Cursed Political Content

[TexRex]

I'm almost certain that Trump's twitter "magic" significantly correlated with that site's 140 character limit. Beyond that it's actually hard work trying to follow Trump's meandering thoughts, even if you want to. Tweets are easily digestible, screeds (like the crap he was posting on his blog) are just a chore.

Twitter is also really easy to navigate...even if you haven't signed up for it.

Edit: It's actually really easy to utilize all around despite not interacting directly with it. That it's become ubiquitous certainly plays a role in its utility, just consider that embedding a tweet on GTP only requires pasting the URL into a post.

 

[TexRex]

🤬 Language Warning 🤬

 

[UKMikey]

I'm almost certain that Trump's twitter "magic" significantly correlated with that site's 140 character limit. Beyond that it's actually hard work trying to follow Trump's meandering thoughts, even if you want to. Tweets are easily digestible, screeds (like the crap he was posting on his blog) are just a chore.

I suspect the vast majority of people just weren't interested in what he had to say any more. The political circus has long since moved on down the road and his time in the Super Trouper is in the past.

Die hard orange fans might still have been tuning into his dumpster fireside chats but there were no longer a sufficient quantity of passing rubberneckers to satisfy his Brobdingnagian narcissism.

 

[SestoScudo]

Not even tell it to them. It just has to exist. For context, Lethality Jane above was responding to this retweet from Ted Cruz complaining about a "woke" ad from a gay Army Corporal with two moms and how the Russian army ad made it look "emasculated".



Given Ted's well documented refusal to defend his wife against Trump's insults and flight to Cancun while the state he governed was shivering from lack of heating, it's little surprise that #EmasculaTed started trending soon after.

Meanwhile, throat-shove lady has deleted her tweet and run away.

I prefer the Belarusian one.

 

[UKMikey]

I prefer the Belarusian one.

A walking away from cool explosion shot always helps.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I prefer the Belarusian one.

When I was a kid I wondered why US Army ads were not like this. At some point I realized we don't actually want a bunch of Rambos in the armed forces.

 

[UKMikey]

I was considering posting this to the UAP thread but... ridicule...

 

[SestoScudo]

When I was a kid I wondered why US Army ads were not like this. At some point I realized we don't actually want a bunch of Rambos in the armed forces.

 

[TexRex]

I was considering posting this to the UAP thread but... ridicule...

I won't prohibit mockery or ridicule here because, like all threads on the site, this thread is subject to forum guidelines and moderation. Also because I wear big boy pants.

Edit:

This is precisely the sort of cringe content for which this thread was created.

 

[UKMikey]

Trump's had his head grafted onto Stallone's body so many times it's no wonder the actor has been spotted at Mar-a-Lago.

Meanwhile in anticipation of his upcoming "Presidential" speech, followers are being invited via SMS to complete this completely unbiased survey of their voting intentions:

This commenter makes a convincing argument for texts like this being one of the former guy's few sources of income since toxifying his reputation:

 

[Biggles]

I prefer the Belarusian one.

Flaunting machismo as a measure of a nation's strength is an indication of a failed society. To put it in perspective, Belarus - a country with the same population as New Jersey - has a GDP 1/10th the size of New Jersey's, while Russia's GDP is around half the GDP of California.

On the other hand, neither the former Soviet Union, nor the US had much success in controlling Afghanistan, a country of 40 million with a GDP half the size of Rhode Island's.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Trump's had his head grafted onto Stallone's body so many times it's no wonder the actor has been spotted at Mar-a-Lago.

Meanwhile in anticipation of his upcoming "Presidential" speech, followers are being invited via SMS to complete this completely unbiased survey of their voting intentions:

View attachment 1014857

View attachment 1014866

This commenter makes a convincing argument for texts like this being one of the former guy's few sources of income since toxifying his reputation:

View attachment 1014868

Trump's 2024 Campaign Slogan: Pay Up, Buddy

 

[UKMikey]

Maybe this should be on the Blessed Political Content thread instead.



