english french german greek italian lithuanian russian serbian spanish
Haupt arrow newsitems arrow Trump to Protect People's Free Web Debates against Muzzling by Big-Tech Titans

Trump to Protect People's Free Web Debates against Muzzling by Big-Tech Titans

Geschrieben von ACM
Thursday, 28 May 2020


*Strasbourg/Angelo Marcopolo/- In an Historic Move to officialy "Prevent OnLine Censorship", which reminds also the Emergence of "Public Service" in European Countries, combined with Human Rights at the Internet, mainly Focused on Free Speech and Democracy, as well as the Fight against Oligo/Monopoles, US President Don Trump published Today a landmark "Executive Order" froling "Eurofora" Project's core on Boosting Citizens' Digital Dialogue in Modern Decision-Making, just Before the Crucial forthcoming US Presidential Elections of November 2020.                     

The move comes less than 1 Year After a Pioneer and Popular Summit to Boost Independent Web News Journalism's Freedom, organized by President Trump last July 2019 at the White House, (See: http://www.eurofora.net/newsflashes/news/trumpforfreewebnews.html, etc)                                       


 - "Free Speech is the BedRock of ... Democracy.  ...The Freedom to Express and Debate ideas is (at) the Foundation for all of our Rights as a Free People", Trump stressed from the outset, presenting the "Policy" of his move.

 - Nowadays, "we canNot allow a limited number of OnLine platforms to Hand-Pick the Speech" that People "may Access and Convey on the Internet", he stressed, because such a "practice is fundamentally ...Anti-Democratic", since, "when large, Powerful social Media Companies Censor Opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a Dangerous Power", he Denounced.

- Indeed, Obviously, "the growth of OnLine platforms in Recent years raises important Questions about applying the Ideals" of Freedoms of Expression and Information Speech of the First Amendment "to Modern Communications Technology", given the Fact that, in real Practice, "Today", Many People "follow the News, stay in touch with Friends and Family, and share their Views on current Events through Social Media and Other OnLine platforms.  As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st Century equivalent of the Public Square", he described.

- F.ex., "Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not UnPrecedented, Power to Shape the Interpretation of public events; to Censor, Delete, or Disappear Information; and to Control what People See or do Not see", Trump rightfully Warned, in concreto.

=> In Consequence, "Free and Open Debate at the Internet" has become a "Clear Commitment" of Trump's Presidency, as he reminded, Because "Such Debate is just as Important online as it is in our Universities, our Town-Halls, and our Homes.  It is Essential to sustaining our Democracy".


- Because "There’s No Precedent in ...History for so Small a Number of Corporations to Control so Large a Sphere of interaction".  Social media Companies had “More Power and more reach” Than any Phone company or Newspaper or Media outlet : -"They’ve had UnChecked Power to Censor Restrict, Edit, Shape, Hide, Alter virtually Any form of Communication between private citizens or large public audiences,” he Added Oraly.

- But "What they Choose to Fact-Check, and what they choose to Ignore or Promote, is nothing more than a Political Activism group", Trump Denounced. F.ex., “the Choices that <<Twitter>> makes, when it chooses to Suppress, Edit, Black-List, Shadow-Ban" are "Inappropriate” "Decisions".


Notoriously, Trump Won the 2016 US Presidential Elections against a Hostile Majority of Establishment's Traditional Medias, Just Thanks, partially, to "Fox" News, and Mainly of "Breitbart"'s Web-Newspaper, "Limbaugh"'s Web-Radio, "Info-Wars" and"Rightside" Web-TVs, etc., Added to many American People's activism at the Internet. When a New Trump-Friendly Media emerged, Later-on : "AONN" TV and WebNewsite, its Press Correspondent at the White House was, Recently, even ...Excluded from the Press-Briefings, (after having been earlier copiously Slandered personally at Establishment's Web), under a Hollow, Procedural Pretext, by a Corporatist, Old-Fashioned "Association" of Established Mass Medias' cushy job "JINOs" ("Journalists in Name Only"), most of whom Date from Dems Party's Former POTUS Bill Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, etc. !  

=> So that, Nowadays, it's Obviously, even More than Before, Mainly upon People's Web Activism, that Trump may Count at the Crucial Forthcoming US Presidential and Congress' Elections of November 2020, if he succesfully Strengthens, there, a Strategic "Objective Alliance" with any Honest Freedom-Loving Internet Actors. (A Hope which had initially Motivated, f.ex., Even an ...Australian Web Businessman, that a Local Establishment had reportedly ill-treated)...

