pm

    If by “he can’t use it,” you mean “The President of the United States cannot use a platform given to him by a private company, in acknowledgement of his official position, to promote political conspiracy theories, denigrate his private-company host, and threaten to build an alternative to their service,” then I agree. Twitter just showed him he can’t do that. Maybe he should try tweeting something about giving out a Medal of Freedom, or signing some legislation. You know, official business. On his official account. I would bet that stays up.

    There’s something seriously warped about a platform that lets Vlad, Xi ad Kim “tweet” away yet closes down the President of the United States.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 1/8/2021 @ 9:41 pm

    I agree. They should all be banned. They have all said things on Twitter that deserved to get their posts fact-checked and/or deleted, and their accounts suspended permanently.


    @151. Moot point; they are there, now; the President of the United States of America, is not.

    Between this and the NY Post fiasco, Twitter’s along with Lucy haz gots some ‘splainin’ to do.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 1/8/2021 @ 9:53 pm

    I agree, again. Twitter doesn’t legally owe anyone an explanation. But they do have a moral obligation. Unfortunately, they seem to be run by people who don’t care to honor it.

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

  152. Lemme ax you: Do Iran, China, and Russia have Section 230?

    Well, do they? Or are you all taking a demented New York orange sewer rat’s demented rants as your reality?

    nk (1d9030)

  153. Demosthenes (d7fc81) — 1/8/2021 @ 9:47 pm

    Yes, I am. Just because you try to preemptively foreclose the proper response doesn’t mean I won’t give it.

    I’m not preemptively foreclosing it. I’m saying there is already at least one example of tech companies taking an offensive site down. This is not a theoretical concept or a hypothetical. Are you honestly not aware of that? Tech companies can absolutely take a system like Parler offline and it’s not that hard. To be any sort of “alternative” a system like Parler needs a lot of infrastructure that is controlled by a small handful of companies.

    frosty (f27e97)

  154. To be any sort of “alternative” a system like Parler needs a lot of infrastructure that is controlled by a small handful of companies.

    frosty (f27e97) — 1/8/2021 @ 10:13 pm

    Their site still seems to be accessible through my smartphone’s browser. So it seems like what they really need to be an alternative is people willing to take an extra step or two.

    It might also help if they weren’t basically all the worst parts of Twitter, but for the right.

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

  155. @155. You don’t understand; POTUS tweets have been deemed official U.S. gov’t communications subject to historical archiving. Removing/altering them by Twitter is n different than Nancy ripping up the SOTU text.

    This company’s arbitrary decisions regarding official U.S. gov’t communications has to be reviewed.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  156. @156. Remember, he may be an orange sewer rat to be sure, but he’s still the POTUS.

    Again, as hard as it may be to accept: “We salute the rank, not the man.” – Dick Winters [Damian Lewis] ‘Band of Brothers’ HBO 2001

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  157. Nic (896fdf) — 1/8/2021 @ 9:49 pm

    Do you think that platforms like Apple, Android, and Windows should be required to allow sideloading, in order to make it easier for new companies to bypass legacy tech to ban them?

    There’s more here than I want to wade into. I think these companies should be required to allow side loading, period. I’m not sure I care why. I’m also against this in other tech areas. I think it’s ridiculous that farmers are having to fight for the right to repair their tractors. Yes, I know, build your own tractors, etc. The market has failed in this area and it’s ridiculous to hear these principled pseudo-libertarian free market arguments in favor of corporations limiting the personal liberty of everyone.

    Corporations are a creation of the state. The state is a creation of We the People. Individuals > corporations.

    If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.

    Good news everyone! The boot will have a logo.

    frosty (f27e97)

  158. Two years ago Trump was tweeting back and forth w/Kim hostile threats over missiles and a possibl thermonuclear exchange in Korea– official U.S gov’t communications— so why wasn’t he banned then by Twitter threatening atomic war? Which twit at Twitter is making these arbitrary decisions? This is the problem.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  159. @realdonaldtrump was banned. It is not the official presidential I’d, it is Donald Trump’s personal account which was used in breach of the time of use. He’e just another asshole with a Twitter account.

    If he has something presidential to say, use the POTAS account, it’s why it exists.

    Those too dumb to understand the difference, are, well sad.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0)

  160. ID, terms

    Stoopid autocorrect

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0)

  161. @161 I agree on both side-loading and right to repair. If I buy a thing, I should be able to use it any legal way I want.

    Nic (896fdf)

  162. So if Trump comes and spray paints RESIST on the side of my garage, I can’t paint it over because it’s an official U.S. government communi-sti-cation?

    And, no, Pelosi did not break any law when she ripped up one of several thousand copies of the SOTUS.

    nk (1d9030)

  163. Demosthenes (d7fc81) — 1/8/2021 @ 10:22 pm

    Their site still seems to be accessible through my smartphone’s browser

    Ok, so now I’m starting to think you’re intentionally dodging. It’s not an app issue, although that is an issue. If just a small handful of companies decided Parler needed to go, for whatever reason, the site would be gone from the US in any form. Parler would be left trying to run a website out of a country you’ve probably never heard of on infrastructure that wouldn’t support any number of uses worth counting. This has already happened before.

    The argument that you can always make your own is just not true. I know it’s an article of faith in these discussions. I’m getting the sense that reality can’t shake that faith.

    frosty (f27e97)

  164. If he has something presidential to say, use the POTAS account, it’s why it exists. Those too dumb to understand the difference, are, well sad.

    Sad indeed, Klink: Twitter Inc on Friday deleted new tweets posted by U.S. President Donald Trump on official government account @POTUS and suspended the account of his presidential campaign, after booting his personal account off the platform permanently. After President Donald Trump and his @RealDonaldTrump account were suspended from Twitter Friday, he attempted to post several tweets from the @POTUS account. Twitter swiftly deleted the tweets.

    “Klink, you boob!” – General Burkhalter [Leon Askin] ‘Hogan’s Heroes’ CBS TV,1965-71

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  165. You won’t catch me arguing that “you can always make your own”, frosty. What you’ll catch me asking is what right do you have to have one at all?

    nk (1d9030)

  166. @168- ROFLMAO Trying not to laugh at the prospect of tweets threatening a thermonuclear exchange being in the public interest.

    Twitter is so fvcked up.

    So glad I don’t use it.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  167. @155. You don’t understand; POTUS tweets have been deemed official U.S. gov’t communications subject to historical archiving. Removing/altering them by Twitter is n different than Nancy ripping up the SOTU text.

