Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
Woodchopper
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Woodchopper » Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:55 pm

Parler CEO John Matze said today that his social media company has been dropped by virtually all of its business alliances after Amazon, Apple and Google ended their agreements with the social media service.

“Every vendor from text message services to email providers to our lawyers all ditched us too on the same day,” Matze said today on Fox News.

[...]

“It would put anybody out of business,” he said of the tech bans. “This thing could destroy anybody.”

He added: “We’re going to try our best to get back online as quickly as possible. But we’re having a lot of trouble because every vendor we talk to says they won’t work with us. Because if Apple doesn’t approve and Google doesn’t approve, they won’t.”
https://deadline.com/2021/01/parler-ceo ... 234670607/

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by dyqik » Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:00 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:55 pm
Parler CEO John Matze said today that his social media company has been dropped by virtually all of its business alliances after Amazon, Apple and Google ended their agreements with the social media service.

“Every vendor from text message services to email providers to our lawyers all ditched us too on the same day,” Matze said today on Fox News.

[...]

“It would put anybody out of business,” he said of the tech bans. “This thing could destroy anybody.”

He added: “We’re going to try our best to get back online as quickly as possible. But we’re having a lot of trouble because every vendor we talk to says they won’t work with us. Because if Apple doesn’t approve and Google doesn’t approve, they won’t.”
https://deadline.com/2021/01/parler-ceo ... 234670607/
These hits have (had?) apparently entirely broken Parler's security - there is now distributed SETI@Home style effort to archive the entire contents, probably including private messages, definitely including uploads of driver's licenses used to verify accounts, etc. This means that the everyone who posted about the Capitol insurrection will probably have their personal details and government ID linked to their posts about storming the Capitol, etc. Probably including deleted messages, as Parler doesn't actually delete any content, just marks it as deleted.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/co ... ntext=1000
Last edited by dyqik on Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
shpalman
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3127
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by shpalman » Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:05 pm

molto tricky

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
After Pie
Posts: 1600
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:23 pm

dyqik wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:00 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:55 pm
Parler CEO John Matze said today that his social media company has been dropped by virtually all of its business alliances after Amazon, Apple and Google ended their agreements with the social media service.

“Every vendor from text message services to email providers to our lawyers all ditched us too on the same day,” Matze said today on Fox News.

[...]

“It would put anybody out of business,” he said of the tech bans. “This thing could destroy anybody.”

He added: “We’re going to try our best to get back online as quickly as possible. But we’re having a lot of trouble because every vendor we talk to says they won’t work with us. Because if Apple doesn’t approve and Google doesn’t approve, they won’t.”
https://deadline.com/2021/01/parler-ceo ... 234670607/
These hits have (had?) apparently entirely broken Parler's security - there is now distributed SETI@Home style effort to archive the entire contents, probably including private messages, definitely including uploads of driver's licenses used to verify accounts, etc. This means that the everyone who posted about the Capitol insurrection will probably have their personal details and government ID linked to their posts about storming the Capitol, etc. Probably including deleted messages, as Parler doesn't actually delete any content, just marks it as deleted.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/co ... ntext=1000
So much lol, so little time.
Mike Patton wrote:"You overdo it sometimes. There I am, peeing on Axl Rose’s teleprompter." He looks rueful: "I didn’t really have to do that."

User avatar
Stranger Mouse
Fuzzable
Posts: 269
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Stranger Mouse » Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:26 pm

On a related note he may be more concerned with his fund raising emails which had dried up even before Stripe chucked him out

https://twitter.com/trumpemail/status/1 ... 83906?s=21
A caterpillar does all the work but the butterfly gets all the publicity.

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by dyqik » Mon Jan 11, 2021 3:31 pm

dyqik wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 9:51 pm
dyqik wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 9:26 pm
Something Trump actually cares about might be happening: the PGA tour apparently says it will never go to his golf courses again, including stripping his courses of hosting the 2022 championship.

https://twitter.com/angry__saint/status ... 97376?s=19
This doesn't seem to be true yet, but is supposedly under consideration.
They eventually got round to it last night: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by dyqik » Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:26 pm

We're going to need a bigger thread for all the companies divesting themselves of links to Republicans that supported overturning the election results.

