Trump Shows Why He Doesn't Need Twitter Or Facebook, As He Launches His Own Twitter-Like Microblog

from the you-know-what-they-say-about-blog-sizes dept

In a few hours, the Oversight Board will announce its decision regarding Facebook’s decision to ban Donald Trump from its platform. As we noted back when Trump was removed from Twitter and Facebook, Trump does not lack in ways to be heard. Indeed, we suggested that he could very, very easily set up his own website with tweet-like statements, and it was likely that those would be shared widely.

And… as we wait for the Oversight Board ruling, it looks like Trump has done exactly that. He’s launched a new blog site that has short Tweet-style posts, and includes simple sharing buttons so people can post the text to both Twitter and Facebook:

It’s not hard to see how that… looks quite like his Twitter feed. For what it’s worth, a friend notes that while you can “like” Trump’s new missives, you cannot unlike them once you’ve done so (this is a metaphor for something, I’m sure).

The messages on the site go back to March 24, even though the site was just launched today, so it makes you wonder if this is the infamous rumored result of Trump writing down “insults and observations” that he would have said on Twitter if he still had an account.

In a video he currently has posted to the top of the site, announcing the site, Trump says that it will be “a beacon of freedom” and “a place to speak freely and safely” (whatever that means). It’s unclear if they just mean for Trump himself, or if this is the rumored first pass of his own social network.

Either way, if he doesn’t let anyone else post to the site, under his own definition of censorship, wouldn’t that mean that he’s censoring everyone but himself? Or, if he does allow others to post, it will be absolutely fascinating to see what content moderation policies he ends up putting in place. The existing terms of service on the site makes it clear that he wants to be able to moderate everything:

Although Save America has no obligation to do so, it reserves the right, and has absolute discretion, to remove, screen or edit any User Content posted or stored on the Sites at any time and for any reason without notice, and you are solely responsible for creating backup copies of and replacing any User Content you post or store on the Sites at your sole cost and expense. Any use of the Interactive Areas or other portions of the Sites in violation of the foregoing violates these Terms of Service and may result in, among other things, termination, or suspension of your rights to use the Interactive Areas and/or the Sites.

It also notes:

Save America takes no responsibility and assumes no liability for any User Content posted, stored or uploaded by you or any third party, or for any loss or damage thereto, nor is Save America liable for any mistakes, defamation, slander, libel, omissions, falsehoods, obscenity, profanity or other objectionable content you may encounter…. As a provider of interactive services, Save America is not liable for any statements, representations, or User Content provided by its users in any Interactive Area.

The site also has a long list of content you’re not allowed to publish — much of it that is perfectly legal under the 1st Amendment (even as Trump’s friends have been pushing rules that say only unprotected speech can be taken down):

The Sites may include interactive areas or services (“Interactive Areas”), such as forums, blogs, chat rooms or message boards, or other areas or services in which you or other users may create, post, share or store content, messages, materials, data, information, text, graphics, audio, video, or other items or materials on the Sites (“User Content”). You are solely responsible for your use of such Interactive Areas and use them at your own risk. By using any Interactive Areas, you agree not to post, upload, transmit, distribute, store, create, or otherwise publish to or through the Sites any of the following:

  • User Content that is unlawful, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, indecent, lewd, suggestive, harassing, discriminatory, threatening, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, abusive, inflammatory, fraudulent, deceptive or misleading;
  • User Content that would constitute, encourage or provide instructions for a criminal offense, violate the rights of any party, or that would otherwise create liability or violate any local, state, national or international law;
  • User Content that may infringe any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other intellectual or proprietary right of any party;
  • User Content that impersonates any person or entity or otherwise misrepresents your affiliation with a person or entity;
  • Unsolicited promotions, advertising, or solicitations;
  • Private or personally identifying information of any third party, including, without limitation, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, Social Security numbers and credit card numbers;
  • Viruses, corrupted data or other harmful, disruptive or destructive files; and
  • User Content which violates the terms of any Save America guidelines, policies or rules posted on the Site or otherwise provided to you; and
  • User Content that, in the sole judgment of Save America, is objectionable or which restricts or inhibits any other person from using or enjoying the Interactive Areas or the Sites, or which may expose Save America or its users to any harm or liability of any type.

On the whole, though, this is a good thing. I’m glad that Trump has set up his own site (no matter what happens with Facebook). More people should do that themselves as well, and recognize that then you get to set your own moderation rules and your own system, and don’t have to deal with not violating someone else’s rules. But it also shows how Facebook and Twitter removing him wasn’t censorship — it was just them saying he needs to find somewhere else to speak.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Trump Shows Why He Doesn't Need Twitter Or Facebook, As He Launches His Own Twitter-Like Microblog”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
110 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Koby? Koby? Koby?

On the whole, though, this is a good thing. I’m glad that Trump has set up his own site (no matter what happens with Facebook). More people should do that themselves as well, and recognize that then you get to set your own moderation rules and your own system, and don’t have to deal with not violating someone else’s rules. But it also shows how Facebook and Twitter removing him wasn’t censorship — it was just them saying he needs to find somewhere else to speak.