I've heard of billions of angels dancing on the head of a pin but I've never heard of them marching into action on the orders of a pinhead before.

 

[McLaren]

Pretty sure there’s a Bible verse about following false prophets like that.

 

[UKMikey]

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 pretty much tells women to shut up and get back in the kitchen...

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

I'm sure it all makes sense in context... /s

 

[Blitz24]

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 pretty much tells women to shut up and get back in the kitchen...

Verse 37 was going to be about a sandwich, but they went against that and just decided on bread and some water.

 

[DK]

And now a moment's silence if you will for some literally cursed social media:

Trump ends blog after 29 days, infuriated by measly readership



The part about aides printing out pages for him to revise with a Sharpie sounds suspiciously like parody to me.

Literally wasting paper to own the libz.

 

[UKMikey]

a) it wasn't the Soviet Union
b) all she did was throw a javelin
c) teachers' unions are not anti-kid and I'm not sure threatening them is a great way to garner votes in California

In other news, Naomi Wolf has been suspended from Twitter.

 

[TexRex]

In other news, Naomi Wolf has been suspended from Twitter.

View attachment 1015257

Womp-womp.

 

[McLaren]

Jenner's bold to keep claiming "when" she'll be governor. Neither party actually likes her.

 

[TexRex]

Jenner's bold to keep claiming "when" she'll be governor. Neither party actually likes her.

Presumably you mean neither of the two most frequently voted for parties, and presumably one doesn't like her because of her politics while the other doesn't like her because she used to be a man.

 

[TexRex]

 

[UKMikey]

Lol, where's your guy in the pope hat when we need him to deal with the following reply? "Public carriers"?!

 

[TenEightyOne]

Lol, where's your guy in the pope hat when we need him to deal with the following reply? "Public carriers"?!

View attachment 1016257

It's genuine, ish. It's actually the 'Common Carrier' concept as it applies in telecoms law and prevents companies that provide lines to the public from discriminating in service. Obviously they still have their powers to suspend for unpaid bills, refuse to accept former bad faith customers, etc.

The big question is does common carrier apply in Net Neutrality - but it's always been my understanding that it doesn't. It's certainly never been applied that way by the White House and if they thought it was viable the last administration would certainly have tried it.

 

[UKMikey]

It's genuine, ish. It's actually the 'Common Carrier' concept as it applies in telecoms law and prevents companies that provide lines to the public from discriminating in service. Obviously they still have their powers to suspend for unpaid bills, refuse to accept former bad faith customers, etc.

The big question is does common carrier apply in Net Neutrality - but it's always been my understanding that it doesn't. It's certainly never been applied that way by the White House and if they thought it was viable the last administration would certainly have tried it.

Marshall actually points his critics towards this link (Executive Order 13925) but I can't tell whether it's law or just Trump whining that Twitter flagged his posts and not his political opponents':

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:47 section:230 editionrelim

(The sticky-out-tongue smiley isn't mine btw)

[EDIT] Aha, it was revoked last month:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...presidential-actions-and-technical-amendment/

 

[TexRex]

Lol, where's your guy in the pope hat when we need him to deal with the following reply? "Public carriers"?!

View attachment 1016257

While Ken White does work (or has worked) in First Amendment and libel law, I think that's more likely to be something for an Ari Cohn or Corbin Barthold over at TechFreedom.

Oh, and that's absolutely insane...

Section 230 isn't something to be hidden behind. It's not some privilege that's been granted to certain entities because of services they provide, like ****ing qualified immunity for law enforcement professionals, rather it applies to literally everyone who is online and is subject to US Code. It's also completely reasonable. No individual entity should be liable for content they didn't create. The provision exists because of the bat-**** ****ing insane ruling in Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy by the New York Supreme Court.

Still insane...