>>> Most Probably for that reason too, Recently, Establisment's Big "Online Platforms are engaging in Selective Censorship that is Harming ...National DisCourse", while "Tens of Thousands of Americans have reported, among other Troubling behaviors, online platforms “Flagging” content as Inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making UnAnnounced and unexplained Changes to company policies that have the effect of Disfavoring certain Viewpoints; and (even) Deleting content and entire accounts, with No Warning, No Rationale, and No Recourse", President Trump Denounced.

+ Moreover, inter alia, also "Twitter now Selectively decides to place a "Warning Label" on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects Political Bias". (Something which, indeed, meanwhile, has just been done even Against US President Trump himself, his Topical Tweet against Violent Riots having been Hidden below such a so-called "Warning Label", Accusing him to ..."Glorify Violence" [sic !], as he Warned that USA's National Guard might "Shoot" at Brutal Rioters if they Start "Looting", as a matter of "Fact", in order to Prevent such Clashes, and "Not" as a "Statement", as he Explained afterwards - UPDATED)...    On the Contrary, "as has been reported, Twitter seems Never to have placed such a label on Other Politician’s tweet". F.ex.,"as recently as last week, (Dems') Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to Mislead his followers by peddling the long-Disproved Russian Collusion Hoax", (i.e. the False Claim that the US President would have been Elected only because he allegedly Betrayed his Country by a Secret Deal with the Russian Government... A "Hoax" with which Dems notoriously Blocked any other Political Debate in the USA for More than 3 Years, until even the notorious Anti-Trump Attorney Mueller Droped a fruitless "Investigation"), "and Twitter did Not Flag Those tweets".  +Moreover, "UnSurprisingly, its Officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has Flaunted his Political Bias in his own tweets", (where he Notoriously Accused the "White House" even to host ..."NAZIS" inside it !)

- "At the same time online platforms are invoking Inconsistent, irrational, and GroundLess justifications to Censor or otherwise Restrict Americans’ Speech here at Home", on the Contrary, "several online platforms are Profiting from and Promoting the Aggression and Disinformation spread by Foreign Governments....  One United States company, for example, (NDLR : "Google") Created a Search Engine for [Foreign Officials] that would have Blacklisted searches for “Human Rights", Hid data UnFavorable to [those Foreign Officials], and Tracked Users determined appropriate for Surveillance.  It also established research Partnerships ...that provide direct Benefits to [that Foreign] Military.  Other companies have accepted Advertisements Paid for by [that Foreign] Government that spread False information about ... mass imPrisonment of Religious Minorities, thereby Enabling these Abuses of Human Rights.  They have also amplified [that Foreign Country's] Propaganda abroad, including by allowing [Foreign] Government Officials to use their platforms to spread Misinformation regarding the Origins of the COVID-19 Pandemic, and to Undermine pro-Democracy Protests...", he accused.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           


=> On the Contrary, - "We must Foster and Protect Diverse Wiewpoints in today’s Digital communications environment where All [Citizens] can and should have a Voice.  We must Seek Transparency and Accountability from OnLine Platforms, and Encourage Standards and Tools to Protect and preserve the Integrity and Openness of ...Discourse and Freedom of Expression", Trump Urged


    For that purpose, US President Trump, Clearl stressed that, as a matter of General Principle, : - "It is the Policy of the US to Foster clear ground Rules Promoting Free and Open Debate on the Internet".


    => Thus at First, he Decided to officialy "Clarify" that a Legal "Liability Immunity"'s "Scope" "should Not Extend ...for those Who Purport to provide users a Forum for free and open speech, But, in Reality, use their Power over a Vital means of Communication to engage in Deceptive or pretextual actions Stifling free and open Debate by Censoring certain Viewpoints", as he described it.

    - Because such "Immunity" had been established, in the Past, Only in order to "Not Discourage from Taking Down (really) Harmful material", f.ex. "to Protect Minors from Harmful Content", he reminded. While "the (US) Congress' Vision (was) that Internet is a “Forum for a True Diversity of Political Discourse".  

    => Therefore, that provision (Comp. Supra) must "Not be Distorted, to provide Liability Protection for OnLine platforms that — Far from acting in “Good faith” to remove Objectionable content — Instead engage in Deceptive or Pretextual Actions (often Contrary to their stated terms of service) to Stifle Viewpoints with which they Disagree". Because that "was Not intended to Allow a handful of Companies to Grow into Titans (sic !) Controlling Vital Avenues for ...National Discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths Blanket Immunity When they use their Power to Censor content and Silence Viewpoints that they Dislike". In that case, "Such a Provider Should properly Lose (that) Liability Shield .... and be Exposed to Liability, like Any traditional Editor and Publisher", he explained.

    - Particularly when their actions are "Deceptive, Pretextual, or Inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or taken after Failing to provide adequate Notice, reasoned Explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be Heard", Trump's "Executive Order" points out.


