President Trump Says It is 'Very Dangerous' When Companies Like Twitter Regulate Own Content (reuters.com) 692
In an interview with Reuters on Monday, the U.S. President Donald Trump said that it is "very dangerous" for social media companies like Twitter and Facebook to regulate the content on their own platforms. Trump's remarks come on the backdrop of technology giants Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Spotify, and YouTube ridding select kind of content of their platforms in the recent weeks. On Saturday, Trump argued that social media companies are "closing down the opinions" of conservatives. He tweeted, "They are closing down the opinions of many people on the RIGHT, while at the same time doing nothing to others. Speaking loudly and clearly for the Trump Administration, we won't let that happen."
Further reading: Twitter Is 'Rethinking' Its Service, and Suspending 1M Accounts Each Day.
Further reading: Twitter Is 'Rethinking' Its Service, and Suspending 1M Accounts Each Day.
Both are dangerous (Score:3, Insightful)
The moment any platform that allows public user comments starts meddling in who can speak, and who can say what - that is dangerous. Even more so when multiple companies collide to prevent one person from speaking as is the case with Alex Jones.
But that should, if anything, be a legal matter; someone I read somewhere said that Alex Jones may well be able to make a restraint to trade lawsuit happen against a variety of companies.
HOWEVER what is even more dangerous is letting the government have direct sway over what actions companies like Facebook or Twitter can or cannot have over users. You have to be able to let them run platforms as they see fit, then let the market of users and financial consequences dictate what actions are appropriate for a company to take.
Even though Twitter banned Alex Jones, you also see people like Will Wheaton self banning - so it's not like there is a balance naturally occurring anyway, even as things are.
For myself, I continue to use Twitter but the way to enjoy it is instantly mute anyone who goes political. Technical Twitter seems OK still.
Re:Both are dangerous (Score:4, Insightful)
Alex Jones pushed violent attacks on innocent individuals named from his conspiracy theories with no bases in truth. To defend him makes you a nutter, regardless of what the individual reasons platforms game for giving him das boot.
Kendall happily defends traitors and dangerous people, so long as ideologically they agree with him. Otherwise he's for the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Just Like Getting Bounced from a Bar (Score:2, Insightful)
The question boils down to, can a platform control comments in order to push an agenda
No, the question boils down to whether a platform can establish minimum standards for behavior. Nobody would bat an eyelid if a bar bouncer kicked out a shit-talking asshole. Twitter is no different.
Its not like there aren't plenty of other places to go. Jones has his own website and ahole plebs who can't afford their own website, go to gab.ai or stormfront or whatever.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
...ahole plebs who can't afford their own website, go to gab.ai or stormfront or whatever.
Don't think of it as a ban, Alex. Think of it as being deported back to your shit-hole website.
Re:Both are dangerous (Score:4, Insightful)
By removing Alex Jones, they are not "pushing" an agenda. Alex Jones is the biggest creator of fake news out there. His followers have been harassing parents of murdered children and sending death threats. No company should be required to host his putrid content. If a baker can't be compelled to bake a gay wedding cake then a company can't be required to be the voice of an idiotic conspiracy theorist.
The "media" is in no way the same thing, the media has not been pushing conspiracy theories that cause people who show up armed at a pizza parlor. To equate Alex Jones with the media is amazingly stupid.
The first amendment places a limit on the government only. It does not restrict or compel individuals or companies.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I should know better than to feed an obvious troll, but..
Are you related to slashdot_is_fake? Similar cute names with underscores, joined around the same time, only posted a little bit, and seems to only rise to the defense of Alex Jones.
Thank you for illuminating the rest of us and letting us know with whom you'd like to be counted. Now we know, and knowing's half the battle.
So.. are you from Glorious Russian Troll Factory #2?
Let's see you turn red and sputter s'more. It's totes adorbs when you lose it
Re: (Score:3)
It did, and there was. Pay attention.
Re:Both are dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you seriously suggesting that serious news organisations do not live to expose people to total garbage?
Your political affiliation should be utterly irrelevant here. Every serious news organisation exposes people to total garbage on daily basis. It's the core of their business.