So Koby: is Trump having his own microblog and his own moderation rules a good thing or a bad thing?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Koby (profile) says:

Re: Koby? Koby? Koby?

Overall a bad thing. You shouldn’t need to invent a whole new internet just to enjoy the 1st Amendment. But it looks like that might be what it takes to protect freedom, so some people are leading the way by sidestepping the censorship of big tech by starting from scratch.

Also, it doesn’t appear to have any moderation rules, because he’s the only one doing the talking. In other words: it’s a publication and not a platform. Section 230 is completely unnecessary for his site at the moment.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

You shouldn’t need to invent a whole new internet just to enjoy the 1st Amendment.

You shouldn’t need to force your speech onto private property you don’t own, either. But you seem think that’s A-OK depending on whose property we’re talking about.

Also: Old 45 didn’t “invent a whole new Internet”. He literally set up a blog on the exact same Internet that houses Twitter, Facebook, and every other social interaction network.

some people are leading the way by sidestepping the censorship of big tech by starting from scratch

You say this like they couldn’t already do that before today. Any asshole with a few bux to spare can buy hosting for a WordPress blog, and anyone who doesn’t can get hosting on NeoCities or some shit. “Big Tech” can’t censor you unless you believe they’re the only platforms available to everyone (they’re not) and getting kicked off those platforms means you’ve lost your right to speak freely (you haven’t). Hell, Old 45 could’ve held a press conference any time he wanted after he got the boot from Twitter, Facebook, and basically every other platform worth a damn.

it doesn’t appear to have any moderation rules, because he’s the only one doing the talking

And yet it lists terms of service that look a hell of a lot like the kind of TOS agreement you’d find on a service that moderates a lot of speech.

it’s a publication and not a platform. Section 230 is completely unnecessary for his site at the moment.

230 doesn’t make the “publisher/platform” distinction, and it protects his website regardless.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

And yet it lists terms of service that look a hell of a lot like the kind of TOS agreement you’d find on a service that moderates a lot of speech.

By Koby’s own argument if Trump’s cesspit ever includes a section for user submitted content(and the TOS suggests that it will) and that TOS is ever enforced that will be proof that the Dear Leader is censoring people and preventing them from exercising their first amendment rights, and when that happens I’m sure Koby will be front and center ripping into Trump with the same zeal as he applies against more civilized platforms.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Paul B says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Technically, if enough internet backbones block you, you are effectively blocked from the internet. We do not give "Common Carrier" status to internet backbones yet. Thus Charter or Comcast or whatever could block you if you hosted your content personally.

All the major platforms have blocked Trump but last I checked, dump pipes (ISPs) and quasi government groups (ICANN) will still allow him to get an IP address, register a domain, and host for now.

I could see a constitutional issue if every avenue to get on the internet was blocked AND the effective result was banishment from the Internet due to a blacklist.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
sumgai (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I could see a constitutional issue if every avenue to get on the internet was blocked AND the effective result was banishment from the Internet due to a blacklist.

Nope, you can’t see any such issue. The reason is very simple – the blathering about free speech is a red herring. As others here continually note, there is no such thing in the Constitution as a guarantee that others must hear your drivel, or that private property owners must let you besmirch their name by virtue of your trespassing on their private property. But even that, correct as it is, is not the real story.

No, the real underlying issue is that the 5th clause of 1A is "the right of the people to peacefully assemble", which the courts have (since Day 1) considered to mean that people can associate with whomever they might wish, and conversely, that they can’t be forced to associate with anyone whom they might disfavor. That means that a private person (or a private corporation) can simply say Get off my lawn!, and there’s not a bleeping thing that the trespasser can do about it. And I shouldn’t have to add, neither can the government, at any level, do anything about, ex post facto or otherwise. This exactly explains why Mike and others tell us that S.230 is not the whipping boy that #45 wants to paint it – choosing whether to "associate with people of like mind" comes under the rubric of 1A, period.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

"Nope, you can’t see any such issue."

There is, actually. Or would be, if the US internet had retained common carrier status.

I’m not sure it would be a free speech issue or even a 1A issue, but there’s good basis to acknowledge that running someone off the internet completely would be a constitutional violation.

Of course, that isn’t what happened to Trump – or any other conservative, ever.

sumgai (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

SDM,

If "the internet" had retained common carrier status (and I’m sure you meant the ISPs of the internet, not the ‘net itself), then they’d be treated as utilities.

Utilities are, by and large, meant to serve the public, no? Well, they can still disconnect, or in some other way, stop serving any one individual customer, if and when they can show that their TOS wasn’t followed. Oh, you ask, where is this TOS to be found?

Easy – it’s called "pay for what you used". If you don’t pay for the water, gas, electricity, garbage collection, what-have-you, then you have disobeyed the TOS, and it’s good-bye for you. And the state-actor regulators will go along with this, every time. (Though usually, there are mediating steps to be taken by both sides before things reach a total disconnection, but that varies according to local rules, etc.)