    + In Addition, at the Financial area, USA Authorities will "Review" any "Federal Spending on Advertising and Marketing Paid to Online Platforms", in order to "Protect Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms that Restrict Free Speech", according to Trumps' Executive Order.

    => Thus, "within 30 Days", the "Department of Justice" will "assess whether any OnLine Platfoms are Problematic Vehicles for Government Speech, due to Viewpoint Discrimination, Deception to consumers, or Other Bad practices".


    + Moreover, After the US "Supreme Court", on "2017", "noted that Social Media Sites, as the Modern <<Public Square>>, <<Can provide perhaps the Most Powerful Mechanisms available To a private Citizen to make his or her Voice Heard", while "Communication through those Channels has Become Important for meaningful Participation in ... Democracy, including to Petition Elected Leaders", "these Sites are providing an Important Forum to the Public for others to engage in Free Expression and Debate".

    => In Consequence, "the White House launched", just 1 Year Ago, ("in May of 2019"), "a Tech Bias Reporting tool, to allow" Citizens "to Report Incidents of OnLine Censorship", and, "In just Weeks", it "Received over 16.000 Complaints of OnLine Platforms Censoring or otherwise taking Action Against Users, Based on their Political Viewpoints", Trump revealed.

    >>> Thus, now, "the White House will Submit such Complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)", in order to "consider Taking Action... to Prohibit Unfair or Deceptive acts or practices in or Affecting commerce". These "may Include ... Restrict(ing) Speech in ways that do Not Align with those entities' Public Representations".

    + And "for Large OnLine Platforms, that are Vast Arenas for Public Debate, (including the Social Media Platform "Twitter"), the FTC shall Also ... consider Whether Complaints allege Violations of Law", that "implicate" the above-mentioned official "Policy of the US, that Large OnLine Platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook", are "the Critical Means of promoting Free Flow of Speech and Ideas Today", which "Should Not Restrict protected Speech".

    - It would Also "develop... a Report describing such Complaints" by Affected Citizens, and "make (it) Publicly Available".


    ++ In Parallel, at the Level of USA's 50 "States", "the Attorney General shall establish a working Group regarding the potential Enforcement of State Statutes that Prohibit OnLine Platforms from engaging in Unfair or Deceptive acts or practices", according also to "Anti-Discrimination Laws".

    - That "Group shall Also develop Model Legislation" for States, in that area, and "shall Invite States' Attorneys General for Discussion and Consulation".

    - The ("over 16.000") above-mentioned "Complaints ...will be Shared with the Working Group", which "shall Also Collect publicily available Information, regarding" :

* "Increased Scrutiny of Users, based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;"

* "Algorithms to Suppress content or users, Based on indications of Political alignment or Viewpoint;"

* "Differential Policies allowing for otherwise Impermissible Behavior, when committed by accounts Associated with [a Foreign Country]  or other Anti-Democratic Associations or Governments;"

* "reliance on Third-party Entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of Bias, to Review content;" and

* "acts that Limit the ability of Users, with particular Viewpoints to Earn Money on the Platform, Compared with Other Users similarly situated."


    +++ Moreover, "he Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal Legislation ...to promote the Policy Objectives of this (US Presidential Executive) Order".


    >>> To Clarify its Scope in practice, this Trump's Executive Order concludes by a "Definition" of "the term <<OnLine Platform>>", which "means Any Website or Application that Allows Users to Create and Share Content, or Engage in Social Networking, or any general Search Engine".


    => A Key Part of the Main Thrust of that Issue was Also Presented and Further Developed by the New "White House"'s Press Secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, in Most of her almost parallel Press-Briefing :

- "It is Time to... “get the Facts” about Twitter and Other Social Media platforms Targeting their Bias Against President Trump and Conservatives OnLine", she stressed from the outset.

- F.ex., "If we were to judge the Bias of Twitter and its top employees by Their own Words, the case would be an Easy one to make.  Twitter’s Head of <<Site Integrity>> has tweeted that there are, quote, “actual Nazis” (sic !) in the White House, and No Fact-Check Label was ever applied to this absolutely OutRageous, Offensive, and False Claim made against the White House and its employees", she Denounced.

- "But let’s Judge Twitter based on their Actions". They "are No Better.  President Trump Recently received a so-called “Fact Check” Label for a tweet.  It was a False fact check, an Inaccurate fact check, But nevertheless, Twitter moved forward with it. + Dan Scavino, the Deputy Chief of Staff" in the White House, "was the ...1st User in the History of Twitter to receive a so-called, quote, ...“Manipulated Media” (sic !) Label for posting a Video that played a Verbatim clip.  It is No Coincidence that these 2 UnBelievable interventions by Twitter were Targeted against the President of the US and one of (his) Top Advisors.  This is Bias in action", she Criticized.

