Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Trump vs. the Press/Media


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Ask Zuckerberg since he and his minions were the ones that imposed only a temporary ban after Trump clearly incited violence back on January 6th.    If I was Zuckerberg I would have imposed a lifetime ban at that time.    But that isn't what happened,  so the question still remains should Trump be banned for life.   

It appear you believe Facebook should change the temp ban to a lifetime ban based on the same set of facts that lead to the temp ban.      

I have already stated what I believe Facebook should do.     

 

Was it a temporary ban or a lifetime ban that has come under review?  Even people sentenced to life in prison are reviewed from time to time.

I repeat my question to all - how many more people have to die before Trump is banned for life?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from the Washington Post, January 7, 2021.  Indefinitely not temporarily.

Trump banned from Facebook indefinitely, CEO Mark Zuckerberg says

The move follows temporary bans of Trump’s accounts by both Twitter and Facebook

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Was it a temporary ban or a lifetime ban that has come under review?  Even people sentenced to life in prison are reviewed from time to time.

I repeat my question to all - how many more people have to die before Trump is banned for life?

What the so called independent Facebook Oversight Board (made up of non-Facebook employees) was asked to review was if the temp ban should be lifted or not.   A lifetime ban wasn't under "review"  since one was never imposed.     As part of the Board's review they could have recommend a lifetime ban but didn't since such a ban didn't "fit" under the current Facebook policy.     This is why the Board recommended a continuation of the temp ban and policy review for a 6 month period.     Thus giving Zuckerberg 6 more months to make up is mind!      

As for you question:    Sorry,  but I still don't understand what you're asking here with "how many more":     Yes,  people died as a result of his comments (which is why I would have banned Trump for life on January 7th!),    but no one (to my knowledge) has  died since the banned was imposed.

If the concern you're trying to express is that if Trump was let back on,  he would make comments that would result in violence before he was banned for life;   that is a concern,  and Zuckerberg could use that reasoning to impose a lifetime ban.     While that smells like punishment-before-the-crime,   such steps have been taken by society;  E.g. parole terms for child predators.        I.e.  the risk is too great with Trump to let him back on, ever.       

PS:  I don't see much of a difference between "temporary" and "indefinitely":     This is just Zuckerberg speak to try to have it both ways so that Facebook doesn't lose market share.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

What the so called independent Facebook Oversight Board (made up of non-Facebook employees) was asked to review was if the temp ban should be lifted or not.   A lifetime ban wasn't under "review"  since one was never imposed.     As part of the Board's review they could have recommend a lifetime ban but didn't since such a ban didn't "fit" under the current Facebook policy.     This is why the Board recommended a continuation of the temp ban and policy review for a 6 month period.     Thus giving Zuckerberg 6 more months to make up is mind!      

As for you question:    Sorry,  but I still don't understand what you're asking here with "how many more":     Yes,  people died as a result of his comments (which is why I would have banned Trump for life on January 7th!),    but no one (to my knowledge) has  died since the banned was imposed.

If the concern you're trying to express is that if Trump was let back on,  he would make comments that would result in violence before he was banned for life;   that is a concern,  and Zuckerberg could use that reasoning to impose a lifetime ban.     While that smells like punishment-before-the-crime,   such steps have been taken by society;  E.g. parole terms for child predators.        I.e.  the risk is too great with Trump to let him back on, ever.       

PS:  I don't see much of a difference between "temporary" and "indefinitely":     This is just Zuckerberg speak to try to have it both ways so that Facebook doesn't lose market share.  

 

 

See my post just above.  An indefinite ban is not a temporary one.  

There is no reason why the Review Board should view the original ban as being temporary.  They were reviewing the indefinite ban to make sure that it was justified as they do in criminal cases.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

My gut reply here is:  so what.      I.e.  if the ban was lifted and Trump followed the company's posting policy,   so what,  if such post "zoon to the forefront".     

If Trump violates the posting policy,  ban him for life.      As we discussed the odds of Trump following the posting policy is 1 in a million.    Therefor Dems and anti-Trumpers have nothing to fear,   unless these folks are being disingenuous:    they want Trump banned from as many various outlets as possible,  policy be dammed.     

