Ask Me Help Desk - You can't make this up

You can't make this up

Trump sues Twitter, Google and Facebook alleging 'censorship'

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBC News

Former US president Donald Trump has announced plans to sue tech giants Google, Twitter and Facebook, claiming that he is the victim of censorship.

The class action lawsuit also targets the three companies' CEOs.

Mr Trump was suspended from his social accounts in January over public safety concerns in the wake of the Capitol riots, led by his supporters.

On Wednesday, Mr Trump called the lawsuit "a very beautiful development for our freedom of speech".

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBC News additional

The lawsuit has been criticised by legal experts, who pointed to Mr Trump's habit of issuing lawsuits for media attention but not aggressively defending the claims in court. His argument of free speech infringement has also been questioned by analysts, as the companies he accuses have those same First Amendment protections in determining content on their sites.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57754435

I'm not going to comment.....

The First Amendment protects us against government limits on our freedom of expression, but it doesn’t prevent a private employer from setting its own rules.

It's a little more complicated than a simple free speech argument, that being due to federal protections afforded to these tech giants not available to the rest of us. At any rate, Twitter banned Trump but allows Louis Farrakhan, Richard Spencer, Ali Khamenei, Maduro and O.J. Simpson to tweet freely. There's no one more outrageous than Farrakhan, so that strikes me as suspicious.

I hope he wins.

\\https://townhall.com/columnists/john...acist-n2463869

Illegal monopolies are illegal monopolies and should be subject to Sherman Act action . This view of hi tech is the one true bi-partisan issue in Congress. If the Sherman Act isn't sufficient enough when it was used to break up big oil and rail , then Congress needs to pass new regulations to break up these behemoth's that dominate the public square .

The House Judiciary Committee led by Jerry the Toad Nadler came to that conclusion last year and I agree with them .
Nadler said at the time “Our investigation leaves no doubt that there is a clear and compelling need for Congress and the antitrust enforcement agencies to take action that restores competition, improves innovation and safeguards our democracy,”

Trump is keeping his options open while diverting attention from the prosecution of his interests

He is not diverting attention .He is speaking about the tax case against his CFO and organization , and NOT helping himself by doing so . The fault lies in a tax system so full of loopholes that advantage wealthy individuals can hire a staff of lawyers and accountants to find legal ways to not pay taxes.

He is not alone . ProPublica published a story last month that details how many rich people use the tax code to "scheme" tax avoidance (something that Trump boasted about in his debate with Evita in 2016) .Bezos ,Musk ,nanny Bloomy , and many others pay little to no taxes .

The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax — ProPublica

Eliminate loop holes and set flat rates and most of this goes away (and the bonus is that many lawyers ,accountants and IRS agents will need to find something else to do for a living ) .

As for his law suit ;he is making a mistake by basing it on 1st amendment grounds. The REAL problem is that these companies have monopolies . If there was REAL competition in the market place then he would have many choices of forums to express his views . The fact that someone like Bezos can use the power of Amazon AND the Washington Compost to dominate the public debate and in fact set the debate ,and decide who can participate is the issue .

Quote:

Eliminate loop holes and set flat rates and most of this goes away (and the bonus is that many lawyers ,accountants and IRS agents will need to find something else to do for a living ) .

I like the idea of a flat tax, even if it is two-tiered. It could be something like 10% for everyone, and an additional 10% for income over some limit like 100K. No deductions other than some limit for drastic medical expenses. I'd also key it to the budget. Budget goes up, then taxes go up automatically. No more deficit spending. If we had to actually pay for these lunatic budgets we have, the public would raise an outcry and spending would magically go down dramatically.

But I don't expect to ever see it. The "suck up to the crowd" pols we have now would never do it. It's going to take some sort of financial breakdown for us to wake up and see how the Washington crowd is getting us into an enormous, deep hole. And even then we might not see it. Reference Venezuela if you want to see how it all works. So we'll continue with the current idiocy of Robinette Biden proposing new taxes on the wealthy, but then proposing new spending that far outstrips whatever the new taxes would bring in, thus making the hole ever wider and deeper. It's incredible to me that we sit back and allow it to continue. We're like a married couple competing to see which one can max out the most credit cards. Well, enjoy it while you have it because a day is coming.