    Do you have some evidence that they weren’t archived before they were deleted? Have you contacted the Library of Congress on this matter? (They are responsible for the Twitter archives, IIRC.)

    The whole point of archiving tweets is that, even if the user (or Twitter) deletes them later, they will still be preserved in some form. Screenshots of these tweets exist (see here for one example). Therefore, they will always be available somewhere, in some form, even if they are not available in perpetuity on Twitter. Your objection is irrelevant.

    This company’s arbitrary decisions regarding official U.S. gov’t communications has to be reviewed.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 1/8/2021 @ 10:23 pm

    I dispute your use of the word “arbitrary.” A Twitter user with a deleted account tried to use a different account to continue using the service in the same manner. This is against Twitter’s TOS, and so they did what they have said they would do under such circumstances — they deleted the tweets. The only “arbitrary” thing about the whole affair was that they allowed the offending account to remain active, and in possession of the offending user. And the only reason they did that was because the user was the President of the United States.

    Since you love movie quotes so much:

    “I don’t give a damn who you are! This is America, Jack!” — Cleo McDowell [John Amos], Coming to America (1988)

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

  168. Ok, so now I’m starting to think you’re intentionally dodging.

    You may think that if you wish.

    If just a small handful of companies decided Parler needed to go, for whatever reason, the site would be gone from the US in any form.

    frosty (f27e97) — 1/8/2021 @ 10:51 pm

    “Gone from the US” does not mean “gone.” It also does not mean “inaccessible from the US.”

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

  169. @166. Yes you can, as long as it’s not deemed an archivable communication [though the Smithsonian might like it] but if he tweets that he did it yes, that can’t be removed. And yes, technically, Nancy did by destroying the text given her. It’s such a maze dealing w/this sort of gov’t documentation material; went through this w/some material w/NASA some years ago w/people working in Hollywood. What you can and can’t destroy, what you can copy and not copy; what you can gift and not gift is a bureaucratic nightmare. Drove everybody nuts- so we finally wet to network archives and they were almost as bad- and cost more.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  170. 172. You don’t know what you’re talking about w/regards to archiving. Been through it w/NASA.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  171. @166. Yes you can, as long as it’s not deemed an archivable communication [though the Smithsonian might like it] but if he tweets that he did it yes, that can’t be removed.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 1/8/2021 @ 11:08 pm

    You seem to not understand that something can be removed from one place, and still be archived in another.

    I will agree on this much — I think it is shameful that tweets from the official account of the President of the United States were deleted. Where we differ is that you place the blame on the people who did the deleting, while I place the blame on the person who did the tweeting. Had Trump stuck to tweets about official business on his official account, instead of letting loose with his usual foaming-at-the-mouth nonsense, I’m sure Twitter would have left the account alone.

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

  172. 172. You don’t know what you’re talking about w/regards to archiving. Been through it w/NASA.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 1/8/2021 @ 11:10 pm

    Really? How fascinating. I’ve been through it at an actual archive.

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

  173. nk (1d9030) — 1/8/2021 @ 10:49 pm

    Ah, one of the other common false analogies. Are you a corporation? Are you in the business of providing access to your garage as a communication platform to POTUS? Has a federal court ruled on messages painted on your garage by POTUS. If so then the answer might be yes and you may want to retain qualified legal counsel to advise you.

    Comparing your own personal private property to corporate property is a gross oversimplification. Do you know that companies are routinely required to engage in speech whether they want to or not? Do tobacco companies want to label their products? Do you think any business wants to put up those labor law notices? Do you think any company wants to put labels on their products explaining what the state of California thinks might cause cancer? I’m guessing you’re not required to do any of that for your garage unless you live in CA.

    This should be common knowledge and still there are people in this comment thread making snide remarks about violating the free speech rights of corporations or telling them how they can use their private property.

    frosty (f27e97)

  174. @178. Then you should know better; we were dealing w/t U.S. National Archives in College Park, MD, the CBS News archives, the NBC News Archives and NBC News archives in New York; the AP Archives and the Museum of Broadcasting archives; and the NASA history archives available at KSC, JSC and at Goddard.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  175. ^ABC

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  176. If Twitter is just an inconsequential private website whose owners decisions are purely private and they have so very little control over the public marketplace of ideas ….

    Why is it front page international news when someone gets banned?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  177. Kevin’s an engineer? If so, that explains a lot.

    I believe attacking someone based on their profession, and one’s prejudices towards same, is outside the bounds of this blog.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  178. Broadcast TV is regulated because the medium is owned by “we the people”.

    I can make a better argument for the Internet, which started as a government investment called ARPAnet. Broadcast TV uses nothing invented with public funds. As for the TV medium, it is “owned” by government solely because government said so. You can’t trace it back further than that.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  179. In any event, I am expecting apologies, particularly from lurker who went over the line twice.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  180. @178. Then you should know better; we were dealing w/t U.S. National Archives in College Park, MD, the CBS News archives, the NBC News Archives and NBC News archives in New York; the AP Archives and the Museum of Broadcasting archives; and the NASA history archives available at KSC, JSC and at Goddard.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 1/8/2021 @ 11:25 pm

    Those are, indeed, some very impressive institutions. It’s a shame none of the archivists you worked with (most of whom, I’m sure, have far more experience than I) knew enough to inform you that electronic data can exist on more than one server, and can even be saved automatically.

    Bottom line: the tweets were almost certainly archived by the White House, the Library of Congress, and/or some other governmental institution (the National Archives, perhaps) before they were deleted, and will be part of Trump’s presidential records. “Deleted from the public Twitter feed” does not mean “gone forever.” If you have the experience you claim to have, you should probably know that.

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

  181. Continuing my previous comment to DCSCA, because I posted too soon:

    In any event, the most polite term I can use for your objection to Twitter deleting Trump’s tweets is “overblown” — especially since you have no proof that the tweets weren’t archived. People got screenshots of them before they were taken down, after all. Any internal archival system worth its salt should have copies of them, too.

    Then again, maybe I see your point. After all, what are the odds that a man who has a decades-long record of crooked and shady business dealings is in charge of an administration that prioritizes data preservation?

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

  182. Broadcast TV is regulated because the medium is owned by “we the people”.

    No. Television is a medium; and generally speaking, broadcasting via that medium is what gets licensed; what is owned by ‘we the people’ and regulated are the “airwaves” – the broadcast spectrum assigned for licensing – the spectrum is assigned for television, cells, microwave, AM/FM radio,etc., etc. and through that licensing process various nust carry channels are assigned.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  183. I will henceforward and forever think of a demented, idiotic, fascist mob whenever I see the words “Trump supporter.”

