Just As #DiaperDon Starts Trending, Trump Claims That Twitter Uses 'Fake' Trends, Calls For 'Termination' Of Section 230

from the for-national-security? dept

It's no secret that Donald Trump doesn't like Section 230. Wait. Actually, let's back up and try that again: it's no secret that Donald Trump doesn't like what he thinks Section 230 is about, which has little-to-no-resemblance to what Section 230 is actually about. However, over the long weekend, things took an even more ridiculous turn than usual. It started on Thanksgiving when the President was signing some legislation and taking some questions from the press. For unclear reasons, the setup where he had to sign things was with a very small desk affixed with the Presidential seal. While this desk has been used before for such things -- and Trump has even joked about the size of it, the framing of the shot -- the lack of people around him, the wide frame of the shot, the tread over carpet, and just... everything really made it look like the President was sitting at an elementary school desk.

The internet started to have some fun. Actually, lots of fun.

It was not long until #DiaperDonald started trending on Twitter.

And, then, it was not much longer beforel the Commander-in-Chief of the military, and the leader of the United Stated of America decided to throw a tantrum on Twitter and claim that Twitter made up its trending topics (it does not).

That's the supposed leader of the free world saying:

Twitter is sending out totally false "Trends" that have absolutely nothing to do with what is really trending in the world. They make it up, and only negative "stuff". Same thing will happen to Twitter as is happening to @FoxNews daytime. Also, big Conservative discrimination!

All of that is, of course, nonsense, but it was followed up just five minutes later with:

That's him saying:

For purposes of National Security, Section 230 must be immediately terminated!!!

The fact that this comes so close to the tweet whining about #DiaperDon trending suggests that this has literally nothing to do with "national security." If Trump has learned one thing while he's in office, it's that one way that the President can actually get stuff done (such as start trade wars) without the need to get Congress's approval is to claim "national security" to make it happen. But you can't just get rid of laws that way. That's not how any of this works. At all.

Also, um, if Section 230 was terminated, it wouldn't change the fact that Twitter might show trending topics that are critical of the President. Because that's protected by the 1st Amendment. You know... part of the Constitution that the President swore to protect and uphold when he was sworn into office?

Of course, if 230 were terminated, meaning that Twitter (and others) might face more annoying and costly lawsuits for the actions of its users, one thing it might be a lot more prone to do is to delete the account of troublemakers spewing conspiracy theories and nonsense on its platform. Such as the soon-to-be-leaving President Donald Trump.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: diaper don, donald trump, intermediary liability, national security, section 230, temper tantrum, trending, trends
Companies: twitter


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Thad (profile), 30 Nov 2020 @ 9:36am

    A time will come -- not right away, not all at once, but hopefully within the next year -- when each of us manages to go a full day without thinking about Donald Trump.

    That's a happy thought to hold onto.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2020 @ 9:46am

      Re:

      More likely time will be spent cursing him, as all the damage he has done is slowly unwound. Indeed it may take time to remove all those he has appointed so that the agencies listen to Joe, rather than Donald.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 30 Nov 2020 @ 9:43am

    Of course, if 230 were terminated, meaning that Twitter (and others) might face more annoying and costly lawsuits for the actions of its users, one thing it might be a lot more prone to do is to delete the account of troublemakers spewing conspiracy theories and nonsense on its platform. Such as the soon-to-be-leaving President Donald Trump.

    How dare you threaten me with a good time.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jordan, 30 Nov 2020 @ 9:51am

    Daiper?

    Learn to spell

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2020 @ 9:55am

    when my local paper mentioned both of 45's tweets, they didn't mention the background. now i know. he and his pals should be shipped off to Lower Elbonia.

    this was hilarious: " #BlackFridayDeals special My Little President Conference Table avaliable now in all good stores $19.99 *please note product easy wipe clean in case of Little President accidents #DiaperDon pic.twitter.com/XtS3dAPS6X"

    — Charlie Hayes (@oxfcharlie) November 27, 2020

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 3 Dec 2020 @ 7:39am

      Re:

      "he and his pals should be shipped off to Lower Elbonia."