But in contrast, I’m speaking (just above) of a controlled monopoly, one granted and overseen by a government. The internet most definitely is not a monopoly, nor is it controlled by any government. (Though not for lack of trying!! Look up "The Cluetrain Manifesto". (And for a real laugh, look up "The Gluetrain Manifesto" on Mr. Peabody’s WayBack Machine.)) And wouldn’t you know it, ISPs are subject to government control to some degree, because they are businesses with licences to conduct operations that empower the internet, from the servers to the clients, and all else inbetween.

That’s the problem we’re facing – the internet can’t be regulated, but individual parts (companies) can be regulated, for whatever purpose that should (repeat: SHOULD) be for the public benefit. And FWIW, if the internet is not regulatable, then it follows that one cannot be "run off" of it – there’s always some place else to go, with the services of some other company to assist that move.

Others have said it better, but I’ll try to summarize: It’s all a matter of degree – if you wanted an audience of 88 Megapersons (on Twitter) instead of only one person (yourself), then you should not have disobeyed the TOS. Actions have consequences. ‘Nuff said.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Koby? Koby? Koby?

Overall a bad thing. You shouldn’t need to invent a whole new internet just to enjoy the 1st Amendment.

Koby, please tell me, where in the 1st amendment does it say you are guaranteed an audience no matter whose private property you happen to be on at the time?

Am I being censored by not being allow to post messages on his new site?

Is trump being censored by not being on twitter, but having his own platform?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Paul B says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Koby? Koby? Koby?

An Argument could be made if somehow all land was privatized (wow something the GOP wants to do BTW).

So one could argue that they have the right to free speech on private property in the event that they can show that there is no public space left. Heck unions have the right to speak on private farmland based on the argument that no public land exists in a geographic area.

This of course by no means guarantees an audience now or ever.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Koby? Koby? Koby?

"You shouldn’t need to invent a whole new internet just to enjoy the 1st Amendment."

Which makes it lucky that creating a new website to act as a platform on the internet is nothing like doing that, and only smooth brained types like yourself would consider it remotely similar.

"Section 230 is completely unnecessary for his site at the moment."

Only if you believe in the fictional version of section 230 you invented to whine about Twitter. If Trump’s sites allows any public comments at all, it depends on the real version of 230.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Koby? Koby? Koby?

Which makes it lucky that creating a new website to act as a platform on the internet is nothing like doing that, and only smooth brained types like yourself would consider it remotely similar.

One blog site does not equate to a social media platform, not by a long shot.

The january events proved that if you attempt to use existing networks and ISPs without an airtight contract, the tech monopolies WILL collude, and will work to censor you if they disagree with your political stance. To protect freedom, it looks like a parallel system will need to be constructed, almost from the ground up.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Koby? Koby? Koby?

"One blog site does not equate to a social media platform, not by a long shot."

Many other platforms exist, even as you pretend they don’t count. Why are you people so unable to put the work in to create something, you have to try and steal the work of others?

"The january events proved that if you attempt to use existing networks and ISPs without an airtight contract, the tech monopolies WILL collude, and will work to censor you if they disagree with your political stance. "

No, the January events proved that some companies are uncomfortable with people using their property to try and overthrow democratic elections and spread hated that is leading to actual deaths. That the people running the major platforms all agree that they don’t want to be hosting violent insurrection, among other things, is not collusion.

I’m sorry that applying the basic morals and values of decent human beings looks like everyone’s against you personally, but the reason for that is not on them.

"To protect freedom, it looks like a parallel system will need to be constructed, almost from the ground up."

You already have Parler, Gab, thedonald, Stormfront and all the cesspools you and your ilk have retreated to, and the option to create many more if you want. Stop trying to destroy the property and rights of decent people just because you’re not happy with the crowd you have chosen to associate with.

It’s not our fault that the tiny pools of pondscum you call communities are not attracting sane, moral people.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Throwing a party only for no-one to show

Many other platforms exist, even as you pretend they don’t count. Why are you people so unable to put the work in to create something, you have to try and steal the work of others?

As you noted below in your comment they have put in the effort to create other platforms, the ‘problem’ they keep running into is that the majority of people don’t want anything to do with those platforms which leaves them in the position of either accepting a comparatively minuscule audience of people who already agree with them or trying to force their way onto more civilized platforms so they can have a larger audience.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Throwing a party only for no-one to show

"As you noted below in your comment they have put in the effort to create other platforms"

It is something of a rhetorical question, but I like to put the. point in as many different ways as possible, just in case it gets through the thick skull of people like Koby (though, probably not Koby himself).

People who are asked to leave mainstream communities because they’re considered toxic to those communities are unlikely to be attractive by nature to the mainstream when they set up their own spaces. It’s possible for a new platform to become attractive alternatives (as, indeed, all the current major platforms were when they started themselves), but that requires work and ultimately requires those same toxic people to be sidelined.