    Radegunda (20775b)

  184. Demosthenes (d7fc81) — 1/8/2021 @ 11:07 pm

    “Gone from the US” does not mean “gone.” It also does not mean “inaccessible from the US.”

    Well, I guess that’s the point. We’ve gotten to a very strange place if I’m required to rely on other countries to exercise my rights as a US citizen.

    If political speech is happening in a forum where I can’t participate because we’ve decided view point discrimination by corporations is acceptable do I really have any 1st amendment protections. If new sweeping legislation is being discussed online that effects me does it mean anything that I can go to the nearest park and reply verbally for everyone to hear or that I can go to an obscure site hosted offshore?

    For everyone worried about voter id laws disenfranchising people do you not see the parallels? The fact that the censorship and suppression has been privatized doesn’t change the end result.

    frosty (f27e97)

  185. So, two companies (AWS and Alphabet) own the US internet and no one has an issue.

    They don’t. That’s not what the internet is.

    One of those two companies supplies the hosting, directly or indirectly, to every site of any size in the United States and a large part of the West. Sure, you can hook up to your local ISP, on a computer in your house, but even then your commerce must pass through something one of them owns.

    Various organizations have gotten nastygrams from AWS due to some unacceptable hard-right content in the past. And that is generally when they find out their business isn’t actually an independent private company but beholden to AWS’s rules.

    As for what the internet is and how it’s put together, I understand that rather better than you do.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  186. @187. You just want to argue. Archiving is costly and not all gov’t institutions are budgeted to do it. NASA certainly wasn’t; hence the need to tap other sources and the commercial television networks. Whether Twitter archives is their business but it is a cost and they cannot alter/interfere w/content of what are officially deemed U.S. gov’t communications- POTUS or otherwise. Of course they’re certainly free to not carry any gov’t accounts at all but when they do, messing w/content is verboten and clearly this is an area somebody thee has made arbitrary decisions over. It has to be looked into.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  187. @189. ‘Trump Supporter’ … Careful– that may just be his new line of jockstraps. Picture Melania and Ivanka in some sexy print and TeeVee ads.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  188. We’ve gotten to a very strange place if I’m required to rely on other countries to exercise my rights as a US citizen.

    frosty (f27e97) — 1/9/2021 @ 12:03 am

    Ah, yes, that beautiful text from 1791: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom to tweet…”

    If political speech is happening in a forum where I can’t participate because we’ve decided view point discrimination by corporations is acceptable do I really have any 1st amendment protections.

    Yes. You do. But you have no right to force other people to let you use their platform for whatever purpose you want. Which seems to be what you want.

    The fact that the censorship and suppression has been privatized doesn’t change the end result.

    But it does make the end result legally acceptable…because you are not being prohibited by the government from speaking anywhere at all. Instead, you are being prohibited by a private entity from speaking on their platform. You can still speak on other platforms. And if those platforms get shut down, more will replace them.

    In the meantime, your inconvienience and hurt feelings do not outweigh someone else’s property rights. I say this as someone who has been banned from several fora, and may someday be banned from more.

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

  189. @193 –That’s their own term of choice. If I say “Trump fans” they think it’s disrespectful.

    Radegunda (20775b)

  190. In any event, I am expecting apologies, particularly from lurker who went over the line twice.

    Hey, I don’t mind when people make fun of lawyers. Or Californians or dads for that matter. But if it hurt your feelings that I teased you for being an engineer, I apologize.

    What’s the second thing I owe you an apology for?

    lurker (d8c5bc)


  191. @187. You just want to argue.

    As do you. We were made for each other, dahling. [/ZsaZsa]

    Whether Twitter archives is their business but it is a cost and they cannot alter/interfere w/content of what are officially deemed U.S. gov’t communications- POTUS or otherwise. Of course they’re certainly free to not carry any gov’t accounts at all but when they do, messing w/content is verboten and clearly this is an area somebody thee has made arbitrary decisions over. It has to be looked into.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 1/9/2021 @ 12:10 am

    I’ve already responded to all of this, and it would be a waste of time for both of us to rehash the same points. So I’ll just say goodnight.

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

  192. @176.Yes, CNN’s Lemon weeped; but it was kind of that woman protester to help the offficer and drop his face mask back down.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  193. What’s the second thing I owe you an apology for?

    Two ad hominem posts.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  194. Oh, forgot:

    frosty, you also have no right to force others to host your platform on their infrastructure. Which is really what I should have said in my last comment, but it’s late, I was distracted with DCSCA, and I lost the thread of our debate. Sorry. G’nite.

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

  195. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 1/9/2021 @ 12:06 am

    Sure, you can hook up to your local ISP, on a computer in your house, but even then your commerce must pass through something one of them owns.

    Even that depends a lot on the ISP. TOS aside most ISPs are designed for asymmetric traffic and won’t tolerate a lot of inbound traffic. There was a time when AT&T had some fairly broad restrictions on inbound connections and that was one of the reasons. Try setting up your own mail server and see what that gets you. Most residential IP space is blacklisted and you’re probably going to have to pay to transit SMTP. CDNs exist for a reason. Are there ways around all of that? Probably but you might as well consider yourself on the dark web at that point.

    As for what the internet is and how it’s put together, I understand that rather better than you do.

    In general this is a low bar. There’s really no such thing as just setting up “your own” website on the Internet and most people have no idea how this stuff works.

    frosty (f27e97)

  196. Google is going to deplatform parlor. Trying to censor 75 million trump supporters anyway they can. When you call people terrorists and treat them like terrorists for political gain is fine as long as they don’t say ok then we will act like terrorists. For over 50 years we have seen how difficult and troublesome protesters from the left can be even though most don’t believe in shooting back or at least told by their leaders not to shoot back. The right are not poor blacks of low education who live by petty crime. They are in the military, Law enforcement, businesses like construction (explosives) gun rights groups, militias and Intelligence agencies. Many have been trained in asymmetrical warfare. They know how to terminate with extreme prejudice america’s perceived enemies. Be careful what you wish for you might get it. Remember oklahoma city revenge bombing?

    asset (51f285)

  197. Demosthenes (d7fc81) — 1/9/2021 @ 12:15 am

    Ah, yes, that beautiful text from 1791: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom to tweet…”

    Yep, this is basically the argument that the 1st amendment doesn’t extend to any new context. Little did we know it only applies to the restrictions on speech that can be pressed on little pieces of paper that are operated by hand.

