- This topic has 4 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 3 years, 6 months ago by Jeremy from Indiana.
October 11, 2017 at 10:55 pm #23877
Robin Vander WallAdmin
By Lincoln Caplan . . . DONALD TRUMP’S TWITTER account now has 40 million followers. It ranks 21st worldwide among 281.3 million or so accounts. It’s
[See the full post at: Packingham’s residual effects may impact Facebook, Twitter, even President]
October 12, 2017 at 7:34 pm #23933
Honestly, I would have voted for the Don’t had I not been on probation for failure to provide information as a sexoffender. I willfully refused and spent 2.5 years fighting the obligation in our local district court. The court is located in Janesville WI. The courthouse is a stones throw from the Main office of Paul Ryan, who is the Speaker of the House of reps. It was my hope to get some publicity about my case. I already know I was actually innocent in 1992 I wrote to the Janesville Gazette hoping to stir the pot. My letter must have fell on deaf ears because I got no response. They are cowards only interested in maintaining the status quo.
So it is the message they don’t want to hear that counts. Just like the Don blocks messages via twitter demonstrates the dishonesty of echo chambers! The Don blocks the confrontational messages from those who disagree with him to protect his political security.
Here we have yet another misuse of the database (albeit a private one) by government agents. They want what they want and will utilize any means necessary to achieve it. This is the way of elite tyrants. So to be sure the Don blocks those because he is afraid of their messages. If they were insignificant he would not bother!
October 14, 2017 at 10:29 am #24087
And still, I cannot have a facebook page
October 28, 2017 at 11:51 am #25657
It’s a shame that the Author of this article made sure to display his Political Speech instead of Facts,
Does this Platform belong to Democrats or not?
This source should be Non-Political!
October 31, 2017 at 7:08 pm #25896
Jeremy from Indiana
I am going to dissent against the argument presented here. The issue with Trump’s account and the decision in Packingham are not directly comparable. Packingham was denied use of the entire site and not due to content whereas Trump denied access to his feed from particular individuals due to content. I think there are two totally different legal arguments there. Now, if Trump told Twitter to ban anyone connected to specific media sources from using their platform, then it would be the same. I don’t see a connection here and I think the courts will agree.