-  "And while <<Big-Tech>> is Quick to Censor the President, quick to censor some of his Top Employees, ...they are very Reluctant, it seems, to Label some of the actions by [Foreign] Officials, some of the MisInformation that has been Spread by" them, McEnany observed, Basically pointing at facts Denounced also by Trump himself, (Comp. Supra). Inter alia, f.ex., back in March, a [Foreign] Official began Spreading a "Conspiracy Theory" on Twitter — an e+Egregious one — that our U.S. Military was Responsible for the Spread of the CoronaVirus.  And that tweet, that Disinformation, it took all the way Until Today, when we raised concerns about it, to get a Fact Check" by Twitter, she regretted. "So they appear to be very hastily Eager to Censor President Trump and some of his Employees, But a little Reluctant when it comes to [a Foreign Country].  It’s a bit Defuddling !",

- Citting also "one other action of Twitter that I learned just before walking out here: that, on the <<Mueller Report>> (on a Hoax alleging that Trump would have Betrayed USA to Russia, which Manipulated 2016 US Presidential Elections in exchange : A Claim Later Droped), their Anti-Trump Headlines were Anti-Trump by a Ratio of 76 to 1 !  That’s Extraordinary"..  

+ "And it’s Not Just bias Aimed at President Trump and his Employees, it’s Also aimed at everyday Americans", she added. F.ex., "it’s aimed at the Movie “UnPlanned", (an Anti-Abortion Saga, Against "Planned Parenhood", which was Also Notoriously Denounced, by Others, Even to Sell ...Killed Babies' "Human Parts" !), as Twitter Suspended their Account, and, then, came up with an Excuse in the Aftermath"...

++ "And then, just anOther Example that "Liberals" (US Center-Left, of Dems' Party) are Allowed to Incite Violence against the "Covington Kids", (Christian Students at an Anti-Abortion Demonstration fin Favor of Human Embryos, Against Abortions and Genetic Manipulations, etc, who were notoriously Provoked, more or less, by 2 Different, Smaller Groups of Racial Minorities, But Initially Mis-rePresented as having Reportedly Insulted those Minorities, in kind of "Racist" way : Something which was Later Proved Totaly Wrong !), who were, in the End, proven Right and their Video was taken Out of context, and yet these (Opposed, Hostile) individuals were led — were allowed by Twitter to Incite Violence", (Including "Death Threats", according to "Wikipedia").  "It’s very Disturbing to see !". - "So those are some of the President’s Concerns"..., she Concluded.

>>> - "But No one Believes in the 1st Amendment (to USA's Constitution : on Free Speech), More than the President", McEnany stressed. So that  "the President Will take Action to ensure that <<Big Tech>> does Not Stifle "Free Speech", and that the Rights of All [Citizens] to Speak, Tweet, and Post, are Protected", she vowed.


 - But, "this President ...has made so Many False and Misleading sStatements that has put, you know, Fact-Checkers to work across the World (sic !)...  I mean, he’s uttered some 18,000 False or Misleading Statements, (re-sic !!) according to "The Washington Post" (Bought by Millionaire Bezos)...  If there’s any Political Leader out there who Should be Fact- Checked, isn’t it President Trump?  And aren’t You trying to Silence Fact-Checking by going after Twitter like this ? The President doesn't Lie ?", asked an Obviously Hostile "Journalist" of the Establishment.

 - "I Disagree with All, if not almost all, of those Assertions that you’re making there because, look, If you’re going to get into the Fact-Checking business— there’s No One that should be fact-checked More Than the Mainstream Media, that has been Continually Wrong about a Number of things", McEnany Denounced, in Reply...

=> - "To give you a List of some of the Most Egregious ones" :

* "That ABC News, in December of 2017, Falsely reported that Flynn (Former Trump's Security Advisor) would Testify that the President Directed him, during the campaign, to make Contact with the Russians.  That was False."

* "In 2017, Your network, CNN, Botched their "WikiLeaks email" Exclusive, and were Forced to make on-air Corrections".

* "CNN’s Jim Sciutto — anOther CNN one — dropped a ..Fictional Bombshell in 2018, July, claiming that Michael Cohen (a Former Trump's Lawyer) would Tell federal Investigators that the President Knew of the Trump Tower Meeting", (of one among his Sons with a Russian), at New York.

* 'The New York Times saying, “There AreN’t Enough Ventilators to Cope With the Coronavirus.”  In fact, we had an Excess of Ventilators, we’ve Shipped around the World".



