Trump’s ‘Free Speech’ Social Network, Truth Social, Is Banning People For Truthing The Truth About January 6 Hearings
from the so-much-truth dept
In news that will surprise basically no one, Truth Social, Trump’s social network that was pitched as being about bringing free speech back and not doing any “viewpoint discrimination,” even as its terms of service promised it would be heavily moderated, is now banning users for trying to spread some “truths” about the January 6 hearings.
Tsk tsk. What has become of free speech?
I mean, this isn’t the first time people have noticed this. But it is worth calling out, especially as people keep insisting that sites like Twitter and YouTube should never moderate anything based on “viewpoint discrimination.”
So, will Texas AG Ken Paxton kick off an investigation into Truth Social’s moderation practices? Will Elon Musk insist that he needs to purchase Truth Social to bring free speech back? Will Trump supporters who insist that “big tech is censoring” their voices admit that little tech is now doing the reverse? Will Project Veritas catfish Truth Social employees and release misleading videos?
Will literally anyone who has been spewing nonsense about how any of this is about “free speech” admit that maybe they were wrong?
Or will everyone just go on culture warrioring, and pretending nothing at all happened?
Filed Under: content moderation, devin nunes, donald trump, free speech, january 6th
Companies: truth social
Comments on “Trump’s ‘Free Speech’ Social Network, Truth Social, Is Banning People For Truthing The Truth About January 6 Hearings”
And now we wait for all the people who said “Twitter deleting disinformation and banning people for posting hate speech is censorship!” to come in here and completely decry Truth Social’s censorship with the same level of fervor.
🕰️
Re:
We all know it’s not going to happen. They might come, but it will be to defend Truth Social, because somehow “it’s different” from when Twitter bans someone.
Re: Re:
Naw, it’s Friday. They’ll pretend they didn’t see the post.
Re: Re:
Word is (needs confirmation) that users are getting banned just for mentioning the hearings, whether or not the comment supports or disses them.. as if some low-grade filter kicks them off for keywords like “Jan 6” or “hearings”. Would be interesting to see if a word salad post causes bootation, but I’m not signed up (given that I just wanted to observe, I stopped the web-based signup when it asked for my phone number).
One rule for me, another for thee
I am shocked, shocked I say that the platform that decried the ‘censorship’ of other social media platforms would turn out to be far more restrictive in what they allow to be posted, who ever could have seen that coming?
Re:
Gee, it’s not like SouthEast Asia does this all the time…
Oh wait, I lve in a country who was too pussy to come out and name the reason why we had that awful disinfo law. (It was China.)
Re: Re:
A government is to a social media site what a corporation is to an employee. Your point?
Re: Re: Re:
So…social media companies are employed by the government?
Re: Re: Re:2
I was comparing scale, not relationship, but you do you I guess.
Re: Re: Re:3
If you want to compare scale you don’t make a comment that was so far outside the context for the post you replied to it’s not even funny.
But I guess you do you extremely well…
Re: Re: Re:4
Stop talking to yourself, it’s really boring.
Re: Re: Re:
My point was that Truth Social’s level of moderation, which is technically bordering on censorship, is widespread in Southeast Asia and beyond.
Singapore alone regularly requests Twitter et al to remove content that offends them.
The implication here is that the US will eventually follow suit, regardless of who gets in in 2024.
Re: Re: Re:2
Only if you take censorship to mean something other than what it usually means.
Except the the US has the 1st amendment, which means that the government can’t just get social media companies to remove content it doesn’t like.
Re: Re: Re:3
Except that the US has the 1st amendment, which means that the government can’t just get social media companies to remove content it doesn’t like.
Please tell Senators Josh Hawley and Ron DeSantis that because they really, really need that information.
Re: Re: Re:4
I’ve no doubt they know they just don’t care, a state which is much worse as honest ignorance can be fixed so long as the person is willing to learn.
Re: Re: Re:4
Doesn’t matter. Congress can make any law it wants to make. And the President can choose to pass it or not. And congress can choose to override veto or not.
It’s up to the courts, not congress, to decide constitutionality.
Congress makes laws. The people are free to challenge them.
(The discussion on outrageous cost of challenge is for elsewhere)!
Let's all agree on one point:
Trump Media & Technology Group CEO Devin Nunes took everything he learnt concerning Free Speech during his service as House Representative and brought it into operating Truth Social.
Re:
Well, I guess they both have gotten rich by bringing nothing to the table.
oh look my surprised face.
Re:
To be fair, your “Surprised Face” is a Guy Fawkes mask.
Re: Re:
The Guy Fawkes mask from V for Vendetta, no less. I’m not sure whether it’s constantly surprised or constantly amused. 😉
Re: Re: Re:
Yesn’t
Re: Re: Re:
It’s constantly psychopathic, as we are often reminded, so the look can be one of (facetious) surprise, while the affect can display whatever (the unchanging grin).
Yet another reason to love TAC.
Re: Re: Re:2
It’s constantly psychopathic…
Explains a lot…
What is it that WE can DO?
Help me out here, Goose. What CAN WE DO?
We can’t tell a private company how to moderate their fora. You’ve covered that and you’re right. If you were wrong (which you’re not) then others could tell you what to publish, and… sample of convenience being what it is, I don’t want to read what THEY want on YOUR forum… I want to read what YOU want on YOUR forum.
So let’s agree we’re NOT going to be pretending nothing at all happened. That’s the new given thing. How does that change what we SHOULD do or TRY to do? You’ve said the best response to bad speech is more speech, not censorship [my paraphrase, and apologies if I got it wrong] but on THEIR forum there is no “MORE” speech if they don’t like it.
It’s my opinion the answer isn’t “do we pretend nothing is happening” but rather that on OTHER FORA like TD, WSJ, Ars, and others, “we” (those of us who wish to put our opinions forth as counter to those on Truth Social…) do so.
I don’t know if we need a logo, a T-shirt, a cap, or something that says “We stand together for real truth, not this figment of this crazy crackhead psycho idiot with the red hat, orange hair, and zero IQ.” Maybe if we did, we’d have an identity that would show the rest of the world there are sane people here on planet U S of A.
Re: 'Now that's it's YOUR platform moderation is fine? Funny that.'
What ‘should’ be done in a situation like this? Constantly and consistently point out the naked hypocrisy of the platform and those supporting it, highlighting how lightning quick they go from ‘moderation is censorship and that’s bad’ to ‘moderation is great if you say something the platform’s owners don’t like’ the second it benefits them to do so, making it all the more obvious that their anti-moderation argument is purely self-serving and not in good faith, and as such should be seen and treated accordingly.
Re: Re: For sure.
It’s not a common carrier if nobody but their dog goes there, is it?
Re: Re: Re:
To be fair, social media is never a common carrier until it does the government’s bidding.
Because, and the litmus test is, when an actual emergency happens, will you post a status on your social media of choice OR call the fucking emergency services/fire department?
Re: Re: Re:2
You’re kidding, right? Certain individuals on Techdirt are so invested in the idea of social media websites being common carriers that they will post a status of Twitter or Facebook, whatever, and then take it out on the platform when the ambulance or fire engine shows up hours late after someone reading the post called the actual emergency services and it took ages for the poster to be tracked via their IP address.
Re: Re: Re:2
That would make it a state actor, not a common carrier.
Re: Re: Re:3
There are some on this site too obtuse to understand the difference. Those who are capable of understanding the difference likely already know it.
Re:
How about A Few Good Men with T-shirts reading
Re: Re:
You… truth mishandlers!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Shown the Door
This is why the approach the commentariat here likes to propose, if you don’t like the moderation on one site go to a different one, doesn’t work. The same awfulness of viewpoint-based censorship happens everywhere. The better approach is to educate the sites where the people already are on how to do principled moderation without suppressing the speech of their users, and hope that they listen.
Re:
Except it did work. The user who was banned from Truth Social is on Twitter—a direct competitor to Truth Social. Trump’s service has one less truth-teller (in both the ironic and sincere meanings of that term) because Truth Social, like Twitter, has every right to determine what speech it will or will not host.