Common carriage applies to fee-based services, and while you may pay for your use of social media platform services with loss of privacy, that's really not what we're talking about when it comes to fees. Republicans oppose net neutrality as it relates to common carriage and yet they want private entities who don't charge for the basic service they provide to be subject to these regulations? Lost. The. Plot.

Still insane...

Section 230 appears in the Communications Decency Act under the heading "Protection for Good Samaritan blocking and screening of offensive material." "Blocking" is in the ****ing code. Oh, and actors get to determine what constitutes offensive material.

Perhaps most insane of all...

These ****ing smooth-brained mouth breathers are actually advocating for government action against entities for ****ing constitutionally-protected speech.

Do Republicans not tire of craning their necks to stare at the bottom of the ****ing barrel above them?

Edit:

(The sticky-out-tongue smiley isn't mine btw)

That's cute.

[I accidentally posted this response below instead of editing it into this post.]

 

[Danoff]

View attachment 1016257

So bringing the @TexRex markup pen to this post:

Wrong Right , by hiding behind section 230 applies to everyone they have declared themselves a and has nothing to do with "Public Carrier", or common carriers, which is the actual term, and which is not applicable in this conversation. Section 230 granted them does not grant protection from lawsuit it prevents legal liability (not the same thing) from someone else's speech because they are and has nothing to do with public carriers which isn't a thing anyway. As soon as they block anyone they should immediately lose sSection 230 protections provisions are entirely aimed at allowing online platforms to censor, or not, the speech of third parties, without liability for the speech.

As a reminder to everyone this is what section 230(c) says:

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1][/S]

 

[UKMikey]

So bringing the @TexRex markup pen to this post:

Wrong Right , by hiding behind section 230 applies to everyone they have declared themselves a and has nothing to do with "Public Carrier", or common carriers, which is the actual term, and which is not applicable in this conversation. Section 230 granted them does not grant protection from lawsuit it prevents legal liability (not the same thing) from someone else's speech because they are and has nothing to do with public carriers which isn't a thing anyway. As soon as they block anyone they should immediately lose sSection 230 protections provisions are entirely aimed at allowing online platforms to censor, or not, the speech of third parties, without liability for the speech.

As a reminder to everyone this is what section 230(c) says:

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1][/S]

This is right there in the link the tweet author later posted which I referenced above. I asked him whether he thought Trump's executive order overrode these and he said no. However, the Trump section is the only one which whines about discusses Twitter flagging his posts or even mentions social media platforms and this has now been mercifully struck from the record by his successor. Just as well, since the language used appears to be extremely personalised and narcissistic (section 1, paragraph 7):

Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician's tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called "Site Integrity" has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Common carriage applies to fee-based services, and while you may pay for your use of social media platform services with loss of privacy, that's really not what we're talking about when it comes to fees. Republicans oppose net neutrality as it relates to common carriage and yet they want private entities who don't charge for the basic service they provide to be subject to these regulations? Lost. The. Plot.

That's it. It applies to things like freight, passengers, any kind of transportable good, and it applies further to voice carriage. While there are internationally-agreed standards the exact provisions in law vary from country to country, as you'd expect.

The misunderstanding with telecoms is that there is no peer-to-peer connection. If I telephone you we'd have an open physical/logical line that one or both of us was paying for. When you read this post you do so through a system of data storage devices delivering transactions on demand. And I still own my words and only have a contract with GTP in respect of the further use of my words in the form that I stored them here for display.

If Republicans wished to enforce Common Carrier to the supply of my words they'd have to take legal ownership of my words, effectively through force. That would of course mean the end of free speech including their own. Which is a difficult think for them to think.

 

[TexRex]

If Republicans wished to enforce Common Carrier to the supply of my words they'd have to take legal ownership of my words, effectively through force. That would of course mean the end of free speech including their own. Which is a difficult think for them to think.

You'd think.

If the past couple years are anything to go by, I'm not so confident.