Trump outrage of the day

[ixtap]

Trump is now starting to be banned by payment processors. The first one to ban him is Stripe. Put a fork in Trump. It’s just a matter of time now.

Payments for what?

Pardons

Bwwaahhhaaa - you mean I can get cc rewards for that?!

[FIPurpose]

Alright, after reading up on the 25th amendment process more it looks like the main advantages are:

25th Amendment: Immediately removes the President the day of and the President must effectively win his way back in through Congress. The process is laid out to take up to 25 days to determine the President's ability before congress. So effectively, the VP can immediately remove the President for the remainder of his term without the president having any recourse.

Impeachment: This process is slow, so we'd be stuck with Trump the rest of his term, but it would mean potentially removing him from 2024 contention.

The 25th seems to be poorly thought out in that the cabinet has to secretly conspire without Trump finding out and firing them.  So I don't see it.

Well I think the thought process of the amendment was more like what happens if the President goes into a permanent vegetative state or is otherwise chronically incapacitated. Using the 25th amendment for this purpose seems like a stretch of the intent, but it also seems to have been written to be purposefully vague in order to fit a multitude of circumstances.

Section 4 is specifically for the circumstance of disputed capacity, hence the presidents ability to declare he is fit for duty.

Not sure where you're getting that idea. The actual text says "written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office". Nothing in there specifically about "disputed capacity".

[ixtap]

Alright, after reading up on the 25th amendment process more it looks like the main advantages are:

25th Amendment: Immediately removes the President the day of and the President must effectively win his way back in through Congress. The process is laid out to take up to 25 days to determine the President's ability before congress. So effectively, the VP can immediately remove the President for the remainder of his term without the president having any recourse.

Impeachment: This process is slow, so we'd be stuck with Trump the rest of his term, but it would mean potentially removing him from 2024 contention.

The 25th seems to be poorly thought out in that the cabinet has to secretly conspire without Trump finding out and firing them.  So I don't see it.

Well I think the thought process of the amendment was more like what happens if the President goes into a permanent vegetative state or is otherwise chronically incapacitated. Using the 25th amendment for this purpose seems like a stretch of the intent, but it also seems to have been written to be purposefully vague in order to fit a multitude of circumstances.

Section 4 is specifically for the circumstance of disputed capacity, hence the presidents ability to declare he is fit for duty.

Not sure where you're getting that idea. The actual text says "written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office". Nothing in there specifically about "disputed capacity".

How is someone in a vegetative state going to submit a formal protest that he is indeed able to discharge the powers and duties of his office??

[Poundwise]

After much criticism, Trump has FINALLY ordered flags at half mast for the Capitol police who died, since a second one just died of suicide. 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2021/01/10/after-backlash-trump-orders-flags-to-fly-at-half-mast-for-police-officers-who-died-after-capitol-riots/?sh=4f1b01747929

[Taran Wanderer]

The Harrison Ford movie Air Force One had an interesting sub-plot about the Vice President and the cabinet struggling with whether the President was incapacitated or not. Not the most plausible movie, but something that comes to mind that illustrates what the key players have to wrestle with when the president is not in a vegetative state or under anesthesia.

[Sandi_k]

The same crowd of people who smashed their way into the Capitol with "don't tread on me" and Confederate flags were demanding that the federal government arbitrarily alter the States' election decisions. Chew on that one.

Yep. A Trumper on my FB friends' list was wailing about the "stolen" election. When I pointed out 60+ court cases that had found no fraud and no issues sufficient to overturn the results, he was unhappy.

And furthermore, those suits were where the courts sided with the position that states were allowed their own electoral processes, and therefore other states had no standing to grieve the process. This sort of state's right to run their own government is EXACTLY the reason they want to move out of CA to Idaho or other FREEDOM state. At that point, their head exploded. He left FB later than day, and flounced off to Parler.

;)

[Glenstache]

Sounds like the PGA is severing ties with Trump as well. That one in particular must burn for Trump.

[Taran Wanderer]

Sounds like the PGA is severing ties with Trump as well. That one in particular must burn for Trump.

Poor guy. I feel so bad for him.   /s

[dang1]

https://mobile.twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/1348374300730953728 lol

[LennStar]

I do have to say like the majority of Americans I am aghast at what went down Jan 6th. I also want to know why the police in the capitol and protecting the Capitol building were so woefully undermanned and unprepared, when I as a rando on Facebook knew that Trump was planning something big on Jan 6th. This shouldn't have happened!

The Capitol police were woefully outnumbered given the size of the crowd. My sense is, law enforcement were warned ahead of time to limit engagement after the debacle this summer when they used pepper spray and force to disburse a peaceful protest so trump could have a photo op in front of a church.

So my guess is they were told “there is going to be a protest, and we can’t get involved, so let them protest “... but then they didn’t stay on the streets and sidewalks like they were supposed to, all hell broke loose and they were caught with their pants down.

You could read a week before in German newspapers that this is likely to happen. Surprise is no excue at all!

is now snowflaking about “cancel culture.”

