Re:Why Did Meta Suspend a US Senate Candidate's Instagram in...
by extraextra on Tuesday November 03, 2026 @01:14PM
(#50355829)
TL;DR: You're trying again to move goalpost again, change the topic of the conversation, you provide fake facts and lots of emotional opinions. Honestly, you haven't made 1 coherent argument grounded in reality so far. The fact is that Trump was deplatformed for political speech (about which you have feelings, you made that clear), he was never convicted of anything and the platforms had to pay tens of millions in settlements for their actions. Censorship for political speech is bad, regardless of your feelings. People cheering Trumps deplatforming while crying here for 1 Dem account being banned for 1 hour are super hypocrites.
> what are you specifically objecting to here?
I pointed out in my previous comment 2 specific sentences where you're moving the goalpost, no point repeating
> By context I thought you were talking about his Twitter suspension
I don't know where you'd get that idea, the thread started as a conversation about Meta banning a Dem account, we're discussing about Meta
> your comments were clearly incorrect as pertaining to his Meta suspension
You're clearly wrong, here's what Wikipedia says: "Trump posted a short video. Facebook removed it and blocked Trump's ability to post new content to both platforms.[...] The next day, Facebook said the block would remain" [1]; Then Wikipedia links to the exact video I was talking about in my previous comment.
> you still have to demonstrate that [commenters emotional opinion] are comparable to campaigning for a senate seat
No, I don't. You're moving the goalpost again by trying to switch what we are discussing here. I'm not debating with your feelings Trump's actions. We were discussing political censorship, specifically by Meta.
> Trump should stand trial for his crimes before he's sentenced
That's your emotional opinion again
> you aren't allowed to criticize me for defamation until I've been found guilty
You're not making any sense now, we are literally debating with each other; Goes to show how little you understand those concepts
> in the United States, it's only defamation if it's _provably untrue_
That's incorrect actually. Just for the sake of argument, in case of defamation, the burden of proof about the truth value of the statement is on the person that published the statement. If someone calls me a murderer, it's not my burden to prove I'm not a murderer (as a negative can't be proven), it's their burden to prove the truth of what they wrote about me.
> The platforms themselves made public statements as to why they suspended his accounts.
Then all those platforms (including Meta) paid hefty settlements to Trump and reinstated his accounts. So, clearly, all of them are regretting their actions. You keep insisting about nonsense that has no factual basis.
> your party is so much more guilty
Of course, I know, the other party is always always much much more guilty, even when you have 0 facts.
> what are you specifically objecting to here?
I pointed out in my previous comment 2 specific sentences where you're moving the goalpost, no point repeating
> By context I thought you were talking about his Twitter suspension
I don't know where you'd get that idea, the thread started as a conversation about Meta banning a Dem account, we're discussing about Meta
> your comments were clearly incorrect as pertaining to his Meta suspension
You're clearly wrong, here's what Wikipedia says: "Trump posted a short video. Facebook removed it and blocked Trump's ability to post new content to both platforms.[...] The next day, Facebook said the block would remain" [1]; Then Wikipedia links to the exact video I was talking about in my previous comment.
> you still have to demonstrate that [commenters emotional opinion] are comparable to campaigning for a senate seat
No, I don't. You're moving the goalpost again by trying to switch what we are discussing here. I'm not debating with your feelings Trump's actions. We were discussing political censorship, specifically by Meta.
> Trump should stand trial for his crimes before he's sentenced
That's your emotional opinion again
> you aren't allowed to criticize me for defamation until I've been found guilty
You're not making any sense now, we are literally debating with each other; Goes to show how little you understand those concepts
> in the United States, it's only defamation if it's _provably untrue_
That's incorrect actually. Just for the sake of argument, in case of defamation, the burden of proof about the truth value of the statement is on the person that published the statement. If someone calls me a murderer, it's not my burden to prove I'm not a murderer (as a negative can't be proven), it's their burden to prove the truth of what they wrote about me.
> The platforms themselves made public statements as to why they suspended his accounts.
Then all those platforms (including Meta) paid hefty settlements to Trump and reinstated his accounts. So, clearly, all of them are regretting their actions. You keep insisting about nonsense that has no factual basis.
> your party is so much more guilty
Of course, I know, the other party is always always much much more guilty, even when you have 0 facts.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_use_by_Donald_Tru...