    Again, let’s see how this works out because there’s another text that begins with “In the course of humans events” and it was the end result of a lot of what some people at the time probably dismissed as “inconvenience and hurt feelings”.

    frosty (f27e97)

  198. Frosty,

    I haven’t tried it recently but a decade or two ago I was running listservers through a Linux box in my home office. Sendmail and Procmail at the time. The SMTP was through a remote host where I paid for the privilege on an unblocked port, with an OK on the volume.

    From time to time there was a blacklist issue as someone on the webhost’s shared mailserver did some spamming. But mostly not. I’m still not on a CDN which would probably break port forwarding I do for other reasons (which may well be considered dark web).

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  199. It really helped using SPF and DKIM

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  200. @202 What’s your theory on how to prevent Google from removing parler from their app store?

    Nic (896fdf)

  201. Two ad hominem posts.

    OK. Actually I posted three comments making fun of engineers, one of which mentioned you. Not that it matters, but just so you understand my confusion over “two.”

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  202. Doubling down on fascism:

    In Capital, a G.O.P. Crisis. At the R.N.C. Meeting, a Trump Celebration.

    Party members at a gathering of the Republican National Committee endorsed President Trump as the man to lead the party forward, ignoring the turmoil in Washington.

    AMELIA ISLAND, Fla. — In Washington, Republicans were dealing with a burgeoning crisis in their ranks, with high-profile resignations and bitter infighting over how to deal with an erratic and isolated president. But at the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting on Friday, most party members were operating in a parallel universe.

    In a chandelier-adorned ballroom at the seaside Ritz-Carlton here, there was no mention of President Trump’s disruption of the coronavirus relief package or his phone call to the Georgia secretary of state demanding that he help steal the election, both of which contributed to Republicans’ losing control of the Senate.

    And while the R.N.C. chair, Ronna McDaniel, condemned the attack on the Capitol, neither she nor any other speaker so much as publicly hinted at Mr. Trump’s role in inciting a mob assault on America’s seat of government.

    Even as the president faces a possible second impeachment proceeding, this collective exercise in gaze aversion was not the most striking part of the meeting. More revealing was the reason for the silence from the stage: Party members, one after another, said in interviews that the president did not bear any blame for the violence at the Capitol and indicated that they wanted him to continue to play a leading role in the party.

    Dave (1bb933)

  203. OK. Actually I posted three comments making fun of engineers, one of which mentioned you. Not that it matters, but just so you understand my confusion over “two.”

    You shouldn’t rub in the fact that he’s not a physicist.

    That’s just mean.

    Dave (1bb933)

  204. Google is going to deplatform parlor

    Parler, I think. Both Google and Apple have discovered that Parler allows speech they dislike, although the speech they complain of (planning violent acts) is actually something the US Government can also penalize. If that’s the limit of it, that’s probably their duty.

    But I do wonder what the limit actually is once the camel’s nose is under the tent. Since this is not about being compelled to speak, or even to tolerate some speech within one’s presentation, but bans software due speech that happens entirely within someone else’s service. I would think their remit ends at the Playstore download page.

    I am really uncomfortable if communications are filtered by the least tolerance of every widget-owner on the Internet.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  205. You shouldn’t rub in the fact that he’s not a physicist.

    That’s just mean.

    Dave, I do not claim to be one. Sure, I got the BS, but that’s just a basic understanding. You have to be able to do work in a field to call yourself something, and for physics that means a PhD. I was unwilling to go to another class ever.

    So, engineer. Comm system R&D for the last 30 years, which does actually require some physics, plus information theory.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  206. Suppose people were openly buying and selling kiddie porn on Parler while the proprietor turned a blind eye, Kevin.

    Wouldn’t Google and Apple be wise to protect the victims – and their own reputations – by telling them to clean it up or get lost?

    Dave (1bb933)

  207. *bans software due speech

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  208. @208: By August 1974, even Charles Wiggins was calling for Trump to be impeached.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  209. Suppose people were openly buying and selling kiddie porn

    Well, that’s what I mean. Keep going and pretty soon “they’re saying things bad about Biden.”

    In the case you suggest, maybe they would instead call the FBI folks and let them listen in. Not that they aren’t already.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  210. You shouldn’t rub in the fact that he’s not a physicist.

    That’s just mean.

    Dave, your presence here rubs it in that none of us are physicists.

    NOW I’M TRYING TO FIX THIS SO CUT IT OUT

    Physicists….

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  211. My issue is that we have somehow managed to avoid all the pathologies that other countries have adopted to regulate speech, but now we are allowing modern communications to be censored by private entities reacting to the same pressures that a more pliant government might face.

    When speech is limited by public pressure, the censorship is no more voluntary than a hotel complying with Jim Crow was.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  212. we are allowing modern communications to be censored by private entities reacting to the same pressures that a more pliant government might face.

    What you call censorship is those entities exercising their own speech and association rights. And the market and societal pressures they’re responding to are the same ones you and I contend with in choosing the company we keep, what to say to them, when to keep our mouths shut, etc.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  213. This Republican Party needs to go the way of the Whigs

    So many sounded the alarm for so long about Trump’s authoritarian instincts and violent rhetoric. For years, he instigated threats and violence against journalists (“enemy of the people”), racial and religious minorities, immigrants and Democrats. Yet Republicans excused him, defended him, enabled him. Now, in defeat, the autocrat showed the world his true colors and mobilized violence against Congress, Republicans included, and his own vice president.

    What Trump’s mob did to the Capitol — the first time the seat of American government had been sacked since the War of 1812 — was evil. It was murder. It was domestic terrorism. It was sedition. And, yes, it was treason.

    Yet what Trump’s Republican allies were doing inside the chambers of Congress at the time of the attack — Trump’s justification for inciting the riot — was just as seditious: They were attempting to overturn Joe Biden’s election as president, overrule the voters and install Trump, by fiat, for another term.

    He has the right idea, but his history of the Whig Party is completely wrong:

    The GOP was born, from the ashes of the Whigs, under similar circumstances. The Whigs in 1848 jettisoned their core principle — limited presidential power — in favor of political expediency. Instead of nominating one of their legendary statesmen — Daniel Webster or Henry Clay — the Whigs went with celebrity war-hero Zachary Taylor, an enslaver who was popular with Southerners but had no governing experience and no fealty to Whig principles. Taylor won, but he savaged Whig leaders and Whig doctrine. The party, split over slavery, dissolved.