You don’t get to demand that others let you use their property just because it’s hard for you to set up another platform. Especially when they have needed to react to the same news event in order to make their original decision not to host the people involved in that event. You either take stock of what caused you to not be welcome elsewhere, or you put in the same work that other did before you to build a platform where you are welcome.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Throwing a party only for no-one to show

Mr. Paul (may I call you "Kettle:?)

I’m not disagreeing with you, but sometimes loquacity rears its ugly head between you and your audience. I think you’re saying:

People who think you’re defecating on their lawn won’t visit you just because you found a lot of other people to defecate on your own lawn.

Is that a fair translation?

Thanks,
"Pot"

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Throwing a party only for no-one to show

Call me whatever you want if it helps you avoid making a real comment, I suppose…

People who do things to get them kicked out of someone else’s house either need to make amends for that behaviour and get invited back, or they need to stick to the places that haven’t kicked them out. They don’t get to demand to be let into that other person’s house just because they have more popular parties, or because they realised that they don’t like the people at the parties they now get invited to.

The pot/kettle thing doesn’t make sense unless you’re trying to imply that I’m also demanding that people should be forced to let me back on to platforms that I’ve been banned from. Which would be false, partly because I’ve never been such an asshole as to be banned from anywhere, and because I can’t think of any of these alternative platforms I’d be remotely interested in visiting.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

People who are asked to leave mainstream communities because they’re considered toxic to those communities are unlikely to be attractive by nature to the mainstream when they set up their own spaces.

Except that Trump had millions upon millions of followers, and Parler was the most popular app prior to them being deplatformed. The tech monopolies were displeased that ordinary people were subscribing.

You don’t get to demand that others let you use their property just because it’s hard for you to set up another platform.

We don’t setup parallel electrical grids or phone networks. It’s a public platform utility at this point, subject to common carrier rules. Even if alternatives are possible, such as connecting a generator to an appliance, or a two way radio connection is available, it’s still a public network. And these utilities can be privately owned and maintained, yet obligated to allow public access.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

We don’t setup parallel electrical grids or phone networks.

Weird, because Texas did. Also, Trump’s microblog is on the same internet as Facebook and Twitter.

It’s a public platform utility at this point, subject to common carrier rules.

The thing is, Utilities have to do with infrastructure, such as water, electricity, and broadband. Twitter and Facebook have nothing to do with any infrastructure.

Even if alternatives are possible, such as connecting a generator to an appliance, or a two way radio connection is available, it’s still a public network.

You’re confused. Facebook and Twitter are private platforms.

And these utilities can be privately owned and maintained, yet obligated to allow public access.

But like I said, Twitter and Facebook (and YouTube and TikTok) don’t deal with any network infrastructure. That’s why they’re not utilities.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

"Except that Trump had millions upon millions of followers"

Yes, he did (many of them bots, but still…).

There were also many millions of users who were offended by his presence there and wanted him gone, but he was given kid gloves treatment until he threatened their bottom line. Once you idiots decided to try and use Twitter to overthrow democracy with his belessing, he was gone.

"Parler was the most popular app prior to them being deplatformed"

They probably should have abided by the terms and conditions of the services that they were repeatedly asked to obey before they were kicked off for non-compliance, then?

"The tech monopolies were displeased that ordinary people were subscribing."

No, they were concerned that users were unsubscribing and that the people who actually paid their bills were leaving (bear in mind that Parler were also behind on their bills to AWS).

"It’s a public platform utility at this point"

Insert the word "platform" all you want, basic communication and electrical utilities are not platforms.

this is your problem, Koby. You’re so aware that you’re wrong that you have to invent new definitions of words to pretend to have a point, but nobody outside of your sad insurrectionist failure groups believes in anything but documented reality.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Trump had millions upon millions of followers, and Parler was the most popular app prior to them being deplatformed.

So what? Toxic assholes are toxic assholes no matter how large of a group they form.

It’s a public platform utility at this point, subject to common carrier rules.

No. No, it is not. Even the Supreme Court said as much — and a Trump appointee wrote that ruling, so don’t complain about “liberal” justices in this regard.

Even if alternatives are possible, such as connecting a generator to an appliance, or a two way radio connection is available, it’s still a public network.

No. Not, it is not. Twitter and Facebook are privately owned social interaction networks. Quoting Justice Kavanaugh from Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck: “A private entity … who opens its property for speech by others is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.”

Yes or no: Does your objectively wrong opinion override a legally binding opinion issued by the Supreme Court of the United States?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

"Parler was the most popular app prior to them being deplatformed"

Oh, and in case your right-wing echo chambers have not picked up on recent events, Apple have recently allowed Parler back on to the App Store, on the basis of promises that they’ll actually abide by the rules of the platform this time.