What du you expect from a Trumpflake??

My spin (conspiracy theory) is that Donald and Hillary got drunk and agreed that whoever won in 2016 would destroy their own Party.

How and why would HRC have destroyed the Democratic party?

Haha, good one!
How? Easy: Continue being an establishment party, ignoring all those people who were favoring Sanders for example and activly working against people like him.

WRT to Hawley's  alleged   violation of the First Amendment, Simon & Schuster has the sole right to choose which books its  publishes.

I would argue that this only applies if the publisher, if deciding to not publish, gives back all rights, including a reasonable fee for taking the rights for the time. As is in lost profits for the author.

[OtherJen]

WRT to Hawley's  alleged   violation of the First Amendment, Simon & Schuster has the sole right to choose which books its  publishes.

I would argue that this only applies if the publisher, if deciding to not publish, gives back all rights, including a reasonable fee for taking the rights for the time. As is in lost profits for the author.

As per Simon & Schuster: “We are confident that we are acting fully within our contractual rights.”

They’ve been around for much longer than Hawley’s been alive, and I suspect their lawyers are much better at the profession than he is.

Also, given that his book is about the “tyranny of big tech,” and QAnon/the MAGA cult are starting to call for violent retaliation against the tech sector for upholding their terms of use, there may be legal ramifications for any publisher that gives Hawley a platform right now if something bad does happen.

Hawley has been fundraising left and right. His office sent out a fundraising email during the Capitol riot. I’m sure he can manage to self-publish his book. No one is stopping him from doing that.

[talltexan]

Soon after news broke that his book was dropped, Hawley tweeted, and tagged his comments directly to Simon & Schuster, that he was being unfairly censored and punished: “I was representing my constituents, leading a debate on the Senate floor on voter integrity, which they have now decided to redefine as sedition.

“This could not be more Orwellian … Let me be clear, this is not just a contract dispute. It’s a direct assault on the First Amendment … I will fight this cancel culture with everything I have. We’ll see you in court.”

(Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/08/josh-hawley-publisher-cancels-book-in-wake-of-capitol-attack)

Two thoughts:

1. Man, they sure are setting the bar low for constitutional lawyers these days. Josh Hawley doesn’t even understand the limits of the First Amendment.

2. It seems ironic that a guy who tried to cancel all the votes in several states to garner publicity and donations is now snowflaking about “cancel culture.”

The best way to hit back at these bozos is to hit them squarely in the wallet. And in court.

Yeah, unfortunately, the hitting them in the wallet part isn't going so well, as it seems they were doing some pretty good fundraising off all this.

And the courts.  Sigh.  Even though they mostly come down on the right side, it often takes sooooo long, and "justice delayed is justice denied" and certainly doesn't serve the needed deterrent effects.

Well, everybody involved in the attack on the Capitol is being identified (thanks, anti-maskers) and they are losing their jobs. Politicians are losing book deals, TV deals, getting kicked out of office, for participating. The right-wing apps are being deplatformed and banned. The financial fallout from this situation is severe. Thousands of people will never have income again.

Employability in the normal economy may be a problem. But there is a lot of money sloshing around that seems to flow toward people who express reactionary opinions on the internet.

[nereo]

This is interesting:
Cumulus Media has told their conservative radio show hosts to tone it down with regards to DJT and to cease referring to the election as fraudulent or stolen.  In a statement they wrote: We need to help induce national calm NOW and have threatened to terminate any on-air personalities who continue to claim the election was stolen.

Cumulus Media is the platform for Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro, among many, many others.  Cumulus Media is the 3rd largest in the US with 428 stations.

[FIPurpose]

How is someone in a vegetative state going to submit a formal protest that he is indeed able to discharge the powers and duties of his office??

They wouldn't, and that would be part of the point. Without the 25th amendment, there was no way to remove a president who had become unable to perform his or her duties. So without the 25th amendment section 4, a vegetable president would still be president despite being in a vegetative state.

Actually the first VP to become P was John Tyler (aka "His Accidency") after WH Harrison died 3 months into term. There was a bit of a crisis because the constitution didn't actually lay out rules for succession of a president who can't complete their term. But Tyler just assumes the presidency and there weren't enough detractors to say otherwise. So after that, the VP assuming the power of the president was really just a tradition not named anywhere in law. The 25th amendment fixed that (and added the ability for congress to name successors beyond VP)

[GuitarStv]

It's funny that back in his 2016 campaigning days his wild antics actually made some think that he was sent by the Left to infiltrate and destroy the Republican party.  That latter part seems to have a funny way of coming true.  If the GOP has such destructive supporters whom the party has to keep appeasing in order to stay in office, the party could only head for destruction.  Georgia turning blue in three elections in two months is the handwriting on the wall.  And this state hadn't turned blue since 1992.

