Trump '24

I don't believe Trump will be running in '24. There will be too much come out about him by then - he will probably also have at least one criminal conviction and there are more shocking revelations about his misconduct on office to come. He knows this - the speeches and the ranting and the horse manure are all about raising yet more money, for his legal battles and to sponsor other candidates, especially his kids, into office.

-Trump has shown that Trump can walk away from most "scandals" either because his base don't care, think it's funny or agree with Trump.

Why did he lose 2020, then? 🤔

He didn't 😉🤣

Out of curiosity, do you actually believe that Trump won and had the election "stolen" from him?

That said I DO genuinely think there was some dodgy stuff going on

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

Basically by scrapping this and replacing it the Trump admin will be able to force companies particularly tech and social media giants like Facebook to choose whether they are publishers or content providers. Publishers are responsible for their content (so could be liable for the content) and content providers who are merely providing a service to everyone and aren't anyway near as liable.

As it stands today, tech platforms like Facebook can more or less pick and choose what they are. This leads to the insane situation where somebody can be day banned from YouTube for saying "offensive" things but videos including Isis recruitment videos or all sorts of other disgusting things which clearly break T&C's stay up.

Basically by changing it, it will make it next to impossible for tech platforms to discriminate against people they dislike politically.

Trump's speech
. . .
Fact check: 100% True and Based

I think he may find he is a race that he loses.

The tech companies have badly misjudged the position and at the moment the only friends they have in politics are the ones they buy and pay for.
Everyone else, Republican and Democrat, want to give them a kicking but because the administration is Democrat, the Democrats will get the credit.

Honestly I don't really have an opinion nor do I care if he really did lose. Democracy is overrated (see Aristotle)

... That said I DO genuinely think there was some dodgy stuff going on and a lot of coincidences which Trump brought up including the bellwether seats and states all going for Trump, his vote increasing but still losing. I think it's all far too convenient. Also all these lefties having complete faith in the integrity of *check* honest Joe Biden and the DNC is hilarious.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

Basically by scrapping this and replacing it the Trump admin will be able to force companies particularly tech and social media giants like Facebook to choose whether they are publishers or content providers. Publishers are responsible for their content (so could be liable for the content) and content providers who are merely providing a service to everyone and aren't anyway near as liable.

As it stands today, tech platforms like Facebook can more or less pick and choose what they are. This leads to the insane situation where somebody can be day banned from YouTube for saying "offensive" things but videos including Isis recruitment videos or all sorts of other disgusting things which clearly break T&C's stay up.

Basically by changing it, it will make it next to impossible for tech platforms to discriminate against people they dislike politically.

The 'friends they've bought and paid for' include the entire Biden administration.

I will be surprised if Democrats do what I suggested. What they probably will do is add extra legislation holding them accountable for any "extremist" (IE Trump supporters) content but keep it as it is (, deliberately vague to provide the allusion of dissent/ free speech).

Why?

Look at the reaction of Democrats to Facebook’s attempt to bully Australia.

Not particularly. What it would do is essentially force Facebook and other social media companies to be more restrictive, to shut off anything potentially inciteful, harassing or defamatory. Within whatever remained after that, they could still choose to exercise whatever discretionary rules they wanted on top.

The 'coincidences' I mentioned above mainly. Eg Biden performing better than Obama in swing states but worse than Obama overall.

I also watched it live and there was a three hour "break" that went on in some of these swing seats which seemed very odd at the time.

The 'coincidences' I mentioned above mainly. Eg Biden performing better than Obama in swing states but worse than Obama overall.

I also watched it live and there was a three hour "break" that went on in some of these swing seats which seemed very odd at the time.

If it did that then it would be a publisher notbs content provider.

Private Companies can and should let whoever they want on and discriminate freely. What they shouldn't be able to do is market themselves as a free speech public platform (which is a monopoly) and then start censoring people they don't like arbitrarily.

Private Companies can and should let whoever they want on and discriminate freely. What they shouldn't be able to do is market themselves as a free speech public platform (which is a monopoly) and then start censoring people they don't like arbitrarily.