Meta says it will restore Donald Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts

Of course Meta will. Fuckerberg strikes again.

Fuck Zuck.

Fani Willis, please save us.

He's learned how to text with his tiny fingers.

Nick Clegg, who made the decision, is an incredibly odious individual.

And who does Nick report to?

OTOH, this will add to the temptation to abandon his own platform as it's little more than an echo chamber.

Ok, boomer.

As more people abandon Facebook, he can howl into the void all he likes.

It won't help him.

Facebook is the go-to platform for spreading lies and propaganda.

Zzzzzz. He’s old garbage.

And BTW, he’ll spend all day bashing the other GOP ‘24 candidates. People will be reminded just how much better it is without him running the show.

R10, Trump should not be underestimated -- he's leading in many current polls. (See the Trump poll threads on DL).

I think he's reached the point where the exposure will be counterproductive for any present and future power he might have.

I agree with R12 and R11, however, and he cannot be dismissed. Trump skillfully obliterates weak opponents, has a way with words and intuitively understands media.

R12, that poll showed Biden beats Trump. DeSantis beats Biden. Let Trump go after DeSantis.

R14, Trump is leading Biden in the recent Emerson poll.

David Pakman discussed it on his show a couple days ago.

No one should be jumping to any conclusions yet, but it's a reminder that we shouldn't take anything for granted.

I mean...the party's just about moved on from HIM--just not his "ideologies."

It REALLY shouldn't be this hard for us to scrape this dog-shit off our shoe.

Ha ha ha

[quote] David Pakman discussed it on his show a couple days ago.

Hi, David! Fuck off.

Why complain?

Social media is a cyber repository of the worst humanity has to offer.

As such, it's exactly where the likes of Donald Trump should be.

I have no social media accounts (and no, the DL is not a SM account).

Yeah, I get it. I'm coming off as one of those self-superior people who used to declare, "I don't own a TV".

Social media is different from my TV.

It doesn't offer me a keyboard where I can type in any half-assed, stupid, bigoted, ignorant thought my random neurons can come up with, and then send the same out into the world. And, I certainly don't want to be exposed to the same from you.

And do you know what is most obscene about Zuckerberg and the others who invented this shit?

According to a guy I saw interviewed on C-Span who wrote a book about the Tech Titans, not only because of security reasons do they not allow their own children to be on SM, it's also because they don't want their children to be exposed to, and become addicted to, the product they invented.

They have knowledge of the terrible products they are responsible for bringing into this world.

and yet, they have no problem profiting off you and your children.

My absence from social media doesn't amount to a quark on a quark. I'll lie on my deathbed knowing that I sinned and hurt other people.

But one thing I'll be at peace about is that not one of my meager pennies landed in the pocketbook of Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Thiel and the rest of 'em.

[quote] According to a guy I saw interviewed on C-Span who wrote a book about the Tech Titans, not only because of security reasons do they not allow their own children to be on SM, it's also because they don't want their children to be exposed to, and become addicted to, the product they invented.

See? Here's an example of my own making that I describe in my post at r20.

In fairness to that author, I realized after I typed that paragraph that he didn't expressly say why tech titans disallow their own children from being on SM. He di, however, say they don't allow their children on SM.

But it was clear from the context of the conversation: the negative aspects of SM- that the inference you were to draw was correct. That is, they didn't want their children wasting time and eyeballs on a product that is so destructive.

R20, r21, you should get on social media.

It’ll give you the opportunity to type your tomes somewhere else so they won’t be as lengthy here.

And r22, you’ve put your finger on another aspect of social media. It doesn’t allow for what it takes to get your point across.

I routinely read a longer post from others here because I want to and my concentration level hasn’t been compromised by sound bites.

Unlike yours, apparently.

Oh, relax. It’s dead as a doornail here today and I’m just funnin’ ya.

Some people can’t deal with the complexities of life under the US system of government. They have a profound erotic longing for a strong man to take over and just tell everybody what to do.

And you know what fuck those people.

I'm hoping Trump knocks out DeSantis and then a qualified Democrat (NOT Joe Biden) can wipe the floor with Trump.

I'd like it better if Trump ran as an independent and siphoned enough votes away from DeSantis (or whoever) to allow Biden/another Democrat to get past and win. That might be the one thing for which the MAGAT's would never forgive him. It would certainly destroy all of his connections connection with the Republican Party.

A Washington Post columnist "okayed" removing this ban because the last election (the midterms) was held without violence.

When the dust settles, it will be clear America media is responsible for Trump, MAGA and J6.

This is all their fault.

The Washington Post colostomy bag must missed this incident :

ACLU approves

Comes down to the bottom line....sadly.

[quote]Should Err on the Side of Allowing…Political Speech, Even When It Offends

It’s not that his speech offends. It’s that it incites violence.

Meta stocks rebound after slashing employees & expenses.

Corporations are just plain evil. Use to be politicians would check them but now they are their pawns. We're so fucked.

[quote]Use to be

Oh, dear!

That’ll get the young people back!

I gave up FB years ago. I think many others also gave it up. That's a great solution IMO.