Reminds me of the first couple years of the Tea Party's rise.  They show up in numbers and tell the RNC: "we're here because a growing part of your base doesn't like what you've been doing." Mainstream Republican Congress' response: "you're the enemy. We hate you as much as we hate the Democrats and we're going to do our best to marginalize you." Instead of having some meaningful internal discussions on what they're supposed to represent as a party, those fringe elements fester and get a national voice through Trump until they become the base.

The Tea Party showed up on the scene screaming "Fuck the government.  It doesn't work at all, and now we're here in government with a chance to prove it to everyone by making things less functional!  We can destroy any chance of compromise.  I honestly don't understand how you can expect meaningful compromise to be with extremists of that sort without causing serious damage.  The Republican party is in the position it's in now because it made so many meaningful compromises with Tea Party radicals - not because it tried to fight them.

Better for those fringe elements to fester out in the cold than be welcomed to fester within the party.

[jinga nation]

I see that AWS is shutting down parler.com at midnight tonight.    parler says they'll be back up in a week.    Maybe we should start a pool.    Anyone here converted from AWS to another cloud?

(People in the know have suggested that Trump will relocate to grindr.   :-) ).

I also noticed that parler does not have a content network in its front end.    They will be susceptible to DDOS attacks if they do come back.   Not that I would ever advocate such a thing.

Cloud engineer here (certified for both AWS and Azure). Quarterly issue of our main customer wanting to switch from AWS to <competitor>.
Have to tell that it can be done while providing the SWAG for time, effort, and cost. Because retooling your code and infrastructure from AWS to the competitor's will also need to account that the personnel will also have to learn and get trained. And if you're currrently using a service on AWS that isn't present in the competitor, now you might have to re-architecture. We ended writing a white paper and creating a slide deck so that every time someone in the customer leadership decided to be a Good Idea Fairy (GIF) because they heard a buzzword, we'd send them the documents, while resisting to say "For the umpteenth time.."

We never tell the customer "No"; we like to present 2-3 options that they can pick.

Would be surprised to see which CDN would allow Parler. And on that bare metal comment their CEO made... yeah, right. I have an old dual hex-core HP ProLiant that I can sell them, with 8 146GB SAS drives. Can come pre-installed with MS Hyper-V or VMware, as a freebie offer. Best part, it generates a ton of white noise that can help drown out all that "Librul Noiz".

[bbqbonelesswing]

I see that AWS is shutting down parler.com at midnight tonight.    parler says they'll be back up in a week.    Maybe we should start a pool.    Anyone here converted from AWS to another cloud?

(People in the know have suggested that Trump will relocate to grindr.   :-) ).

I also noticed that parler does not have a content network in its front end.    They will be susceptible to DDOS attacks if they do come back.   Not that I would ever advocate such a thing.

Cloud engineer here (certified for both AWS and Azure). Quarterly issue of our main customer wanting to switch from AWS to <competitor>.
Have to tell that it can be done while providing the SWAG for time, effort, and cost. Because retooling your code and infrastructure from AWS to the competitor's will also need to account that the personnel will also have to learn and get trained. And if you're currrently using a service on AWS that isn't present in the competitor, now you might have to re-architecture. We ended writing a white paper and creating a slide deck so that every time someone in the customer leadership decided to be a Good Idea Fairy (GIF) because they heard a buzzword, we'd send them the documents, while resisting to say "For the umpteenth time.."

We never tell the customer "No"; we like to present 2-3 options that they can pick.

Would be surprised to see which CDN would allow Parler. And on that bare metal comment their CEO made... yeah, right. I have an old dual hex-core HP ProLiant that I can sell them, with 8 146GB SAS drives. Can come pre-installed with MS Hyper-V or VMware, as a freebie offer. Best part, it generates a ton of white noise that can help drown out all that "Librul Noiz".

I imagine they'll be down for quite a while, until they can move overseas or something. Nobody wants their business. The smaller cloud providers have come out against Parler as well.

https://twitter.com/digitalocean/status/1348324491156475904

https://twitter.com/caker/status/1348108108061618181

[Just Joe]

The same crowd of people who smashed their way into the Capitol with "don't tread on me" and Confederate flags were demanding that the federal government arbitrarily alter the States' election decisions. Chew on that one.

Yep. A Trumper on my FB friends' list was wailing about the "stolen" election. When I pointed out 60+ court cases that had found no fraud and no issues sufficient to overturn the results, he was unhappy.

And furthermore, those suits were where the courts sided with the position that states were allowed their own electoral processes, and therefore other states had no standing to grieve the process. This sort of state's right to run their own government is EXACTLY the reason they want to move out of CA to Idaho or other FREEDOM state. At that point, their head exploded. He left FB later than day, and flounced off to Parler.

;)

Are these people ignorant, delusional or intellectually lazy? Or something else? I ran across a guy last night in a comments section who clearly doesn't know much about electric cars spreading a bunch of BS that he could have corrected with 30 seconds of search engine use.

[FIPurpose]

Starting to hear a little bit of talk about the 14th amendment as well for preventing Trump from holding office. There might be a way to bar Trump from 2024 with a simple majority vote for having caused insurrection. Still need to hear more on this option, but an interesting route that I hadn't thought about before.