If you believe you should be able to force anti-queer bigotry onto Twitter, people should also be able force pro-queer propaganda onto Truth Social (a service that likely shares your exterminationist views on trans people).
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Rather, people should be able to discuss their ideas on Twitter without Twitter stepping in to do viewpoint-based censorship. As usual, no force involved, although I suppose that the government can decide that if such a large platform is censoring speech, it ought to be broken up into smaller companies. But that’s unlikely.
Re: Re: Re:
aka what we already have out here in the non-hallucinatiry world.
Re: Re: Re:2 'How dare you thow me out for using slurs, that's viewpoint-based discrimination!'
Ah ‘viewpoint-based censorship’, otherwise known as spoiled brats facing consequences for being assholes and dishonestly trying to blame someone else for it.
Re: Re: Re:
No, it cannot.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Yes, it can. The government can pass antitrust legislation against the large platforms that would easily pass rational basis review. Once it does, arguments that the 1st Amendment rights of the companies are affected do not work, as long as the law does not specifically address those rights.
Re: Re: Re:3
Whether a social media company is broken up or not under anti-trust doesn’t change the fact that the government can’t circumscribe their 1A rights.
Ie, if the government’s whole rationale for applying antitrust regulation is based on a platform’s moderation practices they run in to the 1A.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
No, that’s false. The courts do not generally try to analyze the motives for a law if the rational basis test applies. Congress gets to legislature as it likes.
Re: Re: Re:5
Congress gets to [legislate] as it likes within the bounds set by the Bill of Rights.
CTFY, ignoramus.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
The 1st Amendment is implicated when a law affects things that it specifies. So if a law said that Twitter may not impose viewpoint-based censorship, that would violate the 1st Amendment. But if the law merely says that social media companies over a certain size must be broken up into smaller companies, nothing about hat law violates the 1st Amendment, even if the legislature was motivated by that viewpoint-based censorship.
That’s the rational basis test. The government is allowed to regulate company size (they approve or disapprove mergers all the time). Arguing that they passed a particular law because they didn’t like the protected activities of the company doesn’t help. Courts don’t strike down laws based on the perceived motives of the lawmakers. The law itself has to violate the Constitution for that to happen.
Re: Re: Re:7
Anti-trust; you keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Nope, it means just what I think it means. In particular, the large platforms are frequently accused of “product tying”, so it’s not even a stretch.
“First, the alleged monopolist must possess sufficient power in an accurately defined market for its products or services. Second, the monopolist must have used its power in a prohibited way. The categories of prohibited conduct are not closed, and are contested in theory. Historically they have been held to include exclusive dealing, price discrimination, refusing to supply an essential facility, product tying and predatory pricing.”
Re: Re: Re:9
Twitter and Facebook are not the only social media services. They’re also not the only methods of online communication. Popularity may be power, but that alone doesn’t make them a monopoly.
Please explain how Twitter and Facebook have used their power in a legally prohibited way. “Getting popular” isn’t illegal. Neither is the act of content moderation.
HARD MODE: Do that, but without bitching about queer people.
Re: Re: Re:10
Whether the companies have sufficient power to be regarded as monopolies will be hashed out in court. I would say they do.
Product tying – I think that how the companies work with advertising networks probably qualifies, as well as companies seeming to privilege their own products on ostensibly objective search results.
Refusing to supply an essential facility – such as not allowing Parler on app stores.
In any case, there’s nothing stopping the government from trying to do this if they want to. The companies can then go fight in court.
Re: Re: Re:11
I could be wrong, but I believe they have a web site. So not being in an App Store is not Ilan issue.
Re: Re: Re:12
They have an app. Being kept out of the app store is an issue.
Re: Re: Re:13
… said nobody arguing in good faith, ever.
Re: Re: Re:13
“They have an app. Being kept out of the app store is an issue,” said the webmasters of APK Pure to no one ever.
Re: Re: Re:13
How is being kept out of the App Store a problem? Argue it in good faith.
As I said: they have a web site.
You can download their app independent of the play store for Android.
Those that actually want it can use a terminal emulator to bypass the apple App Store to install packages on iOS/iPadOS.
And I’m sure If you asked and sent a bit of cash or crypto someone would be happy to make a Linux web-portal app for you.
So what App Store are you worried about? Because the only place you have any issues in access is apple. And if they care about user reach, they’ll link their app source code.
If detailed multiple times (in the whole opening the App Store is bullshite argument) at TD how to compile and install non-app-store-apps on iOS. It’s rather easy.
How can the site/service have an problem with so many options.
Re: Re: Re:14
Because if you’re telling your users “just install a terminal emulator and download the app from the command line” you might as well be speaking Klingon. With that said, the original comment about app stores being an “essential service” is gibberish.
Re: Re: Re:15
The loss of ability of so many to properly use a computer aside (hehe 😄)…
Even idiots unworthy of the power of the device in their hands can go to a web site!
Oh:
But as far as that terminal option goes, If you can read directions and can type in a web site address on your own, you can install full apps from the terminal.
Sadly your probably correct that most people can’t follow directions nor type in a full website without clicking on the suggested link drop down.
Re: Re: Re:14
For most people, the app store is the only way they know to get apps for their phones. By their nature, apps are separate and individual things. Even for those who argue that viewpoint-based censorship is appropriate for the large platforms because the posts of their users somehow become the speech of the platforms, it should be the case that viewpoint-based censorship on the app store has an even more tenuous connection to the speech of the platform owners.
Re: Re: Re:15
So ignorance and stupidity are sole cause to change or destroy current methodology.
It’s no secret I’m 100% against making app stores less selective.
But to tell me apple must carry an app you want is the equivalence of telling the Church of Satan it must carry the bible on its web store and the catholic shoppe it must carry the Demonic Treatise of Noch.
The pro balm has nothing to do with the App Store and everything with the failure of proper tech education.
Re: Re: Re:15
… go by the username “Hyman Rosen.”
Re: Re: Re:15
Nobody is saying that. In fact section 230 explicitly says the exact opposite.
Re: Re: Re:9
Product tying; you keep using that term. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Re: Re: Re:7
I disagree. If the motivation for a law is to violate first amendment rights, there’s every reason to think the law can be found unconstitutional.
Re: Re: Re:5
As evidenced by your reasoning above, the sole reason you think antitrust regulation should apply to social media is because of their moderation practices which is a 1A violation. And if large social media platforms are broken up as you wish – it doesn’t change the very fact that they still can moderate as they see fit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
The government can apply antitrust legislation for any reason allowed by antitrust law, even if they have ulterior motive. And the point is not to carry out the legislation, but to threaten the companies so that they behave in the way the government wants. The 1st Amendment comes into play only if the actual law affects the rights it enumerates.
Re: Re: Re:7
And the point is not to carry out the legislation, but to threaten the companies so that they behave in the way the government wants.
Which is a First Amendment violation when the ‘behaviour’ to be changed is moderation practices and decisions.
Re: Re: Re:7
Whether motivation is relevant is apparently not settled law. I agree with this position:
https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1959&context=sdlr
Re: Re: Re:7
The FTC has very strict and lengthy processes to determine whether any company has a monopoly on any market. And that is all the FTC does.
It has little bearing on 1A, unless the entire purpose of the FTC (to prevent monopolies in a certain market) is UnConstutional, as you’ve implied.
Why do you hate the FTC?
Re: Re: Re:3
Ahh, can’t wait for Ohio Twitter. Then they can charge for long distance when someone wants to post from there to Southwestern Twitter.
Re: Re: Re:4 Baby Twitters
Ugh, Twerizon’s gonna be the worst.
Re: Re: Re:3
On that logic, so if you got banged up on suspicion of child molestation despite there being not a shred of evidence that you examined underage trans girls’ genitalia, that’s perfectly fine because the laws against child molestation don’t specifically address your right to habeas corpus. Amirite? 😀
Re:
If you believe that, you believe that confrontations is the only way of opposing ideas, and you have confirmed that in many posts on this site.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I have mentioned before that there isn’t any way to say that woke gender ideology is false that woke gender ideologues will not find confrontational. The simple statement that transwomen are men is taken by woke gender ideologues as the worst sort of bigotry.
