Donald Trump wants to "Close Up" the internet "in some ways"

[Cyberman]

Trust me, I'm not a Trump fan at all, but I don't think what he said is all that unclear - "Shut down the internet in some ways in some areas." How is that unclear enough to make people think he was talking about shutting down the internet, period?

Because he then went on to say:

Trump then went on to predict a negative reaction to his calls for a shutdown of the Internet, and in the same breath completely dismissed such complaints: “Some people will say, 'Freedom of speech, Freedom of speech,'” Trump added, before saying “These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people.”

And one of them is running for American president.

[Heat]

1. I never said he wanted to shut down the whole internet, I said close down part of it, which is directly what he said.

2. No obviously I don't think he thinks Bill Gates can somehow magically shut it down, however the sole fact that he referred to Bill Gates in the midst of intending to close up the internet in some ways, the fact that it was evidently not sarcasm, that he actually thinks Bill Gates is of any interest or holds any weight in this day and age on a subject like that shows his complete and utter ignorance as to what is really going on, and how terrorists are actually communicating.

3. He's not suggesting this to directly combat their communication, he's suggesting this in order to prevent them from communicating in the first place, that's why realistically this is a preposterous solution, and won't help whatsoever. And the reason people take what Trump says and exaggerate it is in anticipation of what his opinions really are, because in every point he makes he always seems to touch back on it and 1-up himself, or take an extreme view he's made and make it even more extreme, example being; Now advocating that all Muslims be banned from the US. There's a reason all those republicans are cheering his name, they've said it many times, "I like trump because he doesn't back down, he's aggressive" etc. So no one is taking that internet comment and anticipating it to be nothing more than a feather, he's continuously proven that instead of backing down from points and comments like that he will simply push it further, and I didn't anticipate that he would ban the internet, however people who took his comment and said it was implying a ban have a large amount of justification for doing so.

And yes, lots of politicians suggest shutting down parts of the internet to prevent terrorism, however, with Trump, although certainly not directly clear, it seems to be a different scenario, when politicians do that, they don't come out and announce it, if you are shutting down a part of the internet to prevent terrorism, that almost seems like a given. However, the impression I believe many people got, regardless of Trump's previous tendencies to exaggerate claims, is that Trump is looking to censor the internet, or in other words attempt to shut and close parts down not under any direct coorelation to terrorism, but under the prevention of what "might" occur, and the prevention of what "might" occur is the same reason he made a statement saying all Muslims should be banned from the US, to prevent terrorism, that is why it seems given a different context in the scenario even though principally talking about the same thing, just like Muslims, he is not doing the common sense thing to close down sites linked with terrorism, it seems that we can infer it is much deeper than that, and is more restriction than we originally assume, however since we know his tendencies, we have already been programmed to assume more restriction will come instead of taking the statement at face value, because almost all of his statements never end up actually being at face value. 

Dude, what does the headline of the article you linked say?

The Headline of the article is: "Donald Trump Wants Bill Gates To Turn Off The Internet To Stop ISIS"
This is clearly a catchy headline, it is an attempt to get people to click on it, this is not the opinion they express in the article.

• An Indirect Headline takes a more subtle approach. It uses curiosity to raise a question in the reader’s mind, which the body copy answers. Often a double meaning is utilized, which is useful online. An article might have the headlineFresh Bait Works Best and yet have nothing to do with fishing, because it’s actually about writing timely content that acts as link bait.
  

The article goes on to clarify:
It is unclear what Trump meant by going "to see Bill Gates," though it appears to suggest that Trump believes the Microsoft co-founder may be in charge of the fabled Internet kill switch 

What is that logic? That because i am linking something that reported news, i have to agree with every exaggerated claim they make regardless of my personal opinions?

Uh, no, obviously. You really love taking everything to maximum amount of conjecture, don't you? I would think that you would not disagree with the main headline though, and then pretend to agree with it until called out. I mean I normally don't link to something and say 'hey look at this' and then wait for a couple of pages to say that I actually disagree with it. Maybe that's just me.