    The Whigs were never an anti-slavery party. Despite owning slaves, Taylor was the only president between Jackson and Lincoln who actually refused to kowtow to the slave power; his positions were provocative to the South, and could well have led to secession ten years sooner, had he lived. Fillmore, on the other hand, was completely accommodating after Taylor died, and he signed the extremely unpopular (in the North) Fugitive Slave Act.

    Dave (1bb933)

  214. Dave, your presence here rubs it in that none of us are physicists.

    Nobody’s perfect.

    Geez.

    Dave (1bb933)

  215. frosty (f27e97) — 1/9/2021 @ 12:42 am

    Yep, this is basically the argument that the 1st amendment doesn’t extend to any new context. Little did we know it only applies to the restrictions on speech that can be pressed on little pieces of paper that are operated by hand.

    Mmm…no, that’s not actually the argument I was making. This is what led up to this:

    frosty, @190: “We’ve gotten to a very strange place if I’m required to rely on other countries to exercise my rights as a US citizen.”
    Demosthenes, @194: “Ah, yes, that beautiful text from 1791: ‘Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom to tweet…'”

    This is what I meant: your comment appeared to me to be invoking the First Amendment. My mocking response was meant to point up that this is NOT a First Amendment issue. You have the right to speak freely without fear of government censorship, but you do not have the right to use someone else’s property to broadcast your speech UNLESS they allow you to do so. They have First Amendment freedoms, too.

    Let me put it in the 18th-century context you decided to invoke against me. You, as a private citizen, have the right to compose any sort of letter to the editor you want. But I, as a publisher, would have the freedom not to print it. Denying you the use of my platform is not an abridgement of your right to freedom of speech. It is an exercise of mine.

    Or, wait, you were all hung up on infrastructure, weren’t you? Well, here’s another 18th-century analogy for you. You, as a citizen, have the right to start your own newspaper, and to fill it with whatever sort of editorial content you like, without any government interference. But if you don’t have a printing press of your very own, you’ll have to talk to me, your friendly local printer, to mass-produce your paper. And if I don’t want to print your magnum opus because I can’t handle the business, or because I object to your politics, or even just because I don’t like you, then you’re SOL, pal. Go find another printer. No rights abridged.

    Why do I have the feeling that 18th-century you would be grumbling about how tough it is to find another printer? You might even have to go a few towns over to find one…and it would take you all day to put together your paper, ride your horse over to another town to have it printed, and ride back to distribute it. Plus, there are all those costs involved in getting your own printing press — so expensive for you, it’s basically impossible. I mean, why shouldn’t I have to print your paper? Why shouldn’t you be able to compel me? I mean, you have a right to publish. What else can you do, write out 500 copies by hand?

    Again, let’s see how this works out because there’s another text that begins with “In the course of humans events” and it was the end result of a lot of what some people at the time probably dismissed as “inconvenience and hurt feelings”.

    I hate to point this out, but in your attempt to score a point, you rather embarrassingly misquoted the Declaration of Independence. Which can be found online, for free. It hasn’t yet been deplatformed.

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

  216. When speech is limited by public pressure, the censorship is no more voluntary than a hotel complying with Jim Crow was.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 1/9/2021 @ 1:18 am

    I actually have quite a bit of sympathy for this argument. I’ve made it myself, in the past. And I still believe in it. There is something unfair about a crowd, which would otherwise be unable to shut you up, appealing to an authority with power over you to do for them what they would be powerless to do for themselves.

    However, there’s nothing illegal about that sort of behavior. And in many contexts, it’s even laudable. I cannot lawfully appeal to the government to stop the Westboro Baptist Church from conducting a silent protest on my street. Nor should I be able to, as long as they are following the law. But if my neighbor invites them over for a backyard barbecue, my other neighbors and I have every right to tell him we’ll never come over again unless he makes them leave.

    Whether this sort of behavior is right or wrong, in other words, depends on whether the target of the behavior deserves it. That’s fundamentally a moral question, and so we cannot legally foreclose bad instances of the behavior without also foreclosing good instances. Hopefully, therefore, we are moral people, and can tell the difference. I’ll let John Adams take it from here: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

  217. A short thread on Trump’s Twitter suspension by one of my favorite legal commentators. And sure, he happens to be a law professor who’s often cited by The Supreme Court for his constitutional scholarship. But way more important than any of that, he’s an engineer.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  218. Alright techies can’t parler use another platform then google or apple?

    asset (51f285)

  219. Mr Agreeable wrote:

    To the extent this is about Twitter: what’s the relevance? Twitter has nothing to do with access to the internet. That an alternative like Parker exists shows that anyone can open up their own version of Twitter. That Twitter has become the gorilla in the marketplace means nothing.

    Actually, it does. Remember when the government forced Microsoft to stop offering its office suite package for ‘free’ with computers, because it was stomping all over products like Word Perfect?

    The Dana in Kentucky (facd7c)

  220. Demothenes wrote:

    They should have stayed out of the fact-checking business entirely (their platform is meant to be one for basically unfiltered free speech, after all), or else taken several months to draft very clear guidelines for public-interest accounts and put an enforcement team in place.

    Where is the evidence that “their platform is meant to be one for basically unfiltered free speech, after all”?

    The company is run by a leftist, and primarily staffed by leftists; whenever judgement is used, that judgement is colored by the political biases of the judges. All censorship is colored by the biases of the censors.

    The head cheeses at Twitter are just so ashamed of themselves that Donald Trump was able to use their service to quickly communicate with voters, and the voters then turned around and elected him President of the United States.

    The Dana in Kentucky (facd7c)

  221. DCSCA wrote:

    That’s almost funny, as once upon a time he was peddling the ol’Comp-U-Serve like mad.

    Well, he was being paid to do that. That’s what advertisers do.

    The Dana in Kentucky (facd7c)

  222. Demothenes wrote:

    To be any sort of “alternative” a system like Parler needs a lot of infrastructure that is controlled by a small handful of companies.

    frosty (f27e97) — 1/8/2021 @ 10:13 pm

    Their site still seems to be accessible through my smartphone’s browser. So it seems like what they really need to be an alternative is people willing to take an extra step or two.

    It might also help if they weren’t basically all the worst parts of Twitter, but for the right.

    I was able to access my Parler feed with no problem, but it’s on my desktop, not my iPad or smart phone.

    A Parley from Alexander Blair @ablair on Parler:

    Good Evening!

    Just wanted to drop in and give a quick note about the issues we saw today, with the massive influx of new members coming onboard to Parler, we’ve been busy working on making sure the platform works well as we go forwards and prepare for more people to join the site.