Re: Re: Re:
The simple statement that transwomen are women is taken by alt-right bigots as the worst sort of predjudice.
True dat.
Re: Re: Re:
You say “The based’s demented lies told with the sole intent of causing to harm to innocent trans people is objectively seen as confrontational bigotry” by mentally and morally functional (aka “woke”) people” as though that were a bad thing.
Re: Re: Re:
You have a strong history on this site of bringing up your hatred of trans people, whenever moderation enters the discussion. Indeed you you any excuse to bring that up, whether it is directly relevant to the conversation or not. That makes you obsessively aggressive about that one topic, and about as welcome as poison ivy on a nudist beach.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
I brought it up now as a counterexample to “don’t be confrontational” (which actually sounds a lot like “why don’t you smile?”).
Woke gender ideology makes for a good example because it is the ivermectin of the left. It is a theory that is obviously false, so obviously false that hundreds of millions of people all over the world are astonished when they first hear what it claims and amazed that anyone can believe it. And yet it is also believed with religious fervor by other hundreds of millions of people. So it’s perfect for discussing viewpoint-based censorship, moderation, and proper behavior on social media.
Re: Re: Re:3
Dude, we get it, you want trans people dead or out of public view. Take your exterminationist rhetoric to some place that accepts it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Woke gender ideology makes for a good example because it is the ivermectin of the left.
And here you put the lie to your previous claims that you have voted for left-politicians.
It is a theory…
At least you admit that it is indeed a theory, and is therefore backed by the accepted science.
…that is obviously false, so obviously false that hundreds of millions of people all over the world are astonished when they first hear what it claims and amazed that anyone can believe it.
Possibly, but those voices are clearly drowned out by those of the sizeable remainder of the global population of eight billion. You were saying?
Re: Re: Re:4
And here you put the lie to your previous claims that you have voted for left-politicians.
*left-aligned politicians. (-_Q)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
https://theintercept.com/2022/06/13/progressive-organizing-infighting-callout-culture/
Left-wingers are self-immolating morons who believe stupid theories. They are nevertheless better than Republicans. I vote for the best (that is, the most centrist) Democrats in the primaries, and then vote for any Democrat in the general.
I’m going to have fun soon picking between Jerrold Nadler and Carolyn Maloney. Probably Nadler, since he’s been my representative forever, and as we know, we hate Congress in general but love our own reps.
Re: Re: Re:5
Left-wingers are self-immolating morons [sic] who believe stupid [sic] theories.
And the above is why I find it impossible to believe that you would ever vote for any left-aligned politician. It’s like trying to tell me that you’re a vegan, then claiming that honey is an exception you’re prepared to make in your belief that all products of animal origin are evil.
Re: Re: Re:6
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Oh, wait, no I don’t. Believe whatever you want. You already believe in woke gender ideology, so believing false things is obviously second nature for you.
The last Republican I voted for was Ronald Reagan in his second run (I voted for John B. Anderson the first time). It’s been only Democrats ever since, unless you count Michael Bloomberg for mayor, which I don’t. I voted for David Dinkins for mayor even after the Crown Heights pogroms because Giuliani encouraged a police riot and I couldn’t bring myself to vote for him.
Re: Re: Re:7
I voted for David Dinkins for mayor even after the Crown Heights pogroms…
So you believe that Jews also have no right to exist. No wonder so many commenters here think you’re a piece of shit.
Re: Re: Re:3
I brought it up now as a counterexample to “don’t be confrontational” (which actually sounds a lot like “why don’t you smile?”).
Actually, it sounds a lot more like, “Why don’t you stop putting other people’s genitals where they aren’t wanted?”
Re:
Wow, you’ve sure changed your tune! Before (just yesterday), you were absolutely convinced that it was only ‘woke idealogue’ social media websites like Twitter that engaged in viewpoint-based ‘censorship’. Now you know what moderation based purely on viewpoint actually looks like, and we, the sensible folk on Techdirt, are all laughing at your dismayed reaction.
Re: Re: It’s the cherry on top
Oh we have been laughing at him long before that.
Re: Re: Re:
True, but now we’re laughing much harder. 😭
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I have never said any such thing. Woke ideologues always have trouble distinguishing between reality and their imagination.
Re: Re: Re:
You were saying?
Re: Re: Re:2
Huh? I am not the author of that article. What are you talking about?
Re: Re: Re:3
Yes, because a link to an article is never a link to the comments on the same page. Dipshit.
Re: Re: Re:4
And which comment of mine says what you claim it says?
Re: Re: Re:
[Projects facts contrary to all provided evidence]
Re:
All together now “FUCK YOUR FEELINGS!”
Re: Re:
I still would not have sexual relations with his feelings, even if I was paid a billion dollars.
Re: Re: Re:
But pay me $1 billion dollars to not have sexual relations with his feelings…
Re:
Why do you hate propeety laws, Hyman?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Because they get in the way of fiery but mostly peaceful demonstrations?
Re: Re: Re:
And, If I remember correctly, also allows for such things like, oh…
No shoes, no shirt, no service
And…
Don’t use my house as your fucking soapbox.
1A is very much tied to property laws, Hyman. At least from how it was explained to me. And given how extremely outspoken you are with regards to your NeoNaziism…
Even the Roof Koreans would not mind being charged AGAIN to do anything to get your NeoNazi ass OUT.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Yeah yeah… orange man bad, let women kill their babies.
Re:
Yes or no: Should the law force a 13-year-old girl impregnated via rape into carrying that pregnancy to term?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
No…
But a 21 yr old shouldn’t be able to use abortion for birth control in an otherwise healthy pregnancy
Re: Re: Re:
Congratulations! Rather than adhere to the “pro-life”/anti-abortion belief that all unborn lives are sacred regardless of how they’re conceived, you’ve shown support for an exception to that belief so long as either (a) someone is made pregnant by rape, (b) a child is made pregnant, or (c) both. As a result, you believe at least one form of abortion should be legal.
Re: Re: Re: Everything before the But is a lie
A 21 year old is an adult and has all the rights accorded to her or him. The implication is that a 21 year old isn’t well enough acquainted with his/her rights to make a decision. What’s the “new cutoff age” you espouse. 80? Can an 80 year old person make that decision and we won’t judge grandma/grandpa for it? How about 40? We wouldn’t judge ma or pa, right?
The rights of anyone over 18 are generally unchanged as they age in the US. There’s one threshold for alcohol consumption on a state by state basis (see 10th Am), and for firearms of a certain length, both set to 21.
SO yeah, that 21 year old is a CITIZEN with RIGHTS and LEGAL PRECEDENT. You don’t get to discriminate on the basis of age and say he/she can’t do whatever you don’t like.
But as always, thanks for trying.
Re: Re: Re:2
There’s one threshold for alcohol consumption on a state by state basis…
Mot any more, no thanks to the rules about federal funding. 🙁
Re: Re: Re:3 Mot amy nore imdeed.
Mot imdeed. Read this link, especially the part that starts out with “State exceptions.”
The Federal highway funds contained speed limit maximums to 55MPH for many decades. Now they are history. Don’t expect this to be very different, despite people feeling different about getting from Point A to Point B quicker vs drunker.
Re: Re: Re:4
You were saying? I guess you can’t stand someone else being right, which is why you feel the need to engage in Kindergarten-level behavior, such as picking on minor, easy to make typos.
Re: Re: Re:5 Minors and alcohol
I sure was, but thanks for the link (sorry, WordPress doesn’t copy that) showing that after the magic of waving her magic wand in 1984, Good Wich Glenda saw 42% of 12th-graders 12 and 42% of high-school seniors still abusing those substances they can’t possibly purchase, possess, or consume.
If you’re thinking “Wait, 42% sounds an awful lot like 42%” that’s because 12th grade is an awful lot like high-school seniors but there’s our FTC showing us the writing skills of … alcohol-laden high-school writing talents.