User avatar
lpm
After Pie
Posts: 2547
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by lpm » Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:57 pm

lpm wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 10:07 am
The 2 companies who supplied the email verification and phone number verification have dropped Parker. Apparently it is now possible to sign up with fake number and fake email. Hence its barricades are down and data mining op is inoperable.
As EPD said, this sudden lose of verification didn't just lead to me joining with fake details. It allowed hackers straight in, then set themselves admins, then download the site.

https://cybernews.com/news/70tb-of-parl ... searchers/
https://twitter.com/BirdRespecter/statu ... 7351519234

I'm already missing my new Parler friends. Sob. But before it went down I invited them all to join Scrutable. Expect a surge of new members folks! It'll be like when Facefirst invited all those Pistonhead morons to entertain us.
What ever happened to that Trump guy, you know, the one who was president for a bit?

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by dyqik » Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:15 pm

I've seen a thread saying that the mechanism is a little garbled here. That was claiming that once you can create accounts without verification, you can just guess the API IDs of items of content, because they are consecutive ascending numbers. Just iterate through them to access all content, deleted or otherwise.

User avatar
bjn
Catbabel
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by bjn » Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:39 pm

dyqik wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:15 pm
I've seen a thread saying that the mechanism is a little garbled here. That was claiming that once you can create accounts without verification, you can just guess the API IDs of items of content, because they are consecutive ascending numbers. Just iterate through them to access all content, deleted or otherwise.
I've seen a few different reports on how they got into it. Either way, it is totally funny. FFS use some sort of uuidgen, freaking morons.

Millennie Al
Snowbonk
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Millennie Al » Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:52 am

bolo wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 3:14 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:33 am
The rule for private companies should be that they get to choose if they are going to moderate content or not. If they moderate it, they are fully liable for anything said on their platform, while if they carry everything regardless then they get immunity from liability, That was the motivation for section 230.
Unless I am misunderstanding you, you have it backwards. The motivation for Section 230 was make the law not be the way you say it should be. Paragraph (c)(2) of Section 230 explicitly allows companies to moderate objectionable content, even if it is constitutionally protected as free speech, without the fact of that moderation making the company liable for other content that it allows through.

There is a useful explainer, with some discussion of proposed reforms, here:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... B/LSB10306
As described in the "Legislative History" section of that document, the original position was that Internet platforms were, or were feared to be, liable for anything they carried. Thus there was a motivation to provide immunity. As is so often the case with actual legislation, the lawmakers didn't provide complete immunity and didn't require complete lack of moderation. And ever since the provisions have been gradually eroded as people want more exceptions.
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

User avatar
bolo
Snowbonk
Posts: 565
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:17 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by bolo » Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:01 am

I'm still not sure I understand what point you're trying to make.

If a company exercises complete editorial control, like a newspaper publisher, then it's liable for what it publishes. If a company exercises no editorial control at all, like a telephone network, then it's not liable for what other people say using its platform. Before Section 230, the position was that Internet platforms were, or were feared to be, liable for anything they carried because they exercised some editorial control, even though it was limited.

The point of Section 230 is to allow some moderation, without creating full liability. That isn't because it's "often the case with actual legislation"; it's because it's the entire point of the provision. And I wouldn't describe subsequent changes to the law as "eroding" anything. They've adjusted the terms of the compromise -- how much moderation is allowed, and what kind, and what sorts of liability are excluded from protection, but all within the same basic framework that Internet platforms are somewhere in the middle between the fully liable newspaper publisher and the not-liable phone company.

An important point is that because U.S. constitutional protections for free speech are so broad, a lot of social media moderation would be illegal under the First Amendment if the government attempted to require it, rather than leaving it to a company's discretion.

Herainestold
Snowbonk
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Herainestold » Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:10 am

This legal stuff is all very confusing. If an internet platform has no moderation at all it is legally liable, but if it is heavily moderated you can't sue them for regulating your free speech?

User avatar
Stranger Mouse
Fuzzable
Posts: 269
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Stranger Mouse » Wed Jan 13, 2021 9:25 am

YouTube has suspended Trump
A caterpillar does all the work but the butterfly gets all the publicity.