If you do not comprehend this, you're beyond gullible.
Re: (Score:3)
Insults are not arguments. I'll bet you're a liberal - because insults are all they have.
That's beautiful.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Both are dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure there are plenty of counterexamples, but pro-gun groups & people are much more consistent about using guns as their solution when compared to the anti-gun crowd for instance.
Re:Both are dangerous (Score:4, Informative)
That argument is utterly illogical (Score:3, Informative)
The page you linked to mentions that Brandenburg (1969) held that political speech which may be politically dangerous is protected. That's because the first amendment was written with political speech in mind. Brandenburg in no affects the proverbial "shouting fire in a crowded theater".
Just five years later, SCOTUS held in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact".
Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater would be a "false statement of fact" for whi
Re: (Score:3)
However, say you were fooled by special effects into believing there actually was a fire, and then shouted "fire!". While you might well get arrested (because the police don't have to accept your defense, that's for a court to do), there is still no crime. So perhaps Alex Jones can pull out the "I believe everything I say is true, but I can't help it if my sources are sometimes wrong" defense. Thing is, this only covers whether acts are criminal, not whether Twatter or Fecebook have to put up with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Platforms like this quickly get overrun with spam. Any measures that deal with spam eventually move to dealing with spam created by action groups. One man's censorship is another man's garbage collection - it's only when it gets applied unfairly or unevenly that it becomes a real problem.
Let anyone speak, and let me choose who I listen (Score:2)
Platforms like this quickly get overrun with spam. Any measures that deal with spam eventually move to dealing with spam created by action groups.
I totally agree with both statements.
One man's censorship is another man's garbage collection - it's only when it gets applied unfairly or unevenly that it becomes a real problem.
I also agree with this, the problem is that it will always end up being applied unfairly eventually if it's the company doing the blocking.
I think the best approach is to treat it like em
Re: (Score:2)
Technical Twitter seems OK still
What's the fucking point?
It's a nice way to broadcast and listen (Score:2)
What's the fucking point?
The thing that keeps me on Technical twitter, is I can have this stream I follow with a lot of little minor events to keep up on easily - like releases of some development tools or software I care about, or some interesting technical tips for stuff I work with. Similarly I also at times come across some hard-won technical knowledge that I throw out on Twitter - maybe it helps someone, maybe it doesn't but at least it's out there in a lot of other heads for someone to remember in th
Re: (Score:3)
Epic Freudian slip...
Left wing kooks are scarier if you are paying attention [oregonlive.com]. At least right wing kooks are not beating their own into submission - for the offense as grave as carrying a flag.
Re:Both are dangerous (Score:4, Insightful)
I assume you mean "colluded"... But really Jones has been trying to get himself banned for a long time and given that he posts the same content on all platforms it's hardly surprising that they all banned him around the same time.
Getting banned helps him by fuelling his conspiracy theories.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but I trust someone I elected far more than a for profit corporation 9 times out of 10. Your statement is very american. You don't trust the government so you elected trump to ruin it. So I wouldn't use the broken american political system, where they are trying to elect the least qualified person possible, as an example o
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like a free market problem to me. As in, if no one is willing to carry the bullshit you're peddling, perhaps you should modify your message a bit. Because Alex Jones is a bullshit peddler extraordinaire, and the market is rejecting him. Too bad for Alex.
And now Trump is mad because the BS peddlers that support him are dwindling as troll farm, fake news, and political conspiracy theory filters become more effective. Let me grab a box of industrial strength tissues for this sob story.
Ignoring my pe
Re:Both are dangerous (Score:4, Insightful)
No common carrier status. They are all now liable for the contents of all posts.
Re:Both are dangerous (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly - you cannot have both common carrier status and political censoring.
The meaning of Balance (Score:2)
To answer your question, conservatives are worried they are being pushed off various social media platforms (which they are). But liberals are also leaving the same platforms, sometimes also pushed out (like the Antifa group from England that Facebook tossed) or self-selecting out like Wheaton, because they do not believe enough people are being tossed off the platform... so there is some balance as the most extreme people end up leaving on either side, more balance than most are willing to admit.
