Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[SAY HER NAME]

You can doubt the strength of the evidence all you like, but you are actually very foolish if you think that means you can say "that means his membership in MS-13 is a lie." If you're going to argue absence of compelling evidence, you should know that it doesn't imply that there's evidence of lying.

It only resembles asylum in the sense that 1 country is not eligible for deportation. Which is to say, it's nothing like asylum. He was a deportable alien with no legal right to remain in the country. An illegal alien.

I recognize the truth as the truth, and it exists as the truth regardless i fit benefits Trump, Garcia, or the worst murdering gang member you ever saw. This is an elementary point in criminal defense: even the guilty are afforded protections, even if those protections help the guilty get off.

Good news: Neither your former post nor my response to your post had anything to do with the most recent Trump arguments. You said "If the Trump administration really believed he was an MS13 member do you know where that evidence could have been presented? In 2019, when he was having hearings for his withhold of removal," when, in fact, the opposite is true: they needed to present no such thing for the simple matter of denying him bond (from an even earlier trial, referenced in that trial as "the evidence shows that he is a verified member of MS-13.") The trial, mind you six years ago and another trial even earlier, wasn't for criminal offenses done for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with MS-13 (to borrow a phrase). Therefore, the government was not under the burden to present evidence to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt.

Now, if you really think what Trump said in the past week affects what the government should or shouldn't have done six years ago, then I will raise and eyebrow and expect something astonishing. If, instead, you're dropping your argument about the 2019 case (I would say this is wise) then state so.

You literally missed the point. If the government believed he was an MS-13 leader in charge of human trafficking operations it could have easily appealed his withhold of removal and got him deported. Like the entire mess the government finds itself in right now its bc of that withhold of removal that it had an opportunity to appeal and there present the evidence that he was MS-13 and deny the withhold of removal. You dont need a criminal conviction to do this. Immigration judges dont need that for gang affiliations.

The whole MS-13 allegations are obviously a lame ass excuse to justify their illegal deportation and incarceration. They have failed to even make this case in front of multiple courts. And yes the most recent Trump argument is that he is MS-13 and he is citing that 2019 bond hearing as evidence. I dont know why people here keep making arguments that the Trump admin isnt even bothering to make.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump thinking he could bully China is the dumbest fucking thing he ever did and he has done a lot of dumb shit.

The tariff war thing would be tolerable if the government actually had a coherent strategy. Lets not even get to that strategy being competently implemented. I just want coherency. Do we want better trade deals? Do we want to bring back manufacturing? Which sectors?

Like these questions are important but the Trump admin doesnt have an answer and just jumps between talking points as it grants excemptions, removes them and puts them back on. Then he says its about jobs, about bringing back manufacturing, its the trade deals and then certain countries get 35% tariffs one day, then 10% then 125% for china but certain countries will get hit with retaliatory tariffs.

[Mayhem]

So, again, why is attacking Section 230 reasonable, again?

I can't follow your line of reasoning. You didn't refute my point; are you just ignoring that part?

The dots don't connect. Section 230 wouldn't apply to protect Google, so clearly it's just not a good way to attack this issue. I'm not taking a pro-algorithm stance, here, I'm pointing out that Section 230 (or its equivalent in other jurisdictions) is a necessary function for a useful Internet with hosting platforms with user-created content.

Rather than attacking user-based content as a broad swath, find a way to target the actual problems.

The argument wasn't to attack user-based content as a broad swath, but the way content is pushed onto users without them having reasonable influence or, in some cases, any at all, on what content they are being shown.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it doesn't necessarily change your viewpoints on those things.

It's virtually impossible not to be influenced somewhat by what you see/hear/read.

I disagree that it will change viewpoints. Sure, it can. But you're telling me there are no media literate racists?

Well there sure as fuck are, but they choose to be racist. I already said, fuck them.

I can't absolve people for voting for a rapist and a felon. I won't.