[GuitarStv]

It's too bad that a president is above the law, because there's a simple penal code that would otherwise handle this whole problem:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

But I guess this is the kind of weirdness and confusion that goes on when there's a separate legal system for the king in charge than the plebs.

[Alfred J Quack]

Would be surprised to see which CDN would allow Parler. And on that bare metal comment their CEO made... yeah, right. I have an old dual hex-core HP ProLiant that I can sell them, with 8 146GB SAS drives. Can come pre-installed with MS Hyper-V or VMware, as a freebie offer. Best part, it generates a ton of white noise that can help drown out all that "Librul Noiz".

It would be funny if Baidu's US subsidiary offered themselves, running the service on Huawei servers :P

[frugalnacho]

All the news outlets are reporting that articles of impeachment were formally introduced in the house pro forma session today.  I watched the recording of the session but never saw impeachment introduced, and they have adjourned until tomorrow.  What am I missing?

[MudPuppy]

Maybe they passed it like a note in class.

“Impeach prez y/n?”

[frugalnacho]

Maybe, I'm genuinely confused.  I see they've released it, so you can go read the text of it, but all the news outlets are reporting that it was formally introduced.  The session was only like 11 minutes long and I watched it but didn't see it get formally introduced. 

[Sandi_k]

Maybe, I'm genuinely confused.  I see they've released it, so you can go read the text of it, but all the news outlets are reporting that it was formally introduced.  The session was only like 11 minutes long and I watched it but didn't see it get formally introduced.

It's possible that it was introduced in a closed-door session.

[nereo]

Maybe, I'm genuinely confused.  I see they've released it, so you can go read the text of it, but all the news outlets are reporting that it was formally introduced.  The session was only like 11 minutes long and I watched it but didn't see it get formally introduced.

As I understand it, the Democrat caucus has finalized one article of impeachment, which is available to read online.  That resolution will be introduced to the House during a future session - most likely on Wednesday - when they will vote on whether to impeach Trump for a second time.

This is the way resolutions typically go - they are written and published so that lawmakers can (at least in theory) read them and decide whether to support them or not. 

[Just Joe]

And a local rumor that Trump signed the Insurrection Act. Only Newsweek addressed it and they said no he didn't.

[lemanfan]

Would be surprised to see which CDN would allow Parler. And on that bare metal comment their CEO made... yeah, right. I have an old dual hex-core HP ProLiant that I can sell them, with 8 146GB SAS drives. Can come pre-installed with MS Hyper-V or VMware, as a freebie offer. Best part, it generates a ton of white noise that can help drown out all that "Librul Noiz".

It would be funny if Baidu's US subsidiary offered themselves, running the service on Huawei servers :P

Seriously, what the US is doing now with the tech purge of both people thrown out from the social platforms in unknown numbers and the takedown of Parler is seriously scary.  It takes a lot of work later to either show that these were conditions extreme enough to warrant this and that it was "one time only", or something else that takes care of the long term.  We in Europe are not really the ones to speak for "totally free speech" with our hate speech laws and similar restrictions but even Merkel thinks this is problematic according to my local news outlet.

Personally I couldn't even stand five minutes on Twitter and Parler seemed like another level of hell in comparison - but this silencing can backfire radically.  Something along the lines of the Dolchstoßlegende might be one outcome among the fringes. 

I'm scared for the long term consequences of this. And I'm not even American.

[frugalnacho]

Maybe, I'm genuinely confused.  I see they've released it, so you can go read the text of it, but all the news outlets are reporting that it was formally introduced.  The session was only like 11 minutes long and I watched it but didn't see it get formally introduced.

As I understand it, the Democrat caucus has finalized one article of impeachment, which is available to read online.  That resolution will be introduced to the House during a future session - most likely on Wednesday - when they will vote on whether to impeach Trump for a second time.

This is the way resolutions typically go - they are written and published so that lawmakers can (at least in theory) read them and decide whether to support them or not.

And that qualifies as being "formally introduced during the pro forma session"?  I still have the C-Span tab open to the video I watched and it's titled "WATCH: Articles of Impeachment Introduced in the U.S. House of...".  Kind of odd to say here is a link for you to watch the articles get introduced, when the reality is that it's simply published online completely separately from the pro forma session.

[dividendman]

Would be surprised to see which CDN would allow Parler. And on that bare metal comment their CEO made... yeah, right. I have an old dual hex-core HP ProLiant that I can sell them, with 8 146GB SAS drives. Can come pre-installed with MS Hyper-V or VMware, as a freebie offer. Best part, it generates a ton of white noise that can help drown out all that "Librul Noiz".

It would be funny if Baidu's US subsidiary offered themselves, running the service on Huawei servers :P

Seriously, what the US is doing now with the tech purge of both people thrown out from the social platforms in unknown numbers and the takedown of Parler is seriously scary.  It takes a lot of work later to either show that these were conditions extreme enough to warrant this and that it was "one time only", or something else that takes care of the long term.  We in Europe are not really the ones to speak for "totally free speech" with our hate speech laws and similar restrictions but even Merkel thinks this is problematic according to my local news outlet.