To respon
Re:Both are dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
"These platforms are as critical as other utilities like Electricity or Gas"
How is twitter or facebook as important as power or gas? Many people (myself included) don't use these sites and are probably better off for it. Power and water and gas and the like are important to staying alive - facebook, not so much.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Critical to Trump. Twitter in particular is his way of bypassing the media and their scrutiny of what he says.
Re: (Score:3)
Those are not critical platforms. Those are fluff platforms. If Twitter vanished tomorrow no one would care very much. They're only important in the sense that many in society have completely forgotten how to get news in other ways.
Re: (Score:3)
Critical Internet Platforms such as Google Search, Facebook, Twitter, Uber, AirBnb, Netflix, etc.
None of those things are critical. I have an account with exactly one of those things, and live my life quite happily thanks.
Equating them with electricity or gas is a little bit silly.
Except I argued the opposite of what you say (Score:2)
It's almost like you, and whoever moderated you up, didn't bother to read the last half of my post whatsoever...
To make it REAL CLEAR for the mouth-breathers out there, I am 100% against government regulation of platforms like Twitter, and most things in general for that matter. As far as free speech goes though I don't believe in banning any speech.
Re: (Score:3)
Alex Jones doesn't fit into a conservative or liberal category, he's in a category best described by clinical psychology. Twitter isn't removing his conservative voice, they're removing a complete nut-job.
And Twitter can do what they want anyway. Just like Fox News doesn't give all the news and keeps some voices out, and NPC doesn't give all the news and keeps some voices out, etc.
On the other hand, even when it comes to the government, there are some few ways in which it is allowed to restrict free speec
He is right for the wrong reasons :) (Score:2, Insightful)
He is more concerned that far right are being kicked off but the real concern for the companies is once they start down a route of saying what views can and can't appear they are opening a never ending problem for themselves and possibly risk changing their legal status from an open platform to a curated one and hence liable for their content
Re: (Score:2)
If they're willing to take that possible risk, who are you to say they can't?
Re:He is right for the wrong reasons :) (Score:5, Informative)
risk changing their legal status from an open platform to a curated one and hence liable for their content
They're protected from liability for the speech of their users by the Communications Decency Act. The CDA explicitly states that moderating their platforms does not remove that protection.
New services are not stopped by this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:New services are not stopped by this (Score:5, Insightful)
Rupert Murdoch's company, of which Fox News was part of, purchased MySpace in part for that reason. But it flopped.
GOP are hypocrites: They did away with the Fairness Doctrine when radio was booming with conservative pundits. Now they want something like it back for Big Digital Media, which is centrist or left-leaning.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a handful of companies that control the online public square, by virtue of the network effect and natural monopolies. They're all based out of far-left leaning California. What does it mean to have free speech when your speech is censored by a politically biased oligarchy that controls >90% of the public square?
Would you accept the top-3 mobile companies banning you from their services because they didn't like what you were saying? Right before the midterm elections?
Re:New services are not stopped by this (Score:4, Insightful)
Would you accept the top-3 mobile companies banning you from their services because they didn't like what you were saying? Right before the midterm elections?
No, but I also don't try to incite violence.
The people to be really mad at are the telecoms, who have collected billions of dollars in tax money which was supposed to be used to improve our internet access but which went into the pockets of telecommunications executives. If not for them, then it would be a lot easier to host your own content. The internet we deserve, even if for no reason other than that we paid for it, would let Alex Jones continue to spout his hatred even without the cooperation of Google. P.S. #netneutrality
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know most of those "Antifa" accounts are fake, right?
You mean like the Berkeley Antifa account? The most violent Antifa that resulted in the trend of street battles at demonstrations? Why are any of their accounts allowed on Twatter, when Proud Boys were banned, which never called for violence, and only engaged in self-defense against anti-First Amendment Antifa?
Stop pretending you have any semblance of standards.
Re: (Score:2)
There is Gab, but because it's full of conspiracy theorists and Nazis it's not very popular. So essentially people are demanding to be on the popular services, they don't really care about freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:2)
If they don't like the terms at Twitter they are free to go start a new service where they can set the terms.
"They" are.