But you said yourself..."I whole heartetly agree, fuck them, if they haven't turned on Trump by now.". Why now? What makes now different? What's changed?

Because they see what he actually does and can't excuse it with "but what he meant was".

[Somewhatconcerned]

This is great news, and I am not sure Nvidia would have had the incentive to do so without the tariffs.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nvidi...u5u0WJFXdo4jh8

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Because they see what he actually does and can't excuse it with "but what he meant was".

How do they see that now when they didn't before? What changed for them?

[Edge-]

This is great news, and I am not sure Nvidia would have had the incentive to do so without the tariffs.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nvidi...u5u0WJFXdo4jh8

reminder that the chips act was already doing this without starting a global trade war making americans poorer and driving up inflation

[SAY HER NAME]

IDC about announcements. Remember the FoxConn manufacturing plant? Big hype on the announcement, zero results and a town that was pushed into bankruptcy

[tehdang]

You literally missed the point. If the government believed he was an MS-13 leader in charge of human trafficking operations it could have easily appealed his withhold of removal and got him deported.

I see that you're wishing to change to a related subject. Can I understand you to mean that you're dropping the claim that

If the Trump administration really believed he was an MS13 member do you know where that evidence could have been presented? In 2019, when he was having hearings for his withhold of removal

. You have two points you're missing that need clearing up. 1) The government never needed to present more evidence of MS-13 in court, as that evidence was sufficient to deny bond. 2) He was already deportable, in fact he had exhausted his chances to establish a legal right to remain in the country, so there was no barrier that needed further clearing to deport.

I am sad to say that if you cannot acknowledge error in your previous post, I really have nothing further to add on it, since I responded to correct an error. Small post, small correction. You were wrong to say that the 2019 case needed that, since the MS-13 evidence was only necessary to deny bond, not to remove the illegal alien.

Like the entire mess the government finds itself in right now its bc of that withhold of removal that it had an opportunity to appeal and there present the evidence that he was MS-13 and deny the withhold of removal. You dont need a criminal conviction to do this. Immigration judges dont need that for gang affiliations.

The mess the government finds itself in is that he was stuck on the plane to El Salvador, instead of a country different than El Salvador, which would have been a legal deportation.

That's if you agree with the former government lawyer that told the court that it was done by mistake.

Now, there's a further mess.

[Mayhem]

How do they see that now when they didn't before? What changed for them?

They gained information they didn't have before.

[NineSpine]

Or the long suite of results other than what you're looking for in Google that also come up, particularly marketing links. These algos are pushing what they think you'll engage with; it isn't an expression of "what the platform wants you to see" beyond the platform wanting to keep you watching content you engage with, because the longer you watch, the more money they make. It's still just basically search results, just including a history of past content you and other similar users have also engaged with as the search parameter.

You know Google results are personalized, right? Location data, IP, among other factors. Same is true for most search engines. Because if I search for "fast food near me", I probably don't want fast food chains based in Sri Lanka and the Phillipines and Lesotho coming up, unless I'm actually in those places.

You can't be serious. All these companies are keeping profiles of users, even without an account. They're tracking IPs and cookies and all kinds of stuff, unless you're taking significant measures to prevent such things. Unless you're actively purging your PC, those tracking cookies are profiling you for these, and many other, companies, not to mention whatever they may be doing internally with your IP and data entered.

It's really pointless to talk to you, because you don't listen to other people. This is like the third or fourth time I've had to explain that a personalized algorithm is, and I guarantee you will just ignore it again and go on another rambling tirade about functionality that has nothing to do with it:

Personalized algorithms generate results based on a profile of your behavior. Location is not a profile of your behavior. What you type into a search engine to get the results is not a profile of your behavior. "People who liked this also like..." is not a profile of your behavior. Do you understand it yet? Do I need to repeat it again? Probably, because if past is prologue you will ignore this and just keep talking about other shit.

So charge the people who posted that Tiktok with reckless endangerment and whatever else you can throw at them.

