Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Trump: I love our troops so much that I'm going to veto the Defense Bill unless you strip away the right of tech companies to censor my racist comments and lies about the election   (washingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Followup, United States Department of Defense, President of the United States, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, United States, defense bill, defense officials, Trump's ultimatum, Trump  
•       •       •

1103 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Dec 2020 at 10:02 AM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



67 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-12-02 8:57:37 AM  
A week ago, it was because he refuses to re-name military bases.  Tomorrow it will be because 80% of the military vote went to Biden.
 
2020-12-02 8:57:58 AM  
In Trump's world, you're either farking someone else or getting farked yourself. This shouldn't suprise anyone older than, say, a toddler.
 
2020-12-02 9:03:13 AM  
It was right after he saw "Diaper Don" trending on twitter that he went even more batshiat crazy than usual about this. This is 100% about his feelings, not national security.
 
2020-12-02 9:05:57 AM  

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: It was right after he saw "Diaper Don" trending on twitter that he went even more batshiat crazy than usual about this. This is 100% about his feelings, not national security.


Essentially what this boils down to:

i.imgflip.comView Full Size
 
2020-12-02 9:09:33 AM  

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: It was right after he saw "Diaper Don" trending on twitter that he went even more batshiat crazy than usual about this. This is 100% about his feelings, not national security.


He is the nation. If people are allowed to make fun of him on Twitter, he feels insecure. Therefore, this IS about national security; QED.
 
2020-12-02 9:27:27 AM  
On a side note unrelated to Trump dipshiatary, the military does need a funding reduction deep enough so they can realign their budgets.  I don't think this has been done since Clinton and as a result you have a *shiatload* of waste going on.  The crap we don't know about is probably phenomenal.
 
2020-12-02 9:34:22 AM  
"Censor"

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-12-02 9:42:04 AM  

UberDave: On a side note unrelated to Trump dipshiatary, the military does need a funding reduction deep enough so they can realign their budgets.  I don't think this has been done since Clinton and as a result you have a *shiatload* of waste going on.  The crap we don't know about is probably phenomenal.


I have no doubt you are right.  The automatic annual increases could do with some serious re-visiting.  But, if this cabal thinks that just outright vetoing the military budget is a plan, they are delusional.  I cannot imagine a single elected official jumping on that bandwagon, unless they have already announced their retirement.
 
2020-12-02 10:03:25 AM  
Shoot the hostage.
 
2020-12-02 10:05:22 AM  

OdradekRex: A week ago, it was because he refuses to re-name military bases.  Tomorrow it will be because 80% of the military vote went to Biden.


He is vast. He contains multitudes of cheeseburgers.
 
2020-12-02 10:05:47 AM  
Wouldn't stripping 230 protections make the platform providers more likely to censor information?
 
2020-12-02 10:06:07 AM  
Censor? I don't think he has shut up about it since the election or the last 4 years. If they are censoring him I would be afraid to see what they wont let him say. All I see them doing is saying is putting up that the claims cant be verified or are disputed. Wish they would just ban him.
 
2020-12-02 10:06:19 AM  
pbs.twimg.comView Full Size


You think you'll be censored LESS when the platforms are legally liable for posted content??
 
2020-12-02 10:06:23 AM  
 
2020-12-02 10:07:40 AM  
Is he sure he wants that?
Cause this will be what Twitter and every other social media company looks like if he does that:

pbs.twimg.comView Full Size
 
2020-12-02 10:09:10 AM  

Psychopusher: "Censor"

[Fark user image 221x175]


Technically it is censorship.  Censorship can be done by private entities, and is perfectly legal.
 
2020-12-02 10:09:51 AM  

UberDave: On a side note unrelated to Trump dipshiatary, the military does need a funding reduction deep enough so they can realign their budgets.  I don't think this has been done since Clinton and as a result you have a *shiatload* of waste going on.  The crap we don't know about is probably phenomenal.



Fark user imageView Full Size


"You don't REALLY think they spend 20 thousand on a hammer, 30 thousand on a toilet seat, do you?"
 
2020-12-02 10:10:13 AM  

OdradekRex: A week ago, it was because he refuses to re-name military bases.  Tomorrow it will be because 80% of the military vote went to Biden.


Not said out loud (yet).  "Who cares about those suckers and losers anyway?"
 
2020-12-02 10:10:16 AM  

GoldSpider: [pbs.twimg.com image 567x324]

You think you'll be censored LESS when the platforms are legally liable for posted content??


Exactly. The only reason he's allowed to spout 99% of his cerebral fecal matter is because no one is worried they'll get sued for giving him the platform. Take away that protection and hosting him is no longer profitable, so his account gets deleted.
 