If your idiot heroes get kicked off again, it’s not a conspiracy. It’s that you people can’t be trusted to follow the rules of the house that you so desperately want to be allowed in, and no matter how much you pray for a communist takeover of said private property, capitalism and freedom prevail for now.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Except that Trump had millions upon millions of followers

Ah yes, you would think such a powerful group of millions, nay BILLIONS of followers would have organized and said ‘fuck this shit" and left Twitter in protest. A mass boycott would have certainly affected Twitter’s bottom line, given the power of a large group of patriotic people who want to send a clear message to big tech.

But no. You just stuck your thumbs in your mouths and cried. Because that’s what ‘real patriots’ apparently do…

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

"Ah yes, you would think such a powerful group of millions, nay BILLIONS of followers would have organized and said ‘fuck this shit" and left Twitter in protest."

Well, there’s a few issues here. One is the assumption that the followers were all actual human beings. They weren’t. Many of them were bots. Not a unique issue related to Trump’s account, but you have to be rather foolish to believe that the follower numbers on any remotely popular Twitter account comprise completely of actual people. Buying bot farms to inflate your social media followers is common among new starters, while popular accounts naturally attract bot farms wanting to market to the real people.

The second problem is the assumption that the humans who do follow an account are people who support that person. Most Twitter users have accounts they follow to rage-tweet, doomscroll, etc. A fair percentage are people who wanted to keep tabs on what the orange moron was saying so that they could mock/debunk/rage, not because they agreed with a single word he posted.

The final point is that Trump was not the only thing people would use Twitter for. Despite their complaints about bias, there’s still all sorts of other accounts on Twitter they’d find useful. Most people use multiple social media platforms, and giving the useful things they have on Twitter just to protest isn’t the style of these people. They want Trump to come back to them, not for them to have to put effort in to locate him elsewhere.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

And on top of that, Trump fans leaving Twitter/Facebook for a social media service like Parler or whatever Trump has in store (if anything) would leave them stuck with each other. As much as they may hate admitting it, they want (or maybe need) to stay on Twitter/Facebook — so they can “own the libs” to their faces (so to speak). By staying on a conservative-friendly service where liberals/progressives can’t easily be found, Trump fans would lose the one thing they want the most: confrontation.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

"Trump fans leaving Twitter/Facebook for a social media service like Parler or whatever Trump has in store (if anything) would leave them stuck with each other"

One of the funniest things I read a few years ago was Milo whateverhisnameis (a troll who made his name as the token gay guy in alt-right circles) complaining about the level of homophobia and hatred he was encountering when he got kicked off Twitter and had to resort to using Gab.

Yes, Milo, these are the people you were catering to on Twitter, and this is the reason nobody wanted any of the around the rest of us. Enjoy your pit of hatred now that you’re an easier target than the people you used to attack yourself…

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Koby? Koby? Koby?

Am I the only person who thinks it hilarious when someone claims setting your own blog up on your own is an unreasonable burden, like rebuilding the internet–on a blog that someone else SET UP ON HIS OWN?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Bloof (profile) says:

Re: Re: Koby? Koby? Koby?

‘You shouldn’t need to invent a whole new internet just to enjoy the 1st Amendment.’

He wouldn’t have had to if he’d followed the rules that he agreed to when he signed up, and, you know, not incited an attempted coup. The rules are applied to the majority of users without hesitation, high profile conservatives get special consideration but that’s still not enough to keep them civil.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Koby? Koby? Koby?

User Content that, in the sole judgment of Save America, is objectionable or which restricts or inhibits any other person from using or enjoying the Interactive Areas or the Sites

This doesn’t seem very free speechy to me, Koby. Objectionable is a very broad and subjective term, wouldn’t you say?

Go ahead, hypocrite – keep making yourself look the fool.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Baron von Robber says:

Re: Re: Koby? Koby? Koby?

"You shouldn’t need to invent a whole new internet just to enjoy the 1st Amendment."

Really? A whole new Internet? Fascinating, I’ve been using the Internet since about 1995.

What does this ‘whole new Internet’ use as it’s protocol? Pen & Paper?

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Koby? Koby? Koby?

"What does this ‘whole new Internet’ use as it’s protocol? Pen & Paper?"

Well, this "new internet" Koby keeps talking about was set up by the same people who failed at building that wall. Looking at the tools available to that crowd i posit that they simply stack piles of bullshit high enough, climb on top of the stacks and pass messages by screaming at each other.

And the mexicans paid for it.

ladyattis (profile) says:

Re: Re: Koby? Koby? Koby?

Koby, he’s not inventing a whole new Internet. He’s literally just opening a website on the actual existing one. Sweet Christmas, you really are stretching definitions here. It’s like saying Burger King or McDonald’s are the only fast food joint when there’s dozens of old and new franchises/companies doing the same thing or something like it. This is the kind of desperation to control a private company’s website when the push should be to actually develop federated/self-hosting social platforms is the better option. Because at least with self-hosted and federated social platforms you can opt-in and no need to let the camel into the tent (the govt) as to defining what’s lawful or unlawful moderation which will just poisoning ALL OF THE INTERNET. Especially when presidential administrations will swap (Imagine some GOP administration wanting to force Grindr or some LGBT focused social media platform to only service straight Christian people because of such nonsense moderation regulations? that’s gonna be weird).

