@coldjoint,
Totally irrelevant, like about 99% of your posts. Agriculture does not mean GMOs.
@coldjoint,
Can you please decipher what that supposed to mean?
I'm curious if even you can make it sound good...
@coldjoint,
You're right, I don't understand gibberish. The extremely ironic thing about this is, neither can you. Yet you defend nonsense.
@coldjoint,
You didn't answer the question - you attacked the media that ran the story.
Twitter Won't Take Down Trump's Offensive Tweets, But it Might Label Them
By NATASHA BACH March 28, 2019
Twitter is considering whether to change the way it handles offensive content, by adding labels to such tweets, but allowing them to remain on its platform.
Speaking at Technology 202 Live on Wednesday, a Washington Post Live forum in San Francisco, Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s head of legal, policy, and trust and safety, explained the social media company is seeking a way to maintain its standards, while allowing tweets from important figures that are in the public interest.
“One of the things we’re working really closely on with our product and engineering folks is, ‘How can we label that?’” Gadde said. “How can we put some context around it so people are aware that that content is actually a violation of our rules and it is serving a particular purpose in remaining on the platform.”
Twitter does have rules around offensive content, but tweets from leaders and others deemed newsworthy are often exempted. That means these tweets can just “live on Twitter and people can see it and they just assume that is the type of content or behavior that’s allowed by our rules,” Gadde said. Direct, violent threats, however, are never allowed.
Nevertheless, Twitter has come under fire for allowing tweets that are offensive, including numerous attacks President Donald Trump has made on other public figures, including the late Arizona Sen. John McCain and his former political opponent Hillary Clinton. He also has shared unverified anti-Islam videos and others that represent an attack on various members of the media and media outlets.
Gadde said the social media giant hopes such a tool will provide additional context to its users, while allowing newsworthy content to stay up “that people may want to have a conversation around.”
Meanwhile, early Wednesday, Facebook announced that it was taking steps to remove any content that praises, supports, or represents white nationalism and separatism.
@hightor,
Quote: Trump engaged in his usual weird meandering, saying of his voters: “I always say they came from the valleys. They came from the mountains, they came out of the damn rivers. I don’t know what you were doing in the river, but they came from the cities, they came and they came and they didn’t even know.”
Well, you have to hand it to the sociopath, those last four words are correct.
Alex Jones managed to raise the profile of his warped Info Wars site through linking in with the right wing media universe. Trump was a guest, for example. But I confess I'd been unaware of some specifics on what this guy has been promulgating.
Quote:A federal judge ruled Friday that Alex Jones and other online conspiracy peddlers cannot dismiss a defamation suit alleging that they invented damaging smears about a counter-protester at the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally.
“Victims of vile conspiracy theories should take comfort in Judge Moon’s ruling that Brennan Gilmore’s defamation suit against InfoWars must proceed,” Andrew Mendrala, an attorney with Georgetown Law’s Civil Rights Clinic, which helped bring the case, said in a statement. “Today’s decision shows that the law will protect victims of baseless lies by holding people like Alex Jones accountable for the harm they cause.”
Gilmore sued Jones, Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft and several other far-right publishers for falsely labeling him as a “deep state” operative. They claimed that a video he captures and posted online of white supremacist Alex James Fields ramming his car into Heather Heyer was part of an elaborate, staged plot to undermine the Trump administration.
The defendants requested that the lawsuit be thrown out, claiming they were simply exercising their First Amendment right to share theories and opinions about the incident.
But in Friday’s ruling, Judge Norman Moon of Virginia’s Western District agreed with Gilmore that they knowingly published these false stories “with actual malice.”
Gilmore was a foreign service officer on leave at the time of the rally, and had previously donated to Democratic politicians. Far-right sites used these details as the basis to declare that he was a paid undercover operative helping to carry out an anti-Trump coup. Jones definitively stated that Gilmore was “high-level CIA,” had helped coordinate the chaos at Charlottesville, and that George Soros was paying him $320,000 a year.
According to Gilmore, these stories prompted death threats and doxxing. They damaged his career and caused great emotional distress, as he recounted to TPM last year.
The judge’s ruling caps off a bad 24 hours for Jones. Video was released of his deposition in a separate defamation case brought by the parents of children murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Jones has maintained that the event was a false flag and that the grieving parents are crisis actors.
In the tapes, Jones contradicted himself, failed to answer basic questions, and refused to “take the responsibility” for the pain he caused the families bringing the case. He claimed a “form of psychosis” made him believe mass shootings like Sandy Hook were staged.
TPM
How do people like this gain such a profile on the right? And why do they do it? Because there is a ton of money to be made playing this game and has been for a long time as
historian Rick Perlstein (along with many others) has documented
Here we have a great description of a skilled deal maker in action:
The day North Korea talks collapsed, Trump passed Kim a note demanding he turn over his nukes
Quote:
On the day that their talks in Hanoi collapsed last month, U.S. President Donald Trump handed North Korean leader Kim Jong Un a piece of paper that included a blunt call for the transfer of Pyongyang's nuclear weapons and bomb fuel to the United States, according to the document seen by Reuters.