2020-12-02 10:10:20 AM  

bmongar: Wouldn't stripping 230 protections make the platform providers more likely to censor information?


Probably.  I can see Twitter requiring every Tweet to be moderated by a human before posting (and anything even minorly objectionable be censored).

But the devil is in the details.  If it's changed so the company isn't liable if it doesn't moderate at all, that's different.  But that's not remotely possible, otherwise expect lots of kiddie porn and the like to appear on Twitter.
 
2020-12-02 10:10:26 AM  
I'm fairly certain that if you asked Trump to explain what Section 230 of the Telecommunications act meant, he'd be hard pressed to get beyond 'people can say mean things about me'
 
2020-12-02 10:10:55 AM  

Walker: Is he sure he wants that?
Cause this will be what Twitter and every other social media company looks like if he does that:

[pbs.twimg.com image 583x353]


1) Maybe now that he's launching his own network, he does want to kill off social media. Kind of a "I got what I wanted from you, now die."
2) Otherwise...if he does kill off Facebook and Twitter and social media...great! Second good thing to happen during his administration.
3) first is getting free national parks admission as a vet
 
2020-12-02 10:11:08 AM  

Walker: Is he sure he wants that?
Cause this will be what Twitter and every other social media company looks like if he does that:

[pbs.twimg.com image 583x353]


More like this:

i.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2020-12-02 10:11:41 AM  
How about we remove 230 protections from Parler first? Sort of a trial run to see how things go, yes?
 
2020-12-02 10:13:18 AM  
Let him. Then let the GOP explain why this is perfectly fine.
 
2020-12-02 10:15:22 AM  
Even if we get rid of 230, it still falls under 1st ammendment.

Section 230 is one of the major factors we have the tech industry that we do.  You think these corps are going to stick around if we get rid of it.

Outside of the obvious bullshiat of 230 actually helping our free speech, the tech industry issue is a major one.  It will destroy a huge part of our GDP of they get rid of it.

Republicans are now calling for destroying industries because their emperor had his fee fees hurt.

I know, it's become a cliche to call them hypocrites, but here we are.  The party of deregulation and free speech wants to enact regulations that will literally kill off hundreds of thousands of jobs, hurt our economy in irreparable ways, and kill free speech, the internet as we know it.... because a thin skinned coward can't take it when he is so proud of how he can dish it.

fark these people.

They love being martyrs.
 
2020-12-02 10:15:50 AM  
And as always Section 230 simply says you can't sue a social media company because some idiot used it to post things that might get the user in legal trouble. Repealing Section 230 doesn't make it illegal for Twitter to have terms of service that require you not be a toxic shiathead to post there, it just means that Twitter can get sued for you being a toxic shiathead so they need to be more mindful of who they let use their site.
 
2020-12-02 10:15:53 AM  
I am surprised he even considering signing anything.  I figured he be like until I am declared the winner of the election I am going veto everything.
 
2020-12-02 10:19:42 AM  

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: It was right after he saw "Diaper Don" trending on twitter that he went even more batshiat crazy than usual about this. This is 100% about his feelings, not national security.


i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2020-12-02 10:19:59 AM  
I'm not an expert in Section 230, but my understanding of it is that it protects internet "bulletin boards" by not making them personally liable for the comments made by the people who post on them. That's the extent of it, that I am aware of.

To the best of my knowledge, it does not require these sites to leave up comments even if they violate the owner's terms of service. I also think that if it were a requirement, that would cause serious 1st Am. issues by requiring a person to allow any speech whatsoever on their sites--in essence, the government forcing speech. It just doesn't logically make sense for it to be that way vis a vis the 1st. Am.

So, I don't really know how Trump thinks this is going to benefit him. If these companies are liable for comments, the likelihood is that there will be *more* censorship, not less.
 
2020-12-02 10:23:12 AM  

dkulprit: Even if we get rid of 230, it still falls under 1st ammendment.


Not really.  The First Amendment does not give me the right to say anything on Fark.  It prevents the Government from limiting what Drew says on Fark.

Drew can put a filter that adds "the Magnificent" to Trump's name every time we post it, and the First Amendment would protect him.
 
2020-12-02 10:24:15 AM  

Sin_City_Superhero: UberDave: On a side note unrelated to Trump dipshiatary, the military does need a funding reduction deep enough so they can realign their budgets.  I don't think this has been done since Clinton and as a result you have a *shiatload* of waste going on.  The crap we don't know about is probably phenomenal.


[Fark user image 850x478]

"You don't REALLY think they spend 20 thousand on a hammer, 30 thousand on a toilet seat, do you?"