And yes, this is the correct solution to corporate censorship. This is our moral panic; anything that fails to conform to prevailing "virtue" is labeled an incitement to violence and banned.
Re: (Score:2)
The current prevailing "virtue" is not being a Nazi, and not advocating genocide. I'm okay with that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nazi
Self righteous name calling; classic moral panic behavior.
I'm okay with that
Said every virtuemonger ever.
Re: (Score:3)
Self righteous name calling; classic moral panic behavior.
Yeah it's such a moral panic to call those people with swastika tattoos---who like chanting "blood and soil" and complain endlessly about "the jews"---Nazis.
They're not Nazis they're very naughty boys.
Re: (Score:3)
That some fucked up political correctness when you can't call a Nazi a Nazi any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True, but that wiki link has race AND religion, age, sex, citizenship, etc. But if your politics and religion are the same things, how do you ban Jews or Muslins for promoting laws against other protected classes? Can you ban them for hate speech if they say they don't believe in LGBT or Women's rights? Or Palenestians promoting death to Isreal if its part of their political agenda?
Nothing is really binary logic in these discussions, its up to the moderator for the business to make that call. If you are
Re: (Score:2)
But not dangerous for bakers to regulate cakes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As in who they decide is allowed to buy one? Either you allow all private companies to select who can use their service or you allow none of them to do so.
The baker was asking for the right to discriminate against a specific viewpoint because of their religious beliefs. The question was whether the baker's religious freedom was impinged enough to justify the violation of anti-discrimination laws.
Twitter and Facebook are trying to formula viewpoint neutral policies in order to get rid of toxic content and maintain healthy communities.
It's a tricky issue, but kind of unavoidable, and they're arguably doing it in a way that would be compatible with the US 1st am
Re:But not dangerous for bakers to regulate cakes? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's baloney, and I think you know better and are just trying to be provocative (flamebait).
The bakers were perfectly happy to sell those people standard bakery items. They were unwilling to expend their creative and artistic effort to make a custom cake to support an event they have moral objections to. Similarly, one might expect a Jewish bakery to sell rolls and muffins to neo-Nazis but one ought not expect them to create custom cakes for a neo-Nazi rally.
Tricky territory (Score:2)
This is quite tricky territory for companies such as Twitter, Google etc.
If they now censor speech as a matter of course, does this mean they are making editorial decisions? If so, does this make them liable for all speech on their platforms. Or will they only use this power to stop speech they don't agree with even if the speech is not illegal / defamatory etc.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the case, then it would apply to any online forum where any kind of moderation happens. But the reality is that for anyone, even the government, to go after a social media site for illegal or defamatory posts would require them to demonstrate intent. If someone makes a death threat via Twitter, in a criminal trial clearly no one could accuse Twitter of being an accessory. It had no intent, it's just basically a message service. It's get dicier for civil suits, and I suppose it's possible that some
Re: (Score:2)
One could say that Twitter is a distributor. They have every right to decide what they want to distribute. An analogy here would be a film distributor. No, Disney's distribution company doesn't have to distribute your pornographic film in the interests of fairness. They can decide that they're not interested due to the content of the film.
Twitter can decide not to distribute your content for whatever reason they choose. You can find another distributor for your content.
Re: (Score:2)
One could say that Twitter is a distributor. They have every right to decide what they want to distribute. An analogy here would be a film distributor.
A film distributor would be responsible for what they distribute. Twatter and the other Big Tech oligarchies want to curate their content but not be responsible for what they publish.
Re: (Score:2)
No, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants immunity from liability for the speech of users, even if the owner of the service moderates/censors content on that service.
"Opinions" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
...this poster was claiming that fact checking was tantamount to silencing alternative viewpoints. It's... an interesting corruption of the notion of truth. This person was equating "being incorrect" with "having a different opinion."
In an era when we have The President of the United States of America having a personal lawyer who says, "Truth isn't truth anymore!" that's not as much of a corruption...
Re: (Score:2)
Someone told me yesterday that the thirteenth amendment prohibits free healthcare. He actually knew what was in the thirteenth amendment.