You Pelicans always invent a way for the poor to pay, how about a 20% tax on all income over $100K and that includes corporate and no deductions, you would soon have the budget back in the black. to do this of course you would have to abolish all state taxes

Quote:

a 20% tax on all income over $100K and that includes corporate and no deductions, you would soon have the budget back in the black. to do this of course you would have to abolish all state taxes

Doing away with state sales and income taxes would leave schools and state agencies without money and destitute, so that's not a good idea. And 20% of income over 100K would not put us in the black or anywhere close to it. That's close to the amount already being paid by those people to begin with, a group that already pays practically all of the fed income tax. And then you would have to do something to replace the multiple hundreds of billions in tax revenues lost from your no state taxes idea.

If you want to comment on our country, you might want to try doing your homework first. Just sayin.

https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/..._social_media/

Snigger

Robinette Biden met with Chicago Mayor Lightfoot yesterday to discuss what to do about rising crime rates. Other than electing republicans, what do you think they will come up with?

Biden's first order of business is bringing home Mark Frerichs from Afghanistan.

Inner city Chicagoans dies by the dozens, but since Robinette Biden can only do one thing at a time, there is nothing to be done? That is hardly a rousing endorsement of the man. Now he could put KH in charge of it, now that she has the southern border under control. (sarcasm meter pegged)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Inner city Chicagoans dies by the dozens, but since Robinette Biden can only do one thing at a time, there is nothing to be done? That is hardly a rousing endorsement of the man. Now he could put KH in charge of it, now that she has the southern border under control. (sarcasm meter pegged)

Yep, too bad VP Harris tore down the entire 2,000-mile length of tRump's border wall. [/sarcasm]

Trump built about 400 miles of border fencing. That's what, about 400 miles more than Obama built? And with Robinette Biden in office, Texas has now determined to start on more effective fencing on their own, secure in the knowledge that Biden will do positively nothing other than putting KH in charge. And that, of course, is...doing nothing. [/better sarcasm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Trump built about 400 miles of border fencing. That's what, about 400 miles more than Obama built? And with Robinette Biden in office, Texas has now determined to start on more effective fencing on their own, secure in the knowledge that Biden will do positively nothing other than putting KH in charge. And that, of course, is...doing nothing. [/better sarcasm]

"Texas has now determined to start on more effective fencing on their own ... And that, of course, is...doing nothing."

Truer words were never spoken.

....And back to the matter of the thread, if you please.

Quote:

"Texas has now determined to start on more effective fencing on their own ... And that, of course, is...doing nothing."

Truer words were never spoken.

The way you twist meaning, you could work for CNN. Apply today!! You'd fit right in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curlyben

....And back to the matter of the thread, if you please.

In news items on the internet and in print, I eventually get to some quote from a lawyer that says what I said earlier:
The First Amendment protects us against government limits on our freedom of expression, but it doesn’t prevent a private employer from setting its own rules.

Quote:

but it doesn’t prevent a private employer from setting its own rules.

Actually it does. A private employer cannot make untrue, libelous statements about an employee or client. A private company cannot allow it's employees to make sexually abusive remarks. A private employer cannot mandate some types of speech. Schools cannot require students to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Schools cannot set unreasonable bounds on the free speech of students. The list goes on and on. But I think your point is that Facebook and others can restrict the type of speech and expression they allow. I think that's a fair statement, but the question is do we want them to favor certain political views and punish others. You might think that's fine, but considering that they are practically complete monopolies, I think it's a bad idea. Might be Trump today so you cheer that, but a few years down the road it could be liberal dems, and then you'd feel differently. The open and free exchange and expression of ideas is a valuable freedom in any country. When tech giants feel the freedom to censor the President of the United States, or a former pres, then I would think we'd consider that to be concerning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I'm not sure what your point is relative to the Trump case.

In this case he's claiming 1st amendments rights, Freedom of Speech, so it does, very clearly.

Yeah. I misread her comment. You will note that I changed my post. Sorry about that.

I'll just say again that when one company has practically complete control over an enormous business sector, and one which, in this case, involves the transmission of an incredible amount of info, then we should be concerned about that. I don't know that Trump has much of a case here, but it is an issue that should be addressed. The manner, for instance, in which big tech was able to essentially squash Parler should alarm all of us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

As for his law suit ;he is making a mistake by basing it on 1st amendment grounds. The REAL problem is that these companies have monopolies . If there was REAL competition in the market place then he would have many choices of forums to express his views

Imo, the problem is size, not monopoly, which is one company dominating a market. There are a number of companies competing - but for what? Ultimately ad revenue. Facebook dwarfs Google in number of users, but Google dwarfs Facebook in ad revenue.