    We’re working on alternate ways to acquire the mobile application, we’ll be providing more updates for that over the next couple of days as we finalize locations and how we want to distribute it (Thanks to @sickcodes for offering to help along the way with iOS, we’ve passed this on as best we can so far, pretty late USTZ at the moment)

    It might be a couple of rocky days ahead as we keep patching and fixing things, every time we find an issue, we’re chasing it down with whatever team members are needed so we can ensure the best possible experience through these times of growth.

    Thank you everyone for your patience!

    This is something on which they should have worked before: Parler’s font is harder to read, it’s site clunky, and it lacks features such as the ability to embed Parleys. It does allow 1,000 characters, compared to Twitter’s 280, but it hides most of them under a Read More button, so as not to clutter up the feed. That’s its most redeeming quality.

    The Dana in Kentucky (facd7c)

  223. Ok, this is pitiful, like a wino picking empty bottles from garbage cans to suck out any remaining drops:

    Twitter Deletes Account For Donald Trump’s Campaign After He Tries Using It To Evade Ban

    The Twitter ban may very well be the worst punishment he will feel.

    nk (1d9030)

  224. This Steppe Nomad guy was probably Trump all along. Same pattern.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  225. το χωριό καίγεται και η πουτάνα λούζεται

    First Lady Melania Trump focused on getting a photo shoot completed as a mob of Trump supporters ransacked the US Capitol, report says

    nk (1d9030)

  226. Kim Jong Un says North Korea is developing tactical nukes, new warheads and a nuclear-powered submarine

    Little Rocket Man deserves the prize for playing Trump like cheap Slovenian porn model.

    He let Trump construct an imaginary reality where he, Trump, was a big, powerful hero, while continuing to do whatever the f*ck he wanted in the real life.

    Dave (1bb933)

  227. “ Remember when the government forced Microsoft to stop offering its office suite package for ‘free’ with computers, because it was stomping all over products like Word Perfect?“

    – The Dana in Kentucky

    Not trying to be obtuse, but can you please explain the mechanics of this analogy vis a vis the situation at hand? I’m having trouble seeing the connections.

    Leviticus (7c76a2)

  228. I thought Trump deserved the Noble Piece Prize for that one, Dave. Next thing you’ll tell me Israel is still in trouble despite Trump earning a total of ate Noble Piece prizes there.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  229. It wasn’t so long ago that private businesses were deemed ‘public accommodations,’ and thus subject to federal anti-discrimination laws. Yes, it might be your privately-owned diner, but that does not mean you can refuse to serve people based on their race.

    Race is protected; political affiliation or beliefs is not. If you own a private diner, you cannot refuse to serve a black customer. There is nothing stopping you – other than stupidity – from refusing to serve someone wearing a Trump hat.

    Hoi Polloi (139bf6)

  230. Hoi Polloi is right. But I think it’s silly to pretend Trump was taken off Twitter for his political views.

    After all, Trump was on there for both of his presidential campaigns, and many who agree with his views are on there today.

    Trump incited a terrible crime. he has committed crime after crime himself, most against the American people. He has used his pardon power to obstruct justice successfully, since a sitting president who lacks honor is above the law in America, but Trump is a criminal who tried to steal an election and damage democracy.

    That’s a step beyond political expression. If Trump fan Terry Nichols started tweeting today about how to blow up a building, I don’t think he has a moral right to use Twitter.

    Furthermore, Trump has tried very hard to destroy twitter. One of the reasons he flip flopped on signing legislation was trying to remove the protections that allow Twitter to exist. I might not be as generous to a guest who was trying to get me fired either.

    A lesson for Trump fans who are still today Trump fans, deflecting as always: the rules are a lot different for traitors who put the country in a more desperate situation. Trump fans think they were victims and told us all the time, but they are opening a can of worms by supporting Trump at this late stage.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  231. Demosthenes (d7fc81) — 1/9/2021 @ 1:50 am

    Your 18th century analogy doesn’t hold. In this situation there is no other town nearby. You suggested it’s reasonable if you’ve got to go to another country. The 18th century equivalent of this is that there’s only 3 places you can buy paper, 2 where you can buy ink, and 2 where you can buy the physical press and they’ve all agreed upfront that they’re only going to transact business with people who have approved political views. Your response is “meh, private property”.

    The better quote is “When in the Course of human events”. You’re thinking I should be embarrassed about which letters got capitalized when I typed it or that it doesn’t literally “begin with”? If I’m trying to take to as absolute a position for free speech as I can it’s going to take a lot more than that to embarrass me.

    The Dana in Kentucky (facd7c) — 1/9/2021 @ 5:55 am

    I was able to access my Parler feed with no problem

    You can now but there are already calls for “much tighter restrictions in the name of protecting speech online” and “safety”. The alternatives anyone believes are part of the free market exist now at the whim of a few companies. Soon those will be gone. The idea that corporations have the same constitutional rights as people isn’t true and we’re about to see them be “forced” to violate there own supposed inalienable rights in the other direction. But the same people who think companies can’t be forced to allow speech will cheer when they are forced to restrict it because, right now, those restrictions are being applied to speech they don’t like.

    frosty (f27e97)

  232. “ Remember when the government forced Microsoft to stop offering its office suite package for ‘free’ with computers, because it was stomping all over products like Word Perfect?“

    No, because it never happened.

    You are thinking Internet Explorer, which is a different thing, a very unpopular thing. Because, one thing isn’t another thing.

    Learn a thing

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0)

  233. Bottom line is that there is no doubt that the corrupt criminal traitor will do his utmost to incite his nosepickers to go back to DC and disrupt the Inauguration, and that is an urgent and compelling reason for Twitter to ban him under any analysis.

    nk (1d9030)

  234. PS I have four comments in moderation which DO NOT need to be retrieved, do not waste either your time or bandwidth, hosts.

    nk (1d9030)

  235. Hoi Polloi (139bf6) — 1/9/2021 @ 6:58 am

    Race is protected; political affiliation or beliefs is not.

    Protected classes don’t create special rights. They’re created to make sure people in those classes have the same rights as everyone else. They aren’t a license to discriminate against anyone not on a narrow list.

    But if beliefs aren’t protected what protected class does creed relate to? And does religion only protect officially recognized state sanctioned institutions? It seems that at least for NY fair housing laws:

    Discrimination means being treated differently by any person with the authority to rent, sell, or deal with applicants or residents of a housing accommodation. Discrimination based on creed includes the perception of those beliefs by others.