I never once said I completely agreed with the headline, nor did I ever take it seriously from the start. The only post I made referring to it before our conversation on this thread was

Banning the internet, effectively, would be like trying to exterminate every fly in existence.

This was clear[at least to me] that I was making a metaphor, not claiming that trump was trying to ban the internet, in fact I SPECIFICALLY SAID "That's all hypothetical anyways". Also, it was a response to Tiberius who brought the idea up in the first place as a reference to ironically someone OTHER than Trump. As well, attempt to highlight that if Trump decided to start taking his point further, as he has shown repeatedly with things like Muslim immigration, that it would be impossible. I never claimed this was what Trump was planning to do already, yet apparently some people need clarification or else they will call others out and act as though they have made some amazing revelation.

So to that point of me "previously agreeing and then denying it", I have no idea what you are talking about. Oh and to prevent you from ignoring this and claiming I in some imaginary post did claim so, here are all the posts I have made on this thread up until I started responding to you;

Banning the internet, effectively, would be like trying to exterminate every fly in existence.

It would be endlessly exhausting, and no matter what there's always going to be some trace of it left.



Also if Trump thinks these people are communicating over the surface web[99% chance he does] then he has made a fatal error. The Deep Web is where basically all of the major jihadist activity goes on, focusing all his efforts on the surface web, which is already heavily monitored, would not only be pointless but frankly ignorant.


Anyways, that's all hypothetical of course, I know he didn't say he would ban it, or that any of this will follow through, I just needed an excuse to sound 'tech-y' for a second.

LOL can you imagine

two years from now when Trump is president and has banned the internet and all technologies capable of accessing it(basically everything)

now suddenly the Amish are the ones who are more advanced.

Now I started to respond to you:

That's exactly what he said though, he made a clear suggestion that we should look in to closing up the internet in some ways, to prevent terrorism. It's not like they are misrepresenting or misquoting him.

Ironically you claim I am taking it to the "Maximum conjecture", yet you took what clearing wasn't implying Trump was trying to ban the internet, and said that's what it was. You also clearly don't understand the purpose of a catchy headline, and general news exaggeration, to which I never even said was true, even though you claimed that I agreed with the Headline many times. All I did was give justification for it, and again i'll refer to where I did to make this as simple as possible;

And yes, lots of politicians suggest shutting down parts of the internet to prevent terrorism, however, with Trump, although certainly not directly clear, it seems to be a different scenario, when politicians do that, they don't come out and announce it, if you are shutting down a part of the internet to prevent terrorism, that almost seems like a given. However, the impression I believe many people got, regardless of Trump's previous tendencies to exaggerate claims, is that Trump is looking to censor the internet, or in other words attempt to shut and close parts down not under any direct coorelation to terrorism, but under the prevention of what "might" occur, and the prevention of what "might" occur is the same reason he made a statement saying all Muslims should be banned from the US, to prevent terrorism, that is why it seems given a different context in the scenario even though principally talking about the same thing, just like Muslims, he is not doing the common sense thing to close down sites linked with terrorism, it seems that we can infer it is much deeper than that, and is more restriction than we originally assume, however since we know his tendencies, we have already been programmed to assume more restriction will come instead of taking the statement at face value, because almost all of his statements never end up actually being at face value.

To make it even more clear, and blatant, i'll give you an analysis of what I said:

However, the impression I believe many people got

Clearly referencing that I am not expressing an opinion on whether or not that extreme of an assumption is the correct one to be making, only giving justification for why "I believe many people" would be likely to believe this. 
My justification is perfectly sound, I was pointing out that based on previous claims he has made that other people may be inclined to believe statements such as the one he made:

We are losing a lot of people to the Internet. We have to do something. We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them [about], maybe in certain areas, closing that internet up in some way.

Are most often not retracted, but pushed forward, and he has tendency to go from an extreme view to an even extremer view as shown clearly by this example:

Donald Trump today has been talking up the idea of a database to track Muslims in the name of security.

Which is a description of his statements in the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q4SDWMnjak

to later pushing this further, forgetting databases and jumping to:
“total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.”