I'm not arguing against consequences for criminally harmful content. I'm arguing against destroying hosting platforms as a viable system in the name of that cause, because it causes far more harm than it actually protects against.

You did not answer the question so I'll ask it again: There are videos on TikTok that trick people into combining household chemicals in ways that can kill them. If TikTok set their site so that every user saw one of those videos when they logged in, would Section 230 protect them?

[tehdang]

This is great news, and I am not sure Nvidia would have had the incentive to do so without the tariffs.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nvidi...u5u0WJFXdo4jh8

Most of their manufacturing inputs are going to be hit by tariffs anyways.

All the tariffs and threatened tariffs and temporary delays and negotiated exemptions created such an uncertain business environment that nVidia and the country are worse off, even if they wouldn't have built a center in America otherwise.

[Flarelaine]

Google gives you results based on the activity of your IP, so you need to use a search engine like DuckDuckGo. You need to either avoid all social media or use plugins that manipulate the content to mitigate recommendations. This includes YouTube, which you can't even use logged out because the algorithm also uses your IP. You really can only avoid it by doing all of your browsing in incognito windows through a VPN.

Speaking from experience: I use Youtube every day logged out and it gives me no recommendations until I search for a video. And then it goes from there. No incognito, no VPN either. I just loaded it to double-check and it's a blank page.

I also have no problem using DuckDuckGo.

This ridiculous and laughable series of protections is not something the average person is going to understand, let alone perform. So why are we wasting time talking about it?

Exactly because the algorithm was created to be as overwhelming and all-powerful as you paint it. But it cannot click stuff for you. It can offer, it can recommend, it cannot choose (assuming you click autoplay off which I do about 3 seconds in). You can lie down and surrender or you can make an effort.

[NineSpine]

I see that you're wishing to change to a related subject. Can I understand you to mean that you're dropping the claim that . You have two points you're missing that need clearing up. 1) The government never needed to present more evidence of MS-13 in court, as that evidence was sufficient to deny bond. 2) He was already deportable, in fact he had exhausted his chances to establish a legal right to remain in the country, so there was no barrier that needed further clearing to deport.

I am sad to say that if you cannot acknowledge error in your previous post, I really have nothing further to add on it, since I responded to correct an error. Small post, small correction. You were wrong to say that the 2019 case needed that, since the MS-13 evidence was only necessary to deny bond, not to remove the illegal alien.

The mess the government finds itself in is that he was stuck on the plane to El Salvador, instead of a country different than El Salvador, which would have been a legal deportation.

That's if you agree with the former government lawyer that told the court that it was done by mistake.

Now, there's a further mess.

Provide evidence that he was deportable without a hearing.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

They gained information they didn't have before.

How though? What exactly changed? Did they suddenly become more media literate?

[SAY HER NAME]

I see that you're wishing to change to a related subject. Can I understand you to mean that you're dropping the claim that . You have two points you're missing that need clearing up. 1) The government never needed to present more evidence of MS-13 in court, as that evidence was sufficient to deny bond. 2) He was already deportable, in fact he had exhausted his chances to establish a legal right to remain in the country, so there was no barrier that needed further clearing to deport.

I am sad to say that if you cannot acknowledge error in your previous post, I really have nothing further to add on it, since I responded to correct an error. Small post, small correction. You were wrong to say that the 2019 case needed that, since the MS-13 evidence was only necessary to deny bond, not to remove the illegal alien.

The mess the government finds itself in is that he was stuck on the plane to El Salvador, instead of a country different than El Salvador, which would have been a legal deportation.

That's if you agree with the former government lawyer that told the court that it was done by mistake.

Now, there's a further mess.

There was a barrier to clear his deportation. The withhold of removal. Something the government could have appealed at the time and deport him right there and there to El Salvador.

Also for someone that chastizes the Biden Administration for abusing refugee rules, you seem very comfortable with the most obvious one. That withhold of removal prevented his deportation and that another country would need to accept him. The Trump admin cannot unilaterally deport him to another country unless that country accepted him. That is why there are still a ton of people with withhold of removal in the US that are considered deported but are now living their best lives in the US.