User avatar
Stranger Mouse
Fuzzable
Posts: 269
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Stranger Mouse » Wed Jan 13, 2021 12:49 pm

The Amazon response to the Parler lawsuit doesn’t mince words

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 10.0_1.pdf

Inc:

Over the next seven weeks, AWS reported more than 100 additional representative pieces of content advocating violence to Parler’s Chief Policy Officer, including:
 “Fry’em up. The whole fkn crew. #pelosi #aoc #thesquad #soros #gates #chuckschumer #hrc #obama #adamschiff #blm #antifa we are coming for you and you will know it.”
 “#JackDorsey ... you will die a bl..dy death alongside Mark Suckerturd [Zuckerberg].... It has been decided and plans are being put in place. Remember the photographs inside your home while you slept? Yes, that close. You will die a sudden death!”
 “We are going to fight in a civil War on Jan.20th, Form MILITIAS now and acquire targets.”
 “On January 20th we need to start systematicly [sic] assassinating [sic] #liberal leaders, liberal activists, #blm leaders and supporters, members of the #nba #nfl #mlb #nhl #mainstreammedia anchors and correspondents and #antifa. I already have a news worthy event planned.”
 “Shoot the police that protect these shitbag senators right in the head then make the senator grovel a bit before capping they ass.”
After the firing squads are done with the politicians the teachers are next.”
 “Death to @zuckerberg @realjeffbezos @jackdorsey @pichai.”
 “White people need to ignite their racial identity and rain down suffering and death
like a hurricane upon zionists.”
 “Put a target on these motherless trash [Antifa] they aren’t human taking one out
would be like stepping on a roach no different.”
 “We need to act like our forefathers did Kill [Black and Jewish people] all Leave
no victims or survivors.”
 “We are coming with our list we know where you live we know who you are and
we are coming for you and it starts on the 6th civil war... Lol if you will think it’s
a joke... Enjoy your last few days you have.”
 “This bitch [Stacey Abrams] will be good target practice for our beginners.”
 “This cu** [United States Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao] should be...
hung for betraying their country.”
 “Hang this mofo [Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger] today.”
 “HANG THAt N***** ASAP”



ETA so they want to kill all the teachers, I suppose I shouldn’t find that surprising
A caterpillar does all the work but the butterfly gets all the publicity.

FlammableFlower
Catbabel
Posts: 931
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by FlammableFlower » Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:22 pm

Don (it's just looks that way as I use this nasal spray, I swear) Jr attempting to solicit Elon Musk to fund and set up a conservative friendly social media platform, pointing out it should be easy for Musk as, "...come on, he's put manned people into space..."

User avatar
bolo
Snowbonk
Posts: 565
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:17 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by bolo » Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:27 pm

Herainestold wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:10 am
This legal stuff is all very confusing. If an internet platform has no moderation at all it is legally liable, but if it is heavily moderated you can't sue them for regulating your free speech?
What? No.

If a platform has no moderation at all, then any liability for its content falls on whoever originates the content, i.e. the users. This is the phone company model. If you incite a riot over the phone, then that's on you, not the phone company.

If a platform is heavily moderated, then it is itself liable for its content, because it's presumed to have approved it. This is the newspaper publisher model. If you write an article inciting a riot, and the paper chooses to publish it, then that's (at least partially) on the paper.

Section 230 allows an intermediate position, where a company can do some moderation while not taking on all liability for user content that it doesn't moderate.

And in any case, your free speech rights are constitutionally protected against restriction by the government, not by a private company. The government probably can't require Twitter to ban tweets that lie about election fraud or vaccine conspiracies, but Twitter can decide to ban them on its own initiative -- and because of Section 230, that decision to moderate some tweets doesn't suddenly make Twitter liable for inciting a riot if one of its users posts a tweet inciting a riot.

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by dyqik » Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:31 pm

bolo wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:27 pm
Herainestold wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:10 am
This legal stuff is all very confusing. If an internet platform has no moderation at all it is legally liable, but if it is heavily moderated you can't sue them for regulating your free speech?
What? No.

If a platform has no moderation at all, then any liability for its content falls on whoever originates the content, i.e. the users. This is the phone company model. If you incite a riot over the phone, then that's on you, not the phone company.

If a platform is heavily moderated, then it is itself liable for its content, because it's presumed to have approved it. This is the newspaper publisher model. If you write an article inciting a riot, and the paper chooses to publish it, then that's (at least partially) on the paper.

Section 230 allows an intermediate position, where a company can do some moderation while not taking on all liability for user content that it doesn't moderate.

And in any case, your free speech rights are constitutionally protected against restriction by the government, not by a private company. The government probably can't require Twitter to ban tweets that lie about election fraud or vaccine conspiracies, but Twitter can decide to ban them on its own initiative -- and because of Section 230, that decision to moderate some tweets doesn't suddenly make Twitter liable for inciting a riot if one of its users posts a tweet inciting a riot.
And separate to the legal liability to lawsuits from third party plaintiffs bolo is discussing here, none of these models require that a company carry your content, and you can't sue them for having terms and conditions in their contract that allow them to ban you for cause, as long as the contract is reasonably well written and clear when you agree to it.