    Someone should tell NY they can’t force property owners to associate with renters they don’t agree with.

    frosty (f27e97)

  236. Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0) — 1/9/2021 @ 9:01 am

    No, because it never happened.

    Well, not exactly.

    It’s true the government didn’t literally force MS to stop offering it for free but there was an anti-trust case with the DOJ and there is every reason to conclude MS settled out of court because it was the cheaper option.

    Its weird. It’s almost like company’s can be “forced” to do things they don’t want with their private property even to the point of giving competitors a platform. It’s always good to learn a thing.

    frosty (f27e97)

  237. Trump fans think they were victims and told us all the time, but they are opening a can of worms by supporting Trump at this late stage.

    A man said to the universe: “Sir I exist!”
    “However,” replied the universe, “The fact has not created in me a sense of obligation.”
    — Stephen Crane

    These people will always feel that they are victims, and they will always be victims. They are victims of their circumstances, they are victims of Trump, and they will be victims of the next conman who comes along. All we can do about them is guard ourselves from becoming their victims.

    nk (1d9030)

  238. I think my earlier comments have been misconstrued. I am not advocating imposing first amendment restrictions on private companies. I am simply observing that when private companies 1) throttle some speech, 2) do so in lock-step and 3) control, or combine to control the various layers (presentation, application, transportation, storage, etc) of modern communications the first amendment can become a dead letter.

    People say, well, use anti-trust to break them up (and this probably will happen with parts of Amazon and Alphabet that have far too much control over the modern Internet, and Facebook due to its incessant buyout of threats). The problem though is that the Trump administration has used (and possibly other administrations will use) the THREAT of anti-trust to get corporate censorship to act for them, or to refrain from acting as the case may be.

    It should be telling that Twitter (et al) took no real action against Trump until after the election, and this widespread banning only happened when it was too late for even a lame-duck administration to exert power, and when the incoming administration’s policies were being formulated.

    If they had done this a year ago (and it was warranted a year ago) their motives would be clearer. But they didn’t and I see no reason to assume they are doing this out of principle.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  239. Shorter: If government powers are used to coerce or influence private decisions about allowing or banning speech or speakers, the first amendment is at risk.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  240. Race is protected; political affiliation or beliefs is not.

    In some states this may not be true. I think that CA protects workers from being fired for their political beliefs (at least short of violent overthrow and such).

    At one point in my youth, before everything got reduced to specific lists, people said they did not discriminate on the basis of “race, creed or color”, where creed meant both religion and secular belief.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  241. Little Rocket Man deserves the prize for playing Trump like cheap Slovenian porn model.

    I think NK is what drove Tillerson and Mattis to leave. Both Clinton and W contemplated military action, but kicked the can down the road. Trump had said in 1999 that he would negotiate like crazy with them, but in the end they would give up nukes. Or else. But here in 2017, we have Trump doing less than nothing — he could have just ignored them but instead he gave them a state then waffled.

    I seriously doubt Biden will do anything either, so instead of affirming the carrot/stick nature of the non-proliferation treaty, we will let the NNPT become a dead letter. Next up, Iran. Then 30 more and the chance of containing nuclear wars will be gone.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  242. *he gave them status then waffled.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  243. You are thinking Internet Explorer, which is a different thing, a very unpopular thing.

    At the time, MSIE was indeed popular. Netscape has stopped creating and focused on marketing deals, and Microsoft, circa 1998 was hitting on all cylinders. MSIE 5.0, included in the (excellent) Windows 98SE, along with Outlook Express 5.0 (one of the easiest to use email clients ever — people still bolt the almost identical Vista Winmail into Windows 10).

    At the time of the anti-trust suit, Netscape was in massive decline due to their inability to convince people to switch from MSIE 5, even though their product was free. Indeed, the switching was going the other way and NOT because of Netscape’s whine about MS bundling MSIE. It was an obviously better product. Netscape’s email platforms were even more clearly inferior (e.g. only one email address per user identity).

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  244. Dubya hardly “kicked the can down the road” on North Korea.

    The “six-party talks” including China and Russia, resulted in disablement of NK’s nuclear facilities and both IAEA and US inspectors in place.

    At the end of 2008, with the Bush administration on the way out, and the dovish Obama administration coming in, the Norks refused to sign a verification agreement that they had verbally agreed to, and the Chinese and Russians balked at withholding energy assistance.

    By the spring of 2009, the Norks ejected the inspectors at their reactor.

    You can find a detailed chronology of US/North Korean nuclear and missile diplomacy here.

    Dave (1bb933)

  245. I seriously doubt Biden will do anything either, so instead of affirming the carrot/stick nature of the non-proliferation treaty, we will let the NNPT become a dead letter. Next up, Iran. Then 30 more and the chance of containing nuclear wars will be gone.

    Until Russia and China come to recognize proliferation as their problem too, and join us in adopting a tough policy to stop it, it’s hard to see how any progress is possible.

    US power, confidence and prestige is greatly diminished at the moment, and unlikely to recover to post 9/11 levels anytime in the foreseeable future.

    Dave (1bb933)

  246. Dave,

    Leaving aside the (repeated) perfidy of NK for using the NNPT to get technology they then used to create weapons , the dangers of proliferation should be made clear, even if we have to do it unilaterally. The message has to be an unequivocal demonstration that acquiring nuclear weapons reduces national security.

    Currently there are 7 formally announced nuclear powers, one unanounced but serious power (Israel) and then North Korea whose announcement came in the form of testing. Only NK has done this after signing the NNPT, which means their word is NFG. And of course whatever the Iranians are doing.

    Now I’m not sure what the proper function here is. “N” is 9, and the probability curve of nuclear war is likely less than N^2, but higher than N. Call it N log N. I have little hope for a world where N is 30.

    W negotiated a deal that could not be enforced, with a partner that had a uniform history of lying. I call that kicking the can down the road because it was down the road where the enforcement was punted to, and that it did not happen should have been expected.

    Bill Clinton was, by all accounts, ready to pull the pin on NK in 1994, but Jimmy Carter (in apparent violation of the Logan Act) took it on himself to get the Norks to they lying negotiating table. Ans, as we know, they signed a deal and kept going. So, with a wink and a nod, Clinton punted, too.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  247. At the very least I think that President Biden should announce that North Korea is considered a nuclear-weapons state and that the forbearance promised in the protocols of the NNPT no longer applies to them.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  248. Dave wrote:

    Until Russia and China come to recognize proliferation as their problem too, and join us in adopting a tough policy to stop it, it’s hard to see how any progress is possible.