Personally I couldn't even stand five minutes on Twitter and Parler seemed like another level of hell in comparison - but this silencing can backfire radically.  Something along the lines of the Dolchstoßlegende might be one outcome among the fringes. 

I'm scared for the long term consequences of this. And I'm not even American.

The conservative view, and it's the one I agree with is this:

Twitter, Amazon, etc. are all private companies. They are not government entities. They are entitled to restrict usage of their services to anyone for any reason that is not a protected reason under the law.

Anyone is free to start their own company or service where they may do the same thing.

The First Amendment, the freedom of speech, only restricts the government in its ability to censure or restrict speech. It actually allows for private entities and individuals to do exactly what Twitter, Amazon, etc. are doing right now.

[lemanfan]

The conservative view, and it's the one I agree with is this:

Twitter, Amazon, etc. are all private companies. They are not government entities. They are entitled to restrict usage of their services to anyone for any reason that is not a protected reason under the law.

In principle I agree as I am a free market kind of guy, but in practice I'm still scared. 

[frugalnacho]

Would be surprised to see which CDN would allow Parler. And on that bare metal comment their CEO made... yeah, right. I have an old dual hex-core HP ProLiant that I can sell them, with 8 146GB SAS drives. Can come pre-installed with MS Hyper-V or VMware, as a freebie offer. Best part, it generates a ton of white noise that can help drown out all that "Librul Noiz".

It would be funny if Baidu's US subsidiary offered themselves, running the service on Huawei servers :P

Seriously, what the US is doing now with the tech purge of both people thrown out from the social platforms in unknown numbers and the takedown of Parler is seriously scary.  It takes a lot of work later to either show that these were conditions extreme enough to warrant this and that it was "one time only", or something else that takes care of the long term.  We in Europe are not really the ones to speak for "totally free speech" with our hate speech laws and similar restrictions but even Merkel thinks this is problematic according to my local news outlet.

Personally I couldn't even stand five minutes on Twitter and Parler seemed like another level of hell in comparison - but this silencing can backfire radically.  Something along the lines of the Dolchstoßlegende might be one outcome among the fringes. 

I'm scared for the long term consequences of this. And I'm not even American.

The conservative view, and it's the one I agree with is this:

Twitter, Amazon, etc. are all private companies. They are not government entities. They are entitled to restrict usage of their services to anyone for any reason that is not a protected reason under the law.

Anyone is free to start their own company or service where they may do the same thing.

The First Amendment, the freedom of speech, only restricts the government in its ability to censure or restrict speech. It actually allows for private entities and individuals to do exactly what Twitter, Amazon, etc. are doing right now.

Twitter is a company, much like a bakery, and Trump is a customer, much like a gay couple.

[nereo]

Maybe, I'm genuinely confused.  I see they've released it, so you can go read the text of it, but all the news outlets are reporting that it was formally introduced.  The session was only like 11 minutes long and I watched it but didn't see it get formally introduced.

As I understand it, the Democrat caucus has finalized one article of impeachment, which is available to read online.  That resolution will be introduced to the House during a future session - most likely on Wednesday - when they will vote on whether to impeach Trump for a second time.

This is the way resolutions typically go - they are written and published so that lawmakers can (at least in theory) read them and decide whether to support them or not.

And that qualifies as being "formally introduced during the pro forma session"?  I still have the C-Span tab open to the video I watched and it's titled "WATCH: Articles of Impeachment Introduced in the U.S. House of...".  Kind of odd to say here is a link for you to watch the articles get introduced, when the reality is that it's simply published online completely separately from the pro forma session.

I think it's all procedural, but yes the terminology is strange. 
A resolution must be formally introduced in advance so that it can be read by all members before it can be debated and voted upon. It can only be introduced while congress is in session, but there's typically no debate or discussion at that time.
My understanding is that is what happened today.

[dividendman]

Would be surprised to see which CDN would allow Parler. And on that bare metal comment their CEO made... yeah, right. I have an old dual hex-core HP ProLiant that I can sell them, with 8 146GB SAS drives. Can come pre-installed with MS Hyper-V or VMware, as a freebie offer. Best part, it generates a ton of white noise that can help drown out all that "Librul Noiz".

It would be funny if Baidu's US subsidiary offered themselves, running the service on Huawei servers :P

Seriously, what the US is doing now with the tech purge of both people thrown out from the social platforms in unknown numbers and the takedown of Parler is seriously scary.  It takes a lot of work later to either show that these were conditions extreme enough to warrant this and that it was "one time only", or something else that takes care of the long term.  We in Europe are not really the ones to speak for "totally free speech" with our hate speech laws and similar restrictions but even Merkel thinks this is problematic according to my local news outlet.

Personally I couldn't even stand five minutes on Twitter and Parler seemed like another level of hell in comparison - but this silencing can backfire radically.  Something along the lines of the Dolchstoßlegende might be one outcome among the fringes. 

