Trump claims damages could be in TRILLIONS in social media lawsuit

[JAL]

I don't do twitter or facebook for that matter. Even if I did, what they consider over the line might have been fine or it might not have been. You know, that old "their site, their rules" thing?
Like I said above, a lot of it is all in the perception of the reader. Somebody who you agree with you'll think should get more leeway, somebody you don't agree with should be slapped down. Just basic sub conscious human nature whether you believe it or not.

Their protection from criminal or civil liability is contingent upon applying their ToS and standards uniformly. If they have a demonstrable pattern of bias in applying them, or are demonstrably arbitrary and capricious, they lose that protection and open themselves to liability for not applying them uniformly. Their pattern of arbitrary, capricious and biased behavior Facebook and especially Twitter will potentially hang them. The ToS is a form of binding contract. They cannot then claim they're allowed to do whatever they damn well please if it's not within the scope and consistent with the ToS. This is precisely why Fakebook quickly backpedaled on their complete shutdown of the Diamond and Silk account. Fakebook continues to persecute them, labeling their videos "unsafe" which violates Fakebook's ToS. If you've seen them, I'd like to know what is "unsafe" about any video they've created and published. I had a YouTube video slapped with an 18 year-old X-rating because . . . according to YouTube . . . it's patently offensive and harmful to minors. You have to prove to YouTube you're 18 or older to view it. This is the kind of indefensibly arbitrary and capricious application of their ToS that will bite them in the ass in a class action.

It's the sheer depth their pockets . . . a virtual bottomless pit of money . . . that allows them to run roughshod over individuals as they will proceed to use every means possible to bankrupt someone with massive legal fees if they're challenged with a lawsuit. Those with very deep pockets do it routinely to bankrupt an opposing party out of being able to continue pursuing the lawsuit in court. I've seen it done personally with blizzards of motions and demands for productions of reams of documents, and demands for endless sworn statements or depositions . . . all designed to rack up opposing counsel's billable hours to as high as humanly possible. When the opposing party can no longer pay their attorney, their attorney withdraws representation for lack of being paid, and suddenly the opposing party is now pro se and gets steamrollered in court.

 

[DadSmith]

Are lawyers and legal fees tax deductible?

 

[johntheplinker]

Their protection from criminal or civil liability is contingent upon applying their ToS and standards uniformly. If they have a demonstrable pattern of bias in applying them, or are demonstrably arbitrary and capricious, they lose that protection and open themselves to liability for not applying them uniformly. Their pattern of arbitrary, capricious and biased behavior Facebook and especially Twitter will potentially hang them. The ToS is a form of binding contract. They cannot then claim they're allowed to do whatever they damn well please if it's not within the scope and consistent with the ToS. This is precisely why Fakebook quickly backpedaled on their complete shutdown of the Diamond and Silk account. Fakebook continues to persecute them, labeling their videos "unsafe" which violates Fakebook's ToS. If you've seen them, I'd like to know what is "unsafe" about any video they've created and published. I had a YouTube video slapped with an 18 year-old X-rating because . . . according to YouTube . . . it's patently offensive and harmful to minors. You have to prove to YouTube you're 18 or older to view it. This is the kind of indefensibly arbitrary and capricious application of their ToS that will bite them in the ass in a class action.

It's the sheer depth their pockets . . . a virtual bottomless pit of money . . . that allows them to run roughshod over individuals as they will proceed to use every means possible to bankrupt someone with massive legal fees if they're challenged with a lawsuit. Those with very deep pockets do it routinely to bankrupt an opposing party out of being able to continue pursuing the lawsuit in court. I've seen it done personally with blizzards of motions and demands for productions of reams of documents, and demands for endless sworn statements or depositions . . . all designed to rack up opposing counsel's billable hours to as high as humanly possible. When the opposing party can no longer pay their attorney, their attorney withdraws representation for lack of being paid, and suddenly the opposing party is now pro se and gets steamrollered in court.