Thank you for your guess, but unfortunately today is not the “guess random things” game. No, today is part of the “Week of just tell it like it is, not how you wish it were if the man in orange won.” Bzzt and zero points awarded.
Do you have a license to psychoanalyze people’s feelz and their needz and their level of education/behavior on the Internet. I thought that was reserved by Section 7 of the APA Principles of Medical Ethics to require in-person examinations. Still, you ARE a poster on Techdirt, and you PROBABLY could afford to park in the lot of a Holiday Inn Express for the night, so why not analyze me. Sadly, though, no. Those are not my feelings nor my needs.
Yes, do excuse yourself as if “because it’s easy it’s ok not to proofread your work” or “have some modicum of pride in what you expect others to read.”
Doubtless you’re also fond of “I read part of the original article, and skimmed one of the 200 replies, but I can’t be bothered with all that. So now read my opinion. [click “Email me when someone gave a hoot”]
No. As the lady says “That’s not how it works.” Is it easy to make a typographical error? Sure. Us encryption folk count on it. Some percentage of the time our algorithm implementations purposely flag a right answer as wrong and figure MAYBE you will think you typo’d it, switch to another, and you won’t get it. MAYBE you’ll type it over very carefully… good job… if we can waste 5-10 seconds of every wannabe hacker’s password crack try it works out for us.
OR MAYBE you’re so stupid you’ll just retype that password again as fast as you can, and never think a thing of it, which also means never contribute to public statistics about idiots. We who know the stats… we know. Most of the time (it’s in the 85-90% area but never mind that source) the password was right. The algorithm was tainted to lie to you and said it wasn’t. You just brilliantly repeated the same pwd, and got in, and promptly forgot about it, didn’t FaceBook about it, and until you read this note never thought a thing of it.
Keyspace in encryption and typos in a written medium are surprisingly connected.
The odds are when there are 72 character you can type ([A-Z]|[a-z]|[0-9]|[special characters that shouldn’t be held back…]) the odds of you getting one character right max out at 1:1 and min out at 1:72. Two characters? Max: 1:1 and min 1:5184.
So if you’re writing your epic tome and you “only made a widdwe typo, geez, mom, don’t climb all over me” it’s not because typographical errors are hard to make. You failed to check your work, proofread it, have peer review, and take a good solid link.
Whose, who’s and whos’.
It’s, its, and its’.
There, their, and they’re.
Make excuses to your teacher. They’re paid to not leave you behind. Readers on the ENTIRE FN INTERNET don’t need your illiteracy or attempts to excuse it.
Two letters. One in 5000 shot of getting it right. Start proofreading or getting a second pair of eyes before the whining starts. Or is it just a shrill shriek. You’ll have to mansplain that to me.
Re: Re: Re:6
And should I also get my legs to grow back as well as my dyslexia magically vanishing, you ableist scumbag?
Re: Re: Re:4
Mmm… you and Autie (and AC) seem to be talking across each other.
1) Despite the name, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act (referred to by the (other) AC), established a minimum age for purchase of alcohol, and thus not relevant to the consumption thereof.
2) The NMDAA is an example of forcing states to “toe a line” by funding penalties, as was the National Maxiumum Speed Act. These are merely the best known examples of this type of coercion, not the only ones. (And note that because Congress has been a bag of stamens about US territories, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have not really lost out by thumbing their noses at the NMDAA.)
So easy on, there, Ehud. There are several full-flavor decaf brands out there. A few other examples of age-related legal limits: Marriage. Voting. Driving. Working full time. “Selective Service.” Qualification for Social Security and Medicare. All of them work to illustrate your point.
Re: Re: Re:4
Talk about intentionally misleading!
Those exceptions are for family members supplying to family members. And religious exemptions.
None of those are or personal or self exemptions.
The federal government has no intention of lowering the age. Or allowing any state to lower the age. And parts of the DHF system makes it nearly impossible for a state to opt out, de-list, or otherwise exit from the national defence highway system. Making maintaining today to a very tight list of requirements only possible with federal funds.
Don’t get me started on the US having the highest non-religious-legislated drinking age in the world.
Re: Re: Re:
Why not? It’s a hell of a lot better than using it to prevent the birth of a potentially disabled child (eugenics) in a healthy pregnancy.
Re: Re: Re:2
I look at it this way.
Is it my womb? No?
Is it my minor daughter pregnant? No?
Not my business. I’ll keep my nose out of that crotch. I’ll thank others to do the same for mine. In fact, I’ll insist.
Re: Re: Re:3
Looks like you’re replying to the wrong post there, pardner.
Re: Re: Re:
Weird flex bro.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Yes or no: Do you believe that the unborn child conceived in such a scenario had any say in how it was done? And thus, has any responsibility for it? In short, is the child not an innocent? And thus, you’re advocating for punishing the innocent.
Yes or no: Do you believe the unborn have any rights?
Yes or no: Do you understand that proximity is not the same thing as being part of something?
Yes or no: Did you know that 78% of women who see an ultrasound of their baby choose not to go through with an abortion (Source: https://www.lifenews.com/2013/02/07/78-of-pregnant-women-seeing-an-ultrasound-reject-abortions/)?
And finally, which would you say is more important, a woman’s convenience (which is the reason for the vast majority of abortions, a brutal process that often involves dismemberment) or a human life?
Answer these questions with only one of the two given options. No caveats, no qualifications, no attempts at justification.
And here’s something for you to think about. Quotes from an episode of Star Trek: Voyager about the very scenario you’re talking about.
Kolopak: Centuries ago, when the women of our tribe were raped by white conquerors, many gave birth to their children, and we did not reject them. They were accepted by the tribe. One was a direct ancestor of ours, Chakotay. His name… was Ce Acatl. He became a great leader of our people. Here is a man who was given life without his mother’s consent. Are you so different from her? And is your child so different from Ce Acatl?
Commander Chakotay: [after a pause] No.
Kolopak: Mm… He is your son, Chakotay, and he is a child of our people.
In that light, is your support of punishing innocent children who had no say in how they were conceived right or wrong? Again, no caveats, no qualifications, no attempts at justification. Just respond with one of the two options.
Re: Re: Re:
No to all three, duh. That said:
How is forcing a 13-year-old rape survivor to carry her rapist’s child to term not a form of punishment? Hell, that’s my whole point in asking that question: If you think legally forcing a child who was raped to carry the pregnancy resulting from that rape to term is a good thing, you’re a fucking sociopath.
No.
I believe that if you want to give the unborn any rights, you should be prepared to agree to the following: The fetus should be counted in both the census and in carpool lanes as a person, the mother should be able to claim the fetus as a dependent for tax purposes, the healthcare of the fetus should be covered by government programs such as Medicaid, and the fetus should qualify for life insurance that a mother can claim in case of a miscarriage. And that should apply to anyone who carries a child regardless of socioeconomic status, place of residence, or race/ethnicity.
Otherwise, you’re just using the unborn as a convenient tool for controlling women’s lives with maybe a bit of eugenics tossed in.
Yes. That said: A pregnant person should have the right to choose whether they want to have an abortion. Whatever they choose is irrelevant to whether they have the right to choose.
Yes.
…oh, you wanted a real answer? That’s still “yes”, and here’s why. (For readability’s sake, I will use “woman” and female pronouns here.)
I think a woman should be able to have an abortion for any reason up until either the end of the second trimester or confirmation of the viability of the fetus (whichever comes first). I don’t care why she wants an abortion—that’s her business.
But when that specific point in the pregnancy is reached, she should only be able to have an abortion if the abortion is necessary to save her life or the fetus will not survive being born. At that point in the pregnancy, the woman is most likely going to keep her child—but forcing her to birth that child when that could kill her (and possibly fetus) is a heinous notion.
That’s part of the reason I ask the question about that hypothetical 13-year-old rape victim: If she dies during childbirth because the government forced her to bear her rapist’s child, what does her death say about the people who think she should’ve been forced to give birth?
Quoting pop culture at me isn’t going to make me side with you.