Yes, yes I do. I worked as an engineer for defense contractors for 30 years. A lot of it comes down to Non-Requring Engineering and compliance. We want to buy six hammers - each hammer must be able to hammer a nail (undefined) in three blows, not create a spark, fit in an odd-shaped toolbox and have a handle that won't promote mold growth.

I was working on a build to print contract. The Navy handed us a stack of drawings and documents and said make this. One of the bolts - cost $50 each, failed. The contract was amended for me to find a replacement. I found an off the shelf bolt for $25. The Navy hired an engineering firm to check my work. They recommended hogging bolts out of bar stock,$500. The contract was amended a second time for me to defend my design. my argument was simple, "we get a fixed 10% markup on materials. If I was cheating you why would I go with a $25 bolt instead of a $500?" Pet peeve
 
2020-12-02 10:24:42 AM  

OdradekRex: A week ago, it was because he refuses to re-name military bases.  Tomorrow it will be because 80% of the military vote went to Biden.


The silver lining of him living in a delusion that he won the election is that it distracted him from this kind of extortion and salting the earth stuff.

The CR coming due in 9 days gives him another juicy opportunity. Overriding his veto is a possibility, but if there is a single thing I've learned int he past 5 years, relying upon Republican senators and congressmen to stand up to Trump always ends in disappointment,
 
2020-12-02 10:25:03 AM  

danvon: I'm not an expert in Section 230, but my understanding of it is that it protects internet "bulletin boards" by not making them personally liable for the comments made by the people who post on them. That's the extent of it, that I am aware of.

To the best of my knowledge, it does not require these sites to leave up comments even if they violate the owner's terms of service. I also think that if it were a requirement, that would cause serious 1st Am. issues by requiring a person to allow any speech whatsoever on their sites--in essence, the government forcing speech. It just doesn't logically make sense for it to be that way vis a vis the 1st. Am.

So, I don't really know how Trump thinks this is going to benefit him. If these companies are liable for comments, the likelihood is that there will be *more* censorship, not less.


You still haven't figured this out? This is all about Trump pushing the "everyone's out to get me" narrative. He doesn't get a flying Fark about the actual facts and the consequences of his actions on this. He needs to push the idea that social media is out to get him, and he'll say anything to back it up.

For Trump, consequences are things that happen to other people.
 
2020-12-02 10:25:07 AM  
just in case you didn't have enough of 2020 the current administration is looking to drag out the pain an extra 20 days for us.  Like an unwanted encore of crazy.
 
2020-12-02 10:31:08 AM  

bmongar: Wouldn't stripping 230 protections make the platform providers more likely to censor information?


Yes. Removing 230 would guarantee that every single thing Trump every says, does, or writes will be banned from every forum on the Internet.
 
2020-12-02 10:31:14 AM  
Threatening not to pay the military while you are actively attempting a coup seems not very smart.
 
2020-12-02 10:31:25 AM  

bmongar: Wouldn't stripping 230 protections make the platform providers more likely to censor information?


Here is an illustration of Trump:

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-12-02 10:31:40 AM  

Copperbelly watersnake: For Trump, consequences are things that happen to other people.


Unfortunately, there exists empirical evidence that supports his belief.
 
2020-12-02 10:32:02 AM  
Am I crazy for thinking this, but only until now has trump really given a platform for what he would do in a second term.  and its terrifying.
 
2020-12-02 10:33:07 AM  

bmongar: Wouldn't stripping 230 protections make the platform providers more likely to censor information?


Yes.
With section 230, if I were to hypothetically comment that Donald Trump can only get sexual gratification while he's blowing a goat,
Fark is free to remove the comment, or leave it, and I'm the only one liable for the content of my comment.  I am still liable if a court decides my clear statement of fact that Donald Trump blows goats meets a legal standard of defamation, but Fark isn't responsible for my statement of absolute fact that Donald Trump blows goats.

Remove section 230 and Fark could be sued if they leave up my not in anyway false comment that Donald Trump absolutely does in fact blow goats.  So without 230, Fark, twitter, facebook, et al, have a much higher incentive to remove content that could be considered potentially actionable.

On the plus side, Trump's twitter account would almost certainly be deleted within seconds of such a change.
On the down side, Fark would pretty much be reduced to the Caturday thread.
 
2020-12-02 10:33:54 AM  
How did Trump do with the military?  Exit polls would suggest he actually did lose some military votes.
 
2020-12-02 10:37:50 AM  

Name_Omitted: Drew can put a filter that adds "the Magnificent" to Trump's name every time we post it, and the First Amendment would protect him.


Must you give him ideas? Some of his "friends" might like that.
 
2020-12-02 10:37:59 AM  

Name_Omitted: dkulprit: Even if we get rid of 230, it still falls under 1st ammendment.

