Trump's Twitter Account Restored

[Aseahawkfan]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/musk-restore-trump-twitter-holding-010323955.html

Trump can return to Twitter.

How long before he gets banned again with Musk at the helm? We shall see.

Musk and the Democrats do not get along. He would love nothing more than to see Biden taken down even though he won't directly say it.

[I-5]

Considering 90% of Twitter's revenue comes from advertisers, many of whom are leaving or have already left rather than be placed into the landscape of chaos that is Twitter right now, the question is how long can it stay afloat. Musk has always been vehemently against advertising (Tesla and SpaceX don't advertise), but he happened to buy a company that completely relies on ads, and doesn't seem to care about it.

[Aseahawkfan]

From what I understand he intends to roll Twitter into some project he calls "X" that is apparently going to be some massive social media app with increased functionality.

https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/08/elon-musk-x-everything-wechat-tesla-app/

[RiverDog]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/musk-restore-trump-twitter-holding-010323955.html

Trump can return to Twitter.

How long before he gets banned again with Musk at the helm? We shall see.

Musk and the Democrats do not get along. He would love nothing more than to see Biden taken down even though he won't directly say it.

It's a sticky wicket. Banning a person from such a publicly available platform, especially someone as notable as a former POTUS, could be considered a breach of the 1st amendment protecting free speech, yet Twitter and other social media have an obligation to the public to keep their platform from being used in the commission of a crime.

Personally, I don't have a problem allowing Trump back on Twitter. He's old news, and if you didn't know who he was or what he stood for by now, letting him back on isn't going to result in an enlightenment.

[c_hawkbob]

He may be old news but I know people that are still willing to take up arms, against me, at his say so. I imagine most of these people are on Truth Social anyway but I would still just as soon such word got out to as few people as possible.

[Hawktawk]

Trump has said he is not going to go back on Twitter . I hope he does. His delusional evil false tweets will further remind even the party he hijacked and neutered and destroyed they need to take their lumps . As far as him being banned from Twitter he committed treason against America , fostered an insurrection . He should be banned from freedom for life . If I was in charge he’d have been popped for treason a long time ago . He and musk are signs were flirting with Armageddon .

[RiverDog]

He may be old news but I know people that are still willing to take up arms, against me, at his say so. I imagine most of these people are on Truth Social anyway but I would still just as soon such word got out to as few people as possible.

If he uses it as a means to encourage illegal acts, then by all means, he should be banned immediately, like within seconds of him sending a tweet. But other than that, I don't see the harm.

It's likely a moot point anyway as like HT said, Trump has come out and said he's not going back to Twitter.

[Aseahawkfan]

I think he'll back on Twitter unless Twitter goes under as Musk has absolutely gutted that company and really wants the twitter tech and maybe the name to fold into his own social media app. I'm still surprised he bought it. Tesla stock is taking a hit from Musk's foray into social media.

[c_hawkbob]

He may be old news but I know people that are still willing to take up arms, against me, at his say so. I imagine most of these people are on Truth Social anyway but I would still just as soon such word got out to as few people as possible.

If he uses it as a means to encourage illegal acts, then by all means, he should be banned immediately, like within seconds of him sending a tweet. But other than that, I don't see the harm.

It's likely a moot point anyway as like HT said, Trump has come out and said he's not going back to Twitter.

I don't wanna see him banned again after he paints a target on my house.

[Aseahawkfan]

C-bob must be dealing with some real crazy Trumpers.

If Trump uses Twitter to start a Civil War, I guess we can all thank Elon Musk.

[RiverDog]

I don't wanna see him banned again after he paints a target on my house.

This is an honest question: Can't they take down a post/tweet advocating violence or any other TOS violation within seconds if they have them on a watch list as they obviously would with Trump?

If they can't, then of course, I would agree to keeping a known violator off the platform.

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't know. Last time I was on Twitter was when Carroll was first hired and I made an account to follow Pete. I grew bored of the stupid tweets as they didn't tell you much. Never really went back and I'm not sure how it works other than I guess you flag a tweet then some Twitter content moderator takes care of it like every other site? That's how it usually works.