You’re asking me to ponder metaphysical questions for which nobody has yet come up with concrete and widely accepted answers, then distill my thoughts down to one of two polarizing answers—one of which you would use to label me a murderer or a supporter of genocide. Homey don’t play that game.
But hey, since you want to quote pop culture at me, here’s a quote from Law & Order: Criminal Intent:
And despite the whines of “hypocrite” that I know you’ll toss my way, I’ll ask you the original question again, with the trick of that question exposed and all of my cards laid on the table: Should the law force a 13-year-old girl impregnated via rape into carrying that pregnancy to term?
Re: Re: Re:2
About the ultrasound stawman: Most people seeking an abortion wouldn’t see jack shit on an ultrasound at the time they were seeking said abortion.
This “every pregnancy is third trimester, and if it’s not, we’re goint to try our best to delay you until it is” shit was way old 30 years ago.
Re: Re: Re:
… said nobpdy with any capacity for rational independent thought, ever.
Re: Re: Re:
I do so love how you’re clutching those pearls about ‘punishing the innocent’ at the same time you seem to be arguing for forcing a rape victim to carry a fetus to term, as though one violation of their bodily autonomy just wasn’t’ enough.
It’s like watching someone in the middle of beating another person with a baseball bat just because they can decry senseless violence between each swing.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
One fallacy of forced-birthers (although it’s shared by lots of other people) is the notion that who a person is now is what they were “meant” to be, so that an abortion results in erasing this specific person. That’s the Chakotay argument in a nutshell.
But in fact, every decision made, every quantum event, every bit of randomness in the universe, contributes to the state of a person as they are now. There is no designated future for anyone. Aborting a fetus does not abort any sort of specific person.
The much better argument in favor of at least some abortion is that it is immoral to deliberately create a defective or disabled human being. If a woman (only!) knows that her child will be born blind, or deaf, or mentally retarded, or having any number of other problems, she has the moral duty to abort the fetus before it can become a child. Otherwise, she is doing the equivalent of taking a newborn and plucking out their eyes.
Re: Re: Re:2
But the gender you’re meant to be is determined by genetics?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Yes, of course. The genetics of the fetus guide its development, with genes being activated or deactivated causing various proteins to be produced that eventually result in the sexual organs of the child. I have not studied human development at all, but I would guess that it encounters natural variation that lead to moderately different outcomes, the way identical twins are not absolutely identical. And sometimes development can go catastrophically wrong.
Physical law has both stable and unstable situations. Drop a rock, it falls the same way every time. Balance a pin on its point, it falls differently every time. Biological physical development is mostly stable. Mental development is mostly not.
Re: Re: Re:4
I didn’t say anything about sex organs, I asked about gender. And no, they’re not the same thing.
Re: Re: Re:5
Sex and gender are the same thing; the closest real thing to what you believe is that societies develop stereotypical gendered behavior and customs, and some people find themselves not wanting to conform. That’s way on the unstable side of development, along with other sorts of behavior.
Of course, at the bottommost level, everything is physical – there are no non-physical “souls” – but behavior cannot be usefully modeled that way, any more than the actions of a computerized spelling-checker can be described in terms of the motions of electrons.
Re: Re: Re:6
No, they are not. Sex has always meant some aspect of reproductive organs and the use of them.
The (mis)use of gender comes from (prudish) mortality issues in even writing:printing the word.
You don’t have gender. You have sex.
And you don’t have gender organs. You have sex organs.
Sex is but one of gender’s definitions, and only very recently.
And let’s skip right over the alt right idea that the two terms diverged only since the 60s or 70s.
Gender comes from middle-French gendre, from genre.
Which comes from Latin generis. Via Genia.
Or type. (Eg general).
Even the verb comes from genu or ‘to type’
Where sex comes from Sexus. Itself a Latin loan from Lepontic, Sax.
See Saxon. Meaning other, et different.
The use of the words interchangeably can be dated to at least the 11th century but such use not become common until the late 1800s and early 1900s as sex tool on more direct use for as-in-to-have than previously.
Re: Re: Re:6
… said nobody with the slightest bit of understanding of the subject, ever.
Re: Re: Re:4
Ignorance, thy name is Hymen Rosan.
Re: Re: Re:2
The much better argument in favor of at least some abortion is that it is immoral to deliberately create a defective or disabled human being. If a woman (only!) knows that her child will be born blind, or deaf, or mentally retarded, or having any number of other problems, she has the moral duty to abort the fetus before it can become a child. Otherwise, she is doing the equivalent of taking a newborn and plucking out their eyes.
Francis Gaulton came calling. He wants his super old school eugenicist talking points back.
Re:
Your strawman is bad and you should feel bad.
Re: Killing babies
Women don’t kill their babies. Republicans kill them
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/death_penalty#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20has%20ruled,it%20must%20be%20carried%20out.
If it’s not born yet DO NOT KILL YET.
If it’s born then groom it and have sex and abuse it and then kill it.
– Republican Talking Points 1974-2022
Re: Re:
You can be both. It’s called “Stockholm Syndrome”.
Re: Re: Re:
I repeat: fuck off.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Thank you for confirming that you have absolutely no respect for human life and think that only children who are born have rights. You also utterly failed to provide any actual quotes/empirical data to back up your point. And the use of a generalization automatically disqualifies and invalidates your position because it proves you don’t see people as individuals and are as willing to judge them as those you call out.
In short, you’ve shown you are as biased as those you claim to be against. But I believe your support is merely ideological and is not grounded in any firsthand experience. And you are the one who needs to brush up on science. Specifically, embryology:
Why the unborn is a human being
When a sperm successfully fertilizes an oocyte (egg), a new cell, called a zygote, is generated by their union. The zygote represents the first stage in the life of a human being. This individual, if all goes well, develops through the embryonic (first eight weeks) and fetal (eight weeks until birth) periods and then through infancy, childhood, and adolescence before reaching adulthood.
Four characteristics of the unborn human (the zygote, embryo, or fetus) are important:
Distinct. The unborn has a DNA and body distinct from her mother and father. She develops her own arms, legs, brain, nervous system, heart, and so forth.
Living. The unborn meets the biological criteria for life. She grows by reproducing cells. She turns nutrients into energy through metabolism. And she can respond to stimuli.
Human. The unborn has a human genetic signature. She is also the offspring of human parents, and humans can only beget other humans.
Organism. The unborn is an organism (rather than a mere organ or tissue)—an individual whose parts work together for the good of the whole. Guided by a complete genetic code (46 chromosomes), she needs only the proper environment and nutrition to develop herself through the different stages of life as a member of the species.
These facts about the unborn are established by the science of embryology and developmental biology. They are confirmed by embryology texts, scientific journals, and other relevant authorities.
“Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote,” explains the textbook The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. “This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
“The development of a human being begins with fertilization,” notes Langman’s Medical Embryology, “a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
The scientific evidence, then, shows that the unborn is a living individual of the species Homo sapiens, the same kind of being as us, only at an earlier stage of development. Each of us was once a zygote, embryo, and fetus, just as we were once infants, toddlers, and adolescents.”
https://www.mccl.org/post/2017/12/20/the-unborn-is-a-human-being-what-science-tells-us-about-unborn-children
Nor does abortion provide the liberation some might imagine. A meta-analysis in the British Journal of Psychiatry concludes that abortion increases the risk of mental health problems—including anxiety, depression, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and suicidal behavior—by 81 percent.
“There is a tremendous sadness and loneliness in the cry ‘A woman’s right to choose,'” author Frederica Mathewes-Green once wrote. “No one wants an abortion as she wants an ice-cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg.”
That’s not freedom. Freedom is found when—through practical support and positive alternatives—a woman never feels like abortion is her only choice.
https://www.mccl.org/post/abortion-isn-t-freedom-why-autonomy-arguments-for-abortion-dodge-the-real-issue
Watch this, a video of a 2nd trimester D & E abortion, and then tell me you still support the practice. If you can:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgw4X7Dw_3k
Re: Re: Re:
Yes or no: If a woman is practically guaranteed to die if she gives birth, should the law still force her to give birth?