      Already checked. They've proactively refused any presumptive Visa application for the "amerikanski él presidente" with the reason given that they would not trust him around their beautiful pigs or their rich natural reserves of mud.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2020 @ 10:02am

    Twitter could hold a lottery with 1st prize the honour of pressing the ban key on @realdonaldtrump
    They could make enough money from that to cover the loss of Trump associated advertising!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    cynoclast (profile), 30 Nov 2020 @ 10:18am

    Trending blacklist

    Well we do know they have a trending blacklist, which is worse than artificial trends. Only twitter employees actually know what is really trending, and it's not what you see under "trending" on their website.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 30 Nov 2020 @ 11:01am

      we do know they have a trending bl[o]cklist

      Twitter probably wants to avoid having certain kinds of objectionable content popping up in the Trending sidebar. Would you prefer they didn’t?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2020 @ 11:29am

        Re:

        The issue here is that Twitter is the one deciding what's objectionable. That's fine, it's their platform and all that, but without more transparency, I wouldn't put much trust in it to be entirely representative.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 30 Nov 2020 @ 11:41am

          Re: Re:

          Insanely enough this is a case where you can probably trust greed to keep them from going too overboard, as their first and foremost concern is going to be 'will blocking X cause us to lose more money than having it around would gain us?', such that barring some mistakes most moderation of that sort is going to be aimed at keeping things decent and enjoyable for a majority of users.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          crade (profile), 30 Nov 2020 @ 11:41am

          Re: Re:

          representative of what? The only thing it should be representative of is what twitter decided it wants to be on their platform, then people get to decide if they like the results or if they want to go off to parler or whatever

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 30 Nov 2020 @ 10:35pm

          Re: Re:

          "I wouldn't put much trust in it to be entirely representative."

          I wouldn't put much trust into anyone who believes that the Twitter trending screen means much of anything at all. Sure, it's useful if you're in marketing and you want to see if your new ad campaign is getting bites, but it's not useful for anything of real meaning.

          The big problem we have today is not that social media uses algorithms to promote certain content, it's that people blindly accept the results of that algorithm as some kind of truth.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 3 Dec 2020 @ 7:48am

          Re: Re:

          "...but without more transparency, I wouldn't put much trust in it to be entirely representative."

          People keep saying that and I don't understand why!

          "Social media" aren't representative of anything other than the social media themselves. Twitter, Facebook, Parler, Gab...are all nothing more and nothing less than the digital equivalent of the gossip monger you find in every small town, writ large.

          That's why the whole debate around them is ridiculous from start to end. It's not a secret that anything you hear and see on twitter, parler, gab or FB is, at best, hearsay and rumor. Only if a link to a credible source backs the assertion should you give any random twitter the credibility you'd give to the gossipy old lady in your neighborhood who won't stop sharing the latest juicy clickbait...err, scuttlebutt.

          Yet all too many benighted morons don't bother to factcheck and instead instantly believe whatever random tweet flies across their screen without a single stop to verify the sensationalist gossip is founded in anything other than opinion or hearsay.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 30 Nov 2020 @ 10:21am

    The own-goals and well-earned mockery just writes itself...

    'It's utterly impossible that people would think I'm so childish that #DiaperDonald would be trending naturally, I will now demonstrate how wildly unrealistic that is by throwing yet another tantrum in front of the entire world!'

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 3 Dec 2020 @ 7:54am

      Re: The own-goals and well-earned mockery just writes itself...

      "I will now demonstrate how wildly unrealistic that is by throwing yet another tantrum in front of the entire world!'"

      It would be an eye-opener that the CiC is such a man-child he can't respond to mean words and satire with anything other than a wild tantrum, complete with triple exclamation marks, and an attempt to shut the Bad People up by invoking national security...
      ...if we didn't already know that The Donald handles disappointment and criticism like his cartoon namesake - by flailing his fists and quacking angrily.

      "I'm not a big baby! I'm Not!! WaaaaaHH!!! Mommy!!!"

      • Donald Trump, 45th president of the United States of America.

      Very Dignified.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2020 @ 11:53am

    IF you dont like the way a service works dont use it, or use another app.
    the reason he uses twitter is its has millions of users , its easy to use and well designed .
    Another company can make a micro blogging service and launch it,
    twitter the network effect , it alot of users ,its used by most journalists,writers and bloggers , erasing section 230 would make it more lieklt that twitter would block conservative users epecially users like trump who tweet out content that could be viewed as racist and insulting to minority groups .
    is ironic that conservatives are the one s in a hurry to ban section 230
    the law that is the main shield for free speech around the world ,
    even repressive states would be reluctant to ban twitter since its use by
    government and politicans to speak to citizens in most free countrys .