You don't have a right to a phone line, an AWS account, a Scrutable Forum account or to have your articles published in a newspaper.

Herainestold
Snowbonk
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Herainestold » Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:37 pm

So why do the Trumpists want sec 230 rescinded?
If it is dropped and internet speech reverts to the way it was before, internet providers could be sued for the speech of people like Trump (or anyone else). It seems likely they would stop providing a platform.

User avatar
Stranger Mouse
Fuzzable
Posts: 269
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Stranger Mouse » Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:45 pm

Herainestold wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:37 pm
So why do the Trumpists want sec 230 rescinded?
If it is dropped and internet speech reverts to the way it was before, internet providers could be sued for the speech of people like Trump (or anyone else). It seems likely they would stop providing a platform.
They haven’t though it through. They are all very “free speech for me but not for thee” and presume they will be able to control whatever happens
A caterpillar does all the work but the butterfly gets all the publicity.

Herainestold
Snowbonk
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Herainestold » Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:04 pm

What is the legal situation in the UK?

Does Labour have a policy for regulating internet speech when they are elected?

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by dyqik » Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:07 pm

Herainestold wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:04 pm
What is the legal situation in the UK?

Does Labour have a policy for regulating internet speech when they are elected?
I suggest you google some reliable sources, like the Open Rights Group, and then start a thread for that.

FlammableFlower
Catbabel
Posts: 931
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by FlammableFlower » Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:12 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:45 pm
Herainestold wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:37 pm
So why do the Trumpists want sec 230 rescinded?
If it is dropped and internet speech reverts to the way it was before, internet providers could be sued for the speech of people like Trump (or anyone else). It seems likely they would stop providing a platform.
They haven’t though it through. They are all very “free speech for me but not for thee” and presume they will be able to control whatever happens
Spot on.
It was evident that Trump in particular, but right-wingers in general, hadn't thought through the implications. If social media companies were to be held liable/responsible for what's published on their platforms, given what they put on social media then Trump and his supporters would be banned in picoseconds.
If anything Trump was going at it the entirely wrong way, but as he likes to negotiate through "looking strong" he can only threaten and bluster.

Chris Preston
Clardic Fug
Posts: 164
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:05 am

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Chris Preston » Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:27 pm

This is an idea that Trump has adopted from his Qanon followers. I suspect their thinking went that if Section 230 was removed, Twitter et al. would be forced to publish all their nonsense. They clearly haven't thought about the alternative, that Twitter et al. could adopt a fully moderated model where all posts are moderated before going live.

They are aware, because they have done it at multiple venues, that in an unmoderated environment they are able to bully all their opponents off. That is what they want. It is indeed ironic, that these people are going on and on about free speech, but it is only their speech they want to be free.

On a side note, one of the Qanon Republican Representatives, Lauren Boebert, has been blocking her constituents on Twitter who ask difficult questions, even though social media accounts of Senators and Representatives are considered limited public forums. This is the same Representative that was using Twitter during the Capitol invasion to report on the whereabouts of Nancy Pelosi.
Here grows much rhubarb.

User avatar
Stranger Mouse
Fuzzable
Posts: 269
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Stranger Mouse » Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:34 pm

Chris Preston wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:27 pm
This is an idea that Trump has adopted from his Qanon followers. I suspect their thinking went that if Section 230 was removed, Twitter et al. would be forced to publish all their nonsense. They clearly haven't thought about the alternative, that Twitter et al. could adopt a fully moderated model where all posts are moderated before going live.

They are aware, because they have done it at multiple venues, that in an unmoderated environment they are able to bully all their opponents off. That is what they want. It is indeed ironic, that these people are going on and on about free speech, but it is only their speech they want to be free.

On a side note, one of the Qanon Republican Representatives, Lauren Boebert, has been blocking her constituents on Twitter who ask difficult questions, even though social media accounts of Senators and Representatives are considered limited public forums. This is the same Representative that was using Twitter during the Capitol invasion to report on the whereabouts of Nancy Pelosi.
I would put dirty Russian money on the chance that she is being referred to here https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/ ... 78506?s=21
A caterpillar does all the work but the butterfly gets all the publicity.

Post Reply