Corollary, also yes or no: If an unborn child has rights and is therefore a citizen of the United States with all of the rights and responsibilities therein, should the law charge that child with involuntary manslaughter if the birth of that child kills the mother?
Re: Re: Re:2
Note: AC’s lies about life are a 100% irrelevant red herring. Even under the factually-unsupported false premise tghat a zygote is a human life, nobpdy has any right at all to force a person to sacrifice their own body for another; You cannot be forced to donate an organ even to save another’s life, even after you’ve died. Nobody has the right to force a woman to give up her body to another. This piece of shit AC wants nothing more or less than women to have less body autonomy than corpses, and invents deranged “baby murder” fantasies to justify their purely evil actions.
Re: Re: Re:3
The forced-birth position isn’t about granting equal rights to the fetus but granting them extra rights far beyond what any other humans has in the form of forced support of their life at the cost of the bodily autonomy of another.
If I need blood or I will die and the person passing by on the sidewalk at the time is the only matching donor available in time I can’t force them to donate if they don’t want to.
If I need an organ or I will die and a recently deceased person has a match unless they checked the ‘yes’ box on the organ donor card I’m out of luck and there’s going to be two funerals that week.
Yet somehow were I a pregnant female and didn’t want to spend the next nine months pregnant followed by giving birth for whatever reason I would be out of luck, because now bodily autonomy can be overridden when a life is on the line.
When the pro-birth crowd spend as much time pushing for mandatory blood and organ donations as they do mandatory birth then I might be able to take them seriously. I’ll still consider their positions abhorrent but at least they’ll be consistently horrible rather than pushing for something which gives more bodily autonomy to corpses than pregnant women have.
Re: Re: Re:4
Or to put it another way, If a pregnant woman can’t have body autonomy, neither can they.
However, I think it requires more than that. They’re capable of giving blood, donating a kidney and part of their liver, without dying. If they’re wanting to force someone else to give birth to “save a life” but they haven’t voluntarily done all they can do themselves? Hypocrites.
Re: Re: Re:
Thank you for confirming that you have absolutely no respect for human life
Re: Re: Re:
Heart cells beat in a petri dish. To completely ignorant evil pieces of shit such as yourself, they’re a “life.”
Re: Re: Re:
Birth is a convenient dividing line between non-person and person, since it is such a large-scale event, but it’s still arbitrary. Where that line sits is a matter of social consensus, nothing else. Plenty of societies, our own included, let babies die after they’re born, for various reasons.
Re: Re: Re:2
Actually, ‘birth’ is just shorthand for ‘severing of the umbilical cord’ because up until that point, the blastocyst/embryo/foetus is technically a parasite entirely reliant on the body nurturing it for all its nutrition and hydration. Only once it’s born, at whichever point of gestation, can it be considered a person independent of the carrying parent.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Society can make up whatever rules it likes. If it wants to regard a baby as a non-person for a few months after it’s born, it can do that. If it wants to regard personhood of boy babies and girl babies differently, it can do that. The universe doesn’t care, and it’s not in the business of providing bright lines just because people want them. The universe is going to kill every single thing that has ever lived, whether those things are persons or not.
Re: Re: Re:4
The universe is going to kill every single thing that has ever lived, whether those things are persons or not.
So we shouldn’t bother doing anything about human-created pollution because the universe is going to do what it does regardless? Thanks for confirming that you have no respect whatsoever for any form of life on this planet.
Re: Re: Re:5
People can do whatever they want, and they will face the consequences of their acts. The universe does not care if life is choked by pollution or Earth is turned into a paradise. If you don’t want pollution, convince people to not pollute.
Re: Re: Re:6
Nice tu quoque. Now fuck off.
Re: Re: Re:6
No, we won’t.
You assimilate, or we humiliate. We’ll do to you what we did to J.K. Rowling.
Re: Re: Re:7
You will make me an executive producer on a series of movies, sell my books, produce my plays, and provide me with millions of dollars? Wow, thanks!
Re: Re: Re:8
Consequences are for straight people too incapable of seeing the world through our fabulous perspectives.
Re:
Well, if you want to do an anti-abortion rant, you’d need to insert a bit more Republican-speak to make this more correct, like “pre-born babies”. Which strictly speaking would put jacking off under penalty as well (I mean, God punished Onan, right?) which would probably render your presence in this forum illegal.
Re: Re:
Actually, God punished Onan for practising the withdrawal method of contraception (the earliest case), not jacking off. Check it out.
Re: Re: Re: If there is a God and if his travails are covered in a book written by dead old men, then OMG!!!
Did we really go from Trump to Free Speach to Abortion to a discussion about God and whom he punished for what?
Godwin
Re: Re: Re:2
How does Godwin relate to this discussion? Do you need a refresher on what Godwin’s law is?
Re: Re: Re:3 Godwin's Law
Thanks, but no.
Godwin’s Law was coined on Usenet in 1990. Back then as a discussion devolved eventually someone would compare something to Nazis or Hitler… and Mike Godwin (great guy!) coined the phrase.
It’s no longer 1990, and Usenet has been usurped by more interactive systems, and Godwin’s Law applies to any discussion that devolves rapidly.
In this exact case the “discussion” has gone from Trump’s Mastodon failure to abortion, women’s rights, and finally people stepped on board to offer fairly judgmental opinions.
I could have said “put a fork in it” but I didn’t want to offend anyone who loves forks.
Re: Re: Re:4
According to whom? Did Godwin make such an alteration? I’ve never heard it applied that way.
Re: Re: Re:
And why he did it is a massive shocker.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Onan was punished for allowing his superstitious dread to overcome his responsibility of preserving his brother’s name by getting Tamar pregnant in levirate marriage. He wasn’t punished for his method but for his intent.
Re: Re: Re:2
Sorry, but I’m having trouble detecting the point in your comment.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
“Someone is WRONG on the internet.”
Re: Re: Re:4
Which wasn’t said or even implied in your comment, so yes you are. As for Autie being wrong, his citation specifically says, “Onan lay with [his brother’s widow] and spilt his seed on the ground,” not “Onan sat by himself and spilt his seed on the ground.” So I guess that makes you doubly wrong, as per usual.
Re: Re: Re:5
Onan pretended to be performing his duty to his brother, but surreptitiously reneged. He didn’t get punished for the act of withdrawing and spilling his seed on the ground, he was punished because the intent of the act was to deny his brother’s name a chance to live on, which is the purpose of levirate marriage.
When Judah then does not let his third son marry Tamar either, she gets fed up and pretends to be a prostitute, and gets Judah (her father-in-law) to sleep with her and get her pregnant. It all echoes back later in the book of Ruth, and it turns out that this is the ancestry of King David.
Re: Re: Re:6
There are certain sections in the Torah that get quickly skipped over in Yeshiva elementary school. This is one of them 🙂
Re: Re: Re:7
There are certain sections in the Torah that get quickly skipped over in Yeshiva elementary school.
Like you quickly skipped over the point that masturbation wasn’t the act for which Onan was punished?
Re: Re: Re:8
Correct, masturbation was not the act for which Onan was punished. Do you believe I said otherwise? You seem confused.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Wow, you posed a lot of potential results in this post, Mike, and damned if you didn’t nail the answer on the very last sentence! Good last-second clutch writing!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
You’re well nymed, aren’t you, fuckface?
Re: Re: Nyad? Nomad? Triad? Normandy?
Dude, get back on that turnip truck you fell off of, and ride off into the distance. I’d tell you how far out of your league you are, but you wouldn’t grok the concept.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
And yet again, the troglodyte shows his lack of reading comprehension.
Re: Re: Re:
Interesting response, Ehud. You’d think you had something invested in the comment being attacked.
While I don’t condone the ad homonym, your response is as bad.
Calling out the GP’s ‘nym was apropos (and not a typo).
Re: Re: Re:2
While I don’t condone the ad homonym…
*ad hominem
Re: Re: Re:3
Appreciate the correction there, thanks. Not using spell-checking.
Re: Re: Re:4
TBH, a grammar checker would serve you better there.