Trolls and moderation. (Score:4, Insightful)
Trolls do tend to say that whenever moderation starts removing abuse dominating a conversation channel.
The other top response is saying that they wouldn't be trolling of only the other side would stop being so wrong.
But to never moderate those things would mean that everything becomes rhetoric - all noise and no signal. It defeats the purpose of having having a channel of communication... which is kind of the point of this modern form of trolling, isn't it?
Ryan Fenton
But not when the Govenment does it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure he's perfectly fine with the government regulating social media, and the press for that matter.
Things will be full of the correct facts then... just like in China and North Korea.
He means Alex Jones (Score:4, Insightful)
BTW, does anyone else think in the "two minutes of hate" from 1984 when watching Jones rant? Serious, that creeped me out more than anything he's done (yes, more than the references to blood libel whenever he criticized someone Jewish).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, I am definitely not (Score:3)
I really, really wish those antifa schmucks would stop already, btw. The Left is way, way worse at violence than the right. They're not as well organized (what with being an anti fascism movement and all) and they
Re: (Score:2)
Disreputable source of information. (Score:2, Insightful)
If it were any other president, it would be worth debating this. However, President Trump is a compulsive liar, criminal and derides all content he doesn't like by calling it "fake news". Twitter should have booted him long ago but refused to do so because it would hurt their business.
I have no sympathy for sources of disinformation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
NYT just hired a blatent racist editor.
Another NYT editor went on TV to say Trump is going to round up people and murder them.
Fake News is appropriate. Or you are a racist bigot that thinks lying about people is acceptable, and since you are likely a liberal I will assume you are a racist.
Irony (Score:2)
The Left: "The internet is a public utility, and Service Providers have no right to control what content we see on their platform!"
Also the Left: "Service Providers have an absolute right to control what content is allowed on their platform!"
The Right: "The internet is NOT a public utility, it is a business tool for commerce, and you have no free speech on private platforms!"
Also the Right: "Businesses on the internet have no right to censor speech on their platforms!"
No wonder we're going to hell in a hand
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Uhh you have your terms mixed up. Twitter provides a service, but isn't an internet service provider. This falls exactly in line with pro net neutrality views.
Re: (Score:2)
How Free Speech Works (Score:5, Informative)
The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution just keeps the government from censoring your speech. Since social media is not the government, they can do whatever they want: allowing you to speak unfettered, closing your account, censoring what you say. There's NOTHING illegal or wrong about that; it's only a problem when the government starts censoring your speech.
Re:You all agree with him you know (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your Comcast analogy is highly flawed. But then, you knew that.
Is it? Is there another "Facebook" that you can practice free speech on if Facebook decides it doesn't like your politics? What happens when Facebook, Google/YouTube, and Twitter all decide it doesn't like your politics, and censors you? Right before the midterm elections?
You have free speech, go talk in the dark alleyway! Build your own social media network, become part of the oligarchy, and then you will have the free speech you desire!
"Democracy Matters [duckduckgo.com]: Strategic Plan for Action":
"Generally speaking and
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Is this a joke? Yes, there are tens of thousands of them. You posted your question right here on one of the (formerly?) more popular ones.
Well, they don't have the capacity to censor me, even if they all ganged up and worked together to try. But I assume you're actually asking about
Re: You all agree with him you know (Score:5, Insightful)
Hillary also did not have an agenda, all she did was attack Trump.
Maybe she didn't publicize it well enough, but she definitely had an agenda. https://www.hillaryclinton.com... [hillaryclinton.com]
Trump on the other hand HAD an AGENDA "Make America Great Again"
That's a slogan, not an agenda.
The only people who voted for her were airheads who thought having a vagina was a requirement for the white house.
Now you're just being stupid.
The Economy woke up and got in gear the day after the election
Citation needed.
Re: You all agree with him you know (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't legitimately win by... winning in the only way that matters per the system we have today?
How does that work again?
Re: You all agree with him you know (Score:5, Insightful)
The electoral college is itself illegitimate, an arcane abomination that was imposed centuries ago, when it ostensibly served some purpose (but never did) and which still fools people into thinking it protects smaller states or some other bullshit.