This example, which is one of many, is in direct parallel to the assumptions that some people may be inclined to make, though contrary to what the opinion you are forcing in your posts, I never made that assumption[I believe I covered this already]. This is in parallel to the assumptions, because Donald Trump has made relatively sketchy statements in the past, and the people who took those at face value have seen those sketchy statements later turn in to widely extreme ones. This parallel highlights why it is not unreasonable to assume someone will repeat past action, until proven otherwise. 

What the hell man stop making so many assumptions about me. I literally just said the headline was an exaggeration that i dont necessarily think is accurate, but gave justification for why its probable that it could be.

This is pretty fun. Are you now saying it's bad to make assumptions about people after defending yourself making assumptions about someone?

"Yourself making assumptions about someone"
Did I? Hmm, i'm curious to know your answer after reading this post.

The reason i'm going through all this effort is because I am pretty god damn fucking tired of being misrepresented with my views on this forum.

[CapnAwesome]

Dude, what does the headline of the article you linked say?

The Headline of the article is: "Donald Trump Wants Bill Gates To Turn Off The Internet To Stop ISIS"
This is clearly a catchy headline, it is an attempt to get people to click on it, this is not the opinion they express in the article.

• An Indirect Headline takes a more subtle approach. It uses curiosity to raise a question in the reader’s mind, which the body copy answers. Often a double meaning is utilized, which is useful online. An article might have the headlineFresh Bait Works Best and yet have nothing to do with fishing, because it’s actually about writing timely content that acts as link bait.
  

The article goes on to clarify:
It is unclear what Trump meant by going "to see Bill Gates," though it appears to suggest that Trump believes the Microsoft co-founder may be in charge of the fabled Internet kill switch 

Uh, no, obviously. You really love taking everything to maximum amount of conjecture, don't you? I would think that you would not disagree with the main headline though, and then pretend to agree with it until called out. I mean I normally don't link to something and say 'hey look at this' and then wait for a couple of pages to say that I actually disagree with it. Maybe that's just me.

I never once said I completely agreed with the headline, nor did I ever take it seriously from the start. The only post I made referring to it before our conversation on this thread was

Banning the internet, effectively, would be like trying to exterminate every fly in existence.

This was clear[at least to me] that I was making a metaphor, not claiming that trump was trying to ban the internet, in fact I SPECIFICALLY SAID "That's all hypothetical anyways". Also, it was a response to Tiberius who brought the idea up in the first place as a reference to ironically someone OTHER than Trump. As well, attempt to highlight that if Trump decided to start taking his point further, as he has shown repeatedly with things like Muslim immigration, that it would be impossible. I never claimed this was what Trump was planning to do already, yet apparently some people need clarification or else they will call others out and act as though they have made some amazing revelation.

So to that point of me "previously agreeing and then denying it", I have no idea what you are talking about. Oh and to prevent you from ignoring this and claiming I in some imaginary post did claim so, here are all the posts I have made on this thread up until I started responding to you;

Banning the internet, effectively, would be like trying to exterminate every fly in existence.

It would be endlessly exhausting, and no matter what there's always going to be some trace of it left.



Also if Trump thinks these people are communicating over the surface web[99% chance he does] then he has made a fatal error. The Deep Web is where basically all of the major jihadist activity goes on, focusing all his efforts on the surface web, which is already heavily monitored, would not only be pointless but frankly ignorant.


Anyways, that's all hypothetical of course, I know he didn't say he would ban it, or that any of this will follow through, I just needed an excuse to sound 'tech-y' for a second.

LOL can you imagine

two years from now when Trump is president and has banned the internet and all technologies capable of accessing it(basically everything)

now suddenly the Amish are the ones who are more advanced.

Now I started to respond to you:

That's exactly what he said though, he made a clear suggestion that we should look in to closing up the internet in some ways, to prevent terrorism. It's not like they are misrepresenting or misquoting him.