Zonker says:

Re: Re: Re: Koby? Koby? Koby?

It’s like if Koby got kicked out of McDonald’s and Burger King because they wouldn’t let him peddle his own Turd Burgers™ inside their stores. Koby had to invent a whole new economic system because it’s not like he could just set up his own Koby’s Turd Burgers™ restaurant and get any customers to walk in the door.

You can expect Koby’s head to explode when someone else tries to peddle Kale Burgers inside his own shop later.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Trump says that it will be "a beacon of freedom" and "a place to speak freely and safely"

Translation: "You are free to praise and agree with Trump or you are free to shut up and go away."

Christenson says:

Re: Okay...

Pixelation, moderation is a certainty, with only a few questions:
a) How long will it take for them to climb the moderation learning curve? (Left wing trolls gonna be trolling the orange whatsit and followers)
b) Do they have enough talent available to avoid getting pwned?
c) Will they collapse under an onslaught?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Even a single day will be pushing it

Probably the funniest part of this beyond the hypocrisy of someone ragging on social media for ‘censoring’ speech and boasting about how he cares about freedom having more such restrictive rules and making clear that his platform isn’t liable for anything anyone else posts is that reading his own rules there is no chance in hell he’d be able to go so much as a week without violating them.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Even a single day will be pushing it

Eh, as someone else pointed out when that possibility was raised what could hackers possibly do to make a site run/owed by Trump look worse?

The meanest and yet funniest thing to do would be to ignore it/him as few things drive a narcissist up the wall more than a lack of attention, and as he’s already going to be whining about how mean everyone is to him no need to hand him a valid complaint(for once) by hacking his cesspit.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

what could hackers possibly do to make a site run/ow[n]ed by Trump look worse?

Post a message where he tells his supporters to get the COVID vaccine.

…what? It would make him look worse to his supporters, at least.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

"He could unzip and piss all over a crowd of his cultists and they’d thank him for the refreshing rain…"

Much of his campaign was like that. He told the people of Ohio "How stupid are the people of Ohio?"…and they all laughed and cheered, missing the point that yes, he actually does think they’re stupid and that was what he was banking on.

I can’t help but think there’s some fundamental flaw in trump supporters. Something very broken which makes them both realize that he has been a shameless grifter defrauding every business partner and subordinate he’s ever had for forty years and yet they still gladly appoint him their Dear Leader.

So far my working hypothesis is that they don’t care how much he screws them over as long as he is mean to liberals as well. Religious self-destructive hatred and spite is at least a logical, albeit unpalatable explanation.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

"So far my working hypothesis is that they don’t care how much he screws them over as long as he is mean to liberals as well."

"If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you." ― Lyndon B. Johnson

Little has changed since his time, except now they’re doing it for a bankrupt gameshow host who has actively killed a bunch of them.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

And you know the worst part of it; if their next candidate for Dear Leader is just the bankrupt gameshow host 400 million bucks in debt with Russia it’s the better option.

I’m not sure the GOP has enough smart people left to shake an actual Hitler out of their pockets but there’s always a chance the successor will be competently malicious.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Even a single day will be pushing it

  • what could hackers possibly do to make a site run/owed by Trump look worse? *

Probably nothing, but it might be a handy excuse (à la the FTC) to use if the site or its denizens do anything really, really stupid for which they might have to pay (à la Sidney Powell).

sumgai (profile) says:

Re: Re: Even a single day will be pushing it

Back on March 24th, you were willing to give it as much as a whole week, now it’s only one day – why the uptick in time? 😉

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210323/07195146472/if-trump-ever-actually-creates-social-network-his-own-you-can-bet-it-will-rely-section-230.shtml#c151, first comment.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Even a single day will be pushing it

At the time it was a theoretical social media network without any concrete details. Now its a theoretical social media network with an applicable TOS that we can now assess?

Like the situation changed?

How is that hard to understand?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

'Pay attention to me!' screamed the man-child

And… as we wait for the Oversight Board ruling, it looks like Trump has done exactly that. He’s launched a new blog site that has short Tweet-style posts, and includes simple sharing buttons so people can post the text to both Twitter and Facebook:

Can’t believe this only just occurred to me but if memory serves part of the justification for one of the platforms to go from a temporary ban to a permanent one was him trying to bypass said ban by creating a new account and posting there, and if so it sure seems like he’s providing a very good reason to ban a lot more people and an even stronger reason to keep that a lifetime ban by adding in that little feature.

