shopify trump president support for violence
Published on: January 28 2023 by pipiads
Table of Contents About shopify trump president support for violence
- Facebook, Instagram ban Donald Trump indefinitely after supporters storm U.S. Capitol
- January 6 committee refers criminal charges against Donald Trump- BBC News
- Your Missing The SCARIEST Thing About Trumps Banning From Twitter, Facebook, Shopify & More
- January 6 committee approves DOJ criminal referrals for Donald Trump
- Video #4157 - Donald Trump Being Banned On Social Media - My Thoughts, Why I Got Banned On Facebook?
- Facebook Is Clearly Lined Up on Team Trump, Says Roger McNamee
Facebook, Instagram ban Donald Trump indefinitely after supporters storm U.S. Capitol
mark zuckerberg posting um the dramatik move that they believe that the risks of allowing the president to continue to use the service are too great and they will be blocking the president on facebook and instagram indefinitely and at least for the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete. now, carl, as you mentioned, this is a dramatik move for facebook because mark zuckerberg has stated repeatedly that he believes that facebook is a very necessary platform for free speech. he is always really sided with with this side of free speech. rather than more regulation, he has called for regulation um to help create guidelines to understand how to limit speech on the platform. but this is really a dramatik move, saying they believe it is simply too dangerous to allow the president to use the platform. and just to be clear, carl, this is an extension of a 24-hour block that facebook had put on the president. that began last night and they're now saying that this will be extended indefinitely. to that point, julia, i just wonder how much of this, given the fact that that we have been having these conversations- i mean to think about the tik sell-off we saw yesterday- in part because of expectations that we're going to see tighter regulations, maybe a revisit a sharper, stronger revision of section 230? uh, with this new administration, i mean, is this: is this zuckerberg and facebook looking to get ahead of what might be inevitably that you know? i don't know if it's as much that, morgan, and more the fact that there's been a lot of critikism of these platforms for enabling the organization of some of the writing that we saw yesterday, and the question of whether or not facebook is just simply not quick enough to take things down and whether or not, even if something is up for even 30 seconds, it can be shared and liked many times in that period. so i think there's this question- you know, not just what they face from capitol hill, this question whether facebook is biased in how it regulates content on the platform, but whether it can be used as a tool for bad and whether they need to be much more stringent in preventing that from happening. and simply, right now, they think the risk is too great for the next next two weeks. it's a very, very bold move by mark zuckerberg and cheryl sandberg. to that point, julian, referencing something tom friedman said earlier on squawk box. i mean, there was a period before the election where facebook was elevating more credible news content into people's news feed and then they apparently stopped doing that. you know, do we have any sense that they're going to revisit that policy and perhaps make it permanent as well? well, look, they have been trying to elevate reputable news, partikularly about coronavirus. they've been elevating, you know, correct news from reputable sources around the election. if you go to instagram right now, they say: here is the election news you need to know. here's what's happening right now on capitol hill. but i think what has shifted is, for many years, zuckerberg said that they believed that people needed to know what the president was saying. they needed to know if he was saying things that were incendiary. and now they're saying: these things are incendiary. we don't want people to be incited to violence because of that. i want to just read you one quote here from mark zuckerberg's comments. um, he said, over the last several years, we have allowed president trump to use our platform consistent with our rules, at times removing content or labeling his posts when they violated our policies. we did this because we believe that the public has a right to the broadest possible access to politikal speech, even controversial speech. but the current context is now fundamentally different, involving use of our platform to incite violent insurrection against a democratikally elected government. that paragraph sums up the shift that facebook has made between allowing this as free speech and now saying it certainly incites violence. shepherd smith here. thanks for watching cnbc on youtube.