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Rico R. (profile), 30 Nov 2020 @ 11:58am

    Trump's child-like logic:

    "I am the President of the United States, who won re-election by a lot, and seeing that #DiaperDon is trending on Twitter is making me feel insecure. Therefore, Twitter is a threat to our national security! And if Twitter makes me feel insecure, I'll remove their security blanket, too. Bye-bye, Section 230. It's only fair!"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 30 Nov 2020 @ 12:20pm

    Failure coming.

    Oh! the fun is about to start.
    Something Trump, started was a tax savings for the rich and poor, and that Changes in 2021. And its a Payback of the saving(supposedly) we had for the last few years.

    But, who gets the blame?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Bobvious, 30 Nov 2020 @ 2:29pm

    $35 000 per vote

    I think #DiaperDon is still smarting after paying $35 000 per newly found vote for Biden in the Wisconsin re-count. #3Mill #87Votes

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 30 Nov 2020 @ 5:40pm

      Re: $35 000 per vote

      ... what?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        ryuugami, 30 Nov 2020 @ 7:32pm

        Re: Re: $35 000 per vote

        Probably referring to this story:
        Biden Gains 87 Net Votes In Partial Wisconsin Recount Requested By Trump

        A partial recount in Wisconsin concluded Sunday with President-elect Joe Biden's winning margin over President Trump increasing by 87 total votes.

        Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell told reporters Sunday that Trump netted a gain of 45 votes in the county, which includes the capital Madison. That followed Friday's completed recount in the state's most populous county, Milwaukee, where out of roughly 460,000 ballots cast, Biden made a net gain of 132 votes on review.

        [...]

        The Trump campaign paid the Wisconsin Elections Commission a fee of $3 million to proceed with recounts in Milwaukee and Dane counties.

        In essence, Trump campaign paid $3 mil for Biden to gain 87 votes, or, as the OP put it, ~$35,000 per lost vote.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 30 Nov 2020 @ 8:01pm

          Re: Re: Re: $35 000 per vote

          Oh that is just too good, whether court rulings or recounts it seems they just cannot stop faceplanting time and time and time again...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Thad (profile), 2 Dec 2020 @ 8:50am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: $35 000 per vote

            It's a little harder to sustain the schadenfreude if you know that they've gotten $150 million in contributions. Their court cases aren't working, but their fundraising scam is.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Keroberos (profile), 2 Dec 2020 @ 12:05pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: $35 000 per vote

              That's the whole point. Keep the court cases going while begging for donations, the majority of which do not go to the defense fund--but into his own leadership PAC. Trump's whole carreer has been just one big grift. Any success is just happenstance and not needed for the grift to be profitable.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    PaulT (profile), 30 Nov 2020 @ 10:43pm

    "Twitter is sending out totally false "Trends" that have absolutely nothing to do with what is really trending in the world."

    No, it has nothing to do with what's happening in your world. This is what happens when you build your own fantasy world around you, where you can openly insult the military and people your decisions have killed as losers, where the stock market spiking slightly is the actual economy and the millions you have caused to become unemployed don't matter, where ranting on twitter and Fox/OANN is more important than attending security briefings. Your bubble is not the real world, the real world is full of people laughing at you, praying that you don't destroy too much on your way out of the door.

    "For purposes of National Security, Section 230 must be immediately terminated!!!"

    Sorry, the bruising of your ego isn't a national security issue just because some social media platform accidentally exposed you to the real world. That wasn't true when TikTok users embarrassed you so hilariously, nor is it here.

    What's amusing here is that you think that your ego would be safe if section 230 wasn't there. No, Donny, the result would be that instead of having to mark every Tweet of yours as the dangerous lie that it is, Twitter would finally have to kick you off the platform to avoid the legal liability you just handed to them for continuing to host your words.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 3 Dec 2020 @ 8:02am

      Re:

      "Sorry, the bruising of your ego isn't a national security issue just because some social media platform accidentally exposed you to the real world."

      To be fair; Bruising the ego of an entitled man-child with self-esteem issues and an ego more fragile than carnival glass could be argued to have national security consequences if the big baby in question totes the nuclear football around, has a hotline to Moscow and Beijing, and can sign executive orders.

      We, uh, may want to let the toddler-in-chief scream and flail his pooper-scooper around until he's tired and wants a nap rather than give him ideas of hammering Big Red Buttons to get rid of all the nasty meanies calling him names.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Yes, I know I'm commenting anonymously, 1 Dec 2020 @ 9:00am

    Please do not confuse the Bundeskanzlerin with your chief narcissist.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.