Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Cut Out of Trump Tech Meeting Over Failed Emoji Deal, Says Report (politico.com)
According to Politico, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was "bounced" from Wednesday's meeting between tech executives and President-elect Donald Trump in retribution for refusing during the campaign to allow an emoji version of the hashtag #CrookedHillary. Trump's adviser Sean Spicer denied the report, saying "the conference table was only so big." Politico reports: Twitter was one of the few major U.S. tech companies not represented at Wednesday afternoon's Trump Tower meeting attended by, among others, Apple's Tim Cook, Amazon's Jeff Bezos, Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg, and Tesla's Elon Musk -- an omission all the more striking because of Trump's heavy dependence on the Twitter platform. Trump's campaign also made a $5 million deal with Twitter before the election, in which the campaign committed "to spending a certain amount on advertising and in exchange receive discounts, perks, and custom solutions," the campaign's director of digital advertising and fund raising, Gary Coby, wrote in a Medium post last month. So the campaign objected when the company refused to allow the anti-Clinton emoji. Coby wrote that Dorsey personally intervened to block the Trump operation from deploying the emoji, which would have shown, in various renderings, small bags of money being given away or stolen. That emoji would have been offered to users as a replacement for the hashtag #CrookedHillary, a preferred Trump insult for his Democratic opponent. Spicer also objected to the company's refusal, telling the Washington Examiner in October that "while Twitter claims to be a venue that promotes the free exchange of ideas, it's clear that it's leadership's left wing ideology literally trumps that." POLITICO's source said Spicer, who's also the Republican National Committee spokesman, was the one who made the call to refuse an invitation to Dorsey or other Twitter executives to Wednesday's meeting.
compared to this. This is why Trump one. He (or his handlers) are a master to misdirecting folks from real scandals to fake ones. He did it all campaign long. His media and information control skills are terrifying. It's like Karl Rove 2.0.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
As the only politician with his own emoji, he should be stoked. Although, to be fair, :poop: lacks a certain panache.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That's a fascinating article, actually. Why don't we look at the evidence they present to support their claims?
So... they have anonymous people who are reporting rumors that they won't attach their names to.
AKA anonymous leakers, a basic reporting tool.
The leakers don't publicize their names because they're not supposed to be leaking the information, but the reporter can vouch for the fact that they are senior officials with access to the information.
And there are other insiders saying the complete opposite.
No there aren't, at least not in this article.
Lovely. Why don't they put out some actual, hard proof?
Because a lot of the evidence comes from confidential sources like CIA spies.
Or prosecute someone?
Who? Vladimir Putin?
So the FBI is willing to put their name on this saying it's not true
I'm not sure how you read that sentence and came up with that interpretation.
The FBI did not say it was false that Russia was trying to elect Trump. The FBI, and every other agency that investigated it, said they agree that Russia was trying to hurt Clinton, but they don't know if the intent was merely to destabilize the US or to actually have Trump win the election.
And NBC simply labels this as a "Russian operation" despite failing to present any evidence of that.
Because that's been well established for months.
You can read all about the bad jouranlism behind this conclusion if you wish.
And have a good laugh at the "analysis" within. He simply dismissed all of the evidence of the hacking group intruding to the DNC network. Has Assange even disclosed how he knows that the "leaker" is a DNC insider and not some Russian operative claiming to be one?
Back on topic, let's not forget that they brought up the 17 intelligence agencies again. Would it kill you guys to actually name them? It's also misleading, because it comes from the directors (political appointees)
Who else is going to endorse the statement except the director? And you really think that not only did 17 directors all endorse a false statement, but that no one in any of their agencies leaked evidence to the contrary?
No. They essentially say these hacks fit the profile of other attacks that have been tied to Russia.
I stole this Sig
Well you have to remember that Trumps campaign never gave a fuck about whats real since to them it was just a competition and now that the competition has been won it doesn't matter how they did it or what they did about it.
Why not a pizzagate emoji showing hillary selling children in a pizza place? really the whole campaign just shows how little either sides gives a fuck, how gullible americans are and how little republicans even care, some going on record to say that it doesn't matter how they won or if they used fake news. this doesn't really bode that well for the next election if the stage is set for the campaigns to just spew whatever shit they want.
is Trump going to put Hillary in prison? of course not. that was just a "joke" or whatever to win the thing.
and come on, trump is sucking musks dick as well - despite musk being a prime beneficiary of strict direct car co2 taxes (without them the teslas would be unfeasible for their target market as they would be comparably same price as a ferrari).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
Which is in Article I, section 9. The actual emoluments clause is in Article I, section 6, and covers a somewhat different situation:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
That's why, for example, when a congressional member is appointed to a position in either the executive or judicial branch, they have to resign their seat in order to accept the new position.
If you want to get rid of undocumented workers I think the smart approach would be to reduce welfare subsidies for able bodied workers.
If you want to get rid of undocumented workers, you simply raise the minimum wage to one on which you can live without being in poverty, as it was originally intended. This is literally the only thing you can do. Americans stopped taking those jobs because they only paid a poverty wage, which was only possible because congress has not raised the minimum wage to meet inflation in over twenty years.
The illegal worker problem was literally created by congress, which is also responsible for destroying the middle class — and mostly with the same [in]action.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Get some perspective. Christ almighty you lefties are so full of hatred and anger that you can't even see straight.
Wait. Are you trying to be funny or ironic? Because there's been a LOT of hate and anger expressed this election cycle and it's been coming from Trump and his followers.
You haven't seen any of the violence against Trump supporters on the news? You haven't seen any of the protests in the streets after the election? Trump supporters, of which I was not one, were not the violent ones. Angry, yes, but they channeled that to the ballot box. Trump haters channeled it to the streets.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Great post. I just have to disagree with one point:
9. The only way to make it not attractive to work here is to lower how much American companies pay, and I for one do not approve of dragging our standard of living down into the mud in order to accomplish that. You can punish companies more harshly for using illegal immigrants as labor, but making it objectively less attractive to work here isn't really feasible.
There's a very easy way to make it objectively less attractive to work here, without touching wages or standard of living (well, the cost of goods produced with cheap illegal immigrant labor will go up). All you have to do is ensure that no Americans will hire illegals because the risk of doing so is too high. First step: attach criminal penalties, including non-trivial jail time, to knowingly hiring undocumented workers, and impose heavy fines on those who hired them without doing their due diligence. Second step: offer a green card to any illegal immigrant who rats out his or her employer. Done. No one can hide the fact of the illegal employment from the employee, and the illegal employee's motives for being in the country will be best served by blowing the whistle and getting legal status.
Oddly enough, whenever I propose this strategy to those who are up in arms about illegal immigration, they don't like it. They don't have any coherent response to it, but they don't like it. The reason they don't like it, of course, is that there's a strong undercurrent of racism in their position, and my proposal would punish Americans and reward illegals, at least at first. Even if it's clear that it would work in the long run, it's emotionally unsatisfying to them because they want to punish the illegals for daring to come here. In practice, I don't think very many green cards would be issued because American employers would start being very careful about who they employ, but that still doesn't make the illegal immigration alarmists happy because it merely makes illegals unemployable, rather than punishing them.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
LBJ owned lots of businesses, including radio and TV stations. He put those in a trust run by his wife - and that was sufficient. Likewise with Kennedy, who's extremely wealthy family kept running the family businesses and investments, and gave him $3 million from the family trust while he was still President (1962). Heck, the founding fathers were all fabulously wealthy men who continued ownership of their vast estates and farms and businesses which were run by their family. But I get it. Trump.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!