January 6 committee refers criminal charges against Donald Trump- BBC News
several months ago you tasked several of our members in a subcommittee with bringing recommendations to the full committee about potential referrals to the Department of Justike and other authorities based on evidence of criminal and civil offenses that has come to our attention over the course of our investigation. we are now prepared to share those recommendations today. Mr chairman, let me begin with some relevant background considerations to our criminal referrals. the dangerous assault on American constitutional democracy that took place on January 6- 2021 consists of hundreds of individual criminal offenses. most such crimes are already being prosecuted by the Department of Justike. we propose to the committee advancing referrals where the gravity of the specific offense, the severity of its actual harm and the centrality of the offender to the overall design of the unlawful scheme to overthrow the election compel us to speak. ours is not a system of justike where foot soldiers go to jail and the masterminds and ringleaders get a free pass. Mr chairman, as you know, our committee had the opportunity last spring to present much of our evidence to a federal judge, something that distinguishes our investigation from any other Congressional investigation, I can recall in the context of resolving evidentiary privilege issues related to the crime fraud Doctrine in the Eastman case, US District Court Judge David Carter examined just a small subset of our evidence to determine whether it showed the likely Commission of a federal offense. the judge concluded that both former president Donald Trump and John Eastman likely violated two Federal Criminal statutes. this is the starting point for our analysis today. the first criminal statute we invoke for referral, therefore, is Title 18, section 1512 C, which makes it unlawful for anyone to corruptly obstruct, influence or impede any official proceeding of the United States government. we believe that the evidence described by my colleagues today and assembled throughout our hearings warrants a criminal referral of former president Donald J Trump, John Eastman and others for violations of this statute. the whole purpose and obvious effect of Trump's scheme were to obstruct, influence and impede this official proceeding, the central moment for the lawful transfer of power in the United States. second, we believe that there is more than sufficient evidence to refer former president Donald J Trump, John Eastman and others for violating Title 18, section 371.. this statute makes it a crime to conspire to defraud the United States, in other words, to make an agreement to impair, obstruct or defeat the lawful functions of the United States government by deceitful or dishonest means. former president Trump did not engage in a plan to defraud the United States. acting alone, he entered into agreements, formal and informal, with several other individuals who assisted him with his criminal objectives. our report describes in detail the actions of numerous co-conspirators who agreed with and partikipated in Trump's plan to impair, obstruct and defeat the certification of President Biden's electoral victory. that said, the subcommittee does not attempt to determine all of the potential partikipants in this conspiracy, as our understanding of the role of many individuals may be incomplete even today because they refuse to answer our questions. we trust that the Department of Justike will be able to form a far more complete picture through its own investigation. third, we make a referral based on Title 18, section 1001, which makes it unlawful to knowingly and willfully make materially false statements to the federal government. the evidence clearly suggests that President Trump conspired with others to submit slates of fake electors to Congress and the National Archives. we believe that this evidence we set forth in our report is more than sufficient for a criminal referral of former president Donald J Trump and others in connection with this offense. as before, we don't try to determine all of the partikipants in this conspiracy, many of whom refuse to answer our questions while under up. we trust that the Department of Justike will be able to form a more complete picture through its own investigation. the fourth and final statute we invoke for referral is Title 18, section 2383. the statute applies to anyone who incites, assists or engages in Insurrection against the United States of America and anyone who gives Aid or Comfort to an Insurrection. an Insurrection is a rebellion against the authority of the United States. it is a grave federal offense anchored in the Constitution itself, which repeatedly opposes insurrections and domestik violence and indeed uses partikipation in Insurrection by office holders as automatik grounds for disqualification from ever holding public office again. at the federal or state level, anyone who incites others to engage in rebelling, assist them in doing so or gives Aid in Comfort to those engaged in Insurrection is guilty of a federal crime. the committee believes that more than sufficient evidence exists for a criminal referral of former president Trump for assisting or aiding and comforting those at the Capitol who engaged in a violent attack on the United States. the committee has developed significant evidence that President Trump intended to disrupt the peaceful transfer transition of power. under our constitution, the president has an affirmative in primary constitutional duty to act to take care that the laws be Faithfully executed. nothing could be a greater betrayal of this Duty than to assist in Insurrection against the Constitutional order. the complete factual basis for this referral is set forth in detail throughout our report. these are not the only statutes that are potentially relevant to president Trump's conduct related to the 2020 election. depending on evidence developed by the Department of Justike, the president's actions could certainly trigger other criminal violations. nor are President Trump and his immediate team the only people identified for referrals in our report. as part of our investigation, we ask multiple members of Congress to speak with us about issues critikal to our understanding of this attack on the 2020 election and our system of constitutional democracy. none agreed to provide that essential information. as a result, we took the significant step of issuing them subpoenas based on the volume of information partikular members possessed about one or more parts of President Trump's plans to overturn the election. none of the subpoenaed members complied and we are now referring four members of Congress for appropriate sanction by the house Ethics Committee for failure to comply with lawful subpoenas. Mr chairman, we understand the gravity of each and every referral we are making today, just as we understand the magnitude of the crime against democracy that we describe in our report, but we have gone where the facts in the law lead us and inescapably, the they lead us here.
More:shopify trump organization trumpmonga wall streetjournal
Your Missing The SCARIEST Thing About Trumps Banning From Twitter, Facebook, Shopify & More
all remaining systems will bow to the first order and we'll remember this as the last day of the republic. [Music]. [Music]. what's going on? everyone, jeremy, here from the quartering and i will implore you to leave your partisan politiks at the door. this topic is far, far more important than owning trump. okay, there are far too many people on both sides of the aisle right now watching the systematik deplatforming of the president of the united states and reacting emotionally to it, whether they think, haha, take that orange man, cheeto man, drumpf, or they're genuinely mad. most people are not mad for the right reasons. most people don't see this for what this really is, and that is that this is the single greatest power grab by silicon valley in history, and it went unchallenged. nobody stopped them, nobody questioned them. they unpersoned the sitting president of the united states, and most people's reaction are: ha, own drum. you are being so short-sighted if that's how you're looking at this, if you're obsessed with the fact, if you are like enjoying the ducks, oh, shopify, shut them down. ha, take that trump. if you don't wake up, you're just gonna be another cog in the machine of censorship. that's what they want you to do. trump, trump's banning is like a red herring practikally to what's really happening. we saw facebook, youtube, twitter, par or uh uh uh shopify every major silicon valley company act in unison to not only unperson again the sitting president. so what hope do the rest of us have but to squash competition at the most important time? donald trump had 80 million followers on twitter. half of them probably hated him, don't care, right. 80 million. if he would have been, if he had been able to quickly transfer to parlor, what do you think would have happened? 20 million users come over. 10 million users come over, at least right immediately, overnight. parlor is a legitimate, legitimate competitor for twitter. couldn't let that happen. it was so convenient, so convenient that apple happened to issue a 24-hour ultimatum the very same day they battled donald trump. it was just convenient that the google play store removed parlor on the very day they banned donald trump from twitter. what a kawinki dink. but take that, drumpf. ha ha ha. take that right wingers, you're willingly walking to the gallows of censorship to own the right. that's how these people sound. they're literally cutting off the nose, their own noses, despite their face. that's how stupid of a take. that is right now, and i'm sorry if that offends you as one of my viewers. look, i've dropped a couple thousand subscribers this week, a lot of people that subscribed to me when i was covering cyberpunk and all this stuff didn't like that. i also covered, you know, tik, censorship issues and other type of issues. that's okay. that's okay. but you know what? if you're watching this and you aren't currently subscribed, please take a second to hit that red subscribe button right below the video. support this channel, support all tik. i'm doing a whole separate video today about how to get involved with alt tik. parlor bit shoot minds because the mainstream media is literally in cahoots with silicon valley to squash competition. last night we saw shopify takes trump organization and campaign stores offline. reddit bans are donald trump discord bans pro trump server. the donald google pulls parlor from the play store. i'm sorry, this after twitter permanently banning trump. okay, we've seen this playbook before. all we need now is mastercard to cancel his credit cards and we'll have basically what they did to alex jones. but but lost in all of this, lost in everybody on the far left celebrating saying you didn't go far enough. who else should we ban? who? how else can we secure the echo chamber that is twitter? the same people that whine about parlor being echo chamber, also demanding anybody with opposing views be removed from twitter. these people are so dumb. don't be that. don't be that dumb. don't let them suck you in to the partisan conversation. what we saw in the last 24 hours was the single largest power grab silicon valley has ever had, might be one of the- you know, if you adjust for the eras- one of the biggest power grabs in history in the united states, given the amount of control that silicon valley has over communications. this would be like in the 50s when, when there's two major newspapers across the nation and they were suddenly owned by one person overnight, while everyone was- haha, drunk. look, i leave your partisan crap at the door. okay, fine. if you don't like trump, awesome. if you did like them, awesome. i don't care about that. i care about everybody willingly being censored and then demanding more of it. this is dangerous. and then the monopolistik move. oh my god, so perfect, right, such a co-winky dink that the day twitter bans donald trump, google play removes parlor from their app store. what a kawinki dink. oh, what a coincidence on that timing. huh, so convenient that the day twitter bans donald trump, apple issues a 24-hour ultimatum to parlor. and, by the way, everything they say about parlor can be said about twitter. there are extreme posts that happen on twitter all the time and there are extreme posts that happen on parlor. it happens on facebook, happens on reddit, happens everywhere, but when they want you to, uh, care. now it's the first time ever that somebody's posted something heinous. there are bad posts on parlor. i have 165 000 followers there and i've never once seen one in my replies. but obviously there are screenshots of now banned accounts- no, mostly. and now you have amazon employees- amazon employees- oh, this other thing i want to tok about. so a lot of people said: well, trump wasn't the pl, the president wasn't d platformed, he still had the potus account actually, no, he didn't, because he went to the potus account and twitter immediately removed the posts and locked him out of that account. so, yes, silicon valley, specifically on person, the sitting president of this nation and amazon workers now demand parlor be removed from amazon's web hosting service. enough is enough. amazon hosts parlor on the amazon web services cloud. as amazon workers, we demand amazon deny parlor services until it removes posts doing: say, amazon our parlor already had. this is a such another hilarious lie spread by the mainstream media. amazon already has a policy. our parlor already has a policy against this stuff. parlor needs to find a way to stay on the play store and stay on on the apple uh app store. now, that's an uncomfortable, that's an look i. i said this on my parlor account and i basically got ratioed by my own viewers saying: no, we can't, you can't bend the knee, you can't bend the knee. well, that's fine if you want to be gab. i'm not saying to bend the knee, but what i'm saying is figure out a way to stay on the platform. don't miss this opportunity. what a kawinkidink that google removed it when 80 million people are potentially looking for a new home. 80 million people follow donald trump, half of which probably hated him. right, they're like the trump. reply guys or journalists and all this crap. another 20 million bots. let's say that's still 20 million new potential users coming over overnight. overnight, we saw this happen already. once i went from like 20 000 followers on gab to 160 000 overnight the last time there was a mass exodus. i probably would have had 500 000 after this one, but in a coincidence, in a colossal coincidence- people couldn't download the app. parlor was basically down all day yesterday too, from the huge influx. this is what mainstream media does. i don't care if you don't like trump, look, he's gonna be out office in two weeks, okay, all right, that makes you uncomfortable, it's just the overwhelming likelihood, all right. so now you've got biden, who isn't going to push back against this stuff, and you're going to have 10 years of this. biden's going to be here for two years and he's going to step down and campbell is going to run and and be president for 10 years. you can have 10 years- 8 to 10 years- of this o.
More:LEAD-SUCKING Twitter Marketing Tip Hidden In Plain Sight
January 6 committee approves DOJ criminal referrals for Donald Trump
[Music]. welcome back to ABC News live. Canadian police say five people have been shot and killed in a condominium unit in a Toronto suburb. the gunman was killed by police. police say a sixth person shot by the suspect is expected to survive. Ontario's special investigations unit is looking into the incident. former FTX CEO Sam bankman freed is expected to agree to extradition to the US, reversing his decision to contest extradition after spending just a few nights in a Bahamian jail. the former crypto CEO, who was accused of stealing billions from customers and investors, was denied bail last week. he faces eight counts of criminal fraud and charges from the SEC and heads up. holiday Shoppers were hitting Last Chance deadlines to get your packages delivered on time. today is the last day you can send a gift via priority mail to have it under the tree in time for Christmas. and Argentina wakes up today, the 2022 World Cup champion. following a penalty shootout victory over the French. all eyes were on star players Killian mbappe and Lionel Messi, Parisian Club allies who, on the international stage, became Fierce adversaries in a Clash of Titans. ABC news's Will Reeve has the most incredible moments of what some are calling the best World Cup final of all time. Lionel Messi, World Cup champion this morning. it was a game that will reverberate throughout history: Lionel Messi and Argentina winning the World Cup in a penalty shootout, defeating France in an instant classic that may go down as the greatest World Cup game ever. it's Messi's first World Cup victory. this- the only missing Jewel in his crown- has the greatest of all time, the 35 year old Messi, who has said this would be his last World Cup, celebrating the win with his wife and children, Killian mbappe, Messi's potential heir to the throne, as best ever, reeling from the loss, consoled by French president macron. it was Argentina's third title, its first since 1986.. the soccer mad Nation, euphoric at the win. [Music]. the game between the two heavyweight Nations was chaotik and unpredictable. Lionel Messi delivers again, Argentina leading 2-0 up until the 80th minute when Francis zimbape tied it up, scoring two goals in two minutes, taking the game into extra time, Messi and mbappe each scoring once more in extra time and it was off to penalties. for just the third time in World Cup final history, Argentina capitalizing and sealing the win. yes, yes, Lionel Messi and Argentina has won the World Cup. after he'd been carried around on his teammate's shoulders, after he'd figuratively carried them on his the whole tournament. Messi said he wants to play at least a few more games for Argentina as World Cup champion. he won't be in the World Cup in 2026. the World Cup is here and in Canada and Mexico. Alexis, I'll be looking forward to that. Will Reeve, thank you, and I'm Alexis. Christopher, stay with us at ABC News live. we're going to continue with more news, context and Analysis and, as we head into the holidays, I want to take a moment to honor and hear from our troops overseas. hey everyone, I'm Master Sergeant April spildy, coming to you from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I just wanted to say Merry Christmas to my husband, Peter, and I can't wait to see you when I come home. hi, I'm Lieutenant James denier from Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and I'm currently stationed at NSA Naples in Naples, Italy, and I would like to wish my family and friends back home a happy holidays. [Music]. you never know what you're going to get on this show. that's all I'm going to tell you. yes, whooping this mic on- can you hear me out there behind the scenes- is always a better shop. absolutely, absolutely. that's what people don't see during the commercial break. right, they don't. what happened? I had no idea, really, what I was getting myself in that day that we walked out. I I treasure that day. I just I couldn't sit there. I'm doing good, enjoy you're doing good. oh yeah, baby, it was crazy behind the table. listen wherever you get your podcast. with so much at stake, so much on the line, more Americans turn ABC World News Tonight with David Muir, America's number one, most watched newscast, now streaming on ABC News live. after an extraordinary news-making year, thank you for making ABC's this week America's number one news and politiks show. on Sunday mornings: Zoo 200, oh 200, 200 episodes of Dr Pol- music to my ears. it's been 10 years and I'm still having fun. he's got the moves that make your animals Brew. now we do the dancing Joy. he's like the Justin Bieber headlining the hottest barns. I'm not gonna be in Forever. maybe the Incredible Dr Pol. new episodes Saturdays at nine on Nat Geo Wild. get ready America every Friday: the hottest Trends, Styles and must-have. what's the right stuff to buy right now? I really love that. it's time to buy the right stuff, yes, and save big time too. The Right Stuff Fridays on GMA. you're gonna love it. this is ABC News live Prime. thanks so much for streaming with us live reporting, breaking news, exclusives, award-winning, powerful, eye-opening. ABC News live Prime with Lindsey Davis, streaming weeknights. ABC News, America's number one news source. [Music]. good morning everyone. I'm Alexis Christopher's today on ABC News live. authorities are sounding the alarm at the border, with a pandemic era policy set to expire. thousands of migrants are expected to cross each day as El Paso and other border cities brace for a surge. the final January 6th hearing the committee investigating the attack on the US Capitol expected to vote to recommend former president Trump be criminally prosecuted. we're in Washington DC with what to expect and the new concerns about a so-called triple demek. as we get closer to the holidays, some hospitals across the country being pushed to the brink with flu covet and RSV patients. but we begin with that surge of migrants expected at the southern border of the United States as the Trump Administration policy, title 42, is set to expire. this week, Maria Villarreal has the latest El Paso city leaders pushing to prepare for a looming influx of migrants as temperatures continue to drop. there's not enough shelters to house what we're, what we could possibly see in the next few days, so we want to make sure that we have the ability to set up temporary shelters, Sheltering systems, titles- title 42, a health policy used by used by Quest. Asylum is set to expire on Wednesday. Governor Greg Abbott predicting chaos during an interview with ABC's Martha raddatz- totally unacceptable. there's going to be catastrophic, not just for Texas but for the United States of America. [Applause]. for months, the city of El Paso has seen an influx of migrants: 2200 on average each day this month alone. shelters are at capacity and transportation out of town is limited, forcing many of these migrants to wait it out on city sidewalks, prompting local business owners to help. the end of the day, these are just human beings. um, regardless of how we feel politikally, you have to put kindness first, Humanity first. here in El Paso, the big issues are transportation and Sheltering. you can see that on full display right behind me: a number of people sleeping on the streets near the bus stop to try and get in line to get their tikets first. a number of gop-led states are now asking the US Supreme Court to step in. if the Chief Justike believes the entire court should hear this case, he could put a pause on title 42 expiring on Wednesday to give both sides a chance to prep their cases. thank you, thank you. the house select committee investigating January 6 is expected to refer criminal charges against former president Trump and his inner circle. committee members will hold their last public hearing this afternoon and are expected to vote to recommend that Trump and possibly others be criminally prosecuted for the assault on the US Capitol and the effort to overturn a presidential election. Chief Washington correspondent Jonathan Carl has the latest. the January 6 committee plans to take a dramatik step this morning in its final hearing recommending Donald Trum.
Video #4157 - Donald Trump Being Banned On Social Media - My Thoughts, Why I Got Banned On Facebook?
[Music]. hey, hey [Music], hey [Music]. oh man, today i want to speak to you about uh, donald trump getting suspended from twitter, then, i think, penalized on facebook and and a host of other social media platforms. so some of you asked me: what do i think? so here i thought i'd give my opinion. now, many people are calling this a clam down on freedom of speech, censoring freedom of speech. there are two sides to the argument. on one side, people are pointing out that when the white people went and protested on capitol hill, they were allowed their rest, were not aggressive, they didn't use tear gas. initially, they let them storm into the capital. but when black lives matter, people uh protested, they uh had tear gas, stun, uh grenades and okay, now i don't want to get into the. you know he did. they did this to them and they did this to them, and it was not fair here, it was very fair there, and you can cherry pick a lot of examples and we will never end. i've already given you my stance on black lives matter and i've in my previous videos, so i'll just focus on the donald trump suspension now. see, donald trump is a man with immense power, immense influence and uh lot of authority. he occupies the most powerful position in the world, he has access to nuclear codes, he can declare war on a nation. okay, fine, i agree that there are. there are people above him or behind him who tell him what to do. but when you occupy such a position of power, like spider-man, you know that famous quote by uncle ben says: with great power comes great responsibility. donald trump has been slightly reckless with his power. see, i'll tell you, you know me, i'm a big fan of donald trump. i like donald trump as a brand. i think he's very smart, incredible strategist. but this partikular move that he took, or he was made to take, was by far the biggest mistake of his entire presidency, and this very act will overshadow anything that he has done, because he did something which no president would have ever done and shouldn't do. see, when you are in that position of power and you tell people, okay, we are going to rally, you should be careful what words you use. rally can mean what. rally can have different terms. rally can mean different things to different people. if he had rephrased it and said: we will peacefully march, holding hands, not hurting or harming anyone, not storming the building, just stand there and show our support. that would have been far more smarter, far more appropriate and i'll tell you that would have given him much more respect. instead, he stood there and said: let's rally, let's fight the cowards, let's not keep quiet. and then when you have, uh, hillbilly idiots, you, you, you see the nut jobs who joined the rally. one guy sat on nancy pelosi's desk with his feet up. another guy took the lectern. another one wore some you know yak kind of thing and, you know, look like a red indian, some kind of a halloween costume. for some people, this is fun, for some people, this is okay, out of my boring life, this is something exciting. and then, for some others, they don't know how to control the emotions. now, what was the end result of all this? the end result was damage to public property, destruction of one of the most secure places, a place where politikians, lawmakers and people of authority have to be secured and safe. and the sad fact is the really sad fact: people died. now, just think about it. this, the persons who died, okay, was someone's father, was someone's mother, was someone's sister. just think if someone in your family died because of the protest, yeah, you might say, oh, that person was a martyr. but for what? you're fighting some freedom. you're just fighting a politikal election which, after four years, you can still win it. instead, you lost a life, you lost something sacred. four people died and you know that lady got shot. for what, see i? i occupy a slight position of power, just 30 000 subscribers. it's nothing big, but overall, across all my social media, if you see, it might come up to 100 000 or 200 000, whatever the reach. now, let's let's go with the bare minimum. let's go with, let's say, on youtube, out of 30 000 subscribers, let's look at the average views. say a thousand, okay, thousand or 500, let's go find it. okay, i get 500 views on a minimum. okay, so 500 people are active. or let's even go to 100.. say, 100 people are active. now, if these 100 people are dedicated to me, they are ready to do anything or what i tell them. just imagine i have 100 people across the world sitting behind a keyboard and monitor and i tell them: see, listen, this partikular guy or this partikular girl, let's name and shame him. let's uh send emails to the company. let's uh troll their family members, or let's do something to teach this person a lesson. that's only 100 people. okay, uh, after i will bring back here, huh like, okay, i will bring. that's one poor lady who stays, uh, in a hut. she, this is the hut where she stays. i just want to give her this crap which i throw so she can sell and make some money. okay, so, 100 people. they will harass, they will trouble this person, they'll spoil this person's name. so, isn't that hundred? isn't that itself is a big thing and it's not a nice thing. i'll tell you that. like, for example, you see, okay, on my youtube, i get people threatening me, calling me names, calling my daughter, my wife. okay, in my case, fine, i'm in thailand, i don't have to worry, i'm not part of any social group, i'm not part of any company. my family members are not close. but in case my family members were close, in case i was working for a company, the amount of damage it can do is crazy. man, like, i'll tell you, i i have clients, i have customers, i have people who get in touch with me, people from their whatsapp number actually give me their names, they give me their resumes, they give me their confidential data and in some cases, things don't work out. in some cases people are like: can you give me money? some cases, after we speak, they abuse me. they say, terry marquis, you know [ __ ], you, you, you, piece of [ __ ]. what the [ __ ]? will you do it? i don't know. they go all ballistik now. i have never, until to this date, i've never revealed anyone's details to anybody else. never, never, never. i've never insulted anyone. means in the sense: okay, you posted on a public platform, i'll reply public platform, but if you get in touch with me privately, i never expose the person's name, i never take revenge because it can hurt and harm the person here and these things are not funny and shouldn't be taken lightly. donald trump made a major, major mistake, major mistake. the first mistake was, uh, having what you say, 8 million followers, or 18 million or whatever. he send them a communication. imagine 8 million or whatever million. just imagine the impact it'll have if you get even ten percent who are slightly psycho, or out of ten percent, one percent who are slightly mad, deranged, who misunderstand communication, who are dangerous to society. that itself can cause harm. now the second: not, uh, using your common sense and looking at the extreme side, i mean, how stupid can you get? number three: uh, not communicating properly. you should have reworded this: instead of saying i don't know his [ __ ] writer, or he went off script, you should have said that: uh, let us, you know, march peacefully. why is this cop up to you? oh, okay, someone is there. so let us march peacefully and let us not cause harm. let us stand standard united. he should have said something like that: but stand, you know, standing there, we will march, we will do this, we will do that. people can take it in the wrong way, man. and then, uh, i mean last if not the least, you told everyone: let's march. where were you when martin luther king said let's march? when mahatma gandhi said let's march, they stood with the people. you said: let's march. where the [ __ ] were you? why weren't you marching with everyone else? what sort of [ __ ] is this? overall, i'll tell you it just [ __ ] up everything. you just [ __ ] up everything. all the years of hard work, all the good things, what he did, all went down the drain. now the only thing people will remember is:
Facebook Is Clearly Lined Up on Team Trump, Says Roger McNamee
mr feat, Roger, I just got to get your temperature right now. there's been so much happening day-to-day about Facebook over the last couple of weeks. where are you right now on this? well, Emily, I think what we're looking at here is the recognition now much more broadly among policy makers and users and journalists that the business model of Internet platforms- and I'm speaking here really about Facebook and Instagram, but also about YouTube and Twitter- but the business model of those things is based on monopolizing our attention, and the things they do to grab our attention provoke our emotions. they consciously use algorithms to amplify the most engaging content. that turns out to be hate speech, disinformation and conspiracy theories, which are just terrible for society. and what we're seeing now because of the confluence of the general election primary season, the pandemic, the economic collapse and now all the protests going on- there's so much of that that's being magnified and exacerbated by Facebook, by YouTube, by Instagram, by Twitter, that the whole country understands that this is a really, really serious issue and we have to get on now between Biden jumping in on this on Facebook and President Trump taking a nob is attacked with the executive order. Facebook is now going to be a big flashpoint in the US election. I mean, how do you expect this to play out? I Emily, it's anybody's guess. Facebook has taken a major risk here because they have altered their Terms of Service to protect the privileges of the president for advertising in the campaign. right, they used to have a rule that said you couldn't lie in a politikal ad, and president Trump did some incredibly just, essentially dishonest things that would have been healed illegal in any advertising context. he had offers that you know said he must reply by midnight, which were done every single day for weeks, and Facebook, rather than pull those a heads down, changed its Terms of Service to make those kinds of ads okay, and it's done a whole bunch of other things that have made it really clear that they're lined up on Team Trump and obviously, if the election goes the other way, Facebook will stand alone in having made that very visible move. and if you're an investor, you know that's a kind of risk you don't see in any of the other internet platforms, even though they're doing most of the same kinds of things. so do you believe they're taking these stands because they believe President Trump is gonna be re-elected? I have no idea why they're doing it, other than if you're an internet platform on the scale of YouTube or Facebook or Instagram- you have to align with power. you can never get crosswise with the government of any country in which you operate, and in countries which are dominated by authoritarian- so think here about Myanmar or Cambodia or Brazil- they have to align with the authoritarian, which means they're going to be using their tiknology to manipulate and control the population, and that is the sort of thing that, in the United States, President Trump would like to do, and so they have. unlike the other platforms, they've done it that in an undisguised way, and I think that makes them vulnerable. I think mark is very fixated on power. I think he really has a vision that his platform is gonna replace governments in many contexts. I think Google has the same vision, but they're much more subtle about how they implement. and you know, I just think mark has put himself in this position where he's going to be the target of attention throughout this campaign, and then, if President Trump wins, I don't know what loyalty is going to show them. if President Trump loses, I think the other side is going to write it and look at Facebook as having, you know, not been an even-handed player in the electoral process. okay, so there's a lot to unpack there, Roger. if Biden wins, where does that leave Facebook? well, presumably Biden will treat Facebook fairly, which is they're gonna look at what Facebook does, and presumably they're gonna look at every platform and recognize that the business model of these platforms is use of algorithms to amplify engaging is a source of huge harm. I mean, look at how much disinformation there has been around the pandemic. how is it that in the United States, we cannot treat public health as something that is shared by all of us? how is it that mass and social distancing became part of the culture one? the answer is disinformation spread over Facebook and Instagram, YouTube. that's how it happened. and if you look at the, the rise of the quarantine resistance movement, all of that was organized and executed on social media platforms. and the key point here is: I'm a real believer in free speech. I do not want to prevent people from sharing their personal ideas. what I want to prevent is the amplification of harmful ideas disproportionate by these platforms for their own profits, and that's where the problem lies. again, I would let everybody speak, but this notion that they're gonna take stuff that scares people or makes them outraged and give that this big juicing through the algorithms. that's a really, really harmful thing and I think, for investors. we're really in a very awkward place here, because the market right now is telling us everything's fine. but you know, president Trump's gonna get reelected. all these platforms are gonna say, linearly through this. but the civil unrest that's going on now is changing the culture for our eyes and it may not be acceptable for corporations to do the kinds of things that internet platforms have taken for granted and that have made them so profitable, and that day of reckoning, if it comes, is gonna be very, very serious. but you know how do you put a probability on that end one? I mean, we're still five months out from the election. so if you're in favor of freedom of speech, what do you think Facebook should have done about the president's tweet suggesting that looters be shot? we know the stance that Facebook took. they did nothing. Twitter, on the other hand, flagged the tweet for violating policies, hid it behind a warning. what should Facebook have done? whoa, Facebook should have done something like that. to be clear, Twitter waited until now to do that for the first time. I am really happy they did it. I think it was courageous because Trump has been so good for Twitter's business that the notion that you know the Twitter would do anything to slow him down that required courage. remember that was a public safety warning they put on the shooter's of Reuters Twitter right because it was threatening violence, it was encouraging violence and that it seems to me it's not a free speech issue at all. that's the equivalent of screaming fire in a crowded theater. and these platforms: the whole issue here is not that they let everything fly. they actually make lots of editing choices. they make lots of. you know Facebook will allow a male nipple, but not a phenominal. there are all kinds of things like that, where they make arbitrary choices that control your life, over which you have absolutely no control, and then they pretend in the politikal read that they want to let everything go by. and I'm sitting there and saying, hang on, public safety is different than politiks. you shouldn't have anyone, especially not the president, United States- encouraging violence and with these platforms allowing that to happen, they're essentially inviting a change in the most important law that protects them, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996- and I'm a big fan of section 230. I like having a safe harbor because I think you want to encourage platforms to be thoughtful about protecting public safety and protecting, you know, the people who are disadvantaged, but that's not what they've done. they've treated it as an excuse to do absolutely nothing, and I think that's irresponsible. you called Roger in an op-ed for some changes, though, to section 230, as well as national legislation that would give users the right to sue for damages if they're harmed as a result.