Could very well be. I don't do either twitter of fb so what was posted that got him banned, I have no idea. I have, however, seen what got a few members here banned. Some were well over the line, yes, but a couple it seemed they got banned simply because their views tended to not match the rest of the forum and when they got close to the line, they were gone. And I have also seen folks get away with some of what I thought could be considered serious violations but because of their popularity are still here. It is very arbitrary any place you go. Can't deal with that? Then find another site. Can't find another site? Start one. Don't want to do either then deal with it when you get banned.
Also I seem to have heard that accounts on twitter and fb can block others from commenting on their pages for about any reason. If so, how is that different from fb or twitter banning an account, only on a larger scale? How about if those sites not ban accounts but also prevent accounts from banning other users from commenting on their page? Hmmm.
Again, their site, their rules. Actually the way a lot of people talk on here about private property/business rights you'd think they'd be behind fb and twitter on this. Quite a few on here raised holy hell about a baker being forced to bake a cake for a gay couple, as way of example. Or be able to refuse service to anybody for any reason they want. But no, Trump is their guy and because he got banned then those sites need to be shut down. Hypocrisy is not a condition owned by the left, the right is just as guilty and the further from center in both directions you get, the deeper it gets.

 

[2in1evtime]

Looks like it is going before 2 obama judges and i believe a bush appointed judge so we will see where that leads? Also a lot of chatter that there is evidence that some in congress was contacting these tech monopolies and having them ban people on the right? Waiting to see the evidence and who those people were!!

 

[wtburnette]

There's a difference between private business rights and businesses that have an exemption based on operating a certain way, who aren't doing so.

 

[JAL]

Are lawyers and legal fees tax deductible?

In general, within the context of this forum, no. If you're sued because someone slipped and fell on your sidewalk, sorry, they're not deductible. Neither are family law domestic actions such as child custody and divorce -- or for tax cases. A few are, but they're nearly all considered business expenses. I've had my fill of some legal fees over the past decade, none of which were tax deductible. That may change some if the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is allowed to expire in 2025. The average Joe Taxpayer should hope that it doesn't as they end up deducting more now than they ever could before. For complex tax situations a tax accountant is required to determine what attorney fees are deductible, if any. TurboTax can sort out most of it for you with the common stuff . . . and currently nearly all are not deductible.

 

[flightsimmer]

Y'all may not agree with me, but what they did to Trump is nothing more than what any other site, forum, etc. does to anybody else that gets banned. Violate TOS, boom, gone. Their site, their rules. If somebody posted a bunch of nudes in GD(hey, 1st amendment, right?), how long do you think they'd last? Something that egrarious wouldn't get you a warning or timeout, if would be an immediate permanent ban. If anything, they gave Trump multiple chances that most other people wouldn't have recieved and he continually violated the rules so he got the boot.
Biggest reason so many people agree with the lawsuit is because you agree with Trump. If it had been somebody you DON'T agree with, then you'd be laughing at the lawsuit and saying exactly what I said above.

Here's the problem, it's not porn, it's not bad language, it's not threats, it's not in violation of public standards or anything like that.

It's simply some open, public accessable political corporation/s that disagrees with your point of view and wants to silence you so others won't be encouraged by what you say. PERIOD!

Those who have low moral standards and a personal agenda are prone to do this. The majority of true Americans understand when they are being scammed and they know when they are being lied too and they are loath to do anything about it because they are law abiding BUT! There is coming a day, and soon, when something will trigger the sleeping Lion into action and the world will marvel at the response. Amen.

 

[Ingomike]

You know, that old "their site, their rules" thing?

This is problematic thinking. If it is their site, their rules, then they do not need special protections from government that no other businesses have. They have become a utility and need to be ran as such. How can we win when they use the purity capitalists against us.

 

[Tombs]

This is problematic thinking. If it is their site, their rules, then they do not need special protections from government that no other businesses have. They have become a utility and need to be ran as such. How can we win when they use the purity capitalists against us.