Re: Re: Re:2 Threads lain bare
I know the headache that the TD people are suffering from so I’m purposely not making any points about this transition.
It is at times confusing as to who is responding to whom and about what. I try subject lines, but meh.
I would think that… but then there’s that thing where I had nothing invested in this other than intellectual freedom that comes from curiosity in discovering what other people have to say and contribute. THAT is why I’m here.
There is a mirror in the bathroom so I can talk to myself if I like. The phone, laptop, TGP-600 all record just fine so I can even hear it later. No, I’m not here for an investment of anything other than intellectual time and conversation.
Honestly I’m just DYING for Karl Bode to open up his robocall thread to comments so I can demonstrate my solution to him. He may even like it.
Re: Re: Re:3
…there’s that thing where I had nothing invested in this other than intellectual freedom that comes from curiosity in discovering what other people have to say and contribute. THAT is why I’m here.
And then there’s your ad hom attempts to close down discussions indicating otherwise.
Well, since a well-know 'principle' of the Trump Republican party
… is hypocrisy, I can’t say I’m surprised at all.
Truth Social – say anything you want, as long as -we- like it. And don’t say anything bad, ever, about Trump. We don’t like that.
Sometimes “Truth” is just another lie.
Re:
The only principle the republicans have is “own the libs”.
Re: Re:
“We will kill to own the libs!”
Re: Re: Re:
Like the forced-birthers lying they’re pro-life, while at the same time being solely responsible for every murder that has ever taken place in an reproductive healthcare clinic.
Re: Re: Re:2
Well, pro-life up to the point of coherent utterances.
Re: Re: Re:
Some of them are even willing to die to own the libs.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The Jan 6 committee is nothing but circus whining about their feefees hurts by Trump and the GOP. Good things those ratings on Chinese puppet media CNN and MSNBC are tanking.
Re:
Fuck off, fascist.
Re: Re:
That would require company. Poor sod is limited to jacking off.
Re:
Maybe you should support some of those fact claims.
There’s plenty wrong with said committee, and some of that is covered at Techdirt. It’s generally backed up by facts or reasoning, unlike your claims or the things you feel about stuff.
Just for starters i am curious about what the “Republican Party” did to cause such distressed fee-fees, if you’d care to elaborate on that. (Are you suggesting that abortion of an insurrection was an action of the Republican Party, for one?)
Re:
… said nobody capable of rational independent thought, ever.
Re:
All together now. “FUCK YOUR FEELINGS!”
Re:
An overdue investigation to the actual fuckung insurrection is now hurt feelings?
Hey, I live in a country that is effectively controlled by China here. You can go fuck off into a deep ditch.
My feelz hurtzes
So…
Thanks for ending this.
Freedom of Speech is not unlimited
We cannot have people discuss fire in a burning theatre.
Re:
Well, of course not. In that scenario, you should be shouting fire, not sitting around and calmly discussing it ‘like civilised adults’. 😉
Jan 6 ban on TS..
Not sure if I understand this article correctly, but others are saying people are getting banned for just MENTIONING the hearings.. pro OR con. If so, I’d think it’s because it’s easier (and cheaper) for “auto ban” software to focus on a few words instead of content. It shows the “desperation of delusion” to act like Jan 6 never happened.. as well as proving Trump doesn’t believe his own spin about it. It could also be a result of his own daughter tossing him under the bus. The Truth is good (the real kind.. not Trump’s definition, whatever that might be).
Re:
Or Trump relied on his Russian friends to run a special editorial operation.
Re: Re:
Or Trump relied on his Russian friends…
Or his Russian boyfriend, Putin. After all, you have to be very deep in the closet to be that transphobic.
Someone should make a couple of posts on TS to see if just mentioning the date Jan 6 gets you banned…
ie: My birthday is Jan 6 or I went out with this really nice girl on Jan 6.
Then to see how good their filters are try posting the date as 6th of Jan..ie European format.
Re: Even better ...
run through some of the Orange Shtgibbon’s (aka the Tweetabator aka the Secretary of Silly Tweets aka His Serene Grace the Duke of Dorksht and Earl of Slurry) favorite expressions and microstatements, embedding Jan 6th or permutations thereof, in amongst the microstatements.
Por ejemplo: “Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue on the 6th of January and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? Make America Grate Again!”
Incomplete story
So…. I come away from this story with a question that the article should have included. Without that bit, I’m at a loss to evaluate the information in the story.
What did the poster say that got them suspended?
Who – Truth Social
What – Good question…. but not in the article or the Variety article it linked to. It leads us to assume it was just an innocent comment that got them banned, but I’m guessing there’s a touch more to that description. I really like to see both sides of an issue before I can form my own opinions about the situation.
When – Recently.
Where – On Truth Social.
Why – Because Trump and his minions are idiots.
I can’t really evaluate the story or the claims it makes without the “What” bit. Without it, the article is baseless finger pointing… and I expect better of my Techdirt. Just like all the stories of police misconduct, the police report is often very different than reality. Techdirt gives us many lessons regarding incomplete information and I feel the need to apply that same thinking to other articles I read… especially articles speaking of our current political insanity.
Re: Fair and subjective assumptions
Travis Allen, for discussing Jan 6th. He’s been on Twitter for at least a decade and isn’t generally known for flinging faeces. I’m not seeing baseless finger pointing here. As the variety report linked above shows, Travis is not alone in being banned.
Not shocking
Well, we all knew this would happen on Pravda Social. It really should be named, Hypocrite Social.
Re:
I am not sure “Social” is the most suitable byname.
Get back to me when you actually have something to say besides innuendo.
wow. Allot written and debated.
Free speech and religion,
Never can the common man debate this. Only the the Preachers, and the pope.
NOT YOU, and NOT ME.
What a long standing of stupidity that Rains over our past.
Even those in the Church had debates and concerns, but they could only whisper them. Then we had the Breakup of Christians over sections of the bible and how to read them. And even More breakup over Which sections to Print as well as to READ to the common man.
WHO has the best bible? There are many version still around.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rf2axSey1o
Interesting history.
To say the Least, there are/is allot left on the Cutting room floor in the Basic bible. And each of the variances, in production of the Full bible has caused allot of Problem in and of the CHurch.
the only concerns I would pass on, is the 10 commandments break down to “Just be nice to each other”. And you may be “your brothers keeper, but you cant Force him to do Any thing, he thinks he should do”.
And Who is leading the pact of Nonsense, all all the Anti Logic realms? A bunch of MEN? Same problem as the past, just different names.
Re: and
if you are on the Anti abortion think.
It was never a problem until the middle 1800’s.
Even before that point, if you didnt want your child you gave them up tot he Church, and they Love child labor.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Truth
So, let me get this straight: Trump is censoring people for telling the Truth about the phony Stalinesque show trial that Congress has no jurisdiction to hold and are only doing so in order to try to get the DOJ to level more witch hunting bogus “charges” on Trump?
Of course! Wouldn’t you? What was your point, again?
Re: Show me
Where he is RIGHT..
I watched the crap secondary, and everything HEARD was FOLLOW ME..
Something something—what?
Missing from this and the linked Variety article is what was removed.
So claiming that they are “… Banning People For Truthing The Truth About January 6…” is without evidence here.
You know better than this Mike.
Re:
It is far more specific that you and your pals censored for political views.
Re: Re: Wrong target
I didn’t censor anything. I don’t use social media/web2.0.
Including TruthSocial.
And it’s well documented that I don’t support deleting anything within the boundaries of US law.