         

Missing the point.  When Trump posts, the media jumps on it to report it.  This includes all the fringe social media that is out there.  Rachell Madmouth would devote a whole show to what Trump said, as would others.  All those liberal podcasters would repeat it and then comment on it.  Not to mention all the counter tweets and postings.

Why give him the opportunity?  He has already shown he does not believe in any regulation of anything he does.  Never has; never will.

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ElCid said:

Missing the point.  When Trump posts, the media jumps on it to report it.  This includes all the fringe social media that is out there.  Rachell Madmouth would devote a whole show to what Trump said, as would others.  All those liberal podcasters would repeat it and then comment on it.  Not to mention all the counter tweets and postings.

Why give him the opportunity?  He has already shown he does not believe in any regulation of anything he does.  Never has; never will.

And now it is revealed thatTrump used the Justice department to spy on Reporters and get records of their phone calls.  So much for Trump whining about being spied on himself.  This is probably just the tip of the iceberg.  

Where is Devon Nunes and Jim Jordan now?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ElCid said:

Missing the point.  When Trump posts, the media jumps on it to report it.  This includes all the fringe social media that is out there.  Rachell Madmouth would devote a whole show to what Trump said, as would others.  All those liberal podcasters would repeat it and then comment on it.  Not to mention all the counter tweets and postings.

Why give him the opportunity?  He has already shown he does not believe in any regulation of anything he does.  Never has; never will.

I believe I got your point and this post just confirms it;    Since the media has TDS (all life revolves around Trump),  especially the liberal \ progressive media,   Trump must be banned from posting anything,   period.      Ok,  lets say that he is banned for life by Facebook and Twitter.    How much would that reduce "the opportunity" that his sick messages get out?     Not much I believe.

For example,  note that when Hannity had that recent insane Trump interview,     Rachell,  CNN,  etc..  gave that a lot of coverage.        They continue to give the-big-lie a lot of coverage.    So banning Trump from social media wouldn't prevent Rachell, CNN,  and other MSM outlets from repeating Trump's nonsense over-and-over again  (nothing will stop Rachell not even Trump's death!).     I.e. social media isn't the only outlet for Trump;   E.g. He is coming out with a book soon.     

Hey,  if your overall point is that banning him from social media at least leads to his messages getting to less individuals,  and thus that is better than nothing,  I can accept that POV.  

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2016 at 6:09 PM, mr6666 said:

7 Questions We Would Have Asked Donald Trump At His Canceled Press Conference-

 

President-elect Donald Trump promised a press conference Thursday to clarify the role he would have with his international business entanglements after he becomes president.

He canceled.

The transition team said Monday that Trump is delaying his "announcement" until January. Later that night, Trump took to his favorite medium to go around the filter — Twitter — and made some news about his plans:

 

It’s been 140 days since Donald Trump’s last press conference. In the meantime, he’s tweeted 1,461 times.

Why does this matter?

Unlike other ways of getting messages out, press conferences hold public officials more accountable to the American people because they have to answer questions in an uncontrolled environment.....

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/15/505630205/6-questions-we-would-have-asked-donald-trump-at-his-canceled-press-conference?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=2043

twump and "Clarify" .. ... make love at fist, fight ..

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2021 at 2:31 PM, Bogie56 said:

See my post just above.  An indefinite ban is not a temporary one.  

There is no reason why the Review Board should view the original ban as being temporary.  They were reviewing the indefinite ban to make sure that it was justified as they do in criminal cases.

Note what the Board co-chair,  McConnell said today:

The board told Facebook that although it was right to suspend Trump's account in the immediate aftermath of the January 6th insurrection, the platform couldn't make the suspension "indefinite" with no rule on its books allowing for that. The board said Facebook must review the decision and decide if Trump should be banned from the platform forever.

I agree with this;   I see only two types of bans:  temporary,  with a defined end-date when the ban is given,  or forever (lifetime ban).   

An "indefinite" ban with no rule on the books for such a ban (e.g. now long it would be "indefinite")  is the worst of all possible options.

Anyhow,  hopefully after a review,    Trump will be banned for life.

 He also said:

McConnell did note that the board also found Facebook's rules are in "shambles" and have made recommendations to the company to increase transparency.
"They needed some time because their rules are shambles, they are not transparent, they are unclear, they are internally inconsistent," McConnell said.
He added, "we gave a series of recommendations about how to make their rules clearer and more consistent."
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...