Like IDK where are you reading about this case. Or if you know what a withhold of removal is?

[NineSpine]

Speaking from experience: I use Youtube every day logged out and it gives me no recommendations until I search for a video. And then it goes from there. No incognito, no VPN either. I just loaded it to double-check and it's a blank page.

I also have no problem using DuckDuckGo.



Exactly because the algorithm was created to be as overwhelming and all-powerful as you paint it. But it cannot click stuff for you. It can offer, it can recommend, it cannot choose (assuming you click autoplay off which I do about 3 seconds in). You can lie down and surrender or you can make an effort.

This is what this conversation is like:

Me: "The US has an obesity problem."
You: "Well then you should go on a diet."

I cannot discuss this with you further, because you are responding to a fictional person who said "I can't figure out how to dodge algorithms". I'm talking about how we deal with and work around the impacts of these algorithms on our social and political issues as a nation or as a species, and you keep telling me how to manage the algorithm personally, which has nothing to do with the subject.

[Rasulis]

This is great news, and I am not sure Nvidia would have had the incentive to do so without the tariffs.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nvidi...u5u0WJFXdo4jh8

Actually, they would. The article even stated that.

Nvidia expects to mass-produce supercomputers at those sites in 12 to 15 months. The chipmaker said its latest Blackwell AI chips are already in production at TSMC's (TSM) plant in Phoenix.

I forgot to mention that the plant construction was partially funded by a grant worth up to $6.6 billion from the U.S. Commerce Department under the federal CHIPS and Science Act.

Thank you, Biden. I guess?

[Edge-]

https://x.com/JDVance/status/1911877790388871537

I didn’t want anyone after Ohio State to get the trophy so I decided to break it

The Vice President of the United States of America, commenting on that time he broke the CFP National Championship Trophy at the white House.

Again, it's like they're doing it on purpose. This is such a perfect analogy for this administration. "We didn't want anyone else to have a nice country or economy after us so we decided to break everything".

Indeed.

[Doomcookie]

Section 230 should not protect personalized algorithms

The arguments provided against that thus far:
Random old people enforce regulations so regulations are bad.
Trump is President so regulations are bad.
Social media can't exist without this, even though it existed without this.

- - - Updated - - -



You think that because I said the general public has poor digital literacy, I am contradicting myself when I say that telecommunications experts can manage telecommunications issues?

I think your two arguments conflict with one another, then you built a straw man to argue against yourself in some weird inception event.

- - - Updated - - -

Honestly political social media dying in a day nothing would be lost. The problem is it wouldn't be enforced equally. Anything even slightly critical of Trump would be prosecuted but nothing outside maybe outright calling for killing dems would be.

And that's the problem. It's basically a subjective belief on what algorithms qualify, and what do not

[NineSpine]

I think your two arguments conflict with one another, then you built a straw man to argue against yourself in some weird inception event.

What is contradictory here:

The average person has poor digital literacy.
Telecommunications experts in the FCC enforce telecommunications regulations.

- - - Updated - - -

IAnd that's the problem. It's basically a subjective belief on what algorithms qualify, and what do not

Personalized algorithms should not qualify. The line is very clear and simple.

[Doomcookie]

What is contradictory here:

The average person has poor digital literacy.
Telecommunications experts in the FCC enforce telecommunications regulations.

- - - Updated - - -



Personalized algorithms should not qualify. The line is very clear and simple.

So, Spotify, Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter.

You want people who you say can't learn what an IP is, to determine exactly what algorithms are personal, and which ones are not.

- - - Updated - - -

What is contradictory here:

The average person has poor digital literacy.
Telecommunications experts in the FCC enforce telecommunications regulations.

- - - Updated - - -



Personalized algorithms should not qualify. The line is very clear and simple.

There are countless millions of websites and apps. Please list all of those that would not qualify for Section 230.