I'm scared for the long term consequences of this. And I'm not even American.

The conservative view, and it's the one I agree with is this:

Twitter, Amazon, etc. are all private companies. They are not government entities. They are entitled to restrict usage of their services to anyone for any reason that is not a protected reason under the law.

Anyone is free to start their own company or service where they may do the same thing.

The First Amendment, the freedom of speech, only restricts the government in its ability to censure or restrict speech. It actually allows for private entities and individuals to do exactly what Twitter, Amazon, etc. are doing right now.

Twitter is a company, much like a bakery, and Trump is a customer, much like a gay couple.

Yes, being a social liberal, but also a classical liberal in that I value individual rights over most things, I was in another thread arguing that the state should also not compel bakers to provide services to anyone (i.e. racist bakers should be able to deny whatever races they want). I know it's not a popular opinion, but, although I find the fact that someone would do that to be repugnant, I don't think they should face government consequences.

Anyway, the law does force private companies to serve some protected classes, but the reasons parler etc. were denied doesn't fall into those.

[Alfred J Quack]

Would be surprised to see which CDN would allow Parler. And on that bare metal comment their CEO made... yeah, right. I have an old dual hex-core HP ProLiant that I can sell them, with 8 146GB SAS drives. Can come pre-installed with MS Hyper-V or VMware, as a freebie offer. Best part, it generates a ton of white noise that can help drown out all that "Librul Noiz".

It would be funny if Baidu's US subsidiary offered themselves, running the service on Huawei servers :P

Seriously, what the US is doing now with the tech purge of both people thrown out from the social platforms in unknown numbers and the takedown of Parler is seriously scary.  It takes a lot of work later to either show that these were conditions extreme enough to warrant this and that it was "one time only", or something else that takes care of the long term.  We in Europe are not really the ones to speak for "totally free speech" with our hate speech laws and similar restrictions but even Merkel thinks this is problematic according to my local news outlet.

Personally I couldn't even stand five minutes on Twitter and Parler seemed like another level of hell in comparison - but this silencing can backfire radically.  Something along the lines of the Dolchstoßlegende might be one outcome among the fringes. 

I'm scared for the long term consequences of this. And I'm not even American.

I understand your concern but a totally unmoderated forum that has extremist visitors spouting whatever conspiracy theory you can think of and accept them for truth sounds a lot more of a threat.

Yes, there is freedom of speech but that doesn't mean a platform is free from consquences. Because when does freedom of speech become hate speech, and when does a call to action become a call to violence or worse? I'm not saying it should be censored but I am saying a platform should at least be responsible for what people post on it.
In all fairness posts on twitter, Facebook and other social media are received with the same credibility as posts on other media outlets, if only because they are endlessly posted and reposted. Sure, some of those posters do their homework and actually have real research to back up their claim but the same is said about 5G being deadly because a flock were found dead beneath a cell tower (not even a 5G one). Said birds were appearently poisened due to something in the watersupply but nobody read that post. If you point them to said post, the idiots say it's a cover up. They went down the rabbit hole and some of those cooks are actually setting cell towers on fire because of it...

So sure, freedom of speech. But if someone reports it as false, you as a platform have to do something about it.

I'm european too by the way.

[sui generis]

The conservative view, and it's the one I agree with is this:

Twitter, Amazon, etc. are all private companies. They are not government entities. They are entitled to restrict usage of their services to anyone for any reason that is not a protected reason under the law.

In principle I agree as I am a free market kind of guy, but in practice I'm still scared.

The only reason to be scared is because these companies control so much of this industry and of the market.  And that's an antitrust issue, not a speech issue.  We should be using the levers of antitrust to prevent companies from having undue control, and people like Elizabeth Warren have been calling for this for a long time.  The same conservatives and RWNJ who are today upset about the companies' actions against someone they like are the ones that don't want to use the antitrust laws on our books to cut the head off the monster rather than just the one limb that's attacking them.

[Alfred J Quack]

Yes, being a social liberal, but also a classical liberal in that I value individual rights over most things, I was in another thread arguing that the state should also not compel bakers to provide services to anyone (i.e. racist bakers should be able to deny whatever races they want). I know it's not a popular opinion, but, although I find the fact that someone would do that to be repugnant, I don't think they should face government consequences.

Anyway, the law does force private companies to serve some protected classes, but the reasons parler etc. were denied doesn't fall into those.

Well, in my home country a business can opt to refuse service to customers. However, they cannot do so on the basis of race, gender and sexuality. There are also some branches which are excluded from this right (social housing, banks) but they have other reasons which are given enough weight to refuse service (fraud).

This right is generally invoked when customers steal or are generally really bad in another way (violent against personell or other customers and such).

[FIPurpose]

The conservative view, and it's the one I agree with is this:

Twitter, Amazon, etc. are all private companies. They are not government entities. They are entitled to restrict usage of their services to anyone for any reason that is not a protected reason under the law.