Ironically you claim I am taking it to the "Maximum conjecture", yet you took what clearing wasn't implying Trump was trying to ban the internet, and said that's what it was. You also clearly don't understand the purpose of a catchy headline, and general news exaggeration, to which I never even said was true, even though you claimed that I agreed with the Headline many times. All I did was give justification for it, and again i'll refer to where I did to make this as simple as possible;

And yes, lots of politicians suggest shutting down parts of the internet to prevent terrorism, however, with Trump, although certainly not directly clear, it seems to be a different scenario, when politicians do that, they don't come out and announce it, if you are shutting down a part of the internet to prevent terrorism, that almost seems like a given. However, the impression I believe many people got, regardless of Trump's previous tendencies to exaggerate claims, is that Trump is looking to censor the internet, or in other words attempt to shut and close parts down not under any direct coorelation to terrorism, but under the prevention of what "might" occur, and the prevention of what "might" occur is the same reason he made a statement saying all Muslims should be banned from the US, to prevent terrorism, that is why it seems given a different context in the scenario even though principally talking about the same thing, just like Muslims, he is not doing the common sense thing to close down sites linked with terrorism, it seems that we can infer it is much deeper than that, and is more restriction than we originally assume, however since we know his tendencies, we have already been programmed to assume more restriction will come instead of taking the statement at face value, because almost all of his statements never end up actually being at face value.

To make it even more clear, and blatant, i'll give you an analysis of what I said:

However, the impression I believe many people got

Clearly referencing that I am not expressing an opinion on whether or not that extreme of an assumption is the correct one to be making, only giving justification for why "I believe many people" would be likely to believe this. 
My justification is perfectly sound, I was pointing out that based on previous claims he has made that other people may be inclined to believe statements such as the one he made:

We are losing a lot of people to the Internet. We have to do something. We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them [about], maybe in certain areas, closing that internet up in some way.

Are most often not retracted, but pushed forward, and he has tendency to go from an extreme view to an even extremer view as shown clearly by this example:

Donald Trump today has been talking up the idea of a database to track Muslims in the name of security.

Which is a description of his statements in the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q4SDWMnjak

to later pushing this further, forgetting databases and jumping to:
“total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.”

This example, which is one of many, is in direct parallel to the assumptions that some people may be inclined to make, though contrary to what the opinion you are forcing in your posts, I never made that assumption[I believe I covered this already]. This is in parallel to the assumptions, because Donald Trump has made relatively sketchy statements in the past, and the people who took those at face value have seen those sketchy statements later turn in to widely extreme ones. This parallel highlights why it is not unreasonable to assume someone will repeat past action, until proven otherwise. 

This is pretty fun. Are you now saying it's bad to make assumptions about people after defending yourself making assumptions about someone?

"Yourself making assumptions about someone"
Did I? Hmm, i'm curious to know your answer after reading this post.

The reason i'm going through all this effort is because I am pretty god damn fucking tired of being misrepresented with my views on this forum.

You already admitted you were wrong and said you wouldn't talk to me any more. I thought that was good enough.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Dude, what does the headline of the article you linked say?

It helps if you read past the headlines. Insinuating that the OP didn't read past it-- or that the OP had his skeptic's radar turned off at that point -- when he clearly did not isn't really supported, and right now it only makes you look like you can't admit error.

Don't be that guy. He's completely unawesome.

eta: never mind, I'm too late. You've already deepened your hole.

[Thumpalumpacus]

^You got mean.

No. He got stupid.

[Napoléon]

The reason i'm going through all this effort is because I am pretty god damn fucking tired of being misrepresented with my views on this forum.

Okay, we get it, you like Donald Trump. Geeez.

[LastPoet]

https://youtu.be/_lPJ9J-6vDw

[Cyberman]

The reason i'm going through all this effort is because I am pretty god damn fucking tired of being misrepresented with my views on this forum.

Okay, we get it, you like Donald Trump. Geeez.

He's a Trumpet?

[Napoléon]

He's a Trumpet?

Aye, he has Nutella on his, I'm more of a butter man myself.

[Aoi Magi]

At the GOP presidential debate in Vegas, he again said "I sure as hell don't want to let people that want to kill us and kill our nation use our Internet, yes sir I am," and later he clarified he does want to close down the internet, but only certain parts in Syria and other countries, not the US.

I wonder how many times one has to get dropped on his head to be like this.