That said I can’t help but find it funny how incredibly pathetic he is, so desperate to get his content on the big boy platforms that a ‘share to facebook/twitter’ function would be baked in from the start.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
sumgai (profile) says:

Re: 'Pay attention to me!' screamed the man-child

… on the big big boy platforms

Well, this certainly put my brain into a race condition. Part of me wants to say "You mean the adult’s room", and the other part of me wants to say "do you really think that any social media is useful for anyone older than two or three, maturity-wise?" I mean, you can probably tell how I feel about social media platforms in general, but your juxtaposition was so ripe for this comparison, I couldn’t pass up on the opportunity.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

The situations differ only in terms of audience size. Joe Blow can make a website on NeoCities if he can’t afford to pay for WordPress hosting or whatever. He isn’t entitled to both a spot on Twitter/Facebook and the potential audience therein. Nobody is.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
sumgai (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The answer in words of one syllable is "Yes". Yes there is a sound, even if no one is present to hear it. Simple science. More to the point, the sound will be the exact same whether there is only one person present, or 10,000,000 people present – the sound won’t change in quality one iota.

At this very moment in time, all that you get for being on a "big boy" platform is a larger chance of being discovered, and brought to the attention of ‘internet randos". Your own blog on WordPress has a smaller chance, but not necessarily one that equals Zero. Your own blog in a random server with nothing but a domain name that you invented, that’s still not a Zero chance of being discovered, but admittedly smaller than you might like. And almost certainly, you know of at least one person who will visit after you invite him or her. Word of mouth may be slower than the well known platforms, but soon enough, you’ll gather a crowd, and then you can blather to your heart’s content, knowing that you’ve got an audience that will mostly agree with you.

The only other thing you get for being on Fb or Twitter is bragging rights – "Of course I’m perfect for this job! Just take a look at my resume, I’ve got 25 followers and re-tweeters!" I hate to break it to you Sparky, but you’re still gonna need $2.50 to buy a cup of coffee at the local Denny’s.

David says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

The answer in words of one syllable is "Yes". Yes there is a sound, even if no one is present to hear it. Simple science. More to the point, the sound will be the exact same whether there is only one person present, or 10,000,000 people present – the sound won’t change in quality one iota.

Tell that to concert hall engineers designing chairs that present the same absorptive behavior as an average guest when empty (and thus folded up).

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Free speech has no value if people don’t communicate with one another.

And nice non-sequitur there. No one said anyone is entitled to an audience. But if you want me to respond to this line of conversation – the problem is how a select few aggressively try to ensure no one can be your audience.

A heckler gagging you or putting earplugs in everyone else’s ears has the same outcome when it comes to freedom of speech.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Free speech has no value if people don’t communicate with one another.

But the thing is, if I don’t want to talk to someone, it’s not an infringement of their free speech rights. If I don’t want them on my property, it’s still not an infringement of their free speech rights. If someone feel compelled to speak about something, they can speak to like-minded people, but it’s still my right not to "communicate" with them, it’s also my right to kick them out from my property if I so like.

And nice non-sequitur there. No one said anyone is entitled to an audience. But if you want me to respond to this line of conversation – the problem is how a select few aggressively try to ensure no one can be your audience.

Oh, please tell us about these select few that have stopped someone gathering an audience using their own resources and services. Because that’s the whole point, you aren’t entitled to an audience using someone else’s private property. No one is entitled an audience, period. You are making the faulty assumption that if someone doesn’t want to associate with you, it’s the same as stopping you from associating with others. It’s not, since the simple truth is that people are just exercising their right of association by choosing not to associate with people they disagree with.

A heckler gagging you or putting earplugs in everyone else’s ears has the same outcome when it comes to freedom of speech.

You talked about a "nice non-sequitur", the statement above passed that definition and went hyperbolic riding a strawman, because no one has that power, especially in the US and there is no reasonable or logical argument that can make the statement true since it’s pure bullshit.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Free speech has no value if people don’t communicate with one another.

Free speech has value so long as one person can speak their mind without government intrustion. But the First Amendment doesn’t give any person the right to speak their mind on property owned by someone else.

the problem is how a select few aggressively try to ensure no one can be your audience

You will find an audience if an audience wants to hear your speech. Whether you gain an audience of one or one million is irrelevant. Whether other people think your speech deserves “cancellation” (read: to be ignored) is irrelevant.

A heckler gagging you or putting earplugs in everyone else’s ears has the same outcome when it comes to freedom of speech.

And if Twitter or Facebook could do that, we’d be having that discussion. But they can’t. Because they can’t stop you from going to another social media service or starting your own social media service once they kick you off heirs.

COPYPASTA TIME: The First Amendment protects your rights to speak freely and associate with whomever you want. It doesn’t give you the right to make others listen. It doesn’t give you the right to make others give you access to an audience. And it doesn’t give you the right to make a personal soapbox out of private property you don’t own. Nobody is entitled to a platform or an audience at the expense of someone else.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

"Free speech has no value if people don’t communicate with one another."

It also has no value if you force people to communicate against their will. Freedom of association is part of free speech, and if you made it so nobody wants to talk to you, that’s your problem.

"the problem is how a select few aggressively try to ensure no one can be your audience."