In principle I agree as I am a free market kind of guy, but in practice I'm still scared.

Companies throwing people off the platform for inciting violence or any other crime (child pornography, terrorist activity, etc.) has been happening forever and in some cases is even required by law. Why so concerned now?

[bacchi]

In the past few weeks, Parler was full of violent posts. Lin Wood posted that Pence must be shot.

Get the firing squads ready. Pence goes FIRST.

Amazon gave Parler time to remove the violent posts and come up with a plan to moderate future posts. Their "volunteer moderator" plan didn't meet Amazon's bar.

[John Galt incarnate!]

Wikipedia

John Feerick, the principal drafter of the 25th Amendment writes that Congress determined that "a rigid constitutional definition [of the terms unable and inability] was undesirable, since cases of inability could take various forms not neatly fitting into such a definition .

The debates surrounding the Twenty-fifth Amendment indicate that the terms unable and inability are intended to cover all cases in which some condition or circumstance prevents the President from discharging his powers and duties

A survey of scholarship on the amendment found no specific threshold – medical or otherwise – for the "inability" contemplated in Section 4.

The framers specifically rejected any definition of the term, prioritizing flexibility. Those implementing Section 4 should focus on whether – in an objective sense taking all of the circumstances into account – the President is "unable to discharge the powers and duties" of the office.

The amendment does not require that any particular type or amount of evidence be submitted to determine that the President is unable to perform his duties.

While the framers did imagine that medical evidence would be helpful to the determination of whether the President is unable, neither medical expertise nor diagnosis is required for a determination of inability.

To be sure, foremost in [the minds of the framers] was a physical or mental impairment. But the text of Section 4 sets forth a flexible standard intentionally designed to apply to a wide variety of unforeseen emergencies.



Here is  the Presidential Oath of Office.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


 I think the particular circumstance of President Trump's incitement of insurrection is a naked  manifestation of gross  unfitness to remain in  office  that  is tantamount to a demonstration of his inability to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," more than sufficient grounds for his removal under the 25th Amendment.

 

[bbqbonelesswing]

The conservative view, and it's the one I agree with is this:

Twitter, Amazon, etc. are all private companies. They are not government entities. They are entitled to restrict usage of their services to anyone for any reason that is not a protected reason under the law.

In principle I agree as I am a free market kind of guy, but in practice I'm still scared.

Companies throwing people off the platform for inciting violence or any other crime (child pornography, terrorist activity, etc.) has been happening forever and in some cases is even required by law. Why so concerned now?

True. I work for a cloud provider and we take down content every day. Knowingly hosting a site like Parler, which not only fails to regulate itself but makes it known that illegal and violent content is welcome, opens any host up to so many legal issues.

[nereo]

The conservative view, and it's the one I agree with is this:

Twitter, Amazon, etc. are all private companies. They are not government entities. They are entitled to restrict usage of their services to anyone for any reason that is not a protected reason under the law.

In principle I agree as I am a free market kind of guy, but in practice I'm still scared.

Companies throwing people off the platform for inciting violence or any other crime (child pornography, terrorist activity, etc.) has been happening forever and in some cases is even required by law. Why so concerned now?

True. I work for a cloud provider and we take down content every day. Knowingly hosting a site like Parler, which not only fails to regulate itself but makes it known that illegal and violent content is welcome, opens any host up to so many legal issues.

I mean, just look at this from a business owner’s perspective:
“Hey boss!  I’ve got a potential new client - their previous host wants nothing to do with them, they are being investigated by the DOJ and the FBI for criminal prosecution, and a bunch of their members are neo-nazis.  Should we take them on?!?”

[jinga nation]

The conservative view, and it's the one I agree with is this:

Twitter, Amazon, etc. are all private companies. They are not government entities. They are entitled to restrict usage of their services to anyone for any reason that is not a protected reason under the law.

In principle I agree as I am a free market kind of guy, but in practice I'm still scared.

Companies throwing people off the platform for inciting violence or any other crime (child pornography, terrorist activity, etc.) has been happening forever and in some cases is even required by law. Why so concerned now?

True. I work for a cloud provider and we take down content every day. Knowingly hosting a site like Parler, which not only fails to regulate itself but makes it known that illegal and violent content is welcome, opens any host up to so many legal issues.

I mean, just look at this from a business owner’s perspective:
“Hey boss!  I’ve got a potential new client - their previous host wants nothing to do with them, they are being investigated by the DOJ and the FBI for criminal prosecution, and a bunch of their members are neo-nazis.  Should we take them on?!?”

They could use Yandex or any Rossiya-based cloud provider. Make Vladi-daddy Happy Very!
Or they could have it made hosted in China, just like all the Trump store products.

[OtherJen]

Yet another cabinet member bites the dust:

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf Resigns

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf has submitted his resignation. ABC News released this internal message he sent to staff: 

“I am saddened to take this step, as it was my intention to serve the Department until the end of this Administration. Unfortunately, this action is warranted by recent events, including the ongoing and meritless court rulings regarding the validity of my authority as Acting Secretary. These events and concerns increasingly serve to divert attention and resources away from the important work of the Department in this critical time of a transition of power.”