That's hilarious. I would argue that, given recent history, it's more important now than it's ever been before. Any system which keeps a handful of cities from dictating terms to the rest of the nation is a valuable one.
Re:You all agree with him you know (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
> But HE would like to regulate what they can say like in China.
Huh?
Re: You all agree with him you know (Score:3)
As in heâ(TM)d like to regulate free speech similar to the way they do in China.
Re:You all agree with him you know (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: You all agree with him you know (Score:3)
It's obvious Trump is off his nut, but he still got elected Resident of the White House.
It was obvious there was only ever going to be less money for the NHS on leaving the EU, but a side of the bus slogan still swung the Brexit referendum.
It was obvious the Internet was originally Title 2, but many Americans still naively believe Obama created network neutrality by executive order.
It is obvious that the planet is warming faster than it has ever done in the past 250 million years, and that the isotopes show
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can compare websites to ISPs when I have more than one viable option for my ISP
Re:You all agree with him you know (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Net neutrality is about the transport method not the end point presentation method. But I guess that distinction gets lost in the series of tubes.
Re:You all agree with him you know (Score:5, Informative)
No, what I do agree with is Alex Jones' Terms of Service of InfoWars [infowars.com]:
If you violate these rules, your posts and/or user name will be deleted.
Remember: you are a guest here. It is not censorship if you violate the rules and your post is deleted. All civilizations have rules and if you violate them you can expect to be ostracized from the tribe.
Funny how Alex Jones is being a huge hypocrite when he gets banned from other websites and then claims he's being censorwd.
Re: (Score:2)
No need to be use bigoted imagery to describe a bigot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because Trump knows (because he purchased them) most of his followers are Russian 'bots. He's feeling threatened that his number is going to get smaller like his hands.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
It would solve some of the problems. At the end of the day, any social media company is going to be caught between the rock and a hard place. Unless they go to a full-on subscription model (which I doubt would ever be able to sustain itself, or at least see anywhere near the membership of, say, Twitter), they're going to need advertising dollars. And when you're the CEO of your "no limits on speech" social networking site gets a call from the marketing department reporting Big Corps 1, 2 and 3, which make u
Re: (Score:3)
Twitter is a colossal cesspool and no amount of regulation or non-regulation, internal or external, will fix it. I long for the day when Tweets weren't newsworthy.
This. Exactly this. Every time I'm presented with some HuffPost list-of-random-people's-tweets-masquerading-as-news my blood boils.
Re: (Score:2)
you're worse than Trump
If you mean the monospace text, I totally agree
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hate speech is a vague term that can mean anything, but it's definition is generally enforced by the one that screams the loudest until a corporation take control of it, then everything they don't like will be hate speech.
Bad mouth Comcast for delivering 1/100 of the advertised speed? hate speech. Complain about the apple device that blew your face up? hate speech.
They're just letting you build the tools they will use to fuck you later.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, goolag search "anti white racism on twitter".
The legal definition doesn't exist in this country, so you must be referencing a definition de facto vulgaris.
In which case there's a negative qualification: white people.
Did you miss that whole Sara Jeong thing?
Re: (Score:3)
It's not defined anywhere and kept vague on purpose so it can be used to persecute anyone that go against the group.
And when it gets taken over, it will be kept just as vague.
Re:The RIGHT puts out more obvious lies. (Score:5, Informative)
How about 2,300 examples and counting?
http://projects.thestar.com/donald-trump-fact-check/ [thestar.com]
Re:The RIGHT puts out more obvious lies. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, I don't doubt that you could compile a huge list of lies for just about any politician, from Obama ("You can keep your doctor") all the way back to that time when George Washington promised his troops that there would be cake on the other side of the Delaware.
But the thing about Trump is, he lies by default. He lies reflexively. He lies about shit that doesn't matter. "Biggest inaugural crowd [independent.co.uk] in history," that kind of thing. Trump would literally piss on your shoes and tell you it's raining.
That part is new and disturbing. It suggests that he's not only a typical lying politician, but some sort of psychopath.
Re: (Score:3)
CNN along with the sea of left media and celebrities is more addicted to, and obsessed by, Trump's tweets than any of Trump's followers.