- When an Opposed Journalist of the Establishment Claimed that it would be Also President Trump who wrote "Tweets that are Not True", giving as Example an Alleged Claim that "The Governor of  California (from the Dems) is Sending out Ballots to Millions of People", practically "Anyone ...In the State", while "that is Not True", since "California is Sending out absentee Ballots to Registered Voters, Not to “Anybody", suddenly the Controversy on Voting by Mail, went Viral :

- "Let me address this in Detail, on the issue of Ballots.  ...And, in that, I will get to the California Example", reacted McEnany.

- "First, ...there was a Pew Study done that shows there is Plenty of Reason to believe that ...in the Mass Mail-in system, that there is Fraud.  They estimated that approximately 24 Million — 1 out of every 8 Voters Registered in the U.S. — are No longer Valid or are significantly InAccurate.  So these are people who are on voter Registrations that have Not been Maintained, that have Not been Kept up"; F.ex., inter alia, "More than 1.8 Million have been Deceased, they estimated."

+ "And then, when you look ...into some of the Examples that we’ve seen in States, ...it just really struck me as a perfect example of what the President is concerned about with Mail-in ballots and the Fraud that Can be Inherent in that". F.ex. "Nevada mass-Mailed Ballots out To Voter Rolls that were Piling up ... Outside of apartment complexes in Las Vegas, sitting around in Trash Cans.  This is how we’re protecting ballots?  It’s extraordinary !"

++ Moreover, "Postal Workers — .... a 36-year veteran carrier, said she’s never seen anything like these Influx of absentee Ballots :  All of the People had Moved or Died, ...on her first Delivery route.  And this happened just Recently.... Last Week.  She found 65 Ballots of People who had Moved or Died.  On her Second carry, 100.  And then, as the Week progressed, Thousands just sitting in Crates !"...

+++ "In South Carolina, Dems — ...sued to Force a rush transfer of Mail-in Voting.  ...again Recently...  And Mail-in Ballots for South Carolina, Turned up ...In Maryland !...", she Denounced.

+++ "There’s anOther example of 700 Suspicious Mail-in Ballots in Dallas. And an Individual Charged with 2nd-degree Felony, illegal Voting : ..he’s Accused of visiting a woman in April to Collect her blank absentee Ballot, Filling it out, and Forging her Signature !..."

++++ "And then you go on: There’s a New Jersey example of over 3,000 Ballots that were seemingly Set Aside", she added.

+++++ "And going to California — you mentioned — California is one of those states that’s Notorious for Ballot Harvesting". F.ex., "in 2018, the Registrar in Orange County said that they reported that his office had People Dropping off maybe 100 or 200 Ballots at a time.  And somehow, in LA County, ...112 % (sic !) of LA County is Registered to Vote !"

=> "So, the Problem is this: When you doN’t Clean your Register, and you ...auto-Send out these (entire) Ballots, they End up in Trash Cans, like in Nevada.  they are Subject to Fraud, and that is Extremely Troubling !".

- And, precisely, in California, "there is an executive Order ...put into place Recently by Gavin Newsom, that would Auto-Send to Voter Rolls, and that would Lead to what the President was Suggesting", McEnany Warned.


Later-on, President Trump Added Even More on that Key Point :

- Some "said that Mail-in Balloting — ....No fraud.  “No fraud.”  Really?" ....[But]  There’s Cases All Over the Country !"...

- "If we went to Mail-in Balloting, our Election all over the world would look as a Total Joke", Because "there’s such Fraud and Abuse...", he Denounced.                                                                                                        

>>> And you know about Harvesting, where they harvest the Ballots, and they go and Grab them, and they go to People’s Houses, and then they say, “Sign here.”  No.  DoesN’t work", Trump Warned.

 - "Now", if it's "An Absentee Ballot — you can’t be there or you’re Sick, and you go and you register and you do all sorts of things to get that ballot, and there’s Good Security measures", he Distinguished.

 >>> "But when they Send out — like in California — Millions and millions of Ballots, to Anybody that’s breathing — Anybody in California that’s breathing, Gets a Ballot", he Warned.

=> "The Republican Party canNot Let it happen", "because there’s Tremendous Controversy on Mail-in Voting", Trump pointed out.

 - F.ex., when California Governor, Gavin Newsom, "Sends out 28 Million Ballots, and they’re in All the Mail-Boxes, and Kids go and they Raid the Mail-Boxes, and they Hand them to People that are Ligning the ballots down the End of the Street, which Is Happening — they Grab the Ballots — ... There’s Ballot Harvesting ...— we had 7 Elections for Congress, and they were ...Tied.  And they Lost Every one of them, Because they (Dems) Came and Dropped the whole Pile of Ballots on the Table", ge Denounced.