Thanks, dude. Way to back out right before armed militia are planning to attack all 50 state capitols. Have some cheese with that whine.

[scottish]

The conservative view, and it's the one I agree with is this:

Twitter, Amazon, etc. are all private companies. They are not government entities. They are entitled to restrict usage of their services to anyone for any reason that is not a protected reason under the law.

In principle I agree as I am a free market kind of guy, but in practice I'm still scared.

Companies throwing people off the platform for inciting violence or any other crime (child pornography, terrorist activity, etc.) has been happening forever and in some cases is even required by law. Why so concerned now?

True. I work for a cloud provider and we take down content every day. Knowingly hosting a site like Parler, which not only fails to regulate itself but makes it known that illegal and violent content is welcome, opens any host up to so many legal issues.

I mean, just look at this from a business owner’s perspective:
“Hey boss!  I’ve got a potential new client - their previous host wants nothing to do with them, they are being investigated by the DOJ and the FBI for criminal prosecution, and a bunch of their members are neo-nazis.  Should we take them on?!?”

They could use Yandex or any Rossiya-based cloud provider. Make Vladi-daddy Happy Very!
Or they could have it made hosted in China, just like all the Trump store products.

I'm finding the discussion in the news interesting.   The gop wants to revoke section 250 (I think that's the number) which provides a legal shield protecting service providers like Facebook from the consequences of content posted by their users.    I believe the gop thinks this will stop the social media companies from "censoring" conservative posters.

But I have to think that this will make it *more* likely for them to remove controversial posts  - which are the very posts the conservatives are complaining about being moderated.

[sherr]

I'm finding the discussion in the news interesting.   The gop wants to revoke section 250 (I think that's the number) which provides a legal shield protecting service providers like Facebook from the consequences of content posted by their users.    I believe the gop thinks this will stop the social media companies from "censoring" conservative posters.

But I have to think that this will make it *more* likely for them to remove controversial posts  - which are the very posts the conservatives are complaining about being moderated.

It absolutely would lead to them getting moderated much harder. If Facebook is legally liable for stuff that people say on it, they will boot people off at the drop of a proverbial hat.

[Poundwise]

Yet another cabinet member bites the dust:

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf Resigns

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf has submitted his resignation. ABC News released this internal message he sent to staff: 

“I am saddened to take this step, as it was my intention to serve the Department until the end of this Administration. Unfortunately, this action is warranted by recent events, including the ongoing and meritless court rulings regarding the validity of my authority as Acting Secretary. These events and concerns increasingly serve to divert attention and resources away from the important work of the Department in this critical time of a transition of power.”

Thanks, dude. Way to back out right before armed militia are planning to attack all 50 state capitols. Have some cheese with that whine.

Is anybody running the government at all, or are we in complete free fall??

[ixtap]

Yet another cabinet member bites the dust:

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf Resigns

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf has submitted his resignation. ABC News released this internal message he sent to staff: 

“I am saddened to take this step, as it was my intention to serve the Department until the end of this Administration. Unfortunately, this action is warranted by recent events, including the ongoing and meritless court rulings regarding the validity of my authority as Acting Secretary. These events and concerns increasingly serve to divert attention and resources away from the important work of the Department in this critical time of a transition of power.”

Thanks, dude. Way to back out right before armed militia are planning to attack all 50 state capitols. Have some cheese with that whine.

Is anybody running the government at all, or are we in complete free fall??

I am hoping it is in the hands of the lifers who care!

[Glenstache]

Yet another cabinet member bites the dust:

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf Resigns

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf has submitted his resignation. ABC News released this internal message he sent to staff: 

“I am saddened to take this step, as it was my intention to serve the Department until the end of this Administration. Unfortunately, this action is warranted by recent events, including the ongoing and meritless court rulings regarding the validity of my authority as Acting Secretary. These events and concerns increasingly serve to divert attention and resources away from the important work of the Department in this critical time of a transition of power.”

Thanks, dude. Way to back out right before armed militia are planning to attack all 50 state capitols. Have some cheese with that whine.

Is anybody running the government at all, or are we in complete free fall??

I am hoping it is in the hands of the lifers who care!

The deep state is there to save the day.

[Travis]

Yet another cabinet member bites the dust:

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf Resigns

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf has submitted his resignation. ABC News released this internal message he sent to staff: 

“I am saddened to take this step, as it was my intention to serve the Department until the end of this Administration. Unfortunately, this action is warranted by recent events, including the ongoing and meritless court rulings regarding the validity of my authority as Acting Secretary. These events and concerns increasingly serve to divert attention and resources away from the important work of the Department in this critical time of a transition of power.”

Thanks, dude. Way to back out right before armed militia are planning to attack all 50 state capitols. Have some cheese with that whine.

He's been acting DHS for some time now and on paper was nominated to be the permanent head. Trump withdrew the appointment after Wolf came out against last week's mess.