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.
I mean, with all these goddamn meetings happening in goddamn Trump Tower, am I the only one thinking that it's like a goddamn prolog to a bad cyberpunk-dystopia novel?
"I remember the rise of the megacorps... when all the govs and corps started funneling through the Trumps. If you were anyone, if you wanted anything, you went through those doors, up that golden elevator, and would plead your case to the Trump himself..."
I don't have anything of substance to this particular conversation, but Jesus Harold CHRIST, am I the only one who gets creeped the hell out by constanly reading about the future of our country marching through the goddamn Trump Tower?
Some of us were worried that Trump was going to be petty, and seek revenge against those who he felt wronged him in the past, especially during the campaign.
Whew, sure glad to see that's not the case!
Palaces, barricades, threats, meet promises
Okay, I normally like to stay out of these discussions so I can moderate instead, but this is ridiculous.
1. First, unless you want to start a mercantilism-esque trade war, "make Mexico pay for it" isn't really feasible. Second, more people are going to Mexico from the US than are coming to the US from Mexico. Building a wall would be a rather pointless waste of resources. See http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
2. Catch-and-release was used because it costs a great deal of money to imprison, house, try, and deport illegal immigrants. You need to do due process to avoid violating the constitution. In America, you're innocent until proven guilty - and that applies to people suspected of being in the country illegally. You cannot strip the rights of somebody because you *think* they don't have them, otherwise those rights are meaningless. If you want to end catch-and-release entirely, be prepared to spend a lot more money on law enforcement and the INS.
3. There are constitutional reasons why you can't compel the state law enforcement to do things. Also, DACA/DAPA (which is what I assume you mean when you refer to "Obama's deadly policies") didn't allow criminals to stay; if you had any serious convictions (any felony, any serious misdemeanor, or 3 misdemeanors of any kind) you weren't eligible.
4. Again: Constitutional issue. We preserve the right of law enforcement agencies to enforce laws as they see fit; "sanctuary city" is simply an extension of that. Sanctuary cities aren't "safe havens" for illegal immigrants. They're simply cities where the *local* law enforcement will not assist with matters that consist only of immigration status violations. The federal government is welcome to conduct their own operations, as is its right.
5. Sure, you can revoke DACA/DAPA - but be specific, it wasn't amnesty, it was an executive order to provide a temporary stay of enforcement. Amnesty is a different word that has a very different meaning.
6. We... already do? Visas aren't issued blindly, and their requirements are based on nation of origin. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
7. This is a concern only with a few nations (mostly in the middle east) and I actually agree.
8. This would cost tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars to set up and operate. We're not Israel; we don't have a single major point of air entry and a few heavily controlled land entry points. It would also not be terribly useful, because unless you're willing to track people once inside the country (and that opens up a whoooole different can of worms) it's not going to do a whole lot. You know person with X biometric data entered the country, great. Now what? They've moved and dropped off the radar. Good luck catching them.
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.
10. Which historic norms? Immigration's been pretty steady for the last twenty five years, give or take, so immigration as a function of population size has actually *dropped.*
America's problems (well, most of them) aren't because of immigrants. The real issues facing American workers stem from the ruination of unions in the 90s, the increased automation of the last 50+ years, and the willingness of other countries to not offer high standards of living for workers. The problem isn't going away, and blaming immigrants for it isn't going to fix the issue - especially when we have a ticking time bomb in the form of driverless trucking no more than a decade away.
Trucking employs about 1.8 million people, and contributes about
Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in all human beings.
As an innocent bystander (not republic/democrat/conservative/liberal), it's weird to hear people accuse others of being liberals merely because they're pointing out that they don't like Trump and his unrealistic stance. Every single person I know who voted for Trump does NOT like Trump, they just treated him as the slightly more tolerable candidate. So when I see someone pointing to Trump as the greatest candidate ever and that person is smart enough to use a computer, I can only imagine that they just keep repeating that as a mantra in order to keep from going into a deep depression.
The Republican leadership does NOT like Trump either, are they all liberal stooges? Yes some might claim that but if they believe it then they're in serious need of some vacation time with round the clock care. Everyone on the left or right is pandering to Trump as the next President, that does not mean they like him or agree with him, it's just basic common sense.
I agree that Trump is being much more toned down after the election. However the people he's listening to are not necessarily doing this. For a man claiming to be of the people he's nominating a cabinet full of the elitist of elites, and that's certainly due to the people whispering in his ear. So I don't think he'll flake on this as he seems to be nominating everyone his handlers tell him to. His fanbase don't seem to think this, they start off bashing the elites but then seem happy that these same elites are being nominated. My guess is that the people pulling the strings are going to be surprised when they let their guard down and he starts moving on his own. I honestly think Trump never planned on winning at all and he's winging it with the help of a lot of whispers in his ear. While Trump does seem to be backing down from campaign rhetoric I don't think he's showing that with his cabinet picks. He seems more like acting like a prominent CEO and letting others do the work of running things while he gets the publicity.
In other words, there's a whole lot of unpredictability going on. Will he just do what he's told or will he occasionally exert some free will? Too hard to predict. That's why there's a stream of people visiting his throne in Trump Tower, they need to pander to the unpredictable. People who are convinced with certainty about what Trump will do in office are deluding themselves.
Twitter is worth $13 billion. Amazon $372 billion, Apple $624 billion. President-elect Trump can spend that time talking to a company that employs 3,500 people and shrinking (Twitter), 116,000 (Apple), or 230,000 and growing (Amazon).
If I were becoming president and I could spend a day talking with someone who hired 80,000 new people last year (plus 100,000 temps), I think I's focus on them for the day rather than Twitter, whose recent "major layoff" was 330 people or so. Amazon hired more people *last month* than Twitter has in it's entire history.
>We won.
Are you a billionaire ? No? than you have lost.
Looking at the pictures, no one looked delighted to be there. Tim Cook in particular looked like he been asked to eat week-old dog shit, to be frank. Attendance is a necssary evil, like your mother making you take cod liver oil to "keep you regular" when you were a kid These could be the opening shots in a long and messy few years, as tech companies rub up against a thin-skinned and authoritarian lower order primate. But hey, he's a smart guy. Who needs intelligence briefings, eh? Not like that dumb Obama guy. Sad!
It's not you: I'm just this horrifically socially awkward with everybody.