[c_hawkbob]

I don't wanna see him banned again after he paints a target on my house.

This is an honest question: Can't they take down a post/tweet advocating violence or any other TOS violation within seconds if they have them on a watch list as they obviously would with Trump?

If they can't, then of course, I would agree to keeping a known violator off the platform.

The way Space Karen's running that clownhouse right now I seriously doubt any such "instant" capability. no telling what it will be like when Trump feels cornered enough to make such a move.

[Aseahawkfan]

This shows why I encourage people to support DeSantis.

DeSantis may be a clown or have views that you disagree with or think are stupid, but he's not Trump. He's not a wild card looking to start a Civil War to fuel his selfish, narcissistic crazy. If he takes Trump out in the primaries, then everyone can breathe a sigh of relief and get back to the normal level of crazy.

Trump declared so early that it will be probably a year before we know who he is running against. Election isn't until November 5th, 2024 and narcissist loon declared months if not a year before anyone will even bother declaring.

[I-5]

He'll probably come back Twitter for the simple reason that he said he wouldn't...he's that much of a liar, that he can't help it. I don't really care either way, and if he does try to lead another riot, that will be fun to see how long that lasts.

Regarding 1st Amendment and Twitter, the two have nothing to do with each other no matter what someone may believe.

[RiverDog]

Regarding 1st Amendment and Twitter, the two have nothing to do with each other no matter what someone may believe.

That's my take, too, that the 1st Amendment only applies to government, not to private entities. But not everyone agrees with that take.

Trump used his Twitter account to conduct official government business, which it can be argued makes Twitter a public entity subject to 1st amendment protections:

Since Mr. Trump is a government official who used the account to conduct official business, a unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, ruled in 2019 that the account was a public forum from which he was powerless to exclude people based on their viewpoints.

“We conclude that the evidence of the official nature of the account is overwhelming,” Judge Barrington D. Parker wrote for the court. “We also conclude that once the president has chosen a platform and opened up its interactive space to millions of users and participants, he may not selectively exclude those whose views he disagrees with.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/us/f ... peech.html

So if Trump can't block users from his account because it's a public forum where official government business is conducted, why would it make a difference if Twitter essentially does the same thing by suspending his account and eliminating that public forum, preventing millions from expressing their POV's on that official government business?

[Hawktawk]

Not sure why it’s a debate . Man would be in prison in any other western nation . It shouldn’t be a debate . The position of President has become a joke on us all . A feifdom that is so powerful anything goes . The powers of the potus must be stripped .

[RiverDog]

Not sure why it’s a debate . Man would be in prison in any other western nation . It shouldn’t be a debate . The position of President has become a joke on us all . A feifdom that is so powerful anything goes . The powers of the potus must be stripped .

I'm not talking about Trump. I'm talking about Twitter's policy of suspending accounts of individuals that they disagree with. The courts have ruled that if the platform is used to conduct official business, that an individual cannot selectively ban access to that account based on their POV's.

And if an individual can't ban users based on their POV's, why would Twitter be allowed to essentially do the same thing by banning an individual like Trump from their platform based on his POV? They were able to get away with it two years ago as Trump used it to encourage illegal acts, but is there a period of time where that suspension becomes unreasonable?

The courts have ruled that when a POTUS gives a nationwide address, like a State of the Union address, over private television networks, that those networks are obligated to allow the opposing party an opportunity for a response. Same with the FCC, which regulates content that TV and radio stations can televise/broadcast over public airways, with Howard Stern coming to mind. I can see an argument that a private company like Twitter, that has tens of millions of followers, has become a public entity and as such, is subject to first amendment protections.

[c_hawkbob]

That's all based on Trumps choice to use twitter as a means of official communications and therefor only relevant to whether or not he can block people on twitter. Has nothing to do with Twitter's right to block him.

[RiverDog]

That's all based on Trumps choice to use twitter as a means of official communications and therefor only relevant to whether or not he can block people on twitter. Has nothing to do with Twitter's right to block him.

I agree. I think it's pretty clear that the first amendment only applies to Congress passing laws that restricts free speech. I'm playing a little devil's advocate here, touching on other POV's.