Quote:

The fact that someone like Bezos can use the power of Amazon AND the Washington Compost to dominate the public debate and in fact set the debate ,and decide who can participate is the issue .

No way does Amazon and WAPO dominate the public debate.

Quote:

Doing away with state sales and income taxes would leave schools and state agencies without money and destitute, so that's not a good idea

Texas has no state tax...just saying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

If you want to comment on our country, you might want to try doing your homework first. Just sayin.

Ideas are there for discussion, the idea is not to increase taxation but to make it more effective so there is truth. Politicians have confused the issue until the system is burdensome and ineffective allowing the burden to fall on those who can't rort the system

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Ideas are there for discussion, the idea is not to increase taxation but to make it more effective

Good point! So why are taxes levied? Aren't they supposed to improve our lives?

So you are going to put us in the black by NOT increasing taxes? I don’t think you realize how bad our budget problem is. Might add that the wealthy in America pay most of the income tax by far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So you are going to put us in the black by NOT increasing taxes.

Why increase? Why not reallocate and use them more effectively and efficiently?

Ben ,I expressed my opinion about breaking up the hi tech monopolies and about Sec. 230 on a previous OP that was closed by administration . I don't recall the circumstances ;but most likely it had no relevance to the posting

Found previous posting ...
Break up the Big Tech Monopolies .....Parler sues Amazon over anti-trust violations (askmehelpdesk.com)

Yes Bezos very much does dominate in a cartel with the other hi tech companies . When Trump was bumped from Twitter ,a competing company called Parler was created . Then Bezos used Amazon to deny Parler access to the web through it's web hosting service.

Last time of asking, please stay on topic.
Yes, I have removed some posts and my next action will be to close.
You know the line, stop stomping on it.

Quote:

There are a number of companies competing

There are? Who is competing with FB? Who is competing with Twitter? Parler, the company they managed to squash?

This is what should be at the core of Trump's complaint. When you are banned from FB, you are effectively banned from that entire sphere of communication. Same is true for Twitter. There are no real alternatives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Ben ,I expressed my opinion about breaking up the hi tech monopolies and about Sec. 230 on a previous OP that was closed by administration . I don't recall the circumstances ;but most likely it had no relevance to the posting

Found previous posting ...
Break up the Big Tech Monopolies .....Parler sues Amazon over anti-trust violations (askmehelpdesk.com)

Here's the relevant parts:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

This happened before and I believe a populist nationalist waded into the swamp and created the Sherman Anti-Trust act making such monopolistic practices illegal. Parler has filed an anti-trust complaint against Amazon. Depending on the outcome we will see how broken the system is . Also Sec 230 of the Communications Decency Act needs to be repealed or amended . It makes exception for providers who block so called offensive material .The reason it needs amending is because it give broad discretion to the providers to decide what is offensive .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curlyben

You do realise that removing section 230 will lead to vastly increased censorship on the social streams....
Here included.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

fair enough . I worded it incorrectly . Sec 230 needs reform. the words "or otherwise objectionable " is too broad given the intent of the section .It gives sites protection for removing anything they want .Being able to remove anti-terrorism ,child sex abuse and cyber stalking is not the same as suppression of political speech. The goal should be that the net remain free and fair; especially in our current environment when a group of companies can collude to control political thought content .

The intent of 230 was to “to encourage telecommunications and information service providers to deploy new technologies and policies” for filtering or blocking offensive materials online ....not to filter out political thought the site owners do not agree with.
S. Rept. 104-23 - TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPETITION AND DEREGULATION ACT OF 1995 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The importance of the net has grown since the section was adopted . It has evolved into the main public square . 1996 few people spent much time on the net . Today net surfing occupies hours of people's time .It has replaced the news paper as the primary source of information, If you look at it in that content then what the big tech companies did was controlling content by making sure their smaller competition could not get paper and printing ink to publish .

And it has gone even further than that. Political campaigns are conducted on the net. What big tech did this cycle was to be the defacto arbiters of the political debate on the net . Political ideas were filtered through self appointed "fact checkers " ,and at a minimum were labelled as missing content ;at worse they were removed from the sites . The sites became much more than conduits of content .They became the editors of content .

