Things that made you Facepalm today (Political Version)

[Gelston]

No I really wouldn't. I defended Obama when he was busy droning American citizens without due process, why wouldn't I defend him over something far less consequential?

Because Trump is wrong and acting like a snowflake and being triggered over stupid little tweets?

[Parkbandit]

I don't use Twitter either, but it looks a lot like blocking someone on Facebook.

Block is a feature that helps you control how you interact with other accounts on Twitter. This feature helps users in restricting specific accounts from contacting them, seeing their Tweets, and following them.

I don't have a twitter account.. don't need to follow anyone and I can read their tweets.

Not sure it's how you say it is.

[Tgo01]

Because Trump is wrong and acting like a snowflake and being triggered over stupid little tweets?

Whether or not Trump is acting like a triggered snowflake has no bearing on whether or not this is a bullshit ruling. Trump acting like a triggered snowflake and this ruling being wrong can both be correct at the same time.

[Gelston]

I don't have a twitter account.. don't need to follow anyone and I can read their tweets.

Not sure it's how you say it is.

The upheld the lower ruling because blocking prevents a dialogue with elected, public officials. It more broadly denote ANY public official cannot block anyone when using Twitter in an official capacity, as Trump often does.

[Tgo01]

The upheld the lower ruling because blocking prevents a dialogue with elected, public officials.

Even more reason why this is an absurd ruling. This suggests Trump or someone within his administration is reading each and every single reply to his tweets.

[Neveragain]

No I really wouldn't. I defended Obama when he was busy droning American citizens without due process, why wouldn't I defend him over something far less consequential?

LOL, it's funny when Gelston starts getting mad when he knows he's wrong.

"The president blocking someone on twitter is a free speech infraction!"

[Gelston]

LOL, it's funny when Gelston starts getting mad when he knows he's wrong.

"The president blocking someone on twitter is a free speech infraction!"

I'm not mad? And I'm correct. I've really done nothing other than explain the exact reasoning behind both court decisions. You may have a different opinion. But you're stupid. And wrong.

[Tgo01]

What's really funny is the same original ruling (which I'm assuming this appeal agreed with) stated Trump can simply mute anyone he wants, meaning he can never see a reply from them ever again.

So the rationale that citizens have a right to interact with an elected official, but at the same time the elected official can simply mute them and never see a post from them ever again, once again shows how bullshit this ruling is.

[Tgo01]

Holy shit, Facebook has lost their mind. Look at their updated Community Standards:

Do not post:

Threats that could lead to death (and other forms of high-severity violence) of any target(s) where threat is defined as any of the following:

Statements of intent to commit high-severity violence; or
Calls for high-severity violence (unless the target is an organization or individual covered in the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy, or is described as having carried out violent crimes or sexual offenses, wherein criminal/predator status has been established by media reports, market knowledge of news event, etc.)

So basically calls for violence aren't allowed on Facebook, perfectly reasonable, UNLESS the media has determined someone is a Nazi, then calls for violence are accepted. Because surely the media has never slandered someone like that before, coughCovingtonCatholiccough.

I'm sure Twitter and Google will follow suit soon enough.

[Gelston]

That is dumb. I suppose it protects posts saying shit like "I wanna slaughter ISIS" or something. Whatever, FB gonna FB.