Trump gave Kim both Korean and English-language versions of the U.S. position at Hanoi's Metropole hotel on Feb. 28, according to a source familiar with the discussions, speaking on condition of anonymity. It was the first time that Trump himself had explicitly defined what he meant by denuclearization directly to Kim, the source said.
A lunch between the two leaders was canceled the same day. While neither side has presented a complete account of why the summit collapsed, the document may help explain it.
The document's existence was first mentioned by White House national security advisor John Bolton in television interviews he gave after the two-day summit. Bolton did not disclose in those interviews the pivotal U.S. expectation contained in the document that North Korea should transfer its nuclear weapons and fissile material to the United States.
The document appeared to represent Bolton's long-held and hardline "Libya model" of denuclearization that North Korea has rejected repeatedly. It probably would have been seen by Kim as insulting and provocative, analysts said.
Trump had previously distanced himself in public comments from Bolton's approach and said a "Libya model" would be employed only if a deal could not be reached.
The idea of North Korea handing over its weapons was first proposed by Bolton in 2004. He revived the proposal last year when Trump named him as national security advisor.
The document was meant to provide the North Koreans with a clear and concise definition of what the United States meant by "final, fully verifiable, denuclearization," the source familiar with discussions said.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The State Department declined to comment on what would be a classified document.
After the summit, a North Korean official accused Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo of "gangster-like" demands, saying Pyongyang was considering suspending talks with the United States and may rethink its self-imposed ban on missile and nuclear tests.
The English version of the document, seen by Reuters, called for "fully dismantling North Korea's nuclear infrastructure, chemical and biological warfare program and related dual-use capabilities; and ballistic missiles, launchers, and associated facilities."
Aside from the call for the transfer of Pyongyang's nuclear weapons and bomb fuel, the document had four other key points.
It called on North Korea to provide a comprehensive declaration of its nuclear program and full access to U.S. and international inspectors; to halt all related activities and construction of any new facilities; to eliminate all nuclear infrastructure; and to transition all nuclear program scientists and technicians to commercial activities.
The summit in Vietnam's capital was cut short after Trump and Kim failed to reach a deal on the extent of economic sanctions relief for North Korea in exchange for its steps to give up its nuclear program.
The first summit between Trump and Kim, which took place in Singapore in June 2018, was almost called off after the North Koreans rejected Bolton's repeated demands for it to follow a denuclearization model under which components of Libya's nuclear program were shipped to the United States in 2004.
Seven years after a denuclearization agreement was reached between the United States and Libya's leader, Muammar Gaddafi, the United States took part in a NATO-led military operation against his government and he was overthrown by rebels and killed.
Last year, North Korea officials called Bolton's plan "absurd" and noted the "miserable fate" that befell Gaddafi.
After North Korea threatened to cancel the Singapore summit, Trump said in May 2018 he was not pursuing a "Libya model" and that he was looking for an agreement that would protect Kim.
"He would be there, he would be running his country, his country would be very rich," Trump said at the time.
"The Libya model was a much different model. We decimated that country," Trump added.
The Hanoi document was presented in what U.S. officials have said was an attempt by Trump to secure a "big deal" under which all sanctions would be lifted if North Korea gave up all of its weapons.
U.S.-North Korean engagement has appeared to be in limbo since the Hanoi meeting. Pompeo said on March 4 he was hopeful he could send a team to North Korea "in the next couple of weeks," but there has been no sign of that.
Jenny Town, a North Korea expert at the Washington-based Stimson Center think tank, said the content of the U.S. document was not surprising.
"This is what Bolton wanted from the beginning and it clearly wasn't going to work," Town said. "If the U.S. was really serious about negotiations they would have learned already that this wasn't an approach they could take."
Town added, "It's already been rejected more than once, and to keep bringing it up ... would be rather insulting. It's a non-starter and reflects absolutely no learning curve in the process."
North Korea has repeatedly rejected unilateral disarmament and argues that its weapons program is needed for defense, a belief reinforced by the fate Gaddafi and others.
In an interview with ABC's "This Week" program after the Hanoi summit, Bolton said the North Koreans had committed to denuclearization in a variety of forms several times "that they have happily violated."
"We define denuclearization as meaning the elimination of their nuclear weapons program, their uranium enrichment capability, their plutonium reprocessing capability," Bolton said.
Asked who authored the document, Bolton said it had been "written at staff level and cleared around as usual."
reuters
@hightor,
Two points your neoliberal freak-out post avoided, Hi; NK doesn't actually have any realistic nuclear capacity.
Call it a document, all you like. It's a typical fabrication in this arena.
Secondly, and more importantly, what do you consider to be a "Libya Model"?
The most advanced and self-sufficient nation in North Africa, with a leader of several generations, with the wherewithall of a comfortable western nation, and the highest literacy and numeracy rates of the nation, and the envy of several European nations.
Suddenly, career criminal Clinton decides she needs to "influence" her Kenyan leader in areers to bomb Libya back into the Stone Ages.
Obama's memoirs note that this is his "biggest regret" by far.
Go figure.