I would not even have much objection to that . As some here have argued ,they are private companies . What they did however by blocking a competitors site from the public forum was to become the FINAL editors of political debate on the net ....and that is wholly unacceptable. If sec 230 protects this type of activity then it must be reformed .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curlyben

Sites are still privately owned and as such well within their rights to be run by their own Terms of Service and how they see fit.
Facebook is well known for it's moderating style, while user driven, the results tend on the draconian side.

Intent vs the letter can be very different things and that is what keeps many Judges and lawyers employed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Yes there is intent and unintended consequences . When unintended consequences are harmful then the issue needs reexamination.

There's more if you feel the need to review yourselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

There are? Who is competing with FB? Who is competing with Twitter? Parler, the company they managed to squash?

This is what should be at the core of Trump's complaint. When you are banned from FB, you are effectively banned from that entire sphere of communication. Same is true for Twitter. There are no real alternatives.

There are many others in the Social media sphere, however, Facebook and twitter are the market leaders in their delivery style.
Remember MySpace, Bebo, etc...
Even Yahoo and AOL, back in the day.

Are you suggesting that the market leaders in a field are artificially limited in their reach ?
This goes back to the absolute heart of what America is about and how the pursuit of profit is seen as the only driver worth considering.
The Ferengi have nothing on Big Business America.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curlyben

This goes back to the absolute heart of what America is about and how the pursuit of profit is seen as the only driver worth considering.

There are other drivers of America and the pursuit of profit is not the heart of the country. It's right arm, maybe. I could go with that.

I would remind you of the generosity of America helping others recover from the devastation of WW2, including your own country, and the protections offered since then by the American military umbrella, including your own country.

The pursuit of profit, however, is not always a bad thing. It drives innovation, education, invention, ambition, and many other things resulting in better living standards for the great majority of its citizens and citizens elsewhere. It is not without its problems - that's obvious to all - but it also drives social programs that recognize the problems and serves as a source of funds and dedicated people for those programs.

That is not to say we have not been recipients of great gifts from other nations. Chief among them may be your nation's gift of its long history of achieving self-government that was transmitted to 13 separate colonies many years ago leading to unification.

Quote:

The Ferengi have nothing on Big Business America.

We're better-looking.

As I said ,the drive to control run away hi tech is bipartisan
Biden Targets Big Business in Sweeping Executive Order to Spur Competition (msn.com)

Quote:

There are many others in the Social media sphere, however, Facebook and twitter are the market leaders in their delivery style.
Remember MySpace, Bebo, etc...
Even Yahoo and AOL, back in the day.

There are many others? Name one that currently is even 1/10th the size of FB or Twitter. If you can't, and you can't, then why does that not amount to a monopoly?

Quote:

Are you suggesting that the market leaders in a field are artificially limited in their reach ?
This goes back to the absolute heart of what America is about and how the pursuit of profit is seen as the only driver worth considering.

I'm saying that when Parler had a good shot at becoming a legit competitor, Twitter, FB, and Amazon conspired to basically kick them off the web and end that threat. Would you consider that to be "artificially limited in their reach?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

There are many others? Name one that currently is even 1/10th the size of FB or Twitter.

YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp.

Quote:

YouTube,

Really??? A competitor for Facebook or Twitter? Hardly. Not the same type of App at all.

WhatsApp is not the same type of application as Twitter and certainly not as FB.

Instagram is owned by...you guessed it, Facebook. Has been for nearly ten years.

I'm not real familiar with TikTok. It is Chinese owned and has a different approach in some respects from Twitter. It could be considered a legit competitor.

None of them competes with Facebook. No one else really does either.

Quote:

I'm not real familiar with TikTok. It is Chinese owned and has a different approach in some respects from Twitter. It could be considered a legit competitor.

collects data of users for the CCP and is their mouthpiece

New DOJ Filing: TikTok's Owner Is 'A Mouthpiece' Of Chinese Communist Party : NPR

Why TikTok’s China ties are causing a national security controversy - Vox

The U.S. Is Right to Worry About TikTok - Lawfare (lawfareblog.com)

TikTok Parent Company ByteDance Spreads Chinese Propaganda: Report (businessinsider.com)