That's what the opposition does. The constitution, principles, values etc are only a consideration when sniping an opponent.

And when you finally say, "tough luck" they start the excuses game of "but that isn't following the constitution!"

 

[johntheplinker]

Here's the problem, it's not porn, it's not bad language, it's not threats, it's not in violation of public standards or anything like that.

It's simply some open, public accessable political corporation/s that disagrees with your point of view and wants to silence you so others won't be encouraged by what you say. PERIOD!

Those who have low moral standards and a personal agenda are prone to do this. The majority of true Americans understand when they are being scammed and they know when they are being lied too and they are loath to do anything about it because they are law abiding BUT! There is coming a day, and soon, when something will trigger the sleeping Lion into action and the world will marvel at the response. Amen.

So what is wrong with porn or bad language? Hell, I'd like to see some more skin in a few of the threads we got going here. Salty language doesn't bother me in least either. Hell, I drop f bombs and s bombs along with a few other choice words as a matter of normal conversation. Wouldn't mind being able to converse in my normal manner either, for that matter. I know that both those are verboten here so I don't do that, or least try. It's all perception of the viewer. There are times if I spoke my mind here I'd be banned, post haste so don't give me that crap that only leftist leaning sites do that.
If it is such a big deal about which way those sites lean, start one that favors your point of view. No law against it. If somebody posts something you don't like then you can ban them. But be sure you hire somebody who knows their ass from a hole in the ground unlike the previous attempts.
The sleeping lion triggered into action?????? Yeah, right. Ain't gonna happen. That lion would get his ass turned into a bloody pulp. Just like what happened Jan. 6th. One person got shot by a cop and the protesters melted away like snow in June. The right will bitch and bellyache then go on with life. Lots of people like to talk the talk but when it comes time to walk the walk they realize their life isn't that bad.

So anyway, on what grounds did they ban Trump? I know why, I want you to tell me why you think he got banned.

 

[johntheplinker]

This is problematic thinking. If it is their site, their rules, then they do not need special protections from government that no other businesses have. They have become a utility and need to be ran as such. How can we win when they use the purity capitalists against us.

So what special protections do they have? I will agree that if they do have those, that is problematic.

 

[Tombs]

So what special protections do they have? I will agree that if they do have those, that is problematic.

Liability limitations for content on their platform.

Those liability limitations are usually reserved for those who do not moderate their platform, like your telephone service.

Currently they enjoy both the liability limitations, and the ability to curate content as they please like a publisher. Normally a publisher is legally liable for content they publish.

 

[jamil]

Y'all may not agree with me, but what they did to Trump is nothing more than what any other site, forum, etc. does to anybody else that gets banned. Violate TOS, boom, gone. Their site, their rules. If somebody posted a bunch of nudes in GD(hey, 1st amendment, right?), how long do you think they'd last? Something that egrarious wouldn't get you a warning or timeout, if would be an immediate permanent ban. If anything, they gave Trump multiple chances that most other people wouldn't have recieved and he continually violated the rules so he got the boot.
Biggest reason so many people agree with the lawsuit is because you agree with Trump. If it had been somebody you DON'T agree with, then you'd be laughing at the lawsuit and saying exactly what I said above.

If people in government pressured big tech to ban Trump, then the big tech company is a state actor, especially if there were threats to remove 230 protections if they didn't. I don't know if there's evidence of that, necessarily, but there was a media claim that government officials were among the cabal that worked hard to prevent Trump from being reelected. Also, Trump may have some other evidence as alleged in the suit. We'll see.

 

[jamil]

Here's the problem, it's not porn, it's not bad language, it's not threats, it's not in violation of public standards or anything like that.

It's simply some open, public accessable political corporation/s that disagrees with your point of view and wants to silence you so others won't be encouraged by what you say. PERIOD!

Those who have low moral standards and a personal agenda are prone to do this. The majority of true Americans understand when they are being scammed and they know when they are being lied too and they are loath to do anything about it because they are law abiding BUT! There is coming a day, and soon, when something will trigger the sleeping Lion into action and the world will marvel at the response. Amen.