TruthSocial dumping people has been covered elsewhere on site and I called them out for it! Try again.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Hypocrites
The Hypocrites on the Left cry FOUL when the same thing is done to them that they have been doing to us for the last few years. A few minutes ago Fascistbook restricted my FB account. A post of a cartoon routinely seen in magazines and newspapers about the dangers of Socialism. I have been shadow banned, thrown in FB jail 19 times. I have never posted anything that was not true or anything vile or misleading. Of course many on the Left could and do have their own interpretation. Thank GOD we have other platforms to join where our voices are heard and not silenced. I find it extremely amusing this Leftist Loon is whining about Truth Social. Hey buddy do you want some cheese with that whine? President Trump did not order anyone to do what they did on Jan 6. It actually was promoted and was allowed to happen. Nasty Pelosi, Chuck “The Snake: Schumer, and RINO Mitch McConnell REFUSED requests for the National Guard to be present at this event. The Capital Police actually opened barricades and unlocked heavily re-enforced doors to allow people into restricted areas. We know that instigators were also involved stirring up the crowd. What happened on Jan 6 very few Trump supporters, Conservatives and Christians would condone the actions committed that day. The only reason the Left is using the sham Jan 6 hearings is to try to stop Donald trump from winning a 3rd time in 2024. Evidence has now been shown and proven that voter fraud happened in the 2020 presidential election. I believe that 90% of the Loons on the Left know this to be true and have known it to be true from the beginning. For the Lunatic Left the end result always justifies the means no matter if by hook or by crook of lies and criminality. I wonder what the Democrats are going to try to use during the elections this November? Monkey Pox??? Covid-19 certainly helped stuff the Drop Boxes with 1000’s of ballots during the we hours in the morning under the cover of darkness. I am glad that over 4 million minutes of videos exist showing this obvious behavior. Not to mention the 1000’s of mules that were tracked by their cell phones. The same cell phones they used to take photos to prove to their handlers so they could be paid. Geo Tracking is a wonderful thing… maybe not if you have something to hide. Don’t get me started on mail-in ballots and voter harvesting. Ballots being brought to retirement homes so the so-called good Samaritans can help the elderly and confused fill out their ballots. When on a day to day basis cannot decide between tapioca or chocolate pudding. That statement reminds me of Joe Biden’s lack of cognitive ability. Hey Leftist Loons, please enjoy the inflation and soaring gas prices! You are the morons that fraudulently allowed this to happen.
Re:
So, ‘Leftist’ Twitter bans innocent users, Techdirt covers the case, and you say nothing. Now, when Techdirt cover an ‘alt-right’ social media site banning people for a much lesser ‘offence’, you pop up and complain. Hot tip: between you and Techdirt, it’s not the blog acting hypocritically.
Re:
Let me take the time to just correct one of your points; Trump lost in 2020 despite election fraud, not because of it.
Re:
… said nobody with any capacity for rational independent thought, ever.
Re: Re:
Assuming you’re replying to
Don’t hurt your argument in stupidity.
A single act by a single person constitutes fraud.
bags of ballots and other mail abandoned in a parking lot in CA. All from a Republican district.
Loose ballots and pouches on the side of the highway.
A mail carrier with thousands of letters in Philly including ballots.
Postal service stamping mail ballots with the previous date after midnight.
All of these are actual facts.
Trump lost despite those issues.
Period.
Trump lost even if every valid ballot was counted and every backdated ballot was tossed out.
Biden won. Be it because the media went well beyond pretending he was a capable leader, or because just that many people believed whatever they did that Trump wasn’t fit.
He lost.
Despite fraud.
And while the country must sit through yet another pointless show trial (in the 6th committee) both sides continue to do nothing about what has been a long term issue.
Our elections ARE vulnerable.
So shove your political party partisanship right up your fucking arse and get together and DO something about the REAL issues. Not invented straw men and boogeymen under beds.
Re: Re: Re:
A single act by a single person constitutes fraud.
Cool. So if me and pals empty your bank accounts after catfishing you, we can’t be charged because we’re more than one person and/or we’ve done this so often before? FYI, it’s pretty clear from the threading exactly who Toom was replying to. As you said yourself: Don’t hurt your argument in stupidity.
Re: Re: Re:2 Huh?
Who said anything about charging anyone?
A single act, just one, introduces fraud into elections. We know for a fact there was fraud. And, Trump lost even if every failed vote was counted and every fraudulent vote was tossed out.
My point is historically deeper here. We need to make our elections more secure. I’ve been bitching about that since 2016!
Re:
Folks, take this as a warning. This is what happens to a person who watches Joe Rogan and Infowars daily, their brains turns into mush.
Re: reminiscent of
a political joke I once heard about Charles De Gaulle, war-time patriot, leader of the Free French, and sometime President of the Republic of France. On election night, his wife burst into the room where he was waiting, and shouted, “My God! We’ve won!” Charles De Gaulle frowned at her and said, “You may address me as Charles in private, dear.”
It’s so, so tempting to continue …
Re:
Oh good, an alt-right nutter! I needed a little fun this morning.
Technically, no one here is “crying foul”—they’re pointing out the hypocrisy of Truth Social claiming their mods will never do what their mods have now done.
I find that last claim doubtful, given the “19 times in Facebook jail” statement. Also: So what?
If only you’d all just stay there instead of oozing your way onto the rest of the Internet.
I don’t see anyone whining. I see someone stating a fact. That you take that as whining is telling on yourself.
He didn’t have to.
By Donald Trump, yes.
They likely had no idea that Trump was going to incite a riot—or that operatives from violent white supremacist groups such as the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers would be in attendance.
Maybe they did that to avoid getting trampled or beaten to death.
One of whom was Donald Trump, yes, we know this.
Only because it failed. If the insurrection had succeeded, Trumpists like you be taking full credit for “saving America”.
Donald Trump only won in 2016 because of the Electoral College; if the election depended on popular vote, Trump would’ve lost to Clinton by 3 million votes. Trump lost electorally and popularly in 2020 to a centrist needledick. Seems like he only won once, and he only won the first time because of an archaic system that no other country worth a damn uses.
Most, if not all, cases of proven voter fraud in the 2020 election came from Trump voters. Those weren’t enough cases to swing the election in either direction.
If you have proof that the 2020 election saw massive amounts of provable voter fraud, such that you can prove the fraud where Donald Trump hasn’t done it after nearly two years and his entire legal team couldn’t do it across more than five dozen court cases, please share it with us. And while you’re at it, could you do me the favor of explaining why no Republican officeholder on a downballot race that year (including Congressional Republicans) complained about their victories during the same election that came from using the same ballots and same voting systems as the presidential election that was allegedly rigged in the favor of Joe Biden?
lol
Monkeypox doesn’t seem to be on the verge of becoming another global pandemic in the same way as COVID-19. And just as a reminder, who was President of the United States when COVID-19 became a global pandemic?
rofl
…says a stan of Donald Trump, who drinks water out of a cup like he’s a two-year-old and can’t string two coherent thoughts together unless he’s reading off a teleprompter.
Inflation and gas prices aren’t controlled by the government, so much as they’re controlled by rich bastards who need to achieve ever-higher profit margins year after year. If you want to blame someone for high gas prices, blame oil company CEOs who want an extra billion in profits to spread amongst each other.
lmao
Re: Re:
I am very sure Russia starting a fucking war in Ukraine hasn’t made things worse with regards to that…
Re: Re:
Oop… typical misunderstanding.
That’s because only two other countries even remotely compare in size and population spread. One is a communist dictatorship and the other is a socialist faux democracy.
These numbers aren’t exact but they’re close.
90% of the population lives on 10% of our land. Nearly 50% of our population lives in less than 5% of our land area.
These area comprise cities (industrial and urban) and suburban populations.
The premise is balance. To make sure the majority doesn’t harm the minority.
Originally the EC helped protect industry. As the majority of the nation’s wealth was in agriculture and hunting.
Today it protects agriculture and hunting from industry and commerce.
Nowhere else in the world except two Asian countries is a population so condensed Against such spread.
We all depend on each other in this country. Maintaining some level of balance for debate and negotiations is an absolute must.
Trump complaining about the select committee?
Go to DC and testify in person that’s all Mr.Trump!!!
Log on forbidden??
Can’t log on to truth social. Says forbidden. Try to make new entry, and I get no email on any email accounts I have???
Suspended account in true social
I was posting and working with the network suddenly the account shut down and I’ve been told that my account been suspended with no explanation with nothing if somebody knows who should I reach to find out why they suspend my account and how can I do that who should I write that would be very helpful.