Not really.  The First Amendment does not give me the right to say anything on Fark.  It prevents the Government from limiting what Drew says on Fark.

Drew can put a filter that adds "the Magnificent" to Trump's name every time we post it, and the First Amendment would protect him.


Yes, but the comments that he is butthurt about do.

He wants to sue twitter over mean comments about him.  My point is that his goal of removing 230 so he can sue still fails.... because he is now under 1st ammendment.  He is also a politician, so he is a public figure which makes suing over it even harder.
 
2020-12-02 10:41:00 AM  

freidog: bmongar: Wouldn't stripping 230 protections make the platform providers more likely to censor information?

Yes.
With section 230, if I were to hypothetically comment that Donald Trump can only get sexual gratification while he's blowing a goat,
Fark is free to remove the comment, or leave it, and I'm the only one liable for the content of my comment.  I am still liable if a court decides my clear statement of fact that Donald Trump blows goats meets a legal standard of defamation, but Fark isn't responsible for my statement of absolute fact that Donald Trump blows goats.

Remove section 230 and Fark could be sued if they leave up my not in anyway false comment that Donald Trump absolutely does in fact blow goats.  So without 230, Fark, twitter, facebook, et al, have a much higher incentive to remove content that could be considered potentially actionable.

On the plus side, Trump's twitter account would almost certainly be deleted within seconds of such a change.
On the down side, Fark would pretty much be reduced to the Caturday thread.


230 does a lot more than just protect Fark from being sued. It protects your ISP, every system your post happens to pass through getting to literally anywhere it happens to show up, the people who made the device you wrote it on,\ and/or sent it by... There's a crapton of stuff that is covered under 230.
 
2020-12-02 10:44:51 AM  
If he thinks that he's being censored now. Just wait until January 20th.
 
2020-12-02 10:51:30 AM  

dkulprit: Name_Omitted: dkulprit: Even if we get rid of 230, it still falls under 1st ammendment.

Not really.  The First Amendment does not give me the right to say anything on Fark.  It prevents the Government from limiting what Drew says on Fark.

Drew can put a filter that adds "the Magnificent" to Trump's name every time we post it, and the First Amendment would protect him.

Yes, but the comments that he is butthurt about do.

He wants to sue twitter over mean comments about him.  My point is that his goal of removing 230 so he can sue still fails.... because he is now under 1st ammendment.  He is also a politician, so he is a public figure which makes suing over it even harder.


I'll make a deal with Trump. You can get your Section 230 wish, and we get Federal anti SLAPP legislation that mandates treble damages, and attorney fees.

/not completely serious.
 
2020-12-02 10:54:23 AM  

GoldSpider: Psychopusher: "Censor"

[Fark user image 221x175]

Technically it is censorship.  Censorship can be done by private entities, and is perfectly legal.


It's not censorship, unless we're talking about blatantly dangerous tweets, or ones that explicitly violate the company's policies.  Covering his tweets with fact check warnings isn't even remotely censorship by any definition, though.
 
2020-12-02 10:55:43 AM  

Sin_City_Superhero: UberDave: On a side note unrelated to Trump dipshiatary, the military does need a funding reduction deep enough so they can realign their budgets.  I don't think this has been done since Clinton and as a result you have a *shiatload* of waste going on.  The crap we don't know about is probably phenomenal.


[Fark user image 850x478]

"You don't REALLY think they spend 20 thousand on a hammer, 30 thousand on a toilet seat, do you?"


Without looking it up, I think there was a time in the 50s where that happened.

When I first joined and before I started working my actual job, I filled in at base supply for a month or so.  I got curious and started looking at the cost of mundane items like mops or bathroom supplies or building materials and other mundane things.  The prices were all reasonable and even cheaper than what you could get at the local hardware store.

On my regular job, I would often have to order items like small replacement parts and such.  I remember a pack of 10-15 machine screws costing a few hundred dollars.  It seemed ridiculous until you consider the screws are made of titanium, chemically treated, machined to crazy tolerances, and only used on a specific air frame or bomb and meant to outlast everyone alive and their grand kids.

The main problem was that we used a lot of Craftsman tools.  And those tools had to be certified for specific uses.  They were typically bought under contract and cost at least twice as much as what you would pay at Sears even though they were the same damn thing. And when they would wear out, we had to buy new ones.  During the mid 90s budge cuts where we couldn't get anything, we tossed three roll-around cabinets worth of Craftsman tools in bags and took a step-van up to the local Sears right off base and exchanged all of our Craftsman tools for new ones that were the *exact* duplicates (ser. num verified).
 
2020-12-02 10:58:01 AM  
I don't care how he does it.  I want him to rein in these tech companies that have monopolized the public square.
 
Displayed 50 of 67 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.