So far, all that’s happening is people who own property telling people they’ve kicked out for breaking the rules of the house that they’re no longer welcome to use their property. That’s not a problem.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

the problem is how a select few aggressively try to ensure no one can be your audience

You realize that Parler did this too, right? Not only that, the moderation team boasted, quite regularly, how they were going out of their way to manage and ban everyone who they thought were trying to shitpost Republican users.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

You claimed that the “build your own alternative” option is only for rich people. The premise of your argument, then, is “only rich people can afford to make their own website”. I debunked that claim by going after the premise itself.

You have the right to speak your mind, not the right to be heard. Leaving Twitter — one way or another — doesn’t entitle you to keep whatever audience you have on Twitter. Neither does starting your own website. That principle applies to everyone.

And besides: If you run your own website (especially if it’s self-hosted!), you have far more control over your own speech in pretty much every way. That sounds like an advantage over relying on services like Twitter and Facebook.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Creating your own website allows you to publish your own words. If what you are writing has value, readers will post links to your site wherever they post messages, and link from their own sites if they have one. Basically the same applies on the big sites, as is obvious from the likes of YouTube where subscription counts are visible. Some YouTubers have counts bellow 100, while other have counts in the millions. Those with low counts are as obscure as someone with a private blog, and only grow their audience via activities of those who follow them..

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:launch your own..

"Exactly how "famous" was Mike when he started Tech Dirt?"

Oh, don’t ask the Qanon crowd that. We’ve already had at least one of them implying for years now that "Mike" is really a sock puppet who sprang fully formed from the deep pockets of the CIA and Google.

You can’t debate the religious zealots of the Cult of Trump. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them saying that we evil liberals crucified and murdered their orange-skinned savior at this point. On Trump’s own new blog no less.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"The "launch your own alternative" website claim really only works for extremely famous individuals."

Nope.

Everyone can set up a website. If people think what the website has to say is worth hearing, they turn up.

It’s just like public speaking. If all you’ve got is a demented rant about how the white man is being replaced by lesser race mongrels bred in the laboratories of the satanist child trafficking cabal run out of Hillary’s Pizza Parlor…then you will be that one lone person people point at and laugh, because that’s how free speech works.

You don’t get a free pass to demand space and audience i nthe local bar or mall, or in someone’s living room, just because you think you have something to say.

No one owes you an audience, snowflake.

That’s how 1A works. If your webpage doesn’t learn to stand on its own no one is beholden to help it gain viewers.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Federico (profile) says:

Blogging is back

Nice! It only took some 15 years and countless disasters, but maybe at some point people will realise that there was nothing liberating about posting to walled gardens like Facebook, Instagram or Twitter rather than to the open web, and everyone can just happily go back to the vastly superior technologies of the earlier 2000s and late 1990s.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"So trump will be banning himself?"

Eventually.

The thing is that 230 exculpates him from the crap people put up on his blog. Not from the crap he puts there himself.

Of course if 230 is cut down at least the silver lining is that no one will ever hear a single word issued by the alt-right online ever again. They’ll be reduced to chanting racist lines in the one watering hole still allowing them inside and in chatrooms on the darknet.

The fact that liberals have been looking out for their rights as well will come as a surprise to that crowd, I’ll wager.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

The U.S. must adopt the gold standard again now!

Allahu Akbar!
The U.S. must return to the gold standard now! The U.S. must adopt the gold standard again now!
The U.S. must decrease its military-budget to 10-billion-dollar per year now. Or, the U.S. must decrease its military-budget to 1% of its GDP now.
The U.S. must take Monroe Doctrine now. The U.S. must withdraw American Forces from all Foreign Countries now. Stop America’s doing its all wars now!
I love 99% of African-Americans and the U.S.
Japan, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Germany must reduce Japan’s, China’s, Taiwan’s, Hong Kong’s and Germany’s taxes now!
Japan, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Germany must issue a lot of construction bond now!
Japan, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Germany must stimulate Japan’s, China’s, Taiwan’s, Hong Kong’s and Germany’s domestic demands now!
Japan, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Germany must loosen Japan’s, China’s, Taiwan’s, Hong Kong’s and Germany’s monetary policies now!
The U.S. must tighten its monetary policy now!
As a result, Dollar value will rise!
The U.S. will have trade surplus!
Allahu Akbar!

Japan, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Germany, Wall Street, American Politicians, American-top1%, American Military Industry and FRB are fascism, totalism, axis, evil axis.
Fascism is an enemy of humankind.
Islamists’ true enemies are Trump, Japan, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Germany, FRB, Top1%, Wall Street, American Military Industry and DOD!
Japan is the country which has been promoting Globalization!!!
American Revolutionary War!
We American 99% have the 2nd amendment!

Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) and Japanese-bureaucrats are the main largest promoters of FTA.
Wall-Street, American-top1%, American-Military-Industry and FRB are colluding with Japan and Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI).

American Politicians, US DOD, Wall-Street, American-top1%, American-Military-Industry, FRB, Japan, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Germany are enemies of American99%.
American Politicians, US DOD, Wall-Street, American-top1%, American-Military-Industry, FRB, Japan, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Germany are enemies of mankind.
Tax the rich! Tax Wall Street!
Allahu Akbar!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »