Thought for the Day

https://twitter.com/meakoopa/status/1380953732091944966

I'm curious what everyone's response is to this tweet. It came up on my timeline and is extremely popular. I don't think it makes sense. I would love to live in a world where everyone invested money without expectation of return and every scientist worked on cures and vaccines solely because it's rewarding but some people do want to protect and monetize their creations.

We can say that drug companies should not patent vaccines but if we made it impossible to do so there would be fewer vaccines. Research and development costs are enormous and given the failure rate of vaccines companies want to be able to make a windfall to justify the initial investment.

Could we amend the patent system for life-saving drugs? Sure. I don't doubt that market exclusivity is greater than is necessary to create the right incentives but this just seems like the kind of ineffectual, unrealistic nonsense I hear from some quarters. The sentiment is right, but are they even considering what would achieve the best outcome?

Surely the issue here is not so much about making a profit, but the Patent as a guarantee of quality and authenticity, and is the reason why patents exist (ask a lawyer!). Woud you rather have a vaccine which costs, say £10 and says 'Pfizer' on the label knowing it was made in Belgium, or one that costs £1 and says Pfizer, but was made in North Korea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Surely the issue here is not so much about making a profit, but the Patent as a guarantee of quality and authenticity, and is the reason why patents exist (ask a lawyer!). Woud you rather have a vaccine which costs, say £10 and says 'Pfizer' on the label knowing it was made in Belgium, or one that costs £1 and says Pfizer, but was made in North Korea?

---

I think the purpose of patents is to provide a property right to the inventor so that they can exclude other people from making their invention. This is thought to provide an incentive to create. By disclosing the invention the inventor gets a monopoly on its production for a term of years. In the U.S. that term is 20 years but the FDA also layers on top of it short periods of protection depending on the investment for that type of drug.

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/developmen...nd-exclusivity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_o..._United_States

Trademarks on the other hand identify the source of a good and help guarantee quality control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._trademark_law

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

https://twitter.com/meakoopa/status/1380953732091944966

I'm curious what everyone's response is to this tweet. It came up on my timeline and is extremely popular. I don't think it makes sense. I would love to live in a world where everyone invested money without expectation of return and every scientist worked on cures and vaccines solely because it's rewarding but some people do want to protect and monetize their creations.

We can say that drug companies should not patent vaccines but if we made it impossible to do so there would be fewer vaccines. Research and development costs are enormous and given the failure rate of vaccines companies want to be able to make a windfall to justify the initial investment.

Could we amend the patent system for life-saving drugs? Sure. I don't doubt that market exclusivity is greater than is necessary to create the right incentives but this just seems like the kind of ineffectual, unrealistic nonsense I hear from some quarters. The sentiment is right, but are they even considering what would achieve the best outcome?

---

It doesn't make sense and the person who made the tweet and those who are liking it are thinking emotionally and not rationally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I think the purpose of patents is to provide a property right to the inventor so that they can exclude other people from making their invention. This is thought to provide an incentive to create. By disclosing the invention the inventor gets a monopoly on its production for a term of years. In the U.S. that term is 20 years but the FDA also layers on top of it short periods of protection depending on the investment for that type of drug.

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/developmen...nd-exclusivity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_o..._United_States

Trademarks on the other hand identify the source of a good and help guarantee quality control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._trademark_law

---

Thanks for pointing out the difference between a Patent and a Trademark, not something I had thought about. But one has to chuckle at your description of Trademarks which "identify the source of a good and help guarantee quality control"- perhaps that is why it cost so much for the President's securty detail to stay at Mar-a-Lago? Or maybe the words 'quality' and 'control' are in this instance separate concepts? One wonders what other establishments with the famous Trademark deserve the accolades associated with the word 'quality'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I'm curious what everyone's response is to this tweet. It came up on my timeline and is extremely popular. I don't think it makes sense. I would love to live in a world where everyone invested money without expectation of return and every scientist worked on cures and vaccines solely because it's rewarding but some people do want to protect and monetize their creations.

---

I think what people are really objecting to is that life-preserving drugs should be priced at a level that many people cannot afford. The obvious solution is that the government should subsidise essential drugs, which is what happens in most developed countries (though maybe not the US). In Australia we only have to make a specified co-payment for drug prescriptions, regardless of the original price. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharma...enefits_Scheme

Monopolies lead to excessive profiteering due to lack of competition, so if the government grants a monopoly (which is what a patent does) it should also regulate the price. In Australia this is done through the price the government is willing to pay for drugs. I guess health insurers play a somewhat similar role in the US, although the government is likely to have more bargaining power as it's effectively the sole buyer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

I think what people are really objecting to is that life-preserving drugs should be priced at a level that many people cannot afford. The obvious solution is that the government should subsidise essential drugs, which is what happens in most developed countries (though maybe not the US). In Australia we only have to make a specified co-payment for drug prescriptions, regardless of the original price. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharma...enefits_Scheme

Monopolies lead to excessive profiteering due to lack of competition, so if the government grants a monopoly (which is what a patent does) it should also regulate the price. In Australia this is done through the price the government is willing to pay for drugs. I guess health insurers play a somewhat similar role in the US, although the government is likely to have more bargaining power as it's effectively the sole buyer.

---

I agree with you. I just think the tweet is in such a hurry to go after the bad guy that it suggests an unrealistic solution (not patenting new drugs) and avoids the useful one you suggest. A subsidy would mean the company can recover its r&d investment, make a profit and that people get access to a vaccine.

So far the U.S. government or state and local governments are covering 100% of the vaccine cost. I think there should be more and better ways to put leverage on pharma companies not to exploit their short-term monopolies in ways that are unethical. Yes drug companies seem to get away with charging excessive prices when they're dealing with insurance companies and patients.

I am definitely in favor of (lots of) reform of our healthcare system as well as the system in place to provide additional layers of market exclusivity beyond the patent life for new drugs. I'd support subsidies and even some price control measures in extreme cases.

Change has not come to America-

"Andy Ngo, a journalist affiliated with right-wing groups, shared what he said were friends’ social media tributes to Toledo — who was shot to death by police while reportedly unarmed with his hands up — while claiming that Toledo’s nickname was “Lil Homicide” in gang circles. Ngo shared these screenshots alongside a video of Toledo being accosted by police.
And in a recent segment on his radio show, Sean Hannity described Toledo as a “thirteen-year-old man”. Comparatively, Fox News programming that aired in 2020 described Kyle Rittenhouse — a seventeen-year-old who traveled across state lines with an unlicensed AR-15, shot two people to death and injured another while counter-protesting a rally in support of Jacob Blake — as a “little boy trying to help his community”.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-b1832814.html

The trail of tears -a $20 bill, and an air freshener in the car...

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...v4JHc&usqp=CAU

https://blogmedia.dealerfire.com/wp-...reshener_b.jpg

A fascinating and in depth look at the state sponsored hacking culture in the hermit kingdom whose activities include 'milking' ATM cash machines on a grand scale ,robbing cryptocurrency exchanges and targeting governments,corporations and even individuals with ransomware.
https://media.newyorker.com/photos/6..._r38269_rd.jpg

https://media.newyorker.com/photos/6..._r38269_rd.jpg

I can't get the link to the article to copy I think because the article is still too recent ,April New Yorker magazine article

Sorry. I discovered that since this is the May 3rd issue of the magazine it is not officially available for download yet.I will post it as soon as available.

There are other accounts, and I believe the article you refer to i the New Yorker is a follow-up to the one that it published on April 19 2021.

There are other sources on North Korean cyber-crime, from the DoJ indictment linked below, to some artices, also linked below. One of them claims that what NK is doing is not just crime, thus-

"Nam Jae-joon, the former director of South Korea's National Intelligence Service, reports that Kim Jong Un himself said that cyber capabilities are just as important as nuclear power and that "cyber warfare, along with nuclear weapons and missiles, is an 'all-purpose sword' that guarantees our [North Korea's] military's capability to strike relentlessly."
https://www.darkreading.com/threat-i...a/d-id/1339887

This prompts the question, is this the kind of 'war' that we now face, if, as I suggested in your thread on the Thucydides Trap, conventional war is avoided because the parties cannot guaratee military success, and the consquences may not resolve the conflict between, say, the US and China?

Also, if North Korea uses computing as a weapon of war, as have Israel and Iran (on each other and their allies), does this pose an even greater threat if at some point 'smart computers' make their own decisions about a perceived threat and -if they can do so- launch a computer-generated nuclear attack -as Henry Kissinger claims in an article in today's Guardian -?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...says-kissinger

And presumably, if North Korea can attack the US, the US can attack North Korea -? It may be warfare, but not as we have known it -and who wins in such conflicts? And how do we know when 'we' have won?

DoJ indictment is here-
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/three...berattacks-and

Article in Foreign Polcy here-
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/15...-armies-crime/

Further to the posts above, the attack on the Colonial pipeline seems to expose the difference between Cyber-Crime, and Cyber-Warfare, thus blurring the point I made in my post above.

That said, if the attack(s) originate in Russia, and the Guardian/Observer journalist can read the 'Dark Web' messages of the criminals involved, so too can the Russian Government -so do they not have a responsibility to 'take action' against organized criminals in their country openly advertising for partners in crime? This is a key passage in this from Naughton's article-

"So who or what is DarkSide? According to Intel 471, a security company that surveys the teeming cybercriminal ecosystem of the internet, DarkSide was first spotted in November 2020 on a Russian-language hacker forum, advertising for partners for a ransomware service. What it was pitching was a platform that “approved” cybercriminals could use to infect companies with ransomware and carry out negotiations and payments with victims. “We are a new product on the market,” it burbled, “but that does not mean that we have no experience and came from nowhere. We received millions of dollars profit by partnering with other well-known cryptolockers. We created DarkSide because we didn’t find the perfect product for us. Now we have it.” Not long afterwards, its software was found to be behind several ransomware attacks on manufacturers and legal firms in Europe and the US."
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-of-ransomware

What puzzles me about the new Abortion law in Texas, is why, when she becomes pregnant, the woman loses her rights as a citizen, while the rights of the foetus become more important than her. Moreover, I don't know how some anti-Abortion fanatic in Oregon can sue a Doctor in Texas unless there is some information network or campaign that informs people across the US that this Dr is working in an abortion clinic, or that someone has found out that a Gynaecologist has had a conversation with a patient regardng complications in her pregnancy - a consultation that surely is legally private? I can understand the political aim of the Bill, but I don't understand how it works in practice, and does it not violate the First Amendment as well as Roe-v-Wade?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...aw-greg-abbott

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-laws-1164730/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

What puzzles me about the new Abortion law in Texas, is why, when she becomes pregnant, the woman loses her rights as a citizen, while the rights of the foetus become more important than her. Moreover, I don't know how some anti-Abortion fanatic in Oregon can sue a Doctor in Texas unless there is some information network or campaign that informs people across the US that this Dr is working in an abortion clinic, or that someone has found out that a Gynaecologist has had a conversation with a patient regardng complications in her pregnancy - a consultation that surely is legally private? I can understand the political aim of the Bill, but I don't understand how it works in practice, and does it not violate the First Amendment as well as Roe-v-Wade?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...aw-greg-abbott

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-laws-1164730/

---

I don't understand it either. There is a problem with the fact that the composition of our courts has changed and at the level of the Supreme Court the Justices don't have to respect precedent. Under previous precedent, states cannot ban abortion, they can regulate it but the regulations cannot place an "undue burden" on a woman's right to get an abortion. There are lots of cases that deal with what regulations would be an undue burden but even without analysis it's easy to say the Texas laws should be unconstitutional.

But what the Supreme Court thinks is an undue burden may not be the issue because they may overturn Roe v. Wade and hold that a woman doesn't have a right to get an abortion. I think it would end up harming Republicans politically but I'm more concerned about the immediate harm to women.

It seems to me to be another nail in the Constitution and its promotion of the rights of the individual. It is to my mind part of the 'New Wave Fascism' that has its adherents in the US, notably Steve Bannon, probably Tucker Carlson but I am not sure what it is he thinks or if he just improvises anything that will upset people which is his job.

The situation now is that the people who voted for Trump and say they will do so again, no longer believe in the Constitution or the aims of the 1776 Revolution, because by definition if Rights mean what they say, everyone must have them, but that means people being equal, and enough White Americans consider themselves superior to Black, Asian and Latina people to make accepting this equivalent to giving up their 'God-given' right to live in America.

Belief in the rule of law now means, 'our law, not yours' which is why it was possible for Trump in 2016 to say he would accept the result of the election 'If I win', and carried this into the 2020 election to deny even the possibility that he did not win, and for a stunning majority of his supporters in and out of Congress to maintain the belief that the 2020 election result was fraudulent -because they did not win.

For States like Texas, their law is more relevant than the Federal law of the USA, and I don't doubt any challenge to this new law will be repudiated on the basis of 'State's Rights', which in effect now means that Texas need not secede from the USA, merely ignore it when it chooses to. Like the other Confederate States that have never accepted they lost their war against the US in 1865, they will be 'half-in, half-out' of the USA as presently constituted. There was even an article this past week suggesting Florida's Governor could prevent Trump from being 'extradited' to New York were he supboeed to appear in Court there, presumably for tax avoidance/fraud, though evidence is mounting of his Scottish properties laundering money, presumably for the Mafia.

Critical to this new position is that the Constitutional Rights of Women are cancelled when it comes to pregnancy, at which moment the woman's body becomes the property of the State and its laws which deny that woman the right to control it, even if she became pregnant at 13 after being gang-raped by her father and nine of his buddies. It is a cynical move that is using women's bodies and their Constitutional Rights to repudiate the authority of the USA in Texas, to assert that the Bible is of greater meaning, and to insist that it is only the State, not the indivdual who can make decisions on pregnancy.

And this, in a State supposedly opposed to Abortion, that aborted the life of Quintin Jones two days ago.

I agree with the entirety of your post. I think you do a good job of pointing out that there isn't a principle based justification for their set of policy views. Or at least not one they would feel comfortable articulating. The rights they hold sacred are only those things cognizable to their base. The ability to exclude gay men and women from businesses, not the ability to exclude people from businesses who violate public health guidelines, not the right to abortion, not the right to vote if one is a minority, but the right to own any weapon no matter how dangerous to public welfare and how unlikely any practical legal use can be found for such a weapon.

If they are successful in preventing women from getting abortions they will only increase the cultural divide between the U.S. and the rest of the developed world. Unless such regressions occur everywhere it will end badly for everyone, especially women, but notably for Republicans who are harmed politically whenever people are able to clearly see the impact of their policy choices.

On the specific issue of abortion, the question might be, how important an issue is it for most Americans? Is it as the term has it, a ‘deal breaker’? In the UK it is a minor issue for voters so it has little impact on parties, with the exception of the DUP in Northern Ireland.

This, it seems to me, makes the Abortion issue in the US more than the act itself, but the broader view that Abortion is supported by ‘the left’ and for that reason must be opposed, but also thrown into the basket of policies that separate one America from the other- climate change as an emergency, BLM, Transgender rights, the right to vote.

But your point about women and women’s rights must surely be the anvil on which this nonsense is broken? Does Greg Abbott oppose child marriage in America where most of the children who get married are female, not male? I am permanently surprised child marriage has not become a major issue in US politics as its moral content is more stark than abortion where there are medical and psychological, as well as political issues to contend with. And I would have thought it is the kind of subject Biden has strong enough views on which to act. So what is Congress doing about it?

Two thoughts today-

1) would it make any difference to Congressional Representative Greene, to point out in her comparison of Jews wearing a “Gold Star” and Americans wearing masks, that the stars Jews were forced to wear, were Yellow? It seems to me her only aim in political life is to be as offensive as she can be, so as to make the news without whose attention she would be an insignificant nobody.

2) I read headlines and bylines that tell me George Floyd’s death has ‘changed the world’. I am not sure it has even changed the US, and while I do not dismiss the theme as irrelevant or wrong, I wonder if it merely acts as a symbol of the policing crisis that exists in parts of the US, while underlining the extent to which Race continues to shape social and political relations. To the authenticity of the movement for change that has emerged in the last year, one sees in the same timeframe the insertion of terrorist groups such as the III Percenters into law enforcement, the growing belief among people like them that the Constitution and Congress are irrelevant to their needs, and thus a terrible sense that these two movements are either going to collide, or some States, currently Texas is the model, effectively opt out of those parts of the Union they don’t like. It remains to be seen if the murder of non-White Americans in Texas increases in line with its Wild West gun laws.

In Nashville a hat shop is selling Stars of David that say not vaccinated. I'm at a loss for words and am not going to say what the difference is between the treatment of people forced to wear that symbol and those who aren't vaccinated. If you don't know there's something wrong with you. Just really reprehensible stuff but it's not worse than we've seen with a confederate flag in our Capitol on January 6th or the other ugliness we've seen. It just shocks you every time.

“In NO WAY did I intend to trivialize the Star of David or disrespect what happened to millions of people,” the store, hatWRKS, wrote in an Instagram post. “I sincerely apologize for any insensitivity.”

yeah right. Or you didn’t care until it hit your sales. The mind boggles at the ignorance or the indifference. And this will not end, this week, next week another offensive and inane stunt will occupy the 24 hour news cycle.

Then you have Flynn saying the US needs what Myanmar has got....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

“In NO WAY did I intend to trivialize the Star of David or disrespect what happened to millions of people,” the store, hatWRKS, wrote in an Instagram post. “I sincerely apologize for any insensitivity.”

yeah right. Or you didn’t care until it hit your sales. The mind boggles at the ignorance or the indifference. And this will not end, this week, next week another offensive and inane stunt will occupy the 24 hour news cycle.

Then you have Flynn saying the US needs what Myanmar has got....

---

Flynn is more than an embarrassment, he's a genuinely dangerous person at this point. Some of the people in this cabal have pushed the envelope and come really close to psychosis. Lin Wood, Rudy Giuliani, Flynn. These are people who are dangerously unhinged.

As for the Star of David it is disrespect but I also see it as more of the ignorance and self-pity we've seen from anti-vaxxers. People on the right have no sympathy for those like Eric Garner, one of many Black people killed by police, but immediately see themselves as the ultimate victims. Why? They have chosen not to inoculate themselves against a disease that killed 600,000 people in this country. They haven't been blindsided by this, they've chosen to delude themselves.

People are still dying from a disease that everyone in this country is privileged to be able to vaccinate themselves against. They've chosen to turn down a privilege that people all over the world would make enormous sacrifices for. I recal back in January when I was worried about my parents getting exposed to the disease about the kinds of sacrifices I'd make for their safety. It boggles the mind people can turn down vaccines that have gone through a year of clinical trials and then see themselves as any kind of victim at all. Amazing to me that they could put on a star like that and not realize how callous and stupid they seem.

The concept of Chosen-ness in Judaism is misunderstood, even notably by some Jews, to be a supremacist doctrine and not a statement of the burdens imposed on those who practice Judaism. That's why I hesitate to say without that caveat, anti-vaxxers are not Chosen, they chose.

And they have more to fear from the disease they haven't protected themselves against than the social stigma of advertising their ignorance.

The people described in this article on Idaho are referred to as ‘Conservatives’, but surely the time has now come to describe them as the Fascists that they are. Three percenters do not believe in Democracy and their fidelity to the Constitution is doubtful, their contempt for Congress absolute. And not just Idaho, but other States too. Unless, and until these groups of people either allied to Trump through the GOP or outside columns of support are identified as what they are, with the racist, the anti- democratic and anti-liberal, and yes, anti-Conservative project they are engaged in, I see no way of stopping them extending their influence to breaking point, ie, gunfire.

Does anyone have the courage to take them on for what they are?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-mask-mandates

So what was the point of banning him then?

What Happened When Trump Was Banned on Social Media

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...media-ban.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

So what was the point of banning him then?

What Happened When Trump Was Banned on Social Media

---

Is there an irony that by banning him, the media has limited Trump's opportunity to make statements liable to become incriminating evidence in a Court of Law? Had he been free to range free, who knows what he might say? There are the historic claims about his tax returns and the valuation of his property and business dealings, and normally I would assume his lawyers have told him to keep his mouth shut though that is a big ask. That all he seems interested is banging on about the 'steal' and without the ban would even his supporters not begin to tire of it, day after day?

What I want to know is how 'people in Italy' -what people, where?- managed to use military satellites to instruct voting machines in specific counties in the US to switch votes fror Trump to Biden. If it was serious enough for Mark Meadows to break protocol and write 5 emails to the DoJ seeking an investigation, maybe the man in wrinkled trousers should clarify this claim...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Is there an irony that by banning him, the media has limited Trump's opportunity to make statements liable to become incriminating evidence in a Court of Law?

---

I couldn't read the article because I've reached my limit of free articles but this is a good point. And not just incriminating statements respecting crimes but liability for defamation which he no longer is protected against.

Since I don't know what the NY Times article says I can't really evaluate it but at the time twitter made its decision they can't know all of the effects. These things are easier to see in hindsight. He had just stoked an insurrection and was continuing to do so when they banned the idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I couldn't read the article because I've reached my limit of free articles but this is a good point. And not just incriminating statements respecting crimes but liability for defamation which he no longer is protected against.

Since I don't know what the NY Times article says I can't really evaluate it but at the time twitter made its decision they can't know all of the effects. These things are easier to see in hindsight. He had just stoked an insurrection and was continuing to do so when they banned the idiot.

---

Point 1- it may be tedious, but if you register with the NYT you can many of their articles and reports but you have to go to your email first and click a verification button.

Point 2- my argument is derived from the hole Sidney Powell has dug for herself in the legal conflict with Dominion, thus-

"In a March 22 motion to dismiss in the Dominion suit, Powell’s attorneys argued that “no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact” and that they are simply “her opinions and legal theories on a matter of utmost public concern.” (In the United States, statements of opinion are protected from defamation claims if they cannot be “proven as fact” or if they use “loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language which would negate the impression that the writer was seriously maintaining” a position as fact.)

But a half-hour into the panel at the Dallas Patriot Roundup late last month, Powell appeared to veer away from the defense her attorneys had set out, according to multiple videos reviewed by The Daily Beast.
“I don’t think they realized that some of us litigators were going to catch on and hold their feet to the fire and expose what really happened or that they could shut us up by, say, suing me for 4.3 billion dollars in three different states,” Powell said at the panel discussion. “Threatening me is like waving a red flag in a bull’s face.”
Dominion’s suit against her should be dismissed, Powell continued, because “number one, they don't have jurisdiction over us and number two, we meant what we said and we have the evidence to back it up.”
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/sidney-pow...ux3YmTWei-bkSn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Point 1- it may be tedious, but if you register with the NYT you can many of their articles and reports but you have to go to your email first and click a verification button.

---

I was reluctant to sign up but I did end up registering with them maybe six months ago and frequently read their articles. I've now apparently read so many of them that they want me to pay a dollar a week to continue reading. It's not expensive but there are just so many newspapers I read just as often that I'm not going to.

I like how NYC can find the time time to put three bike rental stations in my neighborhood. But can't/won't do something about the litter and trash that is all over the streets, sidewalks, and in the grass. Or do something about the 3 or 4 emotionally disturbed people that I see on a daily basis.

On a side note, nothing sums up the state of this city better than walking into a subway elevator and seeing human shit on the floor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I couldn't read the article because I've reached my limit of free articles but this is a good point. And not just incriminating statements respecting crimes but liability for defamation which he no longer is protected against.

Since I don't know what the NY Times article says I can't really evaluate it but at the time twitter made its decision they can't know all of the effects. These things are easier to see in hindsight. He had just stoked an insurrection and was continuing to do so when they banned the idiot.

---

Here let me help you out since you don't want to sign up for the site.

The New York Times examined Mr. Trump’s nearly 1,600 social media posts from Sept. 1 to Jan. 8, the day Mr. Trump was banned from the platforms. We then tracked the social media engagement with the dozens of written statements he made on his personal website, campaign fund-raising site and in email blasts from Jan. 9 until May 5, which was the day that the Facebook Oversight Board, which reviews some content decisions by the company, said that the company acted appropriately in kicking him off the service.

Before the ban, the social media post with the median engagement generated 272,000 likes and shares. After the ban, that dropped to 36,000 likes and shares. Yet 11 of his 89 statements after the ban attracted as many likes or shares as the median post before the ban, if not more.

How does that happen?

Mr. Trump had long been his own best promoter on social media. The vast majority of people on Twitter and Facebook interacted directly with Mr. Trump’s posts, either liking or sharing them, The Times analysis found.

But after the ban, other popular social media accounts often picked up his messages and posted them themselves. (Last week, Mr. Trump shut down his blog, one of the places he made statements.)

On Oct. 8, Mr. Trump tweeted that the then-Democratic presidential candidate Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his running mate, Kamala Harris, lied “constantly.” The post was liked and shared 501,000 times on Facebook and Twitter.

On March 21, Mr. Trump published a statement on his website saying that his administration had handed over “the most secure border in history.” He went on to criticize the Biden administration’s handling of the border crisis. “Our Country is being destroyed!” Mr. Trump said. The statement was liked and shared more than 661,000 times.


The Global Disinformation Index, a nonpartisan nonprofit that studies disinformation, examined the political leanings of the top accounts sharing Mr. Trump’s statements online after he was barred from Facebook and Twitter. The group classified hundreds of accounts as either left- or right-leaning, or a mix of the two, relying on standards that it established through its work on disinformation risk ratings for news sites and other online media.

One thing that became immediately clear: Mr. Trump’s most ardent supporters continue to spread his message — doing the work that he had been unable to do himself.

The top sharers of the March post included the right-wing publication Breitbart News (159,500 likes and shares), a Facebook page called “President Donald Trump Fan Club” (48,200 likes), Fox News (42,000 likes), and Jenna Ellis (36,700 likes), a lawyer who made regular television appearances as Mr. Trump’s proxy to trumpet his debunked claims of a rigged election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

On a side note, nothing sums up the state of this city better than walking into a subway elevator and seeing human shit on the floor.

---

That is horrendous and not how I remember the City from my last visit in 2004 -what explains this decline in standards, this neglect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

Here let me help you out since you don't want to sign up for the site.

The New York Times examined Mr. Trump’s nearly 1,600 social media posts from Sept. 1 to Jan. 8, the day Mr. Trump was banned from the platforms. We then tracked the social media engagement with the dozens of written statements he made on his personal website, campaign fund-raising site and in email blasts from Jan. 9 until May 5, which was the day that the Facebook Oversight Board, which reviews some content decisions by the company, said that the company acted appropriately in kicking him off the service.

Before the ban, the social media post with the median engagement generated 272,000 likes and shares. After the ban, that dropped to 36,000 likes and shares. Yet 11 of his 89 statements after the ban attracted as many likes or shares as the median post before the ban, if not more.

How does that happen?

Mr. Trump had long been his own best promoter on social media. The vast majority of people on Twitter and Facebook interacted directly with Mr. Trump’s posts, either liking or sharing them, The Times analysis found.

But after the ban, other popular social media accounts often picked up his messages and posted them themselves. (Last week, Mr. Trump shut down his blog, one of the places he made statements.)

On Oct. 8, Mr. Trump tweeted that the then-Democratic presidential candidate Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his running mate, Kamala Harris, lied “constantly.” The post was liked and shared 501,000 times on Facebook and Twitter.

On March 21, Mr. Trump published a statement on his website saying that his administration had handed over “the most secure border in history.” He went on to criticize the Biden administration’s handling of the border crisis. “Our Country is being destroyed!” Mr. Trump said. The statement was liked and shared more than 661,000 times.


The Global Disinformation Index, a nonpartisan nonprofit that studies disinformation, examined the political leanings of the top accounts sharing Mr. Trump’s statements online after he was barred from Facebook and Twitter. The group classified hundreds of accounts as either left- or right-leaning, or a mix of the two, relying on standards that it established through its work on disinformation risk ratings for news sites and other online media.

One thing that became immediately clear: Mr. Trump’s most ardent supporters continue to spread his message — doing the work that he had been unable to do himself.

The top sharers of the March post included the right-wing publication Breitbart News (159,500 likes and shares), a Facebook page called “President Donald Trump Fan Club” (48,200 likes), Fox News (42,000 likes), and Jenna Ellis (36,700 likes), a lawyer who made regular television appearances as Mr. Trump’s proxy to trumpet his debunked claims of a rigged election.

---

I am signed up to the New York Times. I have read enough of their articles that they want me to pay a dollar a week to read their shit.

People don't make decisions with a crystal ball. At the time he was kicked off twitter it was because he was running an account with millions of followers and amplifying messages that got people killed and was continuing to disseminate bullshit. Did twitter know what the outcome of kicking him off their site would be? No. Nobody knew whether there would be another attempted insurrection or whether we would have a peaceful transition of power.

Anyhow anyone who is curious what he has to say can probably find the orange jackass at parler or something like that or maybe a courtroom near you. Also, his dipstick sons and robot daughter are still on twitter.

Are you arguing that because the machine that disseminates lies that gets people killed is so much bigger than Trump he should have gotten a break? Maybe Jenna Ellis should have been kicked off too and every other person spreading hatred and lies.