At this point, the government does not treat Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms like they do radio and television companies, but that day where the government exerts similar control over social media might not be that far off in the future. I think that we can all agree that a handful of social media companies have acquired a huge amount of power and influence over our society. Courts have already established the right of political parties being allowed to address the public in a relatively equal fashion on television and radio stations, ie the response to the State of the Union address. Would that right be extended to the general public should the government decide that large social media platforms need government regulation in the same manner that the FCC regulates content over radio and television?

[Aseahawkfan]

Social media needs regulation. It should be treated like TV and radio. It has the same if not greater reach than TV and radio in the modern day. Social media provides the ability to immediately deliver information on a near global scale. It may be difficult to apply the same standards given it is used by Joe Blow around the world including trolls and bots, but they should still start applying some standards to social media companies. I would not be surprised if there are studies that show social media has contributed to human stupidity and just about every other negative human trait out there including the obvious such as lying and gullibility.

[I-5]

That's my take, too, that the 1st Amendment only applies to government, not to private entities. But not everyone agrees with that take.

Riv, it doesn't matter if someone agrees or not. If they see it differently, they're simply ignorant. Twitter is not subject to the First Amendment - they can do as they please.

[RiverDog]

Social media needs regulation. It should be treated like TV and radio. It has the same if not greater reach than TV and radio in the modern day. Social media provides the ability to immediately deliver information on a near global scale. It may be difficult to apply the same standards given it is used by Joe Blow around the world including trolls and bots, but they should still start applying some standards to social media companies. I would not be surprised if there are studies that show social media has contributed to human stupidity and just about every other negative human trait out there including the obvious such as lying and gullibility.

I agree with that. If they can fine Howard Stern for asking women to show their tits to him, they can certainly regulate some of the content that's being tossed around on social media, at least so long as the platform is free and open to the public. Stern can say or do anything he wants on cable TV because it's a pay service.

The problem is that it's a monumental task. It's one thing to monitor couple thousand radio and TV stations, a completely different thing to monitor the millions of tweets and posts on some of these platforms. I'd almost rather see them outlaw Twitter and Facebook all together, but then we would be getting into first amendment violations.

[idhawkman]

Trump will probably go back to Twitter to promote his postings on truth social via a link. It would be silly for him not to drive people to his platform on truth social.

That said, Twitter is actually thriving with the highest ever engagement levels being experience since its inception. It was stupid business banning half the population like they did and reducing its reach by shadow banning and censorship. As was said earlier in the thread, it relies on marketing and advertisers will market where they see results and dry up the funds being spent on activities that don't produce results (which is what you get when you ban half the audience).

On a side note, didn't musk get his start through the creation of PayPal? I know they advertised. I wouldn't be surprised if musk encore orates a payment processor into Twitter in the future.

[Aseahawkfan]

Yes. Musk made his initial money in Paypal. He helped found it I believe.

[I-5]

The problem with any type of subscription plan is that it defeats the point of social media. Advertising is what drives soc med business, and the content that users post for free is the actual product. Musk knows this, or should.

[idhawkman]

You are right the content is the product but like many other apps there is a free side and a premium side.

Those who want the perks of the blue check mark have to pay for the perks they get with it. Otherwise they are free to participate in the "free" part of the platform.

The problem with any type of subscription plan is that it defeats the point of social media. Advertising is what drives soc med business, and the content that users post for free is the actual product. Musk knows this, or should.

[I-5]

You are right the content is the product but like many other apps there is a free side and a premium side.

Those who want the perks of the blue check mark have to pay for the perks they get with it. Otherwise they are free to participate in the "free" part of the platform.

At this point there isn't much perk of a blue check mark, now that verification has been reduced to monetization, meaning anyone willing to fork over 8 bucks is verified. BFD. He removed any legitimacy the blue check mark had, so that it's now just a vehicle for memes and jokes. I really don't think he's thinking any of this through. He says he's 'working' 18+ hours a day, but it's easy to see in real time he is spending a big chunk of that time tweeting and replying to tweets like a teen with nothing better to do. It's unbelievable he spent $44B on a company he has no idea how to run, and is quickly losing revenue streams.