A lot of people said they wanted Trump banned because he tweeted mean stuff. The same people say mean stuff on twitter.

 

[johntheplinker]

Liability limitations for content on their platform.

Those liability limitations are usually reserved for those who do not moderate their platform, like your telephone service.

Currently they enjoy both the liability limitations, and the ability to curate content as they please like a publisher. Normally a publisher is legally liable for content they publish.

That's BS. They get the best of both worlds.

 

[Ingomike]

So what special protections do they have? I will agree that if they do have those, that is problematic.

Section 230 gives them protections from the government that no other businesses have...

 

[johntheplinker]

Section 230 gives them protections from the government that no other businesses have...

Yeah, total BS. Whether I agree or not with the reasons for the banning that is BS.

 

[bwframe]

Like I said, show us examples of the lefty crowd (and their content) who have been kicked off those platforms for similar mean tweets before you back them up.

 

[flightsimmer]

So what is wrong with porn or bad language? Hell, I'd like to see some more skin in a few of the threads we got going here. Salty language doesn't bother me in least either. Hell, I drop f bombs and s bombs along with a few other choice words as a matter of normal conversation. Wouldn't mind being able to converse in my normal manner either, for that matter. I know that both those are verboten here so I don't do that, or least try. It's all perception of the viewer. There are times if I spoke my mind here I'd be banned, post haste so don't give me that crap that only leftist leaning sites do that.
If it is such a big deal about which way those sites lean, start one that favors your point of view. No law against it. If somebody posts something you don't like then you can ban them. But be sure you hire somebody who knows their ass from a hole in the ground unlike the previous attempts.
The sleeping lion triggered into action?????? Yeah, right. Ain't gonna happen. That lion would get his ass turned into a bloody pulp. Just like what happened Jan. 6th. One person got shot by a cop and the protesters melted away like snow in June. The right will bitch and bellyache then go on with life. Lots of people like to talk the talk but when it comes time to walk the walk they realize their life isn't that bad.

So anyway, on what grounds did they ban Trump? I know why, I want you to tell me why you think he got banned.

Gods people don't need earthly weapons.
That doesn't mean they can't have them though. They do have the God given right to self defence if attacked.

God is waging war against sin and his people use the word of God as a two edged sword that cuts both ways to defend his people.

They banned Trump because his views differed from theirs. If it's possible and I hope so, I would like to see a group of investers start their own public information site where views both pro and con are freely allowed but at the same time it be monitored for conduct unbecoming of a public forum.

 

[johntheplinker]

Gods people don't need earthly weapons.
That doesn't mean they can't have them though. They do have the God given right to self defence if attacked.

God is waging war against sin and his people use the word of God as a two edged sword that cuts both ways to defend his people.

They banned Trump because his views differed from theirs. If it's possible and I hope so, I would like to see a group of investers start their own public information site where views both pro and con are freely allowed but at the same time it be monitored for conduct unbecoming of a public forum.

Sorry, man, but you're wasting your time with me with talking religion. Something I have absolutely no use for in any way, shape or form. I've read most of the major religious texts and quite frankly not something I want to be part of. Some good basic guides for living a decent life, yes, but that is very small part. A lot is just folks trying to explain things they didn't understand or justify their behavior (old testament and koran, I'm looking at you). So let's drop that before we get the thread locked.

And no, they didn't ban Trump because his views differed from theirs. Just a bit more to it than that. Try again.

The first thing that needs to happen is removing the special protections. After that its all up to debate on what is allowed and not. But where do you draw the line? Not everybody has the same standards of what is unbecoming public conduct. Unfortunately I don't see any site maintaining an even playing field for any length of time as long as the rules are enforced by humans. Sooner or later it is going to start to have a slant one way or another, just like any other. People will leave or be pushed out and before you know it, it will be like any one of a jillion other sites.