But another thing to note is that the message they provide as an example is from March. I would be curious whether his propaganda was being spread as easily in mid-January shortly after his idiot followers decorated the foreground of the capitol with a gallows, a truck filled with napalm, and two pipe bombs that thankfully didn't explode.

Then read this paragraph:

"Before the ban, the social media post with the median engagement generated 272,000 likes and shares. After the ban, that dropped to 36,000 likes and shares. Yet 11 of his 89 statements after the ban attracted as many likes or shares as the median post before the ban, if not more."

I'm reading this as surprise that some of his messages were still disseminated a lot. But although I'm tired here, I'm seeing 11/89 as being something like 14%. I don't know, so I read that as most of his malicious garbage not being spread as much but some of it was. I think kicking his fat ass off twitter was one of the few just decisions they made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I am signed up to the New York Times. I have read enough of their articles that they want me to pay a dollar a week to read their shit.

People don't make decisions with a crystal ball. At the time he was kicked off twitter it was because he was running an account with millions of followers and amplifying messages that got people killed and was continuing to disseminate bullshit. Did twitter know what the outcome of kicking him off their site would be? No. Nobody knew whether there would be another attempted insurrection or whether we would have a peaceful transition of power.

Anyhow anyone who is curious what he has to say can probably find the orange jackass at parler or something like that or maybe a courtroom near you. Also, his dipstick sons and robot daughter are still on twitter.

Are you arguing that because the machine that disseminates lies that gets people killed is so much bigger than Trump he should have gotten a break? Maybe Jenna Ellis should have been kicked off too and every other person spreading hatred and lies.

---

No he shouldn't have gotten a break and I was fine with him being banned from January 6th until the end of his term.

After that when became a private citizen again, I think it would have been better suited to keep him around on social media and whenever he tweeted out misinformation, remove the tweets themselves.

People don't make make decisions with crystal balls. But sometimes before you make a decision, you have to think ahead of what some of the probable outcomes maybe. There is also making a decision and when you see that things are not working out as you had hoped, trying something different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

That is horrendous and not how I remember the City from my last visit in 2004 -what explains this decline in standards, this neglect?

---

In essence, what Bill De Blasio started, a misguided bail reform law, Covid 19, and rush to reform the NYPD finished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

No he shouldn't have gotten a break and I was fine with him being banned from January 6th until the end of his term.

After that when became a private citizen again, I think it would have been better suited to keep him around on social media and whenever he tweeted out misinformation, remove the tweets themselves.

People don't make make decisions with crystal balls. But sometimes before you make a decision, you have to think ahead of what some of the probable outcomes maybe. There is also making a decision and when you see that things are not working out as you had hoped, trying something different.

---

Maybe I agree with your first two paragraphs. I didn't realize that you agreed he should have been banned until the inauguration.

I interpret the article slightly differently than you. I see it as indicating that this network of people is much bigger than him and that if you have a large following a private company can't really keep you from reaching your most ardent followers.

I see banning him as the right of a private company not to be associated with or willingly aid the dissemination of that kind of poison. If we accept everything the article says then it kind of undercuts Republicans' argument that they are being silenced. Being shut out of one outlet does not keep someone from talking it just washes the company's hands of complicity.

Twitter will never be able to show they're consistent because it's inconvenient to ban people given that their business model depends on keeping people there. I can think of worse offenders than Trump and they don't ban those people because they want to make money. The decision to ban Trump did not earn them money though.

Slightly beside the point but if you look at that paragraph I pulled out I also see it as contradicting their main thesis. Some of his statements were amplified but apparently most did not have the same reach.

Is it not time for the 'Republcan Party' to be explicit about its intentions? To limit the people who can take part in elections, to strenthen the powers of invidual States against Congress; to allow those who wish to, ro replace the Constitution of the USA with the Bibe, and to appoint Donald Trump President for Life?

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-b1868426.html

Mitch McConnell and his Senate Republicans using the filibuster to block Senate Democrats from For The People Act,should be a wake up call to Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema that Republicans aren't to help them pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement and For The People Acts, and should stop being stubborn and do the right by eliminating the filibuster so that the US Senate can pass those two acts and President Joe Biden can the bills into law, and put an end to the 400 plus voter suppression laws. Because as long as the filibuster is in play, Mitch McConnell and his republican colleagues are going to use it to stop President Joe Biden and the Democrats from passing anything. https://www.axios.com/senate-republi...ebddf5d00.html