    Nuclear proliferation is a problem for them only when a country has enough nuclear weapons to start triggering truly mass destruction. Iran having one or two, to threaten Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, is less a proliferation problem for them than a mischief making opportunity. That could be called fairly short term thinking, but it does take a large infrastructure to start producing enough weapons-grade fissile material to build more than a few nukes.

    The Dana in Kentucky (facd7c)

  249. Payback to Republican simps who have always been saying “corporations can do whatever they want, First Amendment doesn’t apply to them.” How’d that work out?

    Brendan (782967)

  250. 38. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 1/8/2021 @ 6:44 pm

    The copyright that Mickey was first published under expired over 30 years ago. Congress took it from the public domain (the People) and gave it back to the corporation that owns it. Twice.

    I think they did it before it expired because after would have been too late.

    Mow it is going to expire for real in 2023 or it 2024? Unless Congress intervenes.

    Copyrights have already started expiring again.

    https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2021

    January 1, 2021 is Public Domain Day: Works from 1925 are open to all!

    (Most famous, probably: The Great Gatsby)

    Sammy Finkelman (fac2c6)

  251. nk (1d9030) — 1/8/2021 @ 5:47 pm

    my Sunday New York Times and the paperboy delivering it via a public sidewalk.

    On the sidewalk? Not a good idea.

    On Wednesday, December 30, 2020. they started delivering it outside the building for the first time ever. It’s probable the paper person didn’t even bother to get out of their car. It looked abandoned, of course.

    On the morning of Saturday, January 2, 2021 the New York Times was taken out of its bag and the main section and some Sunday sections, including the magazine, taken, as was the entire Wall Street Journal (it was delivered. I found the empty bag.) The New York Post was left alone.

    I finally complained (on Sunday) to other than the New York Post, which was the first newspaper that was delivered and so was maybe the main contractor. Monday, January 4, 2021 there was no change, (I didn’t expect it) but by Tuesday January 5. 2021 they were at least delivered inside the building.

    The other newspapers now come hidden inside the red New York Post plastic bag (in their own plastic bags.)

    Sammy Finkelman (fac2c6)

  252. On the sidewalk? Not a good idea.

    No, Sammy. He has to walk on a public sidewalk to get to my door.

    nk (1d9030)

  253. ->

    Private Company Says “No More” To Trump and His Peeps

    Maybe Patterico means tRump and republicans?

    BillPasadena (5b0401)

  254. Sammy:

    With regard to the Times’ content being pilfered and the Post left alone, I hope it’s a voracious left-of-center reader and not a residentially-challenged citizen of the streets seeking a Charmin-like experience versus the Duane Reade generic brand “feel” of the Post.

    urbanleftbehind (cd6534)

  255. urbanleftbehind (cd6534) — 1/10/2021 @ 8:10 am

    With regard to the Times’ content being pilfered and the Post left alone, I hope it’s a voracious left-of-center reader and not a residentially-challenged citizen of the streets seeking a Charmin-like experience versus the Duane Reade generic brand “feel” of the Post.

    I don’t think it was either. Neither is common around here.

    I am kind of surprised it was someone who preferred broadsheets – he took the Wall Street Journal, too. I think it maybe was somebody interested in news. Who maybe doesn’t get a paper every day.

    Sammy Finkelman (fac2c6)

  256. The Dana in Kentucky (facd7c) — 1/9/2021 @ 5:30 am

    Where is the evidence that “[Twitter’s] platform is meant to be one for basically unfiltered free speech, after all”?

    I speak of the impression Twitter seeks to give about the idea behind its service. And I stand by that phrasing. As for jhow well they meet that ideal, well…let’s just say my impression of Twitter was never great, and has only declined as the years have passed.

    frosty (f27e97) — 1/9/2021 @ 8:37 am

    Your 18th century analogy doesn’t hold. In this situation there is no other town nearby.

    Well, this comment didn’t age well, did it? Three days later, it turns out the nearby town is just over the border.

    You suggested it’s reasonable if you’ve got to go to another country. The 18th century equivalent of this is that there’s only 3 places you can buy paper, 2 where you can buy ink, and 2 where you can buy the physical press and they’ve all agreed upfront that they’re only going to transact business with people who have approved political views. Your response is “meh, private property”.

    First off, ABSOLUTELY that is my response. You do not have a right to force other people to help you advocate your political views. This is America.

    Second, I think you missed — again — the point of my analogy. I meant to point out that it was actually considerably harder in the 18th century to publish your views widely, and nearly impossible when you ran into serious opposition. These days, we can send digital signals around the world in seconds. We can adjust the settings on our VPNs to make ourselves appear to be in other countries. And we have far more than just the companies in our own country to do business with.

    I have no love for Parler; as far as I see, it is quickly developing into a wretched hive of scum and villainy, without the benefit of a handsome Wookiee at a corner table. But I never believed for one second that there wouldn’t be some hosting service somewhere in the world that would be happy to take them on when Amazon kicked them out.

    If I’m trying to take to as absolute a position for free speech as I can it’s going to take a lot more than that to embarrass me.

    Finally, something we can agree on. You really can’t be embarrassed, can you? Because you are no kind of a free speech absolutist. And it is quite frankly outrageous for you to pose as one.

    You think that Parler, and all its users, should have the ability to speak freely without government interference — and your opinion on this is manifestly correct. But then you also apparently think the people they do business with do NOT have the right to refuse their business. You have no concern for the speech and association rights of those businesses or the people who run them. I don’t love Alphabet or Apple either…or Amazon, come to think of it. But I care about protecting their rights, even their rights to not want to do business with the likes of me…because otherwise, I have no assurance that my rights will be protected:

    “And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!” –Sir Thomas More [Paul Scofield], A Man for All Seasons (1966)

    If you don’t like that Alphabet and Apple don’t want to allow Parler’s app on their smartphones, build a better smartphone. If you don’t like that Amazon doesn’t want to host Parler’s website, build a better webhost. If you can do neither of those things, find the people who can, and support them — invest in their business, patronize it, promote it to others. Win the war of ideas by helping to build up what you believe in, not forcing others to build it on your behalf. It really shouldn’t have to be said, but apparently it does: THAT’S HOW WE DO THINGS IN AMERICA.

    Between the two of us, I am the free-speech absolutist. You are the statist. And if you don’t like that label, believe me, I can think of ones that are both more apt and less courteous.

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6878 secs.