+ F.ex.; "They Rip them Out of MailBoxes.  It’s all the time you read about it".  And "They do Worse than that : In some cases, they woN’t Sell [sic] them, like to a Republican community — a Conservative community.  They doN’t happen to Send the Ballots to Those Communities.  And there’s No Way of Checking..." So that—"we would be the Laughing-Stock of the World.  And if you just use common sense, you know that’s Going To Happen". "They Raid the MailBoxes.  They can Even ...Print Ballots:  They get the Same Paper, the Same Machine — nothing special — ...  They Print Ballots !".

    => So, in such massive Mail Voting, "you have >>>Tremendous Potential for Fraud and Abuse", he Warned, in Conclusion, (Showing, also, with All those Facts and Arguments, that his contested "Tweet" would be, indeed, Justified)...

    + It's true, however, that, once again, that same Opposed Journalist of the Establishment, Contested that such Mass-Mail Voting might Profit to one or another Party, citting a Stanford's Report for his Claim.

    >>> But, "Eurofora", remembers well, that, Already, f.ex., the Harshly Contested UK National Elections of 2005, (the Last for Controversial former "Labour"/Socialist Prime Minister Tony Bliar), were UnExpectedly snatched by that "Labour" out-going Government, with a Tiny Difference of Votes, strongly Denounced for Fraude, mainly through Massive Mail-Voting, which was Hotly Contested, and had to be Examined by CoE's Assembly in Strasbourg, with a very Controversial Report, after Many Irregularities and Incidents had been Reported...


=> -  Thus, Replying, Later Today, to a Provocative Question, by a Journalist of the Establishment, about Why he doesn't just "Delete" his "Twitter ... Account", and "Walk Away from this Platform", he's "been so Critical of ?", President Trump Pointed at the Heart of the Matter :

- "If You (i.e. Establishmet's Medias) wereN’t Fake, I would not even think about it.  I Would Do That in a heartbeat  !"..., he stressed.

- "But, the (Establisment's) News is Fake : if you look at What gets Printed in Newspapers, ... it’s Not Real in so Many Cases", Trump Denounced.  "I’m Not saying in Every case.  ...You have Some Journalists that I have Great Respect for.  But Largely, I find, ....there is So Much Fake news, it’s Disgraceful !".

- "IF we had a Fair Press..., I would ... Get Rid of my whole Twitter Account", "in a Heartbeat"...

- But, "if I get a Story that’s Wrong, I Can put a Social Media". "So I’m able to Refute Fake News, and that’s very Important".

 >>>  - "I’m able to get to, I guess, 186 Million People, when you add up all the different accounts and Add Facebook and Instagram.  That’s a Lot of people.  And that’s More than the (Traditional) Media Companies have, frankly, by a lot !". Indeed, "I put something out, and the Next Day or the next Hour or the next Minute, Everybody is Reading about it", he observed, as far as Internet's Potential really is...  


 But the Problem is that, even "Social Media", as Twitter, are Often Not Fair... (Comp. Supra).

- "Take a look at this as an Example : ... “Twitter Moments” on the Mueller Witch-Hunt, (on the Alleged "Russian Collusion" Hoax, in 2016 Election : Comp. Supra)  "So, We Won.  We were in the Right. You see what’s happened.  ... It was a total Fraud". But, nevertheless, "Seventy-six to one, okay?  Seventy-six to One", of Tweets doN't say so. They are Opposite ! (Comp. Supra)  "You look at it.  You Think that’s Fair ?"  

+ AnOther concrete Example : -"Twitter Classifies the Term <<illegal alien>> as <<Hate Speech>>.  “Illegal alien.”  And Viciously"...

- And, "this guy is the Arbiter of what’s supposed to go On Twitter.  He’s the one.  He ...used CNN as a Guide (sic !)— CNN, which is Fake News.  He uses CNN as a guide.  His name is Yoel Roth", he Denounced.

=> F.ex., "He’s the one that said that Mail-in balloting... — no fraud.  “No fraud.”  Really? ... But, "There’s cases all over the country. If we went to Mail-in balloting, our Election ...would be a Total Joke.  There’s such Fraud and Abuse", (Comp. Supra). ... So here’s your — Here’s Your Man, and that’s On Twitter". And the amazing thing is He’s Wrong".


    => Thus, "We’re here Today to Defend Free Speech from one of the Gravest Dangers it has faced in ... History", as US President Do Trump stressed just Before Signing his relevant Executive Order on that "Hot" and Topical Issue, (Comp. Supra).     

    - In fact, "a Small Handful of Powerful Social Media Monopolies Controls a Vast portion of all public and private Communications...  And we know who they are; we don’t have to name them", he observed.

     - "They’ve had UncChecked Power to Censor, Restrict, Edit, Shape, Hide, Alter virtually Any form of Communication between Private Citizens and large Public Audiences.  There’s No Precedent in ...History for so Small a Number of Corporations to Control so Large a Sphere of human interaction.  And that includes Individual People Controlling Vast Amounts of Areas", he Denounced.

    => So that, "we caN’t Allow that to happen, especially ... because they’re doing things InCorrectly.  They have Points of View.  And if we go by that, it’s actually Amazing that there was a(n Electoral) Success in 2016.  But we CaN’t Let this Continue to happen.  It’s very, Very UnFair", he Warned.

And you look at the statistics and you look at what is going on, and I think everybody would very much agree with that, including Democrats, by the way.  I saw quite a few Democrats are saying this is about time something is done.  So let’s see if they keep that decision after they hear that we agree with them.

The choices that Twitter makes when it chooses to suppress, edit, blacklist, shadow, ban are editorial decisions, pure and simple.  They’re editorial decisions.  


+ Questioned whether he "would consider Shutting Down Twitter", President Trump did Not Deny, But eyed Also Other Solutions (See Infra) :

- "If Twitter were not honorable — if you’re going to have a guy like this (Comp. Supra) be your judge and jury, I think just Shut it down !"... "If it were Legal, if it were able to be legally shut down, I Would Do It", he Agreed.

+ But, it's Also True that, inter alia, f.ex., "I have so much, it seems, Influence Over Twitter in the sense of People wanting to see — Go Twitter Because of what I have.  I have a Vast Number ...of platforms, as you know.  We have millions and Millions of People", (Comp. estimated Numbers, cited Supra).

=> In Consequence, "I’d be Hurting it very badly IF We didN’t Use it anymore", Trump Warned.  Indeed, "We Have Other Sites we Could Use, I guess", (f.ex., inter alia, Also "GAB", etc). "Or we’d have to Develop OTHER SITES", he Suggested...


+ However, some Readers' Comments at a relevant Article Published these Days at "Breitbart", half Ironically, Half Seriously, suggested even anOther eventual Solution :

F.ex., USA's Federal Government could ...TAX much Heavier, those "Big-Tech" Social Medias which use to Interfere Heavily and/or Abusively on "Hot" Political Publications at their Web Platforms, while, on the Contrary, those which Respected the Views Expressed by Citizens withOut attempting to Modify them in any way, would, on the Contrary, have much Lower Taxes to pay, as a kind of "Public Service" Medias...

=> Perhaps an Interesting Suggestion which might, eventually, also Help Find a more Adequate Compromise Solution at the Notorious USA - France and Other EU Countries' recent Quarell on a "GAFA" (for Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, etc) Tax, (which would concern also Twitter, Instagram, etc) ?








Enterprise Europe Network


Besucher: 40323886


Login Form

Daten merken

Passwort vergessen?
Noch keinen Account? Account anlegen


RSS 0.91
RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0
ATOM 0.3

Other Menu


Former "Green-Red" German government's Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer's job at the controversial Turkish pipeline "Nabucco" was denounced as "not proper", "very bad", and "incompatible with Democracy", by the new President of EU Parliament's EuroLeft Group, German Lothar Bisky, replying to an "EuroFora" question.

For once, criticism of Joschka Fischer's doings with Turkey affecting Europe, didn't come only from the Center-Right of the political spectrum, but even from his Left side : The experienced Bisky, who has been chairing all over 1993-2009 the PDS - Die Linke party :  

- "Former Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer got involved in dealings with oil-gaz business in a foreign country, Turkey, and its controversial Nabucco pipeline. This raises questions about Democracy, also because of the well known problems of Human Rights violations in that country. Do you thing that this might be abused in order to cover up and close EU's eyes on Human Rights violations ?", "EuroFora" asked Bisky.


- "Nabucco pipeline is (only) at the planning stage". And "there are some difficulties",  he observed from the start. But "'I don't want to get into the details of Nabucco pipeline, because I don't think that there is any point for it at the moment".
At any case,  "we  (EU Parliament's EuroLeft Group) strongly believe that Politicians should not get involved in the Energy Business, and all these commercial transactions", President Bisky declared on the Joschka Fiischer's affair.

- "We feel that it's something that shouldn't be done. It's not proper !"           

- "We don't think that it's compatible with Democracy either, and it gets politics into a very Bad track", Bisky went on to denounce.
- "EuroLeft  and "Die Linke" always spoke against that, saying that politicians should not get directly into the arms of private enterprises"

- "It is pretty bad if a former Minister takes a job f.ex. in a major Energy producer. So, it's an issue if a Minister who may have seen excellent opportunities, subsequently gets personally grasp of them, in very serious parts of the economy, once he has given up his (Government) job."

- "It doesn't really make politics in general look any better'", Bisky concluded.


Earlier, this week in Strasbourg, other Journalists had also raised critical questions on former Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer's involvement in the conroversial Turkish Nabucco pipeline to the President of his own EuroParty : Kohn-Bendit of the "Greens", who, contrary to Bisky, tried to find excuses for Fischer, while criticizing his long-time partner, Schroeder for having done a similar move :

- "Shroeder was chancellor", and he "negociated" with "Russians", who gave him a job only "3 Months" after he resigned from the Government. While "Joschka Fischer", on the contrary, got a job with the controversial Turkish Nabucco pipeline only "4 Years after" he left the Government. "He didn't negociate Nabucco", so I have "no objection", Kohn Bendit claimed.

But, many Facts indicate the contrary :

Joschka Fischer was Foreign Minister in Germany from 1999 up to 2005 : I.e. from the year that EU took the controversial decision to give Turkey a "Candidate" status, until he year it started controversial "accession negotiations, (later declared "open-ended" after Sarkozy-Merkel's arrival from 2005-2007).

During that period was prepared the controversial so-called "Annan" Plan (in fact, drafted by others and attributed afterwards to the former UN SG) on Cyprus, which failed after a Popular Referendum said "No" on 2004 with a large Majoriy of 3/4 : 75%. Mainly because it was criticized for making too much concessions to the Turkish side :  Particularly by restricting Greek Cypriot Refugees' Human Right to return to their ancestral Land and/or get restitution of their Familiy Homes and private properties, usurpated by Ankara's Army since the 1974 militay invasion and continuing occupation of the northern part of Cyprus. And by weakening the Central Government, leaving to 2 "constituent States" so much powers and separate interests that more conflicts appeared inevitable, provoking the danger of a break-down in the foreseable future, with more crisis, troubles, perhaps bloodshed, etc., instead of creating an harmoniously integrated, really one federal State.

The controversial Plan was finalized on March-April 2004 at Burgenstock (Switzerland), curiously in the presence of an Envoy by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Germany, then governed by Joschka Fischer, but in the absence of a French and not even an European Union's Envoy, contrary to what was usually practiced on similar occasions in Switzerland (fex. in 1997 at Montreux, in 2000 at Geneva, etc).

Turkey notoriously exploited the failure of the "Annan" Plan in order to convince the EU to decide to start accession Negotiations on December 2004. This provoked an unprecedented series of Institutional Crisis inside the EU, shortly afterwards, when French and Dutch People rejected, 2 popular EuroReferenda by a majority "'No" vote to the EU Constitutional Treaty on 2005, aggraveted in 2004 a Majority Abstention to EU Elections, etc., followed by the recent Irish "No", etc.

"Nabucco" Gas pipeline was notoriously planned since ..2002. It follows an even earlier idea, for an Oil pipeline Baku-Ceyhun, which started to be prepared on 1999-2001 and was meanwhile recently completed.  

So, facts indicate that what is now at stake is based on decisions made during Joschka Fischer's term as former Foreign Minister, closely interested in Turkey's controversial EU-bid.

To the point that he now practically ...switched jobs with a poliician from Turkey, (the State which pays today openly Joschka Fischer), Mr. Ozdemir, who came earlier in Germany, got fast the nationality, and became EiuroMP in a few years, continuing now as head of the "Greens" in Germany, i.e. in Joschka's former job !...

Such astonishing facts risk, unfotunately, to give to German politician Lothar Bisky's criticism of  representative Democracy a topical meaning :

 - "We (EuroLeft Group) think that what is really at stake is Democracy. It's not only about Gas Pipelines or Energy sources", President Lothar Bisky went on to add in his reply to "EuroFora"'s question on Joscka Fischer's personal interests in the controversial Turkish "Nabuco" pipeline.

Such facts, "make People get more distance from Politics. ...People had had enough, and they are fed up !".

- "That's why we (EuroParliament's "EuroLeft" Group) want to strengthen Direct Democracy in Europe. Citizens should be involved in the (EU) Decision-making. In the end of the day, it's not going to help anyone if Politicians are always taking decisions, without involving Citizens. We want to give a voice to the People of Europe. They've got to have their say in the decisions that are taken. That's one of our absolutely fixed and steadfast views. We want more Direct Democracy in Europe. That's how it can become more effective and stronger", he concluded.




2009 EU Elections were won by Parties against Technocracy and Turkey's controversial EU bid, while the 1999-2004 Majority Abstention trend decelerated. What should be done in 2009-2014 ?


SMF Recent Topics SA

Copyright (c) 2007-2009 EIW/SENAS - EuroFora.net. All rights reserved. ISSN 1969-6